The CMO of Dedrone, a counterdrone/airspace security company, discusses the role of Remote ID in the industry. (Photos: Dedrone)

The FAA’s Remote ID requirements, which mandate drones to broadcast identification information, were expected to go into effect on September 16. The agency has now extended the enforcement date to March 16, 2024. “In making this decision, the FAA recognizes the unanticipated issues that some operators are experiencing finding some remote identification broadcast modules,” the FAA explained.

Take a closer look at the role of Remote ID in our Q&A with Mary-Lou Smulders, CMO at Dedrone—a counterdrone/airspace security company.

Avionics International: From your perspective, what are some of the benefits of Remote ID in terms of safety and security in the drone industry?

Mary-Lou Smulders: Remote ID is basically a drone license plate—broadcasting identification and location information when a drone is in flight. In terms of knowing where drones are in a given airspace, this is a strong step in the right direction. Like a license plate, although the average citizen does not have access to the personal information of the drone’s pilot, authorized governmental authorities can use the Remote ID broadcast to determine the drone pilot’s identity.

Could you elaborate on the critical issues with relying solely on Remote ID as a safety protocol?

Just like bank robbers removing the license plate on their getaway car, the first thing any bad actor will do is disable Remote ID—meaning that any critical infrastructure that relies solely on picking up Remote ID will be completely blind to a drone that isn’t broadcasting in their airspace.

It’s also extremely easy to spoof Remote ID broadcasts; a quick search on the internet search engine of your choice will bring up pages of videos on how to do it. This means that a bad actor that’s even remotely tech-savvy will then be able to hide a real drone in a swarm of fake broadcasts or otherwise disguise the location of their drone by putting its broadcast elsewhere.

In addition, recreational drones below 250 grams do not have to comply with Remote ID rules as of this writing. While that’s just a little more than half a pound, commercially available drones like the DJI Mini 3 Pro come under this weight limit—and can still record video in up to 4K resolution for reconnaissance purposes or recording events.

Finally, these regulations rely heavily on compliance by drone pilots. Even if they have no plans to do anything bad with their drones, if they haven’t registered with the FAA, then they likely don’t know about the Remote ID requirements, and their drones may not have a broadcast beacon installed if they have a drone manufactured before December of last year.

Ultimately, layers of protection are needed to keep an airspace secure and enable good drones to operate while unauthorized drones can be identified quickly.

What is the impact of Remote ID on the commercial drone industry, specifically in terms of operations and business applications?

It is a huge step forward in terms of unlocking the real potential of drones commercially. By requiring all non-recreational drones (even those below the 250g weight limit) to broadcast Remote ID, it will ultimately be easier to keep the skies free of aerial collisions and more efficiently pilot drones as first responders or for deliveries in active airspaces. The regulations are slowly but surely catching up with the technology, and we’re getting closer to being able to capture the productivity that productive drone usage offers.

Dedrone claims to have virtually eliminated false positives in drone detection. How have you achieved this level of accuracy and reliability?

At the heart of all of our solutions is DedroneTracker.AI, our command and control (C2) airspace security platform, which utilizes a sophisticated AI engine to perform behavior modeling analytics as well as true sensor fusion on the inputs it receives. Using our drone library of nearly 300 different drone types and being specifically built to be hardware-agnostic, DedroneTracker.AI incorporates a variety of inputs for drone detection and compares it with its vast database of drone data—for both regularly manufactured and DIY drones—to determine whether or not something is a drone, where it is, and if it poses a threat. Every time a drone incursion occurs, DedroneTracker.AI gets smarter.

Are there any current efforts at Dedrone that you could share details about?

Most recently, we launched DedroneTactical, our solution for counter small uncrewed aerial system (UAS) response in rapidly evolving expeditionary situations. We are also continuing to expand our already industry-leading customer installed base of over 500 active sites—we are up to usage in 30 countries and five of the G-7 nation governments; 190 critical infrastructure sites; 40 airports; 60+ stadiums; 15+ US federal entities and 20+ non-US governments.

We also offer Remote ID detection through DedroneTracker.AI to continue to keep the airspaces safe.

How does Dedrone envision contributing to the broader discussions on drone safety and regulations in the industry?

We firmly believe that all stakeholders in the industry need to have a voice in order to design regulations that are built for the technology of today and tomorrow. As part of that, we are participating in FAA testing for counter-drone technology at airports, and we are also a member of the FAA’s Uncrewed Aerial System (UAS) Detection and Mitigation Systems Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). We are offering our insights on what is needed to make our skies safe for good drones while preventing negative drone incidents around the country.

Are there any trends or technologies in the drone industry that you think are particularly promising?

Flying Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) and, within that, Drone as a First Responder (DFR) is one of the most impactful drone applications that we see coming down the pipeline in the industry. Currently, a drone must be in someone’s line of sight to be flown—so law enforcement, for example, has to station people on rooftops to continue monitoring a drone in flight. Waivers to fly BVLOS are extremely difficult to obtain, but we believe that technology can solve this problem and it will steadily become easier to obtain the required waivers for BVLOS flights.

With that capability, drones can play a huge role as first responders. For example, right now, if there’s an accident on the highway, police, the fire department, and an ambulance are automatically dispatched. Soon, a drone [will be able to] get there first, and relay whether or not all of these emergency services are needed. In more volatile situations, a drone can also provide a bird’s-eye view of the incident and offer law enforcement or emergency responders a better understanding of the situation before they arrive, making it safer for everyone.

The post Remote ID: Insights from Dedrone appeared first on Avionics International.

The FAA authorized Zipline to deliver commercial packages around Salt Lake City, Utah, and Bentonville, Arkansas. These operations will involve drones that fly beyond a visual line of sight. (Photo: Zipline)

The Federal Aviation Administration has granted authorization to Zipline International, Inc., to initiate commercial package deliveries using drones that operate beyond the operator’s visual line of sight (BVLOS) around Salt Lake City and Bentonville, Arkansas. This decision represents a significant stride in the FAA’s mission of integrating drones into the National Airspace System.

