With apologies to President Abraham Lincoln, the Apostle Matthew, and of course Pink Floyd, “An industry divided against itself cannot stand!”
And fair warning, this article may be a bit longer (and maybe drier) than many here.
Just what has brought this industry to the point of consuming itself? The Anti-China fervor that has become an instance of Snowballing Stupidity (with thanks to Robert Duran who came up with that in my Facebook group) that has created nothing but undue stress to drone owners across the country, and some pretty potent pushback against both AUVSI and Skydio for supporting what many feel is legislation that could very likely cripple both the Commercial and Recreational drone industries in this country. It’s a two part issue, cyber security for drones, and invigorating the U.S. drone manufacturing industry. I hope this article logicially tackles both.
_____________________________________________________________________
Would it not make more sense for the opposing parties in these “discussions” come together for a common cause instead of pushing against each other?
DSPA truly believes both sides want the same thing. We are just diametrically opposed in what we believe is the correct path to get there. We know the politicians would love (& likely be surprised) if we came to them en masse with an answer instead of telling them to oppose something. We need to bring an answer, not more problems. We’d get where we alll want to be much faster that way.
We are not going to dive into the history of these issues, there is plenty already published about both. But basically it boils down to the fear that China in general, and DJI specifically, are using civilian drones to gather high resolution imagery of critical infrastructure and sending it back to China to bolster espionage capabilities. And the other issue is that China offers monetary support to their manufacturing industries at a much higher rate than we do here in the United States. Both of these issues need to be directly addressed. Yes, there are different political philosophies at play here, but that doesn’t make it an insurmountable problem.
We can all waste our time railing against China and DJI, or waste our time railing against companies and organizations that support much of the legislation aimed at this threat. And we can argue until we’re blue in the face whether or not this is actually a real threat. But basically this boils down to the fact that our actions, on either side, are going to end up very likely being the death of this industry. Many believe this is the eventual outcome.
So this article is basically an open letter to Adam Bry (Co-founder & CEO of Skydio) and Michael Robbins (CEO of AUVSI). I invite each of these gentlemen to comment below. I will neither edit nor delete what they have to say. This article needs to be a step forward. A step that brings everyone together in order to not only save this industry, but advance the U.S. drone manufacturing industry as well.
_____________________________________________________________________
What can we do about drones around critical infrasture the issue?
Security:
If something is connected to the internet, it can be compromised. That’s a fact of life. All you have to do is Google “Data Security Breach”, and you’ll get page after page after page of stories about data being compromised. Including happening to such agencies as the IRS and the DOD. If it can happen to them, it can happen to anyone.
So the argument that we can stop this by simply not allowing drones from certain countries into the U.S. is preposterous at its core. It’s simply a feel good measure.
Instead, we must craft, then enforce, a set of cybersecurity standards for all drones flown near critical infrastructure (CI). And these standards would apply to ALL drones, whether they are made in China, France, Japan, or the United States. If we would do this, then the actual threat that seems to worry so many in the Federal Security Agencies will be addressed. We even already have a blueprint in the DIU Blue List program. Those security standards can be relaxed for non-DOD use and adopted for use around CI.
And while we’re at it, we need to actually define what is critical infrastructure at the federal level, and quit leaving it up to the states. State governments love to fill security voids left by the Feds. This creates the “patchwork quilt” of airspace regulations that the FAA dreads.
We’ve heard that Section 2209 of the FAA Security and Extension Act of 2016 (yes, 2016!) is being held up by Federal Security Agencies by bickering back and forth about what that list needs to contain. It’s time for these security agencies to get their act together. They’ve had eight years. That’s a ridiculous amount of time, even for a federal regulation to be crafted.
So if Congress can come together and work (efficiently) with those same security agencies holding up 2209, they can come up with a cybersecurity standard for drones flown near 2209 designated CI. Drone cybersecurity would then become an thing of the past. Will it be 100% effective? Of course not, nothing is. But it’s a lot more effective than trying to ban drones simply based on where they are made.
