In this Op-Ed, Michael Robbins, President and CEO of the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), offers an industry perspective on the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report titled “Federal Lands: Effects of Interior’s Policies on Foreign-Made Drones.” This response comes in the wake of last week’s published statement from drone manufacturer DJI, addressing the report’s findings.
Here, Robbins provides insights into the broader implications of foreign-made drones, particularly those produced by companies identified as national security risks, and argues for a more robust investment in U.S. drone manufacturing to safeguard the industry and national security. DRONELIFE neither makes nor accepts payment for guest posts.
The Urgent Need to Support U.S. Drone Manufacturers and National Security
by AUVSI President and CEO Michael Robbins
A recent GAO report examined the Department of Interior’s use of foreign-made drones and identified challenges the Department faces in rapidly transitioning its fleet of unsecure drones to secure platforms in compliance with federal law.
Astonishingly but not surprisingly, DJI—which has been identified by the U.S. Department of Defense and intelligence agencies as a People’s Republic of China (PRC) military company—has pounced on the report of challenges faced by U.S. government agencies to promote PRC protectionism in the U.S.
Let’s set the record clear: the primary challenge of identified in the GAO report—the challenge of U.S. drone companies to readily supply large quantities of drones—is due to the flooding of subsidized, unsecure DJI drones into the U.S. market, distorting the marketplace for non-PRC drone companies. This has led to a lack of demand signal, purchases, and investment that is absolutely needed before drone manufacturing can scale.
PRC drone companies like DJI and Autel Robotics have benefited from robust direct government investment and sophisticated market mechanisms, which has allowed them to flood the global market with subsidized drones, use their monopolistic position to harm U.S. drone manufacturers, and then manipulate the market to their advantage by preventing access of U.S. component manufacturers into PRC-controlled industry supply chains.
The result is a series of threats to the United States, including threats to national security, to our position as a global leader in aviation, to our aviation workforce, and to our fundamental principles of human rights. This problem is well understood by U.S. government agencies, which have issued many warnings about the reliance on PRC drones with increasing frequency and levels of alarm, specificity, and urgency.
Among stakeholders across many industries that extend far beyond drones, there is broad agreement that the U.S. faces a stark choice: continue to buy unsecure, subsidized technologies from PRC companies, or to invest in U.S. and allied products and support fair market competition.
The first choice is to maintain a status quo that has failed U.S. and allied companies and their customers. Still, there is a powerful lobby of PRC companies, PRC-established shell companies and tariff circumventors, and resellers and “affiliates” in the U.S. who have benefitted from a massive market share and who are fighting behind the scenes to maintain it. They would have us exacerbate the challenges faced by DOI and other critical drone users, depress U.S. economic activity, and put national security at risk.
The second path is to address the problem head on. The U.S. government can buy secure drones at market prices and investors can support the growth of U.S. companies. Leveling the playing field will allow industry to scale and drive down costs and enhance innovation.
It is far past time for U.S. government agencies and other drone users conducting security-sensitive missions to end their reliance on a hostile government for access to critical technologies. Congress has enacted several laws, including the American Security Drone Act, that will strengthen our national security by enforcing a transition to secure drones.
Much more must be done to diversify the market. Bolstering new drone manufacturing capabilities and the associated workforce will require infrastructure and capital expenditures. Future legislation should focus on creating incentives for U.S. companies directly, and indirectly through demand generation, by providing grants, tax incentives, loan guarantees, and other mechanisms to spur that spending would accelerate growth and development that would have otherwise been delayed or denied.
The U.S. government has taken action to level the playing field for other critical technologies with success, including solar panels, semiconductors, and electric vehicles. It is a matter of when, not if, the PRC will take advantage of the U.S.’s reliance on their supply chains as a weapon of war, as they have in other markets. The time has come for the U.S. government and investors to similarly to support the U.S. drone and component marketplace before it is too late.