Traditionally, even the most advanced drone deliveries required visual observers placed en route to monitor the sky. However, this recent FAA authorization allows Zipline to sidestep this mandate. 

Zipline announced last June that it received its Part 135 Air Carrier Certificate from the FAA, enabling the company to perform the longest range on-demand deliveries with commercial drones in the U.S. Zipline had recently unveiled its new detect-and-avoid system that uses acoustic-based technology onboard an autonomous aircraft.

According to Zipline, their onboard perception safety system, designed to ensure real-time airspace monitoring, has eliminated the need for ground observers. After having been rigorously tested over tens of thousands of real-world miles and interactions with aircraft globally, the system has demonstrated its capability to ensure the highest safety standards.

Zipline’s experience includes over 50 million commercial autonomous miles flown globally. Their drones have made significant impacts in countries like Ghana and Rwanda, delivering crucial supplies such as vaccines, food, and educational materials, particularly to hard-to-reach regions.

Beyond the immediate significance for Zipline, this authorization showcases the FAA’s commitment to evolving the landscape of drone operations in the U.S. The agency’s long-term vision aims for harmonious integration, aligning with directives from the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016. These Acts underscore the development of an Uncrewed Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) plan, a collaborative initiative with NASA.

In March 2022, the UAS Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) unveiled its final report, highlighting a detailed roadmap to support expanded UAS operations. Recognizing the many advantages of BVLOS—from safety to economic benefits—the FAA is proactively examining multiple petitions suggesting various safe operational methods.

Detect and Avoid (DAA) systems are pivotal for BVLOS operations. While numerous industry standards have been laid out for DAA systems, not all may be suited for operations at or below 400 feet above ground level (AGL). Hence, the FAA is meticulously reviewing these standards, ensuring that DAA systems meet specific requirements.

Another dimension of this evolving landscape is the increasing involvement of third-party service providers. These third-party entities, not directly controlled by the UAS manufacturer or operator, could play pivotal roles in DAA solutions, such as detecting crewed aircraft or managing command and control (C2) links for multiple operators. The FAA is exploring innovative ways to assess and recognize these components distinctly.

The FAA’s endorsement of Zipline’s BVLOS operations opens the door for an era where crucial deliveries, from medicines to food, are not only faster but also more sustainable and accessible.

The post Zipline Gets FAA Approval for BVLOS Drone Deliveries appeared first on Avionics International.

Based on records from the FAA and NASA reviewed by The New York Times, safety standards in air traffic are frequently breached. (Photo: Desiree Rios for The New York Times)

Recent incidents have thrust the safety of air travel in the U.S. into the spotlight. An investigation by The New York Times has revealed a disconcerting number of close calls in the skies and runways of the country, even though the U.S. has not experienced any major plane crashes in over a decade.

• In New Orleans on July 2, a Southwest Airlines pilot narrowly avoided a collision when aborting a landing, as a Delta Air Lines 737 prepared for take-off on the same runway.
• In San Francisco on July 11, an American Airlines jet narrowly missed a Frontier Airlines plane during take-off. Another German airliner faced a similar situation moments later. 
• A few weeks later, an American Airlines flight bound for Dallas had to swiftly ascend 700 feet to avoid a United Airlines plane, due to an error by an air traffic controller.

There were 46 close calls involving commercial airlines last month, many of which were not publicly disclosed.

On average, close calls happen multiple times a week.

The majority of incidents occur due to human errors near or at airports. A significant contributing factor is the nationwide shortage of air traffic controllers.

While some incidents make the news, many remain undisclosed.

Based on records from the FAA and NASA reviewed by The New York Times, safety standards in air traffic are frequently breached. Despite many of these incidents not resulting in crashes, their frequency is concerning.

The U.S. aviation system, catering to almost three million passengers daily, prides itself on its safety record. However, recent close calls have raised eyebrows among industry insiders, leading to fears of a potential tragic incident in the future. Numerous confidential safety reports corroborate this rising concern.

One glaring oversight is the lack of runway warning systems at many U.S. airports, despite recommendations from safety experts. The most pressing issue, however, remains the chronic understaffing of air traffic control facilities. This strain leads to overworked controllers, risking their ability to operate efficiently and safely.

Major airlines have reaffirmed their commitment to safety, emphasizing their heavy investments in training and technology. They also argue that the lack of major crashes underscores the system’s efficacy.

The FAA acknowledges the multi-layered safety approach has played a crucial role in preventing fatalities. Their current objective is to reduce close calls to zero. The agency also admits to an increase in runway incursions, although there has been an improvement since 2018. The FAA cites funding constraints as a reason for not installing more runway warning systems but is implementing other measures to bolster safety.

However, air traffic controllers, on conditions of anonymity, have expressed that the FAA’s actions are not sufficient. They paint a grim picture, highlighting extreme fatigue, plummeting morale, and a rising tendency to take shortcuts, which could potentially lead to tragic accidents.

A vast majority of U.S. air traffic control facilities are understaffed. The roots of this issue trace back to the 1980s when the Reagan administration replaced striking controllers. The pandemic further exacerbated staffing challenges, as training slowed due to health restrictions and many controllers retired.

Many controllers are working on a rotating schedule that can lead to physical and psychological exhaustion. This fatigue, coupled with mandatory overtime, has been identified as a significant factor contributing to potential safety hazards.

Over the years, there have been numerous warnings about the state of U.S. air safety. The Department of Transportation’s inspector general has highlighted increasing “losses of separation” incidents, while the National Transportation Safety Board has called for better runway collision alert systems. However, the FAA has made limited progress in implementing new surface detection systems.

The FAA has requested additional funds to train and recruit 1,800 new controllers in the 2024 fiscal year. However, the anticipated loss of over 1,400 controllers next year means that the staffing gap will remain a pressing concern.

Ben Dorks, CEO of Ideagen—a provider of global regulatory and compliance software—shared comments with Avionics International in response to the New York Times article.

“Aviation bosses know this is an issue. We recently spoke to 500 CEOs from a range of regulated industries around the world and 47% of those in aviation said safety is a key investment priority over the next 18 months.

