Actually that was Day 1.5 for the FAA Drone Symposium. After the Keynote lunch, the symposium switched gears and became the AAM (Advanced Air Mobility) Summit.
After Day 1’s interactions, Day 2 seemed a little boring. The were no “discussions” between audience members and panelists about the upcoming Remote ID rollout next month. There were still some ongoing discussions about RID between attendees while in the lobby and halls, usually along the vein of delay speculations. But it was really never raised in the panels and plenaries I saw.
I did find out from an FAA employee that they will be having their monthly executive meeting next Thursday (8/10) and they will likely make a decision about the RID rollout path then. I was also told that since there is precedent for delay with the manufacturer there is a history of selective enforcement. So that is definitely an option on the table. I want to emphasize that this was simply part of a conversation and NOT an official statement. I will also stress that the main reason for the manufacturer delay was the fact that the FAA didn’t get the RID Method of Compliance in time to really give the manufacturers reasonable time to put those drones out.
Again, NOT an official statement, just a conversation with an FAA friend. We were both speculating.
Officially, I was able to get a few seconds with Jeffrey Vincent, the FAA’s Executive Director UAS Integration Office. I suggested to him that whatever decision is made next Thursday, it would great if that decision could be communicated to the drone communities as soon as possible. There is a lot of apprehension and frustration within all UAS communities about this.
The sooner the FAA can share their plan, the better the industry will be and the better the FAA will look. Jeffrey offered no promises (I wasn’t looking for any), but he did take what I said to heart. He thanked me for the insight. And no, I honestly don’t think he was just trying to appease me.
The morning started with a plenary on autonomous systems and social acceptance. It was a good discussion but had no earth shaking moments, as a morning plenary should. With many in the audience still working on the morning coffees, it’s best so ease gently into the day.
I will make one comment about the content though. Brendan Groves, Skydio VP of Regulatory and Policy Affairs mentioned them helping pass one of the FAA’s grant programs. It was such a disingenuous comment. He mentioned the workforce shortages across the aviation industry and touted how these grants will help with that.
He said, “We need this for the future”. And I 100% agree with that statement. But if he truly felt “We need this for the future”, then why was the “Covered Country” language put in there? That means no drones from China can be used to train folks for the drone industry if they are being trained with monies from that grant. We all know Skydio’s history of pushing the anti-China sentiment, and it’s just not good for the industry. Compete with quality, not politics. Let folks learn on what they use and are easy to learn on.
Okay, I’ll get off my soapbox now.
The first session I attended was titled “Critical Infrastructure Security”. It was every informative. There was some more indirect anti-China (anti-DJI) comments, but they were in passing about components, and not disingenuous.
Brent Cotton, C-UAS Director at DHS even commented that we have to be careful about shutting off use of that equipment if there is nothing to replace it. That was refreshing.
One of the topics discussed was expanding the UAS mitigation permissions to allow non-federal agencies (think local PD & critical infrastructure security) to use on suspected rogue drones. Again, Brent Cotton raised a legitimate concern about this as well. There are not only security issues with that (incorrect usage of very disruptive equipment), but there are legal issues as well. What happens if the drone falls out of the sky and lands on someone due to the incorrect use of the mitigation system? What are the protocols to determine rogue from friendly drone? What happens if the C-UAS equipment is used on a friendly drone? Who has to buy that person a new drone and/or pay damages.
Basically, there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered before anything like that is allowed. And since the commission working on that is a multi-agency commissions, it’s highly unlikely anything will be done soon.
Many times there is some talk in the forums about what will happen with that is allowed. We get to talk about it a little more, but at least we can bring the knowledge that “even” DHS understands that not everyone should be allowed to mitigate our drones.
And that was the end of the 2023 FAA Drone Symposium.
Then came AAM…
I’ll admit right off the bat that this is not my area of expertise. I certainly know of it, and likely more about it than most 107 holders, but I don’t know enough to make those critical decisions about how AAM will affect the Drone Service Providers when the air taxis and more delivery drones hit the airways.
As one of only two people on the Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee (AAAC) that fly drones for a living (Kenji being the other, obviously), I need to know as much as possible about AAM. There is a reason the AAAC was changed from the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC). “Advanced Aviation” is a large part of AAM
That is the reason why stayed for the AAM Summit after the symposium.
Again, nothing earth shaking here either. And Kenji and I will take some time in the next few days once we’re home to put out a video about this week. So I’m not going to spend much time summarizing here.
I do want to mention that the lunch AAM Welcome Session featured Jeffrey Vincent and Brian Wynne. Brian is the President and CEO of AUVSI.
And I’ll be transparent here. I was pretty worried when I heard that Jay Merkle was being replaced by a guy that spent years in ATO. Air traffic control hasn’t always been a friend of the UAS industry. Especially the small Drone Service Providers. That is changing obviously, but that is still a perception ATC has to overcome.
But after spending as much time as I have with Jeffrey, that worry is gone. He comes across as a “let’s get stuff done” kind of guy. And that sentiment has been shared by many FAA folks I’ve talked to that work closely with him. I like the guy. I know he doesn’t stay up night worrying about if I like him or not, but I do. He tells you what you need to hear, not necessary what you want to hear.
But he is a “let’s get stuff done” kind of administrator.
Case in point, two of his comments during the AAM Welcome session were, “I don’t want to see tomorrow put off because we’re talking about things down the road”. He meant that we can and should make plans about what’s coming down the road with AAM, but we can’t let those discussions derail what we need to do now.
He also said, “We need to be ready to capitalize when it is ready”. Again, we need to get stuff done. Let’s get ready for this!
He also mentioned the need to utilize the data the FAA already has to get started about AAM, UTM, and advanced UAS operations. I wonder if he read my article about Day 1 (I doubt it). After all the talk about data needs and wants in Day 1’s panels, it was very refreshing to hear that sentiment coming out of the mouth of the man in a position to “get stuff done”.
I’ve taken up enough of your time today, and I’ll put out a final summary about Day 3 on Friday.
Right now, I have to hit Starbucks for my usual Venti Flat White and get my tail over to the Convention Center for Day 3.
