With 19 years of experience, Embention pioneers the integration of embedded AI with safety-critical avionics and certified flight control systems. Its technologies enable high-level autonomy, precise GNSS-denied navigation and robust resistance to electronic warfare, supporting safe, reliable and scalable operations in contested and congested environments.
Headquartered in Alicante, Spain, with additional offices and production facilities in Los Angeles, USA, and Abu Dhabi, UAE, Embention is backed by a team of more than 180 professionals and develops advanced avionics and flight control systems for drones, unmanned systems and manned electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. As the first drone avionics specialist to secure both EASA APDOA and POA certifications, the company has established a clear leadership position in certified drone avionics.
The admission to Euronext Growth Paris marks a new milestone in Embention’s development, strengthening its visibility among international investors and supporting the company’s long-term growth strategy. The move also reinforces Embention’s commitment to the highest standards of corporate governance, transparency and long-term value creation for its shareholders and stakeholders.
“Euronext Growth Paris marks an important milestone for Embention and a recognition of the talent and dedication of our entire team. This new platform supports our ambition to continue growing globally, as demand for drones, unmanned systems and autonomy accelerates across defense, advanced air mobility and other commercial applications. Embention is pioneering the integration of real-time embedded AI with safety-critical avionics and certified flight control systems, enabling safe, reliable and scalable drone operations in contested and congested environments, in line with the vision that has guided us from the beginning: ‘Enabling Drones to Populate Our Skies.’”
David Benavente, CEO of Embention
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of working with some exceptional operators, engineers, regulators and test teams. They all came from different organisations, had different experiences, and often approached problems in completely different ways. Yet, looking back, I’ve realised they all seemed to share one habit.
They asked better questions.
Not more questions. Better ones.
It wasn’t always obvious at the time, and I doubt many of them consciously followed the same process, but the pattern has become increasingly clear to me. The strongest operational decisions I’ve witnessed have almost always been preceded by four simple questions.
They’re not unique to aviation and they’re certainly not unique to UAS. In fact, I’d argue they apply to almost any complex activity where people, technology and uncertainty come together.
They’re also deceptively simple.
What do we believe?
How do we know?
What are we assuming?
What would change our mind?
On the surface, they sound almost too straightforward to be useful. In reality, I’ve found they expose weaknesses in an operation remarkably quickly.
The first question is usually the easiest.
What do we believe?
Every operation begins with beliefs. We believe the aircraft can achieve a particular endurance. We believe the command and control link is sufficiently robust. We believe the weather forecast is accurate enough to support the mission. We believe our procedures are appropriate, and we believe the people carrying them out understand them.
There’s nothing wrong with belief. In fact, planning would be impossible without it. The problem is that beliefs have a habit of becoming facts in our own minds long before they’ve earned that status.
That’s why the second question matters so much.
How do we know?
It’s surprising how often this question changes the conversation.
I’ve sat in meetings where everyone around the table was convinced a particular capability existed, only for somebody to ask how we actually knew. Suddenly the discussion changed from certainty to evidence. Instead of repeating assumptions, people began searching for demonstrations, test results, operational experience and observations that genuinely supported the claim.
Sometimes the evidence was there.
Sometimes it wasn’t.
And occasionally everyone realised they had simply inherited somebody else’s confidence.
That’s an uncomfortable moment, but it’s also an incredibly valuable one.
The third question is where things become even more interesting.
What are we assuming?
Every operation contains assumptions. They aren’t signs of poor planning; they’re an unavoidable consequence of working in uncertain environments. We assume radio performance will remain consistent. We assume GNSS coverage will be available. We assume operators will behave in predictable ways under pressure. We assume the environment won’t introduce something we’ve never encountered before.
The danger isn’t that assumptions exist.
The danger is that they slowly disappear into the background until nobody remembers they’re assumptions at all.
After enough successful flights, an assumption can quietly transform into “something we know”.
Except we don’t.
We simply haven’t challenged it recently.
I’ve come to think of assumptions as operational debt. Much like technical debt in engineering, they accumulate quietly while everything is working well. Most of the time they remain invisible, right up until the operation becomes more ambitious, more complex or moves into a new environment. Then suddenly that debt has to be repaid, often at exactly the moment you’d rather it didn’t.
The final question is probably my favourite because it says more about an organisation than almost anything else.
What would change our mind?
When I ask this during reviews or planning sessions, there’s often a pause.
Not because people don’t understand the question, but because they’ve never really considered it.
If our aircraft loses the command link under conditions we believed were well within its limits, would that change our understanding?
If a procedure that worked perfectly during rehearsals falls apart under operational pressure, would we rethink it?
If a regulator challenges an argument we’ve been confident about for months, are we prepared to revisit our thinking?
Or have we already decided we’re right?
To me, this is the point where testing and proving part company.
Testing accepts the possibility that our understanding is incomplete.
Proving begins with the assumption that we’ve already reached the answer.