“But in order to have a thorough understanding of how to mitigate risk, you need a complete view of safety intelligence and our research also revealed that more than half (53%) were using a number of different systems to manage their compliance, safety, and risk, and these weren’t integrated, so the picture is fragmented.

“That becomes even more important when you’re having to do more with less. The skills shortages are having a crippling effect across many regulated industries. In our research, more than half of the CEOs we spoke to said mental health absence is their biggest risk to resilience and almost a quarter said staff shortages.”

“There’s a recognition among the C-suite that this is something they need to address. Aviation can afford you a rewarding, valuable career, but it’s also incredibly high risk and that pressure is felt by those working in it. Technology is a real enabler here to do some of that heavy lifting, relieve some of that pressure, and free highly-trained, skilled workers to add value where it matters most.”

The post Alarming Rise in Near Misses Among U.S. Airlines appeared first on Avionics International.

President Biden has nominated Mike Whitaker to be Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Aviation advocacy groups, federal transportation officials, and airlines are applauding the Biden Administration’s nomination of Michael Whitaker as chief of the Federal Aviation Administration and urging the Senate to speed his confirmation. 

Whitaker, who the White House pointed out has 30 years of aviation experience, served as the FAA’s deputy administrator during the Obama Administration. He currently serves as chief operating officer at Hyundai’s Supernal, developing electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) vehicles.

“He knows how to work in government and across the aviation community to get big things done,” the White House said in a Sept. 7 statement announcing Whitaker’s nomination. “The FAA needs a confirmed Administrator—and Mike Whitaker is the right person for the job.”

Whitaker would take over the FAA’s top job from Polly Trottenberg, who was appointed acting administrator in June. She was preceded in the acting position by Billy Nolen, who served from April 2022 to June 2023. The FAA has not had a full-time, Senate-confirmed administrator since Stephen Dickson left the post in March 2022. He also was preceded by an acting FAA chief, Daniel Elwell, who served in the role for a little over 18 months from January 2018 to August 2019.

The National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) lauded Whitaker’s credentials as a lawyer, aviation industry professional, and private pilot, in addition to his leadership during his 2013–2016 tenure as deputy administrator of an effort to modernize the U.S. air traffic control system. 

“Mike Whitaker has long been an outspoken aviation safety advocate and champion of innovation in the industry, who demonstrated during his time as deputy administrator at the FAA that he is a proven leader who delivers results,” said NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen. “We enthusiastically support his confirmation as FAA administrator.”

Aside from government service, Whitaker served for a time as assistant general counsel for TWA and then 15 years with United Airlines, including as senior vice president of alliances, international and regulatory affairs. After leaving United, he was named Group CEO at InterGlobe Enterprises, the holding company for IndiGo, India’s largest airline.

American Airlines also supported the nomination in a statement, saying it would support his confirmation “during this critical time in aviation.”

“It is essential that the FAA be led by a permanent administrator who understands the intricacies of the system,” the airline said. “A former FAA Deputy Administrator who has spent decades in the aviation industry, Mr. Whitaker is eminently qualified for the role.”

Helicopter Association International (HAI) President and Chief Executive Jim Viola likewise praised Whitaker’s nomination, saying his experience will allow him to effectively lead the FAA, especially his leadership of the Next Generation Air Transportation System, also called NextGen.

“I worked closely with Mike during my tenure overseeing general aviation at the FAA, and from what I saw, I am confident he is the right person to lead the agency at a time when aviation—particularly vertical aviation—is evolving at such a rapid pace,” Viola said. “Vertical aviation is leading the future with advanced helicopter technology, electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft, uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) operations, and continued innovation across the vertical flight sector. As our industry moves forward, it is critical that the United States has strong leadership at the FAA to provide global regulatory guidance while continuing to set the gold standard in safety. HAI is confident Mike will provide that leadership.” 

The post Whitaker’s Appointment to Top FAA Post Overwhelmingly Welcomed by Aviation Industry appeared first on Avionics International.

The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) has approved trial operations for EHang’s Unmanned Aircraft Cloud System. (Photo: EHang)

The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) has granted approval to air taxi developer EHang to conduct trial operations of its Unmanned Aircraft Cloud System, or UACS, the company announced today. The UACS includes functions related to airspace management, integrating uncrewed aerial vehicles, and managing flight plans and operators. 

EHang has already conducted more than 9,300 low-altitude tourism flight trials across China. Approval from the CAAC for testing its UACS gives EHang the necessary foundation for commercial operations following the certification of its uncrewed EH216-S aircraft.

(Photo: EHang)

The CAAC officially accepted EHang’s application for type certification (TC) in Jan. 2021. The CAAC announced that the Special Conditions for Type Certification of EHang’s EH216-S aircraft had been formally adopted in Feb. 2022.

In Feb. 2023, the EH216 completed its first passenger-carrying autonomous flight demonstration in Japan. With the approval of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) of Japan, the aircraft flew two passengers in Oita City without a pilot onboard.

The EH216 flew two passengers without a pilot onboard in Oita City, Japan. (Photo: EHang)

The air taxi developer has now completed “all of the planned tests and flights in the last phase of demonstration and verification of compliance and also completed the definitive TC Flight Test by the CAAC,” it announced last week. This included demonstrating the safety and airworthiness of the EH216-S batteries, materials, electronics, and software.

EHang’s Huazhi Hu, Founder, Chairman, and CEO, remarked, “This sets the stage for us to secure the type certificate soon and proceed with our endeavors to initiate commercial operations.”

He added, “I believe the remaining procedures will be finished very soon before the official authorization of the type certificate. It will pave the way for our commercial operations in the next stage.”

The post CAAC Approves EHang’s Unmanned Aircraft Cloud System for Test Operations appeared first on Avionics International.

A potential collision scenario was avoided at San Diego International Airport when the facility’s automated surface surveillance system raised an alert regarding the proximity of two aircraft. (Photo: SanDiego.org)

A go-around incident involving a Cessna Citation business jet and a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 has prompted an official investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The event, which unfolded shortly before noon local time on August 11 at San Diego International Airport, has raised questions about air traffic coordination and safety protocols.

