Welcome, Commercial Drone Pilots!
Join our growing community today!
Sign up

Peter Navarro: US responds to threat from Chinese drones – We’re rebuilding American drone industry

  • Like
Reactions: js1600
USA were & continue to be top for large scale, such as military. But that’s a different subject.

In the beginning, the DIY crafts were primarily USA products. These developed into ready built, large photo platform... cinema and vertical markets. The USA product remains in the top ranks for quality, but in comparison to competition has extremely low volume. It wasn’t lack of quality that directed market away from USA companies, initially more high cost & complexity to readily fly. Another was being caught off-guard that there was such a huge market for simplistic to operate, quality photographic small platform sUAV. Based on previous RC plane & heli small User base, and the small professional sUAV market, the lack of foresight of demand and potential growth based on current technology & costs wasn’t realized until a few Chinese companies introduced and released product. Even then, USA companies elected not to compete in the low-cost sUAV market feeling it wasn’t a sustainable growth market and no motivation to compete in cheap products.

That was the beginning of the sUAV market change away from USA. A few years prior, the Chinese were assisted in manufacturing high tech IC chips and various electronics; many built and funded by USA companies searching for low production costs and large profit margins in other market segments: phones, TV, computer boards, etc. Like all Chinese companies, technology is shared and cultivated socially... something USA Boardrooms & CEO’s didn’t fully grasp until too late.

That provided the growth of a few Chinese sUAV companies (CEO‘s US Educated) to rapidly gain technology, build upon the technology and present globally very high tech small sUAV that enlightened the hobbyist and professional... which continues today as the dominate market controller and all new sUAV are compared.

In a similar scenario... the auto industry began using various Asian production to maximize profit and minimize high cost USA Labor and that also indirectly trained & improved their products... the old Datsun & Toyota grew from low grade products and quickly grew into a dominate force... did ya ever imagine a Toyota engine in NASCA, NHRA or Indy would dominate GM or Ford. Or the motorcycle market, if not for regulations and various Govt involvement to limit non-USA cycle’s price differentials the Harley would have died a 3rd death under Massey Ferguson.

The control or attempt to control sUAV market in my opinion under a different Govt ”cloak“ is attempting to assist USA companies regain ground and able to compete in a market basically unobtainable if left to open competition. Unless the price differential is addressed within the future regulations causing Chinese products to substantially increase in price, the USA companies won‘t be able to compete.

I’m all for USA product, but also realize the economical difference... 50 cents per hour is pretty hard to compete against with USA economy for 1 factor.

The 2nd factor: product development. Enough time has elapsed that their technology is very impressive and continues to develop and may be difficult to defeat... on a open market.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Philztoy and PatR
We’re in agreement for the most part in all that.

Regarding this remote ID proposal though, it’s all about money, whether it be control of who gets it, or creating a pay to play airspace system for one segment of aviation they could not impose on another. Every time I look at the membership roster of the DAC it becomes more evident it was written to serve those sitting on the council and companies of similar structure. Any safety benefit obtained will be specific to long distance, long duration BVLOS operations. It was only a couple years ago the CEO of Insitu/Boeing chaired the committee.
 
Agreed, I'm actually for a safer aerial environment & skies... and UAV's do hold a percentage of aerial activity in various areas and lower airspace.

But using it as a tool to promote or gain profit, market positioning and political position shouldn't be the motivation or strength behind it... which it appears it may be actual.

I question the value of the remote ID for the cost and energy extended based on the last 5-10 yrs of activity and interaction between manned & unmanned.

It reflects a bit similar to gun control. Continue to add and think of more laws, regulations and policies instead of applying practical logical methods already available. As it develops, privacy and individual rights will enter the equation and the end result will have a convoluted set of regs not followed except when a case is a good example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Philztoy
Being both a pilot and a remote pilot (like many of you) I think the regulations are strict enough without adding this type of complexity and cost.
The old "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them" premise holds some weight, even with this. With noted exceptions for accidental occurrences, most of us that truly care about safe flying are already doing everything we can to promote safer skies. With fixed wing craft having a lower limit of 500 feet (other than populated areas) and a thousand over dense populations, the airplane to drone interaction is (or at least should be) limited to airport environments and remote rural regions. Helicopters have a different set of restrictions, but not too dissimilar. Drones are 400 feet max, so the interactions are still mostly as I posted - except for the idiots we have mixed in in the midst of more serious remote pilots
Back in the 80's and 90's, I thought flying "wheels wet" over a lake or coastal area was a lot of fun. Given the bird populations around bodies of water, I slowly came to realize over time it was also a danger I didn't need or want to expose myself to. I made the personal choice to fly safer, smarter, and practiced almost daily to become more proficient...all to be the safest pilot I could be. When it comes to drones, I do the same thing. Can I make a mistake and do it wrong? Sure. But I am constantly striving to be safe.
To my way of thinking, making regulations to force people who don't care, or at least would rather whine than try to understand WHY the current regulations exist, is akin to the guns reference I made. If a person is already unsafe and doesn't care about anyone's rights and safety but their own, then regulations exist solely to give a way to penalize the offender. But you still have to catch them at it. If they already don't care, then I doubt they will upgrade to a compliant drone anyway. At that point it becomes the same thing it already is - how do we find the offenders? If they fly unregistered/non-compliant drones, we are still back to the same thing we already have. Throwing money at a problem that is inherently a social issue is a little less than pointless. I don't see the benefit between the extra cost of this sort of "fix", and an issue that isn't a technical one. Just my 2-cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adm_geomatics

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
4,291
Messages
37,658
Members
5,989
Latest member
AlanzFPV