One is driven by curiosity.
The other by confirmation.
The best operators I’ve worked alongside have always been willing to change their minds when the evidence demanded it. Not because they lacked confidence, but because they understood that confidence should follow evidence, not replace it.
Looking back over the articles I’ve written so far, I realise these four questions have been there all along.
The gap exists because belief and reality rarely align perfectly.
Evidence helps us understand what we actually know.
Assumptions explain why operations drift away from the plan.
Testing provides opportunities to change our minds before the real world does it for us.
Perhaps that’s why these four questions have become increasingly important to me. They aren’t really questions about aircraft or regulations.
They’re questions about thinking.
And if there’s one lesson the industry has taught me over the years, it’s that better operations rarely start with better answers.
They start with better questions.
—
The Four Questions
Before your next operation, test, design review or SORA, ask yourself:
- What do we believe?
- How do we know?
- What are we assuming?
- What would change our mind?
You might be surprised by the conversation that follows.
— Notes from the Gap
Subscribe to Micks subtack here
https://mickdavidson.substack.com/p/the-four-questions-every-operator
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sapient Perception is going stratospheric. The problem stays the same: small objects, large areas, in real time.
Detecting dark ships, monitoring the environment, protecting infrastructure across massive areas: all of it demands persistent coverage and high details at once.
We are joining NextGen Robotics III to solve exactly that, taking our perception stack to high-altitude platforms together with our partner Spaceline.
At that altitude, coverage comes easy and detail does not. That is the problem our stack solves: 10K sensors, mission-specific optics, and onboard edge processing through IGNITE:AI, working together to pick out small objects across wide areas and send intelligence down the data link instead of raw imagery. Paired with this stack, a stratospheric platform stops being a wide-area camera and becomes a real-time intelligence asset.
“At stratospheric altitudes, every pixel matters and every byte of bandwidth is precious. Sapient solves the fundamental challenge of high-altitude ISR, capturing enough detail across a massive area without overwhelming data links to the ground. That lets us turn persistent stratospheric surveillance into real-time actionable intelligence.” Simon Vilms Pedersen
The project is co-funded by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund, under NextGen Robotics III with Erhvervshus Fyn.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rocket Lab Corporation (Nasdaq: RKLB) (“Rocket Lab”), a global leader in launch and space systems and Iridium Communications Inc. (Nasdaq: IRDM) (“Iridium”), a leading provider of global voice, data, and positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) satellite services, today announced they have entered into a definitive agreement under which Rocket Lab will acquire Iridium. Rocket Lab will acquire all the outstanding shares of Iridium common stock for $54 per share in a cash and stock transaction. This represents an enterprise value for Iridium of approximately $8.0 billion.
The acquisition will be one of the most transformative deals in the space industry, joining together two innovative American companies to play a leading role in the U.S. space economy. It merges Rocket Lab’s leading launch capabilities and satellite manufacturing with Iridium’s global satellite communications network, spectrum, and 500-plus strong partner ecosystem to create a competitive, vertically-integrated space company that designs, builds, launches, and operates its own constellations, delivering critical communications capability to millions of users worldwide.
The transaction will give Rocket Lab an immediate foothold in space-based applications, including both proprietary and standards-based satellite Internet of Things (IoT) and direct-to-device (D2D), PNT, and critical safety-of-life services, creating a formidable challenger in the global telecom market. Rather than simply continuing the Iridium network, Rocket Lab will build upon it to scale into untapped markets and pioneer new space-based services to the benefit of global customers.
Iridium’s globally harmonized L-band spectrum and low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite network provide a secure, resilient foundation for reliable satellite communications and PNT services across government, defense, aviation, maritime, and commercial markets. Supporting more than 2.55 million active subscribers worldwide, Iridium delivers highly reliable, weather-resilient connectivity and an alternative PNT architecture for applications where Global Positioning Systema (GPS) and other Global Navigation Satellite Systema (GNSS) are degraded or unavailable. Combining Rocket Lab’s launch, spacecraft manufacturing, and space systems expertise with Iridium’s global network and L-band spectrum will accelerate innovation, positioning the combined company to support the development and deployment of Iridium’s next-generation constellation. This includes direct-to-device (D2D/Iridium NTN DirectSM) services, which will grow into an important new capability for U.S. national security and emergency response, helping to ensure reliable, resilient communications when and where they are needed most, particularly where traditional networks are unavailable or compromised.
“This is a defining moment for the space industry and the start of a new era of strategic, accelerated growth for Rocket Lab and Iridium,” said Sir Peter Beck, founder and CEO of Rocket Lab. “Iridium has built the gold standard in secure, safety critical global satellite connectivity. It is relied upon by maritime fleets, the aviation industry, governments, and heavy industrial organizations who operate in the most remote off-the-grid locations. By marrying Iridium’s deep heritage, trusted infrastructure, and highly sought-after spectrum with Rocket Lab’s extensive and proven launch and manufacturing capabilities, we have the capability to unlock entirely new markets. We will go far beyond maintaining a legacy; we are going to build upon it to pioneer next-generation space applications and deliver sought-after capabilities to existing and new customers.”
