Dive in for the full story or to brush up your French! Don’t worry, a translated English transcript can be found below.

DJI Investigation | Frank’s school project changed his life and the world

One day in December 2005, a shipping container was stopped by customs at the Nagoya industrial port in Japan, while at the same time 200 Поліція. officers conducted dozens of searches across the country. In the container were several autonomous helicopters like this one made by Yamaha, which was supposed to be delivered to a Chinese company a few days later. Japan then simply banned the export of unmanned flying vehicles to Китай for all Japanese companies. Why did they do that? We’ll come back to that later. But what I can tell you is that even today, this event is little known and considered unimportant by almost everyone on earth. I even doubt that the person we are going to talk about in this video, Tao Wang, who is 25 years old, is aware of it.

A few months later, in his university dormitory, he created a company that would turn the world upside down—a company that would go from a university room to one of the most coveted technologies in the world, from Hong Kong to Washington, from Дубай to Ukraine. Let me tell you the story of Tao Wang. You don’t know him, and until a few months ago, neither did I. In fact, outside of China, very few people know him even by his Western name, Frank Wang. Yet he is one of the youngest, richest, and most powerful Chinese entrepreneurs in the world—and not a day goes by without us sometimes unknowingly witnessing the fruits of his work.

But before discussing his work, let’s talk about his beginnings. Tao Wang was born in 1980 in the Chinese city of Anju, to an engineer father and a teacher mother. However, the story we are talking about today begins in 1990, when Tao was 10 years old and his parents gifted him several volumes of a very popular comic in China called “Grandpa, Use Your Brain,” which tells the adventures of an old man teaching science to his two young grandchildren. In volume 8, the story takes place in a helicopter—and it would become Tao’s dream years later: to build and pilot helicopters.

Years later, while Tao was in high school and his grades were really not that great, his father proposed a deal: “Get your act together, bring me much better grades, and I’ll get you a radio-controlled helicopter.” We’re talking about the year 2000 or so, and these things cost a lot, so Tao was extremely determined. He worked very hard, and by the end of the year he was among the top students in his class. His father kept his promise and bought him a helicopter. The only problem was that at the time, piloting such a helicopter wasn’t something you learned in a few minutes—it required lots of practice. And so, after only a few minutes of flight, Tao ended up crashing his helicopter. Keep in mind that at that time, the controls were entirely manual: you had the main rotor, the tail rotor, and you had to figure it all out on your own. Moreover, to repair it, he had to send it all the way to Hong Kong, 1300 km from where he lived.

But Tao didn’t stop there. He contacted one of the workshops in Hong Kong to do a remote diagnostic to identify which parts were broken and which could be fixed. Then he went to see his father and said, “Can you buy me just the parts that are broken? I’ll fix the rest myself.” His father agreed to spend a bit of money; he wrote a check, and a few months later, Tao received the parts. It required fuel, oil, and mechanical pieces—it was really impressive for a 15-year-old to repair something like that. But Tao did not give up. He had the manual that came with the helicopter, which explained a lot, and from that single manual, he managed to get it airborne again. The problem remained, however: he didn’t really know how to fly it. This created an obsession that would last for 10 years—the obsession of making the controls of such a device much, much simpler. Not just improving the ergonomics to make the remote more comfortable, but making it as simple as playing a video game—that was all he demanded.

This obsession materialized in his mind as a flying device he imagined as a little gadget in your pocket that would follow your commands, record video, and accompany you everywhere—and he gave it a name.

In short, Tao now had a project, a goal, and that motivated him to get much better grades. So much so that a few years later, he entered Shanghai University where he was exposed to a huge dose of theory and very little practice. He eventually left the university and applied to some of the top American schools like MIT or Stanford. But Tao was eager, and well, MIT and Stanford are extremely competitive, so he was rejected and ended up feeling like an idiot. Then he applied to the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and they accepted him.

