When it comes to drone restrictions, listen to drone users 

We have folks in our government and private industry whose sole job it is to sit around and develop strategic plans for worst-case scenarios, including cyberattacks. As a country, we should thank them as they have undoubtedly saved American lives.

When evaluating potential risks, however, it is important to distinguish real threats from theoretical concerns, as they can lead to unintended consequences. 

One such instance of unintended consequences is the recent signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, which contains the “American Security Drone Act of 2023” (ASDA), placing restrictions on the use of drones manufactured in China.

A recent opinion piece by Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery exemplifies how those unintended consequences can be swept aside. We need cybersecurity in the U.S., and we need to safeguard critical infrastructure. But we can do so through risk-based approaches rather than going after only drones made in China. In very sensitive areas, it makes sense to use drones without internet connectivity, or in a Local Data Mode, based on the risk profile of the operation, which can vary widely. 

Last November, I was part of a film crew shooting in D.C. — arguably the most monitored and secure airspace in the United States. Flying drones here requires very special permissions, usually a government agency sponsor, and a police escort. Despite this, the drones that are almost exclusively used by those who get permission are Chinese-made.

Yet in another flight for the Department of the Interior over 700-year-old Anasazi ruins in Mesa Verde National Park, I couldn’t use those very same drones, despite publicly available images of the same site. Where is the logic in that? The drones we use don’t collect any information more sensitive than what you can already find online.

I agree with Montgomery that “We handed China the keys,” although this isn’t restricted to the drone industry. We have spent so much of our energy over the last decades offshoring both manufacturing and research, that when DJI created the Ready to Fly drone market, the U.S. was already hopelessly behind. That takes time to fix.

Montgomery and Congress are also not wrong to want a domestic drone industry. I think most drone users support that, as long as it makes economic and operational sense for their needs. What is not helpful, however, is to undercut the existing market and countless American drone users when no realistic alternative currently exists. 

The drone user base in America is a diverse group. It includes thousands of farmers, realtors, filmmakers, photographers, researchers, contractors, police officers, fire departments and more. Even if we did have comparable domestic drone models ready to go, we don’t have the manufacturing capability to produce them at scale to cover the need that drone restrictions create. 

End users and first responders alike warned Congress about this. Our concerns went unheeded. In response, more than a dozen private companies and other industry stakeholders partnered as the Drone Advocacy Alliance (DAA) to recognize that drone user voices were being left out of important conversations, and that they deserved input into policymaking decisions that impact their livelihoods.

It is perfectly reasonable for a group of affected individuals to organize and educate elected officials about how legislation will affect them. In fact, it’s fundamentally American. It seems strange, then, that Montgomery takes exception to DAA’s existence, especially considering that American drone manufacturers have devoted hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying to get these policies passed. To think that is okay, but that it isn’t okay for small businesses and first responders to weigh in, seems a bit one-sided.

Yes, it is good to support U.S. drone companies. Competition is good for all involved. But don’t do it at the expense of the entire U.S. drone market, because ASDA will spill over into non-federal markets.

We are already seeing this issue replicated at the state and local levels, as well as in private industry. If this slippery slope is followed to its natural conclusion, it will decimate first responder drone fleets and devastate the U.S. drone market, predicted to be $50 billion by the end of the decade.

In fact, a recent survey by my organization found that nearly two-thirds of commercial drone users would be put out of business if their drones were not manufactured in China. Think of how many jobs, how many livelihoods, how many families that would affect across the country.

Congress should use reality and common sense, not fearmongering, and provide a clear and efficient risk-based path forward for drone security that lets us do our jobs, at all levels, whether civilian or civil, without toppling the drone market. Maybe next time, they will listen to those of us on the ground and do what’s right to protect our industry.

Vic Moss is a Denver based photographer and videographer who has owned Moss Photography since 1988. He is a Remote Pilot with 10 years experience, and a subject matter expert on FAA UAS regulatory matters.