Michael Robbins is President & Chief Executive Officer at the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), the world’s largest trade association for uncrewed systems, autonomy, and robotics, in both the commercial and defense sectors. Michael serves on the MITRE Corporation’s Aviation Advisory Committee, the board of the Greater Washington Aviation Open, and the National Advanced Mobility Consortium’s Advisory Committee. He recently served as co-chair of the Federal Aviation Administration’s UAS Detection and Mitigation Aviation Rulemaking Committee and currently serves on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Aviation Supply Chain Risk Task Force and the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency’s Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council sUAS Security Working Group. Michael holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan and a master’s degree from Georgetown University and is an Officer in the United States Navy (Reserve). Read more:
- DJI Responds to GAO Report: Drone Restrictions Undermine DOI Operations
- House Passes Countering CCP Drones Act: Now What?
- Lawmakers Urge Fairfax County to End Use of DJI Drones Due to National Security Concerns
- Lawmakers Call for Declassification of National Security Risks Posed by Chinese-Made Drones
Miriam McNabb is the Editor-in-Chief of DRONELIFE and CEO of JobForDrones, a professional drone services marketplace, and a fascinated observer of the emerging drone industry and the regulatory environment for drones. Miriam has penned over 3,000 articles focused on the commercial drone space and is an international speaker and recognized figure in the industry. Miriam has a degree from the University of Chicago and over 20 years of experience in high tech sales and marketing for new technologies.
For drone industry consulting or writing, Email Miriam.
TWITTER:@spaldingbarker
Subscribe to DroneLife here.
Here are a few points to ponder:
1.Google Maps show extensive details of rooftops in no-fly zones. Nobody cares.
2.DJI drones stay away from runway takeoff and landing vectors because of their Fly-Safe database in each drone that geofenses flight. Nobody cares.
3.ADSB receivers in DJI drones warn of approaching aircraft. Nobody cares.
4.Drones already have to be registered with the FAA. Nobody cares.
5.Drones emit a Remote-ID signal to say who’s operating it. Nobody cares.
= = = = =
As an aside, when I grew up in the 60’s my bicycle had a license tag on it, my model aircraft didn’t require one.
What on earth is going on, that doesn’t resemble complete hysteria?
I haven’t seen or heard any shred of proof that DJI or Autel has truly posed a threat to National Security. Lots of hype & inuendo, but no proof.
The DJI drones already require authorization before they can fly over secure areas like military bases, etc. I should know, because I’m needing to fly in those areas on a weekly basis.
Google Earth & Google maps has more info available to the public than what my drones have.
If there were American made drones that could even come close to the quality and capabilities of DJI & Autel, I would be flying them instead. But there aren’t any such drones. I’ve flown Skydio and that $20,000 drone can’t even compete with my $4,000 DJI or Autel drones. They just can’t do it.
All we’re doing with this proposed ban is cutting off our own abilities to save lives (emergency response and search & rescue operations) and hampering our own government agencies ability to do their jobs.
I’ve met with folks involved with UAV operations on DOD facilities. They’re more worried about info being publicly shared, info on troop movements, vehicle license plates, facial recognition of officers, etc. That doesn’t mean American drones only. That simply requires control over image data being shared publicly.
I have yet to see a single confirmation of any of the “threats” that people like Mr. Robbins tout. And yet, A recent cybersecurity assessment conducted by FTI Consulting (a well known global company) supports DJI’s claims that there is nothing untoward going on, and if the drones are put into local data mode, nothing gets out.
While it is true that China puts out good quality drones are prices that the US will find hard to match, that can also be said about just about everything else.
Sad fact – it costs less to make things in China, which is why that iPhone you’re reading this on is made there.
Removing the competition has never resulted in a better product as far as I can see, so this is pure protectionism.
There are rare (and usually short lived) reasons to impose tariffs on imports. This could be one of them. It would artificially raise the price of imports, which could potentially then help US based manufacturers compete without removing the ability for people to buy the product that is best for them. Once the US technology has caught up you can slowly reduce the tariffs as they build scale.
Instead, these people want to remove the compeition, putting lives in danger and damaging a fledgling industry just as it is starting to get into its stride.
Do better AUVSI – you are not representing the drone industry.
Footnote: Let’s not kid ourselves. Tariffs are a form of tax and are paid for by the CONSUMER, not by the countries sending goods here. So they have a place…but in targeted areas and for short periods of time.