“As the worlds of space and terrestrial communications continue to converge, more critical services will depend on space-based capabilities,” said Matt Desch, CEO, Iridium. “Success will come from those who can bring new innovations to space quickly and sustain them over time as efficiently as possible. We’re excited about being able to accelerate the next generation of IoT, aviation, maritime, PNT, and national security capabilities, and pursue new innovative applications as part of Rocket Lab – a fully integrated, end-to-end space company. That’s an incredible opportunity for our customers, partners, employees, and stockholders.”
Transaction Highlights:
· Strengthens Rocket Lab’s Strategic Vertical Integration: Creates an end-to-end space company spanning launch, spacecraft, spectrum, and on-orbit communications services through a proprietary network. Expected to eliminate third-party launch costs for constellation deployment and replenishment and captures launch margin internally while guaranteeing orbital access as launch capacity tightens, ensuring continuity of service to customers.
· Unlocks Entry to Space Applications Market: Provides Rocket Lab withimmediate access to a proven constellation of LEO satellites and an established global communications customer base, realizing the company’s long-term strategic vision to expand beyond launch services and spacecraft manufacturing into a vertically-integrated space applications company with recurring revenue from satellite services.
· Provides Access to Globally-Coordinated Spectrum: Adds globally-coordinated L-band spectrum that enables reliable user communications.
· Unifies Two Trusted Government Partners: The transaction combines two deeply trusted, long-standing defense partners, combining their specialized strengths to deliver highly resilient, next-generation capabilities directly to the warfighter across denied, degraded, and disadvantaged environments.
· Accelerates Growth and New Market Opportunities: Positions the combined entity to deliver next-generation satellite communications, resilient PNT, and emerging defense and commercial space services.
· Diversifies Financial Profile with Recurring Cash Flow Streams: In 2025, Iridium delivered $871.7M revenue1, $495M OEBITDA[1] or 57% OEBITDA margin1, providing substantial recurring cash flow to fund growth.
Transaction Details
Under the terms of the transaction, Iridium stockholders will receive $27.00 in cash and a number of shares of Rocket Lab common stock calculated pursuant to an exchange ratio (subject to a collar) for each share of Iridium common stock outstanding at the closing. The collar is banded from $67.50 to $112.50. The transaction has a notional value of $54.00 per share of Iridium common stock, implying an enterprise value for Iridium of approximately $8.0 billion.
Complete details on the calculation of the exchange ratio will be in the transaction agreement, which will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The transaction is expected to be completed in mid-2027, subject to the satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including approval of Iridium stockholders and required regulatory approvals.
The transaction has been unanimously approved by the boards of directors of Iridium and Rocket Lab. Moreover, each director of Iridium holding shares of Iridium common stock has entered into a voting agreement to support the transaction.
As part of the transaction, Rocket Lab has received commitments for a $3.6 billion 364-day senior secured bridge term loan facility from Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo. Rocket Lab intends to fund the cash component of the transaction through a combination of cash from its balance sheet and other debt and equity financing sources.
Advisors
Deutsche Bank Securities is serving as lead financial advisor and Wells Fargo and PJT Partners as financial advisors, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. is serving as legal counsel, Goodwin Procter LLP as financing counsel and DLA Piper LLP as regulatory counsel to Rocket Lab. Evercore is serving as exclusive financial advisor, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP is serving as legal counsel, Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP is serving as regulatory counsel, and Joele Frank, Wilkinson Brimmer Katcher is serving as strategic communications advisor to Iridium.
Investor Presentation
An investor presentation discussing the transaction is hosted on Rocket Lab’s investor relations website at https://investors.rocketlabcorp.com/
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ROLLA, Mo. — The Mars Rover Design Team at Missouri University of Science and Technology has won the University Rover Challenge for the second consecutive year, after competing against 35 teams from across the country and around the world.
“We didn’t go into it thinking we were world champions,” says Chase Stem, chief executive officer of the team and a 2026 graduate. “We’re a new team, a new group of students, a new leadership group, with a new rover.”
Held annually at the Mars Desert Research Station in Hanksville, Utah, the competition consists of science, delivery, equipment servicing and autonomous navigation missions, as well as a review of the rover’s design. The rover, designed and built by the students, was required to maneuver through soft sand and rocky terrain, around vertical drops and steep slopes, as well as navigate autonomously for certain parts of the challenge.
“One of our mottos is ‘we’re not people building a rover, we’re people building people,’” says Stem. “We really focus on the people that make the team. We were complimented by judges at every turn for our coordination and effectiveness at each task.”
The team scored 90.57/100 on the system acceptance review, based on a written report and a video detailing the capabilities of the rover. The video showcasing the rover, Athena, is available to view on Youtube.