Once admitted, he asked for a grant to develop that famous, much simpler, and much better flying helicopter. The school agreed, but he needed to form a team. He recruited two classmates, and they had a budget equivalent to about €2000. They spent six months working together on the helicopter, but quite quickly his two teammates left, judging Tao to be too authoritarian and obsessive. Tao ended up doing the project alone, working on it for months, and at the end of the year, he presented the device to his professors as his final undergraduate project. He was very highly graded, and he reminded the examiners of the ambition of his project: to build the helicopter entirely from scratch, but more importantly, to automate part of the piloting so that when the controls were released, the helicopter would remain stable. The helicopter took off without any problems, ascended very steadily, and then Tao looked at his professors and let go of the controls. Tao was thrilled—it had been a year of hard work and it worked! But the helicopter abruptly stopped functioning and fell like a stone, crashing just a few meters from Tao and his contraption. It worked for a few seconds, so obviously the professors weren’t too excited about the project—they gave him a C, which wasn’t great, and this ultimately closed the door to places like Stanford and MIT for him.

We’ve all had moments in our lives when we can imagine what Tao must have felt at that moment—I’ve had a few, namely failure. But as is often the case in life, when there is a huge failure, there is also a ray of light. A professor from another department of the school, who had watched the exam from afar—this professor, Li Jig Zhang, came over to talk to him. In short, he said, “I find what you did with those radio-control commands and algorithms absolutely impressive, even if it crashed—you’re not just anyone.” Before being a professor, he was an entrepreneur and is highly respected in the world of robotics and computing; he even made his fortune in ’99 with his company Google Technology, which specialized in robotics. They talked for several hours, and at the end of the discussion, he gave Tao several pieces of advice:

1. Continue on this path and don’t give up—this is a really great idea with huge potential.
2. Aim for the international market; don’t limit yourself to China.
3. Set up shop in the Chengen district—you’ll be neighbors to the factories that produce the parts you need. But before all that, sign up for my classes, of course.

The very next day, Tao enrolled in his new mentor’s class, and at the same time, he scoured the classifieds to find a small workshop in Chengen. Chengen is a big city between mainland China and Hong Kong that produces a huge number of parts for model building, computing, high-tech, and photography—it is one of the most important high-tech factory cities in the world. In the end, he found an office through his uncle—small, dark, and cramped—but he didn’t have to pay rent, and that was very cool.

So, on November 6, 2006, Tao had just received the keys to his little workshop. He had already filled out the paperwork in his university dorm, the documents were signed, and the company name was already chosen: Da Chang Innovation. It’s a blend of Mandarin that could be translated as “beyond borders,” plus the English word “innovation.” More often called DJI or “Jee,” in good French.

It was time for Tao to recruit. Alongside his classes, Tao searched throughout China, identifying young profiles from big companies and top schools. He didn’t have much money to offer, but he leveraged the innovative nature of his project. In fact, he had one strong argument: he had placed third in the Robocon Азія Pacific robotics contest—an extremely important competition in Asia, especially among tech geeks. I didn’t fully understand the rules, so if someone feels like explaining in the comments, please go ahead! In the meantime, here is an excerpt from the 2006 edition where the Chinese team defeated the Thai team. In this pixelated jumble, you can see Tao—highlighted in orange—participating in that victory.

Thanks to that success, he managed to recruit three guys his age. The four of them worked intensively for two years, allowing DJI to build an increasingly vast and solid technical base. But one of the problems was that for Tao, DJI was his life, which was not necessarily the case for his three colleagues. For example, Tao was extremely meticulous about every detail and would often wake his partners in the middle of the night by phone to discuss technical subjects. And then, secondly, during those two years, they had to spend a lot of money on parts, prototypes, and equipment, while the company wasn’t bringing in enough money at all—the university grant, Tao’s family money, everything was drained. Gradually, the employees started to doubt, feeling underpaid and disrespected.

At the end of 2008, Tao had finished his courses with Li, and for several months he had been working full-time on DJI. Then, Lujuju left—he went to work for another autonomous vehicle manufacturer that was much more profitable and established than DJI—and a few months later, the same thing happened with his two other partners for the same reasons: 1) your company is not profitable, 2) you’re a psychopath, and 3) you’re about to shut down. They even took the opportunity to leak a large part of what was on DJI’s hard drives, so part of Tao’s work ended up in the hands of his competitors.