And by the way, we are not advocating for rescinding the DIU’s Blue List. That is very necessary and the DOD has to have that option. But that’s a DOD standalone list. Sadly it seems to have infiltrated all levels of government drone use. That’s causing more issues than it prevents. But Congress needs to continue to fund the Blue List for DOD use only.
UAS restrictions imposed in such legislation as the 2023 NDAA and the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act need to be studied and adjusted accordingly once those standards are set. They are much too broad and restrictive for the vast majority of everyday uses of drones by not only federal and state agencies, but for contractors who work for them. It makes no sense to restrict drone use by such agencies as the Department of Interior for something as simple as a video of a National Park, yet allow those same drones to fly for projects in our own National Capital. These restrictions are like having a full blown arm amputation in order to fix a cut on your pinky that needs stitches. They’re absolutely ridiculous. With a “simple” set of UAS cybersecurity standards, those restrictive policies can be adjusted accordingly.
A ban will do NOTHING!
Let’s now address the inequity of gov’t manufacturing support that exists between how the U.S. and China handle this issue.
First, any ban or “phase in” that eventually prohibits Chinese drones from entering this country is a non-starter. So is any security standard that contains country of origin language. That does nothing to address the issue, it’s simply a jingoistic scare tactic. And when it comes to the argument that a ban would let the U.S. catch up with Chinese innovation, that’s patently false. If DJI or Autel were no longer allowed to enter the U.S., it would do nothing to allow the U.S. to “catch up” with UAS technologically from China. It’s great conceit to think DJI and Autel would stop innovating if the U.S. market is closed to them. It would simply mean that the U.S. companies that rely on UAS would be cut off from their future innovations. That would make the U.S. fall even further behind. DJI would certainly lose income from our market, and it may hurt them financially. But they’d still innovate because that’s what technology companies do when they want to succeed.
And a ban certainly wouldn’t push U.S. companies to innovate any faster either. It would actually reduce their need to innovate. When you remove an industry leaders from the sandbox of innovation, you reduce the need for the remaining members of that sandbox to actually innovate. They no longer need to challenge the industry leaders with their R&D. They simply need to be better than their sandbox partners in order to succeed. That removes the drive of urgent innovation in order to compete at a higher level. When the bar is lowered, there is no need to jump very high.
“Good enough” becomes good enough. No need to reach higher.
_____________________________________________________________________
How can we help the U.S. drone manufacturing industry?
Give them money. No, seriously, give them money.
How that money is eventually distributed should be left up to those in charge. So it could be in the form of grants, low or no interest loans, or even tax breaks. The U.S. must be competitive when it comes to supporting the U.S. drone manufacturing industry. We do now to a smaller extent, and it’s mainly DOD monies. But that rarely helps the vast majority of actual end users of drone technology. It also never truly addresses the issue that the U.S. isn’t even trying to develop drones to replace the Mavics and Inspires and EVOs of the drone world. And those are the majority of the drones in use today by commercial operators, First Responders, and even the recreational world. And recreational drone owners seem to be left out of this conversation entirely. Which is sad because many time those are the folks that move on to become drone service providers. Recreational flying can also spark a love of aviation. And those rec flyers can move on to become manned pilots and airline mechanics. Two occupations that are in a very real labor shortage right now.
The Countering CCP Drones Act (CCCPDA), in all its iterations, imposes a ban. You can call it whatever you want, but it’s a ban, pure and simple. And the Drone for First Responders Act (DFR) imposes a ban, but at least attempts to provide funding to replace fleets of some UAS verticals before the ban takes effect in 2030. But the method of of both collecting and disbursing those funds is fatally flawed. First, collecting tariffs (eventually up to 50% +$100) cripples the industry. It forces commercial, recreational, and first responders to pay an increasing amount of tariffs (taxes) to simply run a business, have some fun, and even save American lives. And since the CCCPDA would restrict new DJI drones from coming into this country, it automatically reduces the very drones that would pay into this fund.