Missouri S&T’s team shone in the equipment servicing mission and delivery missions, finishing both with a perfect score of 100. They finished in a five-way tie for first on the autonomous navigation mission, and in a tie for eighth on the science mission. The team’s final score was 469.57, over 50 points ahead of second place — and their own winning score from last year, 412.27.
Countries represented at the competition include Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, South Korea and Türkiye, as well as many teams from the United States.
Members of the team who traveled to the competition are:
- Alexander Adams, a junior in mechanical engineering from Knob Noster, Missouri
- Lauren Booth, a senior in geology and geophysics from New London, Missouri
- Jesse Deuel, a 2026 graduate in computer engineering from Mill Valley, California
- Ethan Dingman, a senior in mechanical engineering from Edwardsville, Illinois
- Emma Espinosa, a sophomore in physics from Independence, Missouri
- Kagen Fetters, a junior in mechanical engineering from Blue Springs, Missouri
- Seth Fraser, a senior in mechanical engineering from Chaffee, Missouri
- Drew Fundaburg, a junior in electrical engineering from Knob Noster, Missouri
- Kelci Graville, a senior in mechanical engineering from O’Fallon, Missouri
- Luke Kaiser, a senior in computer science from Chesterfield, Missouri
- Adam Klassen, a senior in computer science from Saint Joseph, Missouri
- Samuel Nolte, a junior in computer science from Chesterfield, Missouri
- Morgan O’Connell, a senior in electrical engineering from Ballwin, Missouri
- Cooper Ritzma, a 2026 graduate in electrical engineering from Concordia, Missouri
- Michael Simpson, a junior in mechanical engineering from O’Fallon, Missouri
- Chase Stem, a 2026 graduate in aerospace engineering from Columbia, Missouri
- Ryan Swan, a 2026 graduate in mechanical engineering from Wildwood, Missouri
- Sofia Tripp, a senior in electrical engineering and physics from St. Louis
- Josephine Tyndorf, a junior in aerospace engineering from Carlsbad, New Mexico
- Gavin Vander Veen, a junior in computer engineering from Columbia, Missouri
- Brendan Westley, a 2026 graduate in computer science from Saint Charles, Missouri
- Eliot Wheeler, a junior in mechanical engineering from St. Louis.
About Missouri University of Science and Technology
Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T) is a STEM-focused research university of over 7,000 students located in Rolla, Missouri. Part of the four-campus University of Missouri System, Missouri S&T offers over 100 degrees in 40 areas of study and is among the nation’s top public universities for salary impact, according to the Wall Street Journal. For more information about Missouri S&T, visit www.mst.edu.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There’s usually a moment in testing where things shift.
It’s not dramatic. Nothing fails. Nothing obvious goes wrong.
But you realise the plan you walked in with isn’t going to hold up.
It might be something small.
The environment behaves differently than expected.
The aircraft doesn’t respond quite how it did before.
The comms aren’t as clean as they looked on paper.
Or the sequence of events just doesn’t flow the way it was designed.
On paper, the test plan made sense.
Clear steps. Logical progression. Defined outcomes.
But reality isn’t linear.
It doesn’t care about sequencing or structure.
It exposes the assumptions built into the plan, usually earlier than expected.
This is the point where testing either becomes useful, or starts drifting.
The easy option is to force things back towards the plan.
Adjust slightly. Ignore the small gaps. Keep moving forward as if everything still aligns.
That’s where a lot of value is lost.
The better option is to recognise what’s actually happening and adapt to it.
Not by throwing the plan away, but by understanding what the plan didn’t account for.
That’s where the real learning sits.
Good testing isn’t about proving that the plan was correct.
It’s about exposing where it wasn’t.
And being able to adjust without losing control of the operation.
That moment is easy to miss if you’re only focused on getting through the test.
But once you start looking for it, it shows up in almost every operation.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The UK Civil Aviation Authority’s introduction of the Recognised Assessment Entity for Flightworthiness, or RAE(F), and the associated SAIL Marking system was presented as a way to support the rollout of UK SORA and help operators demonstrate that their unmanned aircraft systems are safe for more complex Specific Category operations.
In principle, few people in the drone industry would object to proportionate safety assurance. The problem is not the intent. The problem is the way the system risks becoming another costly layer of
assessment on top of standards, certificates, declarations and component-level compliance work that manufacturers have already completed.
The CAA says RAE(F)s are approved to assess whether the technical features of a UAS meet UK SORA requirements, including design, construction and flying characteristics. It also states that designers seeking a SAIL Mark must ask an RAE(F) to assess the UAS, after which the RAE(F) advises the CAA whether the requirements have been met. (Civil Aviation Authority)
That sounds reasonable until you look at what many drone manufacturers are actually building. A modern drone is typically assembled from radios, flight controllers, GPS receivers, batteries, transmitters, electronic speed controllers and other components that already sit within an established conformity framework. Radio equipment is already subject to applicable radio and EMC requirements. CE-marked products and components are already required to demonstrate compliance with applicable Union harmonisation legislation.