According to the FAA’s initial statement, an air traffic controller had given the pilot of the Cessna Citation business jet clearance to land on Runway 27. The same controller directed Southwest Flight 2493, operated by a Boeing 737, to taxi onto the same runway, instructing them to await further departure commands.

A potential collision scenario was averted when the facility’s automated surface surveillance system raised an alert regarding the proximity of the two aircraft. Recognizing the imminent conflict, the air traffic controller instructed the pilot of the Cessna Citation to discontinue its landing approach and execute a go-around, ensuring the safety of both aircraft and their occupants.

The FAA responded by dispatching a team of experts to the airport to undertake a comprehensive investigation into the series of events leading up to the go-around. One significant aspect of this review will be to determine the closest proximity between the two involved aircraft.

On Saturday, Southwest said that it is participating in the review of the incident conducted by the FAA. “Our aircraft departed without event and the flight operated normally, with a safe landing in San Jose as scheduled,” said Chris Mainz, a spokesperson for the airline, in a statement.

(Photo: Saab)

While no injuries or damages were reported, incidents of this nature underscore the importance of seamless coordination in the dense air traffic environment surrounding busy airports. Automated systems like the surface surveillance system play a crucial role in enhancing situational awareness for air traffic controllers, and this incident serves as a reminder of the dual role of technology and human vigilance in maintaining the safety and efficiency of our skies.

The San Diego International Airport has Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X (ASDE-X) installed, as do at least 34 other airports in the U.S. The ASDE-X system uses radar, multilateration, and satellite technology to notify air traffic controllers of potential runway conflicts.

The company Saab offers air traffic control products such as cooperative surveillance sensors (multilateration and ADS-B), surface movement radars, and decision support tools for air traffic controllers.

“Situations develop quickly on an airfield,” according to Rick Smith, Saab Director of FAA Programs. “A combined audio and video alert is used to notify air traffic controllers before an incident can occur so that they can quickly prevent it. Air traffic controllers must trust our data is correct to give accurate and effective control measures and keep aircraft and people safe.”

According to the FAA, ASDE-X uses data from the following sources:

• Surface surveillance radar located on top of the air traffic control tower and/or surface surveillance radar located on a remote tower
• Multilateration sensors located around the airport
• Airport Surveillance Radars such as the ASR-9
• Automatic Dependent Surveillance — Broadcast (ADS-B) sensors
• Terminal automation system to obtain flight plan data.

(Photo: FAA)

The post A Near Miss at San Diego International Airport appeared first on Avionics International.

This week, EASA published a drone directory for uncrewed aircraft that are classified in the “open category” and are labeled with specific class marks. The agency also released a template for drones operating in the “specific category.” (Photo: DJI)

This week, EASA (European Union Aviation Safety Agency) released a drone directory of uncrewed aircraft that fit within the “open category” and have been labeled with specific class marks, such as “C1” or “C2.” This list from EASA will help individuals, businesses, and other stakeholders identify drones that adhere to the new regulations set to be effective from Jan. 1, 2024. 

Starting Jan. 1, the following new drone rules will be in effect:

• Drones labeled with a “C1” mark and weighing up to 900g can fly in areas with lots of people, according to the A1 rules.
• Drones weighing up to 4 kg with a “C2” label can fly within 5 meters of people who aren’t involved in the drone’s operation, as per the A2 rules.

There are already drones in the market that follow these rules. EASA has a list of these drones, which will soon be a part of the EASA Sustainable Air Mobility Hub—a website created by EASA to help local governments and businesses use drones in a sustainable way. It’s a key part of the EU’s new drone plan, called Drone Strategy 2.0.

A “CE” mark on a product means it meets EU standards for health, safety, and the environment. It’s for products sold in the European Economic Area (EEA).

(Photo: Asylon)

EASA also released a guide meant for drones operating in the “specific category” this week. This template, called an Operations Manual, is for drone activities under SAIL II (Specific Assurance Integrity Level II). If drone operators want permission to operate in this category, they need to submit a similar manual. This requirement is based on Article 12 of the EU’s rules from 2019 about drone operations.

EASA classifies the following uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) operations in the “specific” category:

• BVLOS (Beyond Visual Line Of Sight)
• Operating a drone with MTOM (maximum take-off mass) > 25 kg
• Operating higher than 120m above ground level
• Dropping material
• Operating in an urban environment with MTOM > 4 kg or without a class identification label

Based on SORA (Specific Operations Risk Assessment), SAIL I and II are classified as low-risk; SAIL III and IV are medium-risk, and SAIL V and VI involve high-risk operations.

The release of this template underscores EASA’s commitment to ensuring that drone operations in the EU are conducted safely and according to set standards. This is essential given the increasing number of drones and their diverse applications in today’s world.

By providing a template for the Operations Manual, EASA is also offering clear guidance on what they expect from drone operators in the specific category under SAIL II. This helps standardize operations and ensures that everyone is on the same page regarding safety and operational standards.

The post A Path to Safe Drone Operations: The Latest from EASA appeared first on Avionics International.

The integration of urban air mobility into existing airspace systems is a collaborative endeavor, requiring continuous learning, validation, and adaptation to evolving technologies and methods. Speakers from the FAA, NASA, OneSky, and ANRA provided insights into their respective areas of expertise, underscoring the importance of data, collaboration, understanding new complexities, and global harmonization. (Photo: NASA)

BALTIMORE, Maryland — One of the most interesting panel discussions that took place during the recent AAM Summit—presented by the FAA and AUVSI—revolved around the evolving landscape of urban air mobility (UAM). Central to the discourse was the significance of collecting pertinent data to facilitate the integration of new aerial vehicles into existing airspace systems. 

A speaker from NASA emphasized the organization’s role in gathering data to aid both the FAA and the wider industry, underscoring the importance of preparedness to scale operations and make certification timelines more efficient. Industry participants shared insights from recent demonstrations, highlighting lessons learned, especially in the realm of traffic flow management and understanding airspace dynamics. 

The conversation also touched on global perspectives, with an FAA representative noting commonalities in UAM ConOps approaches worldwide, emphasizing piloted aircraft operations, integration issues, compliance, and the desire for global harmonization, especially in safety standards.