And disbursement of this ever decreasing pool of tariff monies is pointless. The funds would be given to certain industries to replace their Chinese fleets that contain “alleged security breaches”. Which is great in theory. They need to be replaced if we truly have an issue. Which the aforementioned security standards would virtually eliminate. But it doesn’t address the burning question of just what those industries would buy when they are forced to replace their aging DJI and Autel fleets.
Because there is very little (very, very little) in the way of what they can buy to replace those drones. It simply doesn’t exist. And there is no way for those drones to magically appear if those industries are given money to spend on new U.S. (or allied) drones. We in the U.S. have some great drone companies, but they don’t make anything for the vast majority of the market.
The argument Venture Capitalist would then flock to the non-AAM U.S. drone industry to fill a forced void has been advanced by Representative Stefanik’s staff. But I dare you to find a VC company willing to risk money on an industry that has already burned though it’s fair share of VC funding without any true profits given back to that VC fund.
Also, why would any VC company in their right mind risk more money on an artificially created void? That market can evaporate with something as simple as an administration change, or change in Congress. That artificially created void can collapse just as easily as it was created. VC folks aren’t stupid.
No, Venture Capital funding is NOT the answer. Nor is burdening the current drone users across the board with an ever increasing cost of doing business, having fun, or saving American lives.
Both of these bills need to be removed from the dockets for this idea work. And together we can do it.
We already have a huge amount of money coming into this country by way of tariffs on Chinese drones. We pay a 25% tariff on ALL Chinese drones that are imported into this country. That’s a lot of money that simply gets wasted by adding it to the General Fund. A simple answer would be to scrap all bills and amendments that pile even more burden onto this industry, and utilize that 25% to benefit all U.S. drone companies. But you can’t give it to end users. There won’t be anything for them to buy, remember.
No, this needs to go directly into the hands and pocketbooks of those in the country who can innovate and produce drones. Drones the majority of end users need. Whether that’s an existing company like Skydio or BRINC, or a brand new company that just can’t get off the ground because of lack of funding, that’s where the monies need to go. And those monies need to have some very serious strings attached.
First, those receiving the funds must prove they can design, and produce, the very drones that can be used to replace the Mavics, and Inspires, and Evos of the drone world. Without that niche being filled, the U.S. will never be able to compete. That’s where the majority of the market is. Companies applying for these funds must hit predetermined benchmarks along the way before they can dip further into that pie.
Second, those same funds need to be made available to other companies working with the U.S. drone manufacturers. If the manufacturer can outsource chips, or injection molding, or ECS development, then those companies must be eligible for those funds as well. The drone manufacturing industry doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Industry partners need access to those funds as well to make this work.
AUVSI, Skydio, and even DJI to a lesser extent, have influence in D.C. If those forces, along with the end users and advocacy groups such as Drone Advocacy Alliance*, would join together to promote useful and non-damaging legislation, think of what we could do in America. We have the talent and the brains to solve just about any problem. Let’s solve the security threat (real, imagined, or somewhere in the middle) and the funding issue together. It’s not impossible.
But we need to come together. Use industry influence to fight against the damaging legislation (CCCPDA & DFR), and use our influence to promote industry affirming legislation.
_____________________________________________________________________
Maybe this is too optimistic, and maybe this just won’t work. But the path we’re headed down now will destroy this industry, that’s undeniable. Then how will the 100’s of 1000’s of Remote Pilots put food on their tables, the hobbyists have fun and relax, and the First Responders save those American lives? Together we can make a difference.
We can’t continue to fight amongst ourselves. No one will survive.
*Full transparency, DSPA is a founding member of the Drone Advocacy Alliance, and Vic Moss currently serves as its Director.
I hope to see a response from the Skydio -Stefanik Team.