EASA’s own guidance for manufacturers confirms that drones are subject to legislation such as the
Radio Equipment Directive and Machinery Directive, and that manufacturers must demonstrate compliance through the defined conformity procedures before affixing CE marking. (EASA)
So the question the industry should be asking is simple: what additional safety value is actually being created by the RAE(F) process, and what is merely a re-check of paperwork that already exists?
The SAIL Mark system is described by the CAA as optional; CAP 722K explicitly states that there is “no obligation” for a UAS designer to SAIL mark their aircraft in the UK. However, the practical reality may become very different. If operators increasingly need SAIL marked aircraft to make UK SORA applications easier, then an “optional” scheme can quickly become a commercial necessity. Once that happens, manufacturers who cannot afford the cost, delay and administrative workload of SAIL Marking may find themselves excluded from parts of the market, even when their aircraft are built from compliant, traceable and already-certified components.
This is where the system becomes problematic. The RAE(F) does not replace proper engineering by the manufacturer. It does not design the aircraft. It does not manufacture the aircraft. In many cases, it will not add meaningful physical test data beyond what the manufacturer has already generated.
CAP 722K requires the designer to submit evidence data to the RAE(F), and the RAE(F) must verify the designer’s compliance against the agreed compliance basis and approach. That is fundamentally an evidence-review model.
Evidence review has value where the aircraft is novel, high-risk, complex, or where the manufacturer is claiming safety functions that are not already proven. But it is much harder to justify when the review becomes a costly confirmation that standard components meet standards they have already been tested against. For example, CAP 722K’s C3 link requirements require data such as C3 link performance, RF spectrum and environmental conditions, plus evidence that the remote pilot can monitor C3 link performance.
Those are important issues, but for many systems the underlying radio modules, output powers,
frequency bands and conformity evidence already exist. The danger is that the RAE(F) becomes an expensive intermediary between the manufacturer’s existing technical file and the CAA’s approval process.
The CAA’s own charging structure shows the wider cost environment that manufacturers and operators now face. For 2026/27, UK SORA-based Operational Authorisation charges range from £2,422 at SAIL 1 to £17,300 at SAIL 5 and SAIL 6, with additional assessment charges possible at £346 per hour. These are CAA charges, not necessarily the full commercial cost of engaging an RAE(F), but they demonstrate the direction of travel: higher SAIL means higher cost, more documentation, more assessment and more delay. (Civil Aviation Authority) EASA’s Design Verification Report system raises similar concerns. EASA states that DVR costs are based on actual time spent assessing documentation, charged at €250 per hour, and that the duration depends heavily on system complexity and the manufacturer’s responsiveness. Again, this is a documentation-heavy model that may be appropriate for higher-risk or more novel designs, but it risks becoming disproportionate when applied too broadly. (EASA)
The strongest argument for SAIL Marking is that it allows a manufacturer to prove the technical aspects once, so operators do not have to repeat the same evidence for every Operational Authorisation. That is a valid objective. The CAA itself says that as more SAIL-marked UAS become available, operators will be able to use them to comply with certain UK SORA technical requirements. (Civil Aviation Authority)
But that benefit only materialises if the process is quick, affordable, consistent and genuinely additive. If the system is slow, expensive and mostly duplicates existing component compliance, then it will not accelerate innovation. It will tax it.
This concern is not just theoretical. In consultation feedback submitted to the CAA, the Royal Aeronautical Society warned that limited numbers of organisations providing RAE(F) services could increase industry costs, extend authorisation timelines and limit growth. The same response noted that many UK drone manufacturers are SMEs, often developing products with limited revenue, and that overly burdensome regulation can make compliance expensive and time-consuming during the critical period before a product is commercialised.
That is the core issue. The UK drone industry is not made up only of large aerospace primes with dedicated certification departments. Much of the innovation comes from small manufacturers, engineering-led start-ups and specialist operators building practical systems for real-world use cases. These companies already face costs for product development, testing, insurance, manufacturing, software, documentation, operational approvals, training, export compliance and market access. Adding another expensive assessment layer may satisfy an administrative need, but it can easily become a barrier to entry.
There is also a risk of regulatory mismatch. Drone technology evolves quickly. Components change, firmware changes, radio modules change and payloads change. A certification-style model that works for traditional aviation can become misaligned with the pace of unmanned aircraft development. The more the approval system struggles to keep up with real product cycles, the more manufacturers will either delay innovation, avoid the UK market, or design around the approval process rather than around the best technical solution.
The answer is not to abandon safety assurance. The answer is proportionality.