Steve Bradford, Chief Scientific & Technical Advisor of the FAA’s Office of NextGen, moderated the “Urban Air Mobility Concept of Operations” panel discussion. He brought up the need for international harmonization and asked Chris Swider, Senior Technical Advisor of the FAA, to discuss the role of ICAO in this arena.

Swider mentioned that at the last ICAO assembly which took place in October, the FAA and other member states emphasized the need for a unified approach to advanced air mobility. The FAA urged ICAO to establish a clear framework and avoid uncoordinated efforts by individual technical panels.

“ICAO did establish an advanced air mobility study group,” he remarked. “They’re going to try to create a vision, and take a look at gaps in current policy that need to be addressed,” and ensure that future technical panels work in sync. Swider sees this as a significant step towards global harmonization in air mobility that prioritizes both safety and efficiency.

Moderator Steve Bradford next asked Noureddin “Nouri” Ghazavi, Systems Engineer for the FAA NextGen Technology Development and Prototyping Division, to share some of the key points of Version 2.0 of the UAM Concept of Operations.  

Ghazavi first mentioned the FAA’s “Innovate28” plan, which aims for operations at scale by 2028. He said that it focuses on the near-term integration of advanced air mobility (AAM) into the national airspace system (NAS). He noted that the FAA’s goal in developing the ConOps is to incorporate high-density UAM operations into the NAS.

“We got feedback from the industry, and we have a better understanding of their business model,” Ghazavi said. “From that point, we start looking into developing our assumptions or principles. We had a series of guided discussions with industry partners and understood that we cannot take a piece of airspace and just give it to each individual operator. So we started looking at the concept that we can integrate all operation into these cooperative areas, as laid out in ConOps 2.0.” 

In 2020, the FAA’s NextGen office published Version 1.0 of its Concept of Operations for urban air mobility, which was developed in collaboration with NASA and industry.

In developing Version 2.0 of the ConOps, the FAA considered performance as well as participation requirements. Another aspect is determining the key enablers for UAM. Ghazavi emphasized the role of third-party service providers, which are crucial for a transparent system where everyone shares and accesses operational information.

Bradford asked Jim Murphy, AAM System Architect at NASA, to talk about NASA’s role in the whole concept of AAM and UAM. Murphy pointed out that NASA focuses on scalability, especially when collecting data for industry and for the FAA. “We can definitely handle one operation and new types of missions if they’re one-offs, but what happens if they’re successful? How do those tempos increase? How can we scale?”

“We do recognize that there may be differences in how the aircraft are managed or piloted—they might move into multi-piloted types of operations,” he added.

By understanding industry intentions and checking their feasibility with the FAA’s direction, NASA aims to bridge any gaps. In providing data to both industry and the FAA, NASA also ensures that when a company seeks certification for a new aircraft mission, the FAA is already familiar with it. This pre-emptive approach should expedite the integration and scaling process within the national airspace system, Murphy explained.

Bradford mentioned a recent urban air mobility demonstration that the FAA NextGen Technology Development and Prototyping Division conducted. The FAA’s Nouri Ghazavi commented that after releasing the ConOps, their real work began: focusing on its validation. The team adopted an iterative approach and collaborated with industry leaders to understand the interaction of the proposed cooperative areas in the NAS with other operations. 

Ghazavi said that their specific focus was on traffic flow management outside these cooperative areas. They partnered with industry to develop the cooperative flow management detailed in ConOps 2.0. While examining how to incorporate traffic management initiatives (TMIs), it became evident that these operational corridors wouldn’t be isolated. 

The ConOps also highlighted the potential to utilize cooperative areas for air traffic services. In practice, this means TMIs could affect these areas. Partners like ANRA and OneSky helped develop capabilities for management within these cooperative spaces. 

“We had a shakedown activity last week,” Ghazavi said. “We’re going through a demonstration later in August—it’s going to be a virtual session, but we do have live aircraft.”

“We learned a lot from being involved in this with the FAA and having people that are experts in air traffic control as a part of this trial,” remarked Chris Kucera, VP of Strategy at OneSky Systems. OkeSky’s expertise includes building UTMs for small UAS. Now, the introduction of air taxi presents its own complexities, especially regarding different UML levels. 

“Within a federated system, you’re not telling people what to do. They have resources, and they grab them when they want,” Kucera said. “So we have to set up a system that works in terms of grabbing resources. It’s a different way of thinking of the problem, and I think that complexity was realized very early on in this scenario.”

Amit Ganjoo, founder and CEO of ANRA, explained that their company has approached UAS largely from a standpoint of segregation, avoiding major interactions with air traffic control systems. The introduction of CFM (cooperative flow management) to TFM (traffic flow management) exchanges revealed complexities that hadn’t previously been considered. Beyond just strategic deconfliction, demand-capacity balancing, spacing, and airspace availability now need to be considered. Another challenge is evolving from traditional voice-based ATC calls. “Initially, if the aircraft are going to be optionally piloted, how do you translate that into Voice over IP calls?” Ganjoo asks.

The FAA’s Chris Swider commented that within the international division of the Integration Office, they learn from global colleagues. Many concepts worldwide align with those of the FAA. Common trends include starting with piloted aircraft, moving to more automation, and aiming for fully automated operations. 

Swider added that there is a general approach of starting with one city and then expanding. Challenges like environmental concerns, noise, and community engagement are universally acknowledged, and a key emphasis is on compliance. In shared airspace, all must adhere to existing rules, though these may evolve. Finally, he remarked that there’s a strong desire globally for harmonized safety and efficiency standards.

The post Version 2.0 of the Urban Air Mobility Concept of Operations appeared first on Avionics International.

Trends in the state legislative sessions related to UAS include discussions about drone operations over critical infrastructure, police use, new AAM study committees, country-of-origin bans, and vertiports. (Photo: AUVSI)

BALTIMORE, Maryland — In an ever-evolving drone industry landscape, state and local legislators are grappling with creating effective and fair regulations for uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS). In the wake of the Federal Aviation Administration’s 2023 Fact Sheet on State and Local Regulation of UAS, we have seen a variety of responses—some fostering growth, others seemingly encroaching on federal authorities. To navigate this complex environment, the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) launched Drone Prepared, a 50-state educational initiative aimed at guiding lawmakers in crafting regulations that are industry-supportive and consistent with federal oversight. 