You put this eloquently.
the experience I have had with American made drones has left me not wanting to deal with them again. Quality control and reliability are my biggest complaints for what I have seen.
Prices can be worked around with tariff, and technology can be upgraded. But if you can’t get your drone to fly reliably, or if while flying you are on edge because your worried something might go wrong, that will make doing the mission much more difficult and dangerous.
We will see if the American drone industry can improve. I hope they can.
Join our “PRC-established shell” (Drone Advocacy Alliance) company and make sure you let your Senators and Representatives in D.C. know that AUVSI, Skydio, and Guardian Agriculture are NOT friends of the U.S. drone industry. As a matter of fact, they are direct enemies of it.
The legislation they support will decimate not only the commercial drone industry, it will bring the recreational drone community to a grinding halt, and literally kill Americans. First Responder drone fleets save American lives on a weekly basis, and over 95% of those drones would be banned under the very bills AUVSI and Skydio are pushing for.
And look at the drone response due to the recent hurricane damage. DJI drones are the MAIN drone being used by both official drone flights, and private individuals to ferrying in life saving medicine.
If Robbins and Company get their way, those drones will never be able to be replaced with a comparable U.S. made option. They don’t exist, and there is nothing in the foreseeable future. Robbins himself knows this! Yet he continues to push for a complete DJI/Autel ban. Despite what he may publicly say, that’s exactly what he wants. All for the sake of “bolstering” a non-competitive U.S. drone manufacturing industry.
WE DON’T HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO PRODUCE ANYTHING CLOSE TO A DJI/AUTEL REPLACEMENT. AND THAT IS WHAT THE VAST, VAST, VAST MAJORITY OF DRONES OWNERS USE.
And the FTI Consulting report that proves DJI drones DO NOT send data to China, and proves that ASUVI and their conspirators are lying. And they know it.
Join the Drone Advocacy Alliance and make your voice heard. Show the lies being spread.
https://droneadvocacyalliance.com/take-action/
If a US company made a drone worth buying, I would have bought one. They do not, however, so instead they’re trying to “compete” by eliminating the competition with legislation. In the process, what they don’t seem to understand is that they’re alienating the customers that they seek to gain.
Wake up. Make a drone with great range, battery life, control, and great imaging sensors. Make it affordable. That’s how you compete. Not by with legislation that is just going to piss off your potential customers and drive them out of business. Compete by making your product good.
Keep in mind that this is written by the person who admitted he is pro-ban in 4 years while also admitting he never studied if US manufacturers could fulfill the current production demand. What is described in the GAO report is the direct byproduct of shortsighted so-called guidance from people like Mr. Robbins.
This is also the person who keeps repeating the same “security” points and yet cannot provide a single detail about the actual security threat. A threat that is apparently not bad enough that it is ok to wait 4 more years to stop it.
Mr Robbins, it’s time to leave this industry in the hands of the people who actually operate UAS and understand the damage that your policies would cause. How much more damage are you going to cause to AUVSI’s reputation before the board decide you need to go destroy another industry?
This is pure politics by Mr. Robbins. He dismisses the entirety of the GAO’s report, and doubles down on his own (publicly admitted) ignorance of the capabilities of the U.S. drone manufacturing industry.
He accuses many (myself included) of depressing the “U.S. economic activity, and put[ting} national security at risk.” Nonsense!
No, his attitude, and that of his team, is pure jingoistic protectionism. This isn’t about security, it’s about this country’s inability to produce a decent drone for the vast, vast, vast majority of the Drone Service Providers in this country.
And it’s his inability of his and his “Partnership for Drone Competitiveness” members to grasp the very simply fact that they are going to destroying the entirety of this industry. All based on politics and (proven false) fear mongering.
No Michael, I and my friends are not the problem. You and yours are.
I’ve tried to reason privately with you. I guess it’s public now.
AUVSI truly is a joke. They bury their head’s in the sand while exercising some extreme cognitive dissonance as to what this industry really is about. It is clear that their motives aren’t for saving and maintaining American lives as they are working so hard to place more Americans at risk.