For low and medium-risk SAIL levels, the CAA should allow more reliance on manufacturer declarations, existing CE/UKCA/RED evidence, component certificates, conformity documentation and controlled internal test reports. RAE(F) involvement should focus on genuinely operation-specific or system-level risks: containment, failure modes, command-and-control resilience, geofencing, flight termination, software behaviour and manufacturing consistency. It should not become a paid exercise in re-reading radio module certificates and checking that standard parts already comply with standards they were built to meet.
A better model would separate “paperwork already proven elsewhere” from “system-level flightworthiness claims.” If a manufacturer uses a compliant radio module within its rated power, frequency and environmental envelope, that should not need a full reassessment. If a manufacturer claims that its drone can safely terminate flight, contain itself within a defined volume, detect C3 degradation or maintain operational control in a swarm, then that is where independent assessment can add value.
The UK has an opportunity to build a sensible, risk-based drone approval system. But if RAE(F) and SAIL Marking become too expensive, too slow, or too focused on duplicating existing standards, the result will not be a thriving ecosystem. It will be a smaller market, fewer manufacturers, slower product development and less innovation.
The CAA may see the creation of the RAE(F) system as a step forward. For parts of the industry, it may well be. But unless the system is kept proportionate, transparent and affordable, it risks becoming exactly what manufacturers fear: an expensive double-check on compliant products, paid for by the very companies the UK needs if it wants to lead in unmanned aviation.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Guest post from Jared Oren, Test and Evaluation Division Director at the Science and Technology Directorate’s (S&T) National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL).
Over the past several years, NUSTL has received more inquiries about drones than almost any other technology in our laboratory’s history. We’re seeing more and more cases of public safety agencies using small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) in their daily operations, from providing aerial situational awareness and enhancing physical protection to supporting search and rescue efforts. The practical use cases for this technology are growing, and America’s first responders are looking for insight into how this technology can improve their safety and effectiveness.
At NUSTL, we work closely with the public safety community to understand and address their most pressing issues. We host a range of working groups, such as the Big City Fire Working Group, that focus on emerging threats and opportunities impacting first responders across the nation. Given the increased interest in sUAS we’ve seen in recent years, the lab has prioritized research and operational assessments that provide first responders with information they need to determine which solutions best fit their mission needs.
One of the latest resources available is NUSTL’s Small Unmanned Aircraft System Program Documentation for Public Safety: Recommendations and Templates. This planning tool gives responders a comprehensive methodology to safely and effectively set up their own program: administrative, operational, qualifications and training, safety, and maintenance.
We created it with collaborative inputs from urban and rural first responders across the country who have experienced the challenges firsthand of how to quickly and effectively initiate or expand a drone program. We understand responders typically don’t come from an aviation background, and we wanted to provide them with a resource that helped fill that gap. The result is a streamlined, easy-to-use template that makes it simpler than ever for responder agencies to implement policies and procedures quickly and get to the real mission at hand – saving lives.
Several factors are driving the increased adoption of sUAS for public safety agencies. Like other technologies, UAS incorporate much of the same components as other popular electronics. Batteries, cameras, and radios are all present in laptops and phones, thus the cost of manufacturing has decreased over time, making them a more affordable option than in prior years. Changes to Federal Aviation Administration regulations have also simplified the process for Drone as First Responder operations, clearing the way for more agencies to incorporate sUAS capabilities into their duties. There is also a national emphasis on expanding America’s sUAS industry, which will ensure the solutions safeguarding our skies are developed by trusted manufacturers.
It comes down to this: UAS are going to play a bigger role in first responder operations moving forward, and agencies need a trusted expert to help them find the right solutions for their unique needs. S&T and NUSTL provide that expertise, giving responders actionable insight and resources that ensure they spend less time worrying about tech specs and more time focused on the mission. I encourage you to review the sUAS Recommendations and Templates to see how your program can benefit.
For more information about the impact of NUSTL’s collaboration with first responders, listen to S&T’s Technologically Speaking podcast episode, “We Take the Load Off of Them.”
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Image Ian Hudson
Defining the threat and the scope of the legislation
At the heart of the new provisions is the definition of an ‘uncrewed device’. The bill describes this as any device operating, or designed to operate, autonomously, or to be controlled remotely without a natural person on board. This broad definition ensures that the legislation covers a wide array of technologies, from commercially available quadcopters to sophisticated military surveillance drones.
The primary objective of these new powers is to allow the use of approved counter-device equipment to prevent or detect the use of an uncrewed device in the commission of a ‘relevant offence’ in relation to a defence area or defence property, or to mitigate the risk of a drone being used in such a manner. The equipment must be explicitly approved by a notice in writing from the secretary of state.
The exhaustive list of relevant offences
The bill meticulously defines what constitutes a ‘relevant offence’, linking the counter-drone measures to some of the most serious security legislation in the UK. Under the National Security Act 2023, these offences include obtaining or disclosing protected information (section 1), assisting a foreign intelligence service (section 3), entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK (section 4), unauthorised entry to a prohibited place (section 5), sabotage (section 12) and preparatory conduct (section 18), as well as breaching specific orders under sections 6(1) and 11(1) of that act.