Scott Shtofman of AUVSI and Josh Turner of Wiley Rein LLP spoke with Avionics International during this week’s Drone Summit, hosted by the FAA and AUVSI. Shtofman and Turner discussed recent legislative trends including issues related to flight over critical infrastructure, police use, advanced air mobility (AAM) study committees, country of origin bans, and vertiports. 

According to Scott Shtofman, Senior Manager of Government Affairs at AUVSI, there has been increased state-level interest in regulating drones and their operations over critical infrastructure. However, “I wouldn’t say that we’ve had changes in how UAS operate over critical infrastructure,” he remarked.

Section 2209 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 is a key reference, intended to establish which sites can be considered critical infrastructure and the regulations for flying over them, although there’s ongoing debate about what should be included in this definition, Shtofman noted.

He believes there will be a lot of interest from both asset owners and users in performing inspections of critical infrastructure using UAS. “There are benefits of being able to collect data using a drone and not having to shut down that piece of infrastructure,” he explained.

There is also a push to expand the definition of critical infrastructure. “Is that beyond something like petroleum refining and production plants or electric substations?” Shtofman asks.

Work is being done on drone detection and mitigation efforts, aiming to establish who has the authority to detect drone presence and act upon an imminent threat. To this end, Michael Robbins—Chief Advocacy Officer at AUVSI—is co-chairing an aviation rulemaking committee around counter-UAS. 

(Photo: NUAIR)

Josh Turner from Wiley Rein LLP, a Drone Prepared partner, noted that the FAA has congressional authority and instruction to create rules under Section 2209 that define what constitutes critical infrastructure, but the process has been delayed. “Right now, states tend to set their own ideas of what constitutes critical infrastructure,” he told Avionics. 

“It would be great to get some clarity around what those rules are at a national level,” he added. Uniform national understanding and regulation of what constitutes critical infrastructure, as decided by the FAA, would help to prevent confusion.

Turner also discussed legislation surrounding vertiports. States have traditionally decided where aircraft can take off and land, a role acknowledged and reinforced by the FAA’s 2023 Fact Sheet. “AUVSI has been very supportive of the idea that states have a role in figuring out how to make urban air mobility and advanced air mobility happen,” he commented.

The Drone Prepared program aims to educate local and state governments on the necessary legislative changes for successful vertiport integration into local communities.

Over the past year, there has been growing interest and successful initiatives in state and local governments around vertiports and urban air mobility. “The idea of having a vertiport in your city or in your state is really compelling,” Turner said.

(Photo: Skyports)

Privacy Concerns and Public Safety

A key goal of AUVSI is to ensure that states understand their rights to protect their citizens’ privacy—without the need for an abundance of new drone-specific rules—and that existing laws can be leveraged to do so.

Drones are just another tool, akin to a flying camera. Their use should be governed by the same privacy considerations as any other tool, Shtofman explained. “When it comes to police use of drones, it’s different than commercial use,” he said. “There are already standards in place for what’s required when they want to search something, or if you’re using the drone for surveillance purposes.”

Drones can serve as less risky and less expensive alternatives to helicopters in police operations, providing oversight and helping to de-escalate situations. Transparency is essential regarding how data collected by drones will be used, stored, and shared, which should be clearly communicated to the public to alleviate privacy concerns.

Drones are being used by around 10 to 15 departments across the country as “first responders.” “They’ll send a drone to the site of the call to get an assessment of the situation and decide what sort of response is required by officers,” according to Shtofman.

Open dialogue with communities about drone usage can help dispel fears and misconceptions. He underscored that the primary use of drones by the police is as a tool for better situational understanding and response.

(Photo: Matternet)

Country-of-Origin Bans

Legitimate security concerns exist around drones manufactured by what can be considered adversary nations, particularly around how these drones are used and the data security implemented, Turner explained.

“I don’t think that […] it makes sense to ban all drones from a certain country. But at the same time, those legitimate national security concerns do need to be addressed,” he said.

There should be policies in place to prevent the use of equipment that could potentially jeopardize national security or have adverse effects on the American public.

Shtofman noted that the country of origin considerations should not be limited to labeling drones from certain places as bad, but should also consider ways to improve the country’s supply chain resilience.

There’s a need for efforts to enhance local production capabilities to ensure that the industry isn’t hindered due to a lack of access to components either domestically or from allied nations. Building a robust, homegrown industry would ensure the availability of reliable drones and the means to produce them even in adverse situations, thereby strengthening both the commercial and defense aspects of the industry.

Developing a domestic talent pool through STEM education is essential to have the required engineers and manufacturing capabilities to meet any needs, he added.

(Photo: Zipline)

Navigating Intersecting Legal Jurisdictions

The Drone Prepared campaign launched last year has been instrumental in opening discussions with states and influencing legislation by providing clear and detailed legal interpretations and arguments, Shtofman shared. They have engaged with at least 20 states and worked with five departments of transportation to educate lawmakers about drone usage and regulation.

The FAA’s UAS Fact Sheet aligns with AUVSI’s perspective on the delineation of power, stating that the federal focus should be on aviation safety and air navigation, while states should address privacy and public protection.

Clear legislation benefits operators and manufacturers by enabling them to offer drone-related services more effectively. Shtofman explained, “Let’s protect the public, but let’s also allow for the benefit of drones and allow for certainty for operators and manufacturers to know how to prepare a state to be ready for an economic opportunity.”

Turner noted that the clarity of federal and state authority in drone regulation, as underlined by the new FAA Fact Sheet, is certainly helpful. Misconceptions and confusion about rules differing for unmanned systems have been clarified, which aligns with the FAA’s historical control over aviation safety and efficient use of airspace.

The Fact Sheet acknowledges local governments’ authority to regulate privacy, without overriding federal aviation control. The fact sheet also indirectly discourages states from designating drone highways, since constant streams of drones flying overhead are unpopular. “People would much rather have a dispersed set of routes,” said Turner, adding, “It diffuses the impact.”

Those looking for an opportunity to get involved can visit droneprepared.org, Shtofman mentioned. “We have all the legislation that we’re tracking. I think last session, we had over 200 pieces of legislation around the country that were in some way related to drones. Just knowing what’s going on where you live is a great way to start.”

The post Regulating UAS in 2023 appeared first on Avionics International.

Within the eVTOL landscape, regulatory compliance and airworthiness certification present unique challenges. Bhavesh Mandalia, Chief Airworthiness Officer and Deputy CTO at Lilium, in a recent interview with Avionics International, discussed how the company navigates this complex environment, detailing its innovative certification approach, dedication to safety, distinctive technology, and the journey towards obtaining Design Organization Approval (DOA). As the industry continues to take shape, Lilium’s pioneering efforts offer a glimpse into the future of air mobility.

Lilium’s Bhavesh Mandalia talks about the team’s strategies for achieving airworthiness certification and compliance with evolving aviation regulations. He also highlights their unique technology, a strong commitment to safety, and future goals in the dynamic eVTOL industry. (Photos: Lilium)

Avionics: Could you provide an overview of Lilium’s approach to achieving airworthiness certification and ensuring compliance with aviation regulations? Are there any unique challenges Lilium has faced in this process?

Bhavesh Mandalia: With certification, we’ve been engaged with two different authorities—EASA, the authority here in Europe, and the Federal Aviation Administration in the U.S. This was quite important for us, because both authorities have been developing a relatively new regulatory landscape for electric VTOL aircraft. It’s important for us to establish a good relationship as early as possible with them, which takes some years for a new applicant. Lilium applied for EASA type certification very early, back in 2017, and applied for type certification validation with the FAA shortly after.

EASA has broken down the certification process into 18 different disciplines, which is good for us. All disciplines come together to form the aircraft but enable us to group certification activity with focus on a particular area. Therefore, we can work on parallel certification streams with different EASA experts. 

We’ve constructed our teams to work with these individual areas of discipline for certification, which has been important for us. It’s helped us progress well with the evolving requirements. When we compare what we’re doing now with conventional aviation, developing an aircraft when you still have some fluidity with the regulations is quite a unique challenge to have. 

Equally, establishing an early relationship with the regulator has helped us to learn with them and to use our product and some of our key learnings to actually influence the regulations, which is always positive. It’s difficult, I think, for regulators to put new regulations together without actually seeing what they look like when they’re applied. So we’ve used a lot of our research and development activities to help them evolve as well. 

Avionics: Lilium recently completed the fourth and final Design Organization Approval audit by EASA. Could you share some details about this achievement and the key factors that contributed to the team’s success?

Mandalia: The DOA process in the European regulation framework is a prerequisite to develop and certify a new aircraft, and also for organizations that want to keep aircraft airworthy by implementing changes and repairs once they’re in service. EASA has recently made a number of updates to the regulation governing initial airworthiness known as EASA Part 21, to introduce a Safety Management System and a risk-based system to help determine their level of involvement within certification activities. 

We’ve been working with EASA since 2017 on our DOA approval. We’ve had four audits. The fourth and final one was this year, and each audit has progressively focused on a different area of our organization, such as the company structure, how we approve our people, and how we approve our suppliers. As we’ve evolved as an organization and our product has evolved, the types of audit are changing. The second audit was more about certification activity and how we manage configurations of the aircraft. The third one was more on how we start the actual compliance demonstration. The final one was about some of the deliverables that we would provide as part of the aircraft, including manuals on how to train people to operate and maintain the aircraft, and also to keep the aircraft airworthy.

We passed the audit, and as the regulations have evolved, we’ve actually tailored our DOA to be more specific for developing this type of electrically propelled, vertical take-off and landing aircraft. That’s been quite important for us instead of just putting together something that was more generic. 

I think successfully completing this last audit is a really good testament that we have competent people within the organization but also a structure that’s credible enough to certify such an aircraft. This is an important milestone for us because ultimately having a DOA approval will demonstrate to people that we’re a credible aerospace company; that is quite key in everything that we’re doing. 

For me, the DOA process is not new. This is actually the fourth approval I’ve been involved in with my career starting from scratch, and every single one is different, even though the regulations you have to comply with are the same. The approach is based on the type of product that you’re working with. Therefore, there’s a lot more emphasis on electrification and the use of new technology within our DOA, which is somewhat different to conventional aviation. The next steps now are to work to close off any open actions that we have and then get our DOA later this year.

Avionics: As Chief Airworthiness Officer, you play a crucial role in ensuring the safety and reliability of Lilium’s eVTOL aircraft. How does the company address safety considerations?

Mandalia: Like any aerospace company developing an aircraft that people will be using as a mode of transport, safety is a crucial component in order for our aircraft to meet the highest safety objectives. Within Europe, EASA has decided to prescribe the same level of safety as they do for any commercial aircraft. Essentially, the probability of what we call a catastrophic failure is one in a billion flight hours, or 1×10^-9. 

The other important element for us as an organization is the implementation of the safety culture. EASA have recently introduced what they’re calling a safety management system. Most of the leadership team we have, including myself, are from large aerospace organizations where we’re already used to working with such a safety culture, and we already have systems implemented. For most of us, this was just a way of formalizing how we work with safety, but we consider multiple different areas within safety in our organization, and we also promote this and train our people to follow the same mantra. That includes design—the safety of the design, meeting the standards for airworthiness—and safety of the product, so that within the production organization system, it also has its own safety management element. Safety in operations—as we design, develop, and manufacture the product, we also have to ensure it’s safe to operate the product by aircrew and for people traveling on it. Safety for our employees—we operate in a safe environment, we make sure the office space is safe for them and we also make sure that the environment that they operate in is safe. 

We employ something called a “just culture.” We encourage people to report anything that they feel has gone wrong or could potentially go wrong and could impact either other people or the safety of the product that we’re developing. 