Furthermore, the scope encompasses the collection of information under section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, relevant offences include conduct endangering ships, structures or individuals (section 58) and an owner being liable for the unsafe operation of a ship (section 100(3)). The legislation also extends to the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, specifically offences relating to destroying ships or fixed platforms or endangering their safety under section 11.
Aviation-specific violations under the Air Navigation Order 2016 are prominently featured. These include flying certain unmanned aircraft over or near aerodromes without permission (article 94A), prohibited or restricted flying (article 239(4)), endangering the safety of an aircraft (article 240) and endangering the safety of any person or property (article 241).
Lastly, offences against byelaws made under part 2 of the Military Lands Act 1892, which covers land used for military purposes, and offences under orders in council relating to the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act 1865 are included. To ensure the law can adapt to future threats, the secretary of state retains the power to amend this list of offences by regulations.
Defining defence areas and properties
The powers granted by the bill are geographically bound to the protection of a ‘defence area’ or ‘defence property’. A defence property is defined as any property in the UK used for specific defence purposes. A defence area includes any land (including Crown land) or building in the UK, areas of sea, tidal water or shore to which byelaws apply under the Military Lands Act 1900 or the Land Powers (Defence) Act 1958, and areas of water within a dockyard port regulated by the 1865 act.
The phrase ‘UK defence purposes’ is defined broadly. It covers the activities of His Majesty’s forces; the invention, development, production, operation, storage or disposal of weapons, equipment or capabilities; military planning, defence policy, strategy and intelligence; and plans and measures for the maintenance of essential supplies and services needed by the UK in time of war. Crucially, the provisions also extend to foreign military forces, covering the activities, capability development and weapons management of armed forces from a foreign country or territory allied with or operating within the UK.
The authorisation framework: seniority and oversight
To ensure that these significant powers are not misused, the bill establishes a strict hierarchy for the authorisation of counter-drone equipment. An application for an authorisation can only be made by a person subject to service law, a civilian subject to service discipline, or a member of the civil service working within the Ministry of Defence.
An ‘authorising officer’ must grant the approval. The legislation defines this officer as a senior military figure of at least the rank of rear admiral, major general or air vice-marshal, or a member of the senior civil service of a specified seniority. Before granting an authorisation, this officer must believe that an uncrewed device has been, or is being, used to commit a relevant offence, or that there is a risk of it being so used. Crucially, the authorising officer must also believe that granting the authorisation is appropriate in the interests of national security.
Authorisations must generally be given in writing. They must specify the particular defence area, defence property or description of property where the equipment will be used. They must also state the period for which the authorisation is valid, which cannot exceed 12 months from the day it takes effect. An authorisation may be given generally for approved equipment or limited to specific descriptions of equipment.
Moreover, the authorisation must specify the required seniority of the ‘responsible person’ who will oversee the operation on the ground. This responsible person must be a member of the armed forces of at least the rank of lieutenant commander, major or squadron leader, or a suitably senior civil servant. The approved equipment may only be used if this responsible person is satisfied that it will be used strictly in accordance with the authorisation, and that its use is both necessary and proportionate for the stated purposes.
Fast-track protocols for urgent threats
Recognising that threats to national security can emerge rapidly and without warning, the bill provides a fast-track procedure for situations requiring urgent consideration. If it is not reasonably practicable for a standard authorising officer to consider an application, the power to grant an authorisation can be exercised by a ‘designated person’.
A designated person must be a military officer of at least the rank of commodore, brigadier or air commodore, or a specified member of the senior civil service. In these urgent scenarios, the authorisation may be given orally, bypassing the standard written requirement, but it will only remain valid for a maximum of 72 hours.
If the threat persists, these urgent authorisations can be renewed. A designated person can renew an urgent authorisation on one occasion only for a further period of up to 72 hours. Alternatively, a standard authorising officer can step in to renew the authorisation for up to 12 months. This tiered approach ensures that frontline personnel have the immediate operational flexibility they need, while maintaining strict long-term executive oversight. Authorisations can also be varied or revoked by an authorising officer at any time.
The scope of interference and lawfulness of action
When a valid authorisation is in place, the military is granted significant powers to neutralise the threat. Any action taken is considered lawful for all purposes, provided it is authorised by the framework. This includes interfering with an uncrewed device at any place in the UK, as well as in, above, or below the adjacent territorial sea.
Interference explicitly includes the seizure and retention of the drone. However, the military is not intended to hold civilian property indefinitely. If a device is seized and retained, and not immediately returned to its owner or another appropriate person, it must be delivered to a civilian police constable within 72 hours of its seizure. If the drone was captured at sea, this 72-hour window begins when the device first reaches land in the UK.
Once the device is in the possession of the police, existing civilian laws regarding recovered property apply. These include the Police (Property) Act 1897 in England and Wales, part 6 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 in Scotland (disregarding references to the finder of the property), and section 31 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.