We also have safety of our customers; that’s the end goal, and we have organizational safety as well. These are important aspects of what we do. We make it very easy for our people to actually report items of safety as well and ensure that they have a good area where they can learn about why safety is so important, because we have a number of people in our organization that are from outside of aerospace. 

We’ve created what we call the Lilium Safety Hub, which is a repository on our intranet system, where we have a number of resources, including our safety policy, and also self-learning and training that people can take in addition to those that we mandate for safety—all of those elements of the Safety Management System which we have introduced under our DOA. For my position, because I’m something they call a regulatory postholder, if something goes wrong, I’m accountable for the certification and safety of the product. That’s quite key, and it’s taken very seriously, even as a new company.

Avionics: What differentiates Lilium’s technology from others in the eVTOL industry, and how does the company maintain a competitive edge in this dynamic landscape?

Mandalia: I’ll mention something that I think is quite unique, which you don’t necessarily hear other people talking about: customer comfort and customer experience. More recently, we’ve been advertising the quality of our cabin, and in addition to meeting the important safety requirements for the cabin, we also need to ensure that the customer experience is positive. This is why we have essentially the largest cabin on the aircraft with the ability to configure the cabin in multiple ways to suit the needs of the customer—the four-seater plush VIP-style club configuration, or the six-seater shuttle configuration. We’re also offering different color schemes and various other bits and pieces, and it’s quite a comfortable environment. I think that’s one of the key differentiators that’s quite important. 

We have multiple Electric Ducted Jet Engines, which is different to what the competitors have; most of them have open rotors. The use of multiple Electric Ducted Jet Engines introduces a number of benefits for our aircraft. Firstly, they are quieter when compared to open rotors, which will enable us to operate our aircraft around the clock and in areas where they have noise restrictions.

Secondly, having multiple ducted fans provides redundancy to meet the highest safety standards but also adds resilience against things like bird strikes which tend to be more common when flying at lower altitudes like eVTOL aircraft will. 

Thirdly, this architecture provides great cruise efficiency which is why we are targeting regional air mobility for our product.

We have 30 engines on the aircraft in total. It means we have a lot of redundancy. So if we were to have any failures on the aircraft, we have multiple engines that keep the aircraft airborne and continue to its original destination or to an alternative. The aircraft can still continue to fly with certain engines damaged. That was quite important for us as well—having this kind of architecture. 

We’re actually developing our own battery cells instead of opting to procure something that’s already out there and off the shelf. Some of this is because we want to develop something that is unique and something that is specific to our needs and the operational needs of our aircraft. Secondly, the regulators—particularly EASA—has set the bar very high with regard to safety standards for batteries and for technology. We don’t feel, from what we’ve seen out there, that automotive batteries or lithium-ion batteries used for other technologies are meeting the standards that are necessary for airworthiness. Compare it to automotive: with a car, if you have an incident with the battery system, the car comes rolling to a stop. With an aircraft, if you have a major failure of the battery cells or the electrical system, you’ve got more of an issue at hand. As a result of that, EASA has set the bar quite high for cells. So we have to develop our own technology to meet the requirements.

Avionics: Looking ahead, what are Lilium’s main priorities and focus areas for the upcoming year?

Mandalia: For my team in particular, one of the most important things is closing out the actions that remain for the DOA and receiving our DOA approval, which we’re expecting later on this year. That one is quite big on the radar. 

The next thing for us is actually a certification program. The 18 different areas that I mentioned within EASA, we have certification plans for each of these areas which we’ve already shared with EASA. It provides EASA with an indicative level of involvement as well within these activities. We need to basically formalize the agreement with EASA and then move on to the next phase, which is the actual demonstration of compliance and certification. 

Also within the next year, we will be going into production of our first prototype aircraft, which will be used for performing flight testing activities and ground testing, as well as other verification activities. In parallel with this, we’ll also be continuing other analysis and demonstrations of compliance for the authority in alignment with the certification plans that we’ve already submitted to them. Those are some of our objectives as an organization. More importantly, aside from that is ensuring we have the right people. We’ve already demonstrated to EASA that we have highly competent people, but making sure we maintain that engagement of our workforce, and also continue to find the best talent out there—all of this is important for us to continue the momentum.

Avionics: Could you share some details about Lilium’s recent wind tunnel testing?

Mandalia: We performed one of the most complex wind tunnel testing campaigns recently where we had an active scale model of our aircraft in one of the wind tunnels here in the region. This is one of the models that we’re using to provide us with data to validate that engineering is on the right track. This is something that we do to de-risk activities before we go into production and manufacture the full-scale aircraft. We used an active model with the engines running because having so many engines on the aircraft does have an impact on the airflow around the aircraft. So it’s important that it’s a representative model of what we’re doing. We’ll be using data from that to validate some of our other simulations that were put in place like, for example, for fluid dynamic models. For other simulations, we’re using aerodynamics. We’re working to demonstrate that the control laws and things that we’ve put together for the aircraft work before we actually put them into place on a real-life aircraft.

Q2 Shareholder Letter Updates

Lilium published its Q2 2023 shareholder letter this week. The company reports that it has hit key development and certification milestones to keep on track for the first manned flight of its type-conforming aircraft in late 2024. Lilium secured around $192 million in fresh financing, including a successful capital raise of $117 million mostly from new investors, leading to a $75 million pre-funding commitment from Aceville. The new financial resources, combined with existing funds, result in approximately $386 million of liquidity as Lilium steps into the second half of 2023. The funds will be instrumental for the development of the Lilium Jet. Future financing will prioritize non-dilutive funding. 

The recent capital raise is a significant endorsement of Lilium’s technology, attracting more investors and accelerating commercial engagement. The firm is set to begin assembling the first Lilium Jet for systems integration validation. Meanwhile, progress on the aircraft design and testing and marketing initiatives continue. The Lilium Jet’s cabin was a major draw at the 2023 Paris Air Show. Lilium also received a G-1 certification from the FAA, indicating the regulatory acceptance of its jet, and reports that interest from global markets, including China, is on the rise.

The post Inside eVTOL Certification: A Q&A With the Deputy CTO of Lilium appeared first on Avionics International.