It is important to note that while the powers of interference are broad, they are not absolute. The bill explicitly states that nothing in this new part authorises the taking of any action that is prohibited by parts 1 to 7, or chapter 1 of part 9, of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, thereby preserving existing legal safeguards against unlawful surveillance and the interception of communications.
Preparedness: testing and training
A crucial component of effective defence is the ability to operate complex counter-drone technology safely and efficiently. To this end, the bill allows authorisations to be granted specifically for testing or training activities, either in addition to or instead of active operational purposes.
Testing activities include the testing, maintenance or development of the approved counter-device equipment. Training activities involve training personnel to use the equipment for the purpose of preventing or detecting drone-related offences. Crucially, the stringent requirement that an authorising officer must believe a relevant offence is actively occurring, or at risk of occurring, does not apply to authorisations granted solely for testing and training. Furthermore, the legislation ensures that no criminal liability is incurred in respect of any action taken so far as it is authorised for these training and testing activities.
Conclusion
The armed forces bill represents a highly structured modernisation of the military’s legal toolkit. By formalising the definition of uncrewed devices, exhaustively listing relevant security offences, and detailing the exact ranks and procedures required to authorise interference, the government is attempting to strike a careful balance. The legislation provides the armed forces with the agility to respond to immediate aerial threats through 72-hour oral authorisations, while ensuring long-term deployments of counter-drone technologies are subject to rigorous oversight by senior military and civil service officials. As uncrewed technology continues to proliferate, these precise powers will be essential to safeguarding the UK’s defence infrastructure.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ePropelled opened its new Global Innovation Centre in Coventry on 20 March, a major expansion that supports the company’s plan to scale production beyond one million propulsion systems annually by 2027. The development positions the UK at the heart of ePropelled’s global growth strategy and strengthens capability in electric and hybrid propulsion, high efficiency motors and intelligent energy management systems. Members of Parliament, industry leaders, prime contractors, investors and international partners were invited to attend the launch, reflecting its importance to the future of intelligent electric- propulsion and uncrewed platforms.
Nick Grewal, Founder, Chair and CEO, said: “In the past three years uncrewed systems and solutions have moved from the periphery of global defence and industrial strategy to the very centre. We know we have the proven technology to transform this market and now we must scale it. Today we produce around one hundred to one hundred and fifty thousand systems a year. By 2027 we intend to exceed one million systems annually. That is the scale required for sovereign capability, affordability and global competitiveness. Our Midlands-based Global Innovation Centre is a critical step in that journey.”
Henry Sullivan, CFO, added: “The West Midlands has a rich heritage in innovative engineering and design from the first automated traffic lights to the famous Coventry Climax engine and the first multi-city testbed for 5G technology, giving us access to one of the strongest engineering talent pools anywhere in the world. By bringing our propulsion design, software development and systems testing together in Coventry, we are creating a genuinely global centre for research, innovation and validation. This is where the next generation of electric and hybrid propulsion systems will be engineered.”
Mary Creagh MP for Coventry East, who attended the event, said: “ePropelled is another world class innovator in modern manufacturing who has found Coventry to be a brilliant city to make their home. Coventry’s deep engineering heritage has kept us at the heart of UK manufacturing for more than a century.
Investment from companies like ePropelled creates more skilled jobs in the city and will further strengthen our industrial ecosystem, enabling the people of our city to future-proof their skills and experience in this rapidly developing sector.”
Simon Baugh, Director of Corporate Marketing, explained: “The West Midlands sits at the heart of our global operations network. By integrating engineering here with our manufacturing footprint and supply chain partners worldwide, we are creating a seamless capability that supports high volume production and meets all relevant European compliance requirements. This is essential as we scale toward more than one million systems a year.”
The company’s product suite, built on a proprietary unified architecture to facilitate range upgrades and connectivity, futureproofing ePropelled’s solutions, includes motors and controllers for lightweight and high-power UAVs, such as the Sparrow Series from 160Kv to 7000W, the Falcon range including the iAPM600 delivering up to 10kW and the Hercules hybrid starter generator systems up to 14kW. ePropelled holds 36 patents in advanced magnetics, electric drive and energy management. Additionally, the UK is leading development of AI and connected solutions including ePConnect, an integrated on-board service manager and telemetry platform that enables real time data monitoring, control and analytics for uncrewed air, ground and marine applications.
ePropelled works with Germany based Hirth Engines on hybrid propulsion solutions that combine lightweight two stroke engines with intelligent electric power systems, delivering extended endurance, improved efficiency and enhanced mission resilience.
This acceleration in platform demand reflects broader expansion across the uncrewed systems sector. Independent forecasts show the global unmanned systems market growing from around 26.6 billion dollars in 2024 toward an estimated 48.3 billion dollars by 2030.
ePropelled operates globally with strong UK engineering roots and is supported by operations in India and the United States, serving customers across Europe, North America and Asia.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.