This was a new setback for Tao, who once again found himself alone and at risk of having to close his company if he didn’t find money soon. But before that, he went back to see his mentor, whom he hadn’t seen for a few months. During his lunch break between classes, they talked at length. Tao presented the technical progress he’d made as well as the difficulties he was facing with DJI. After that, Tao accompanied Li to his classroom and, before the class started, told him, “DJI is going to die. I need $100,000. That’s called guts.” Tao waited for his mentor’s answer for two hours outside the classroom, and once class ended, Li came over and said, “Listen, I’m going to inject $100,000 into DJI on two conditions: I want to be part of DJI—I’ll leave you free with all the technical stuff—but I want to have shares and a say in the company’s strategy, and I want us to go to Tibet together for the first autonomous flight of your prototype over the Everest.” Well, they didn’t fly over Everest, to tell you the truth—and I think they were far from it—but they did fly, and most importantly, they filmed it.

Thus, the first images captured by a DJI product were born. I know it wasn’t perfect—clearly, with the AI we have in 2024 it wouldn’t be considered amazing—but back in 2009, it was incredible. And Tao took a photo like that without knowing what would be the starting point of one of the most breathtaking technological and entrepreneurial successes in human history—and I promise you, I’m not exaggerating.

A few months later, we are in 2010. A new chapter begins, and it starts very well: the bank account of DJI is filled because there was a little transfer of $100,000, and he now has his mentor as a partner, which was probably the best thing that could have happened to him. While Tao was working to perfect his prototype—testing the piloting algorithms, the controls, etc.—Li was, on his side, seeking good profiles among his students to bring into DJI. Both of them worked tirelessly for months, and on April 28, 2010, they officially commercialized the very first DJI product. It wasn’t a helicopter; it was a control module—a product that you install in your helicopter that allows you to have that stability and ease of piloting that would become DJI’s trademark. It quickly exploded in popularity among model aviation enthusiasts and aerial videographers. Finally, DJI started generating money, and it never stopped after that.

This was also the occasion for DJI to move to a new location. Here’s a look at the new workshop with a flying device. At the same time, Li began recruiting someone for marketing. Tao then turned to a childhood friend, SWI, to present the project, and he immediately said yes. Only a few weeks after joining the company, SWI sold his apartment to buy a 14% share in DJI—a very, very smart move, as it would eventually make him a billionaire.

Meanwhile, Tao realized that the helicopter format was becoming a bit limiting and that to go further, he would need to move to a multirotor configuration—that is, several rotors of the same size on the same axis. He went all in on that direction, with several prototypes and a whole lot of new innovations now possible: the “WayPoint,” which allowed the aircraft to be piloted by GPS coordinates; the “Atti” mode, which allowed it to remain stable even indoors; further improvements in stability even with wind or unbalanced weight; the “Return to Home” feature that made the aircraft return autonomously to its takeoff point in case of signal loss; an emergency automatic landing when the battery was low; and even a boomerang-style takeoff that made it look as if Tao were playfully tossing his drone. In short, DJI was in the process of inventing the drone as we know it today.

Between 2010 and 2011, DJI filed 50 patents. Does that seem like a lot? To me, yes, but here’s a brief overview of the following years. In 2012, the first real DJI drones were released: the S800 and the F330. They were two different drones—they didn’t look the same, didn’t weigh the same, and weren’t priced the same—but both were designed to carry a camera, creating a new branch of aerial photography. There were already companies mounting cameras on small radio-controlled helicopters, but it was not at all the same atmosphere—it was heavy and cumbersome, the device weighed 60–70 kg, and piloting it required extensive know-how. DJI arrived with a simpler, lighter, battery-powered product that was easy to use, stable, and not overly expensive.

Tao then started taking his best plane tickets and attending innovation trade shows in the United States, where drones were beginning to attract some attention, to present his products. But DJI wasn’t the only player; there were other brands, notably a French brand called Parrot. Parrot is a French company that, since its creation in 1994, has been focused on innovative technologies, and since 2008–2009, it has been involved in the drone sector. In 2010, they released the Parrot Air Drone, which is piloted from your smartphone and practically created the market for fun, easy-to-use drones. I mention this not only because it’s a French company I have long admired for being ahead of its time, but also because at that moment in history Parrot was one of the few companies in the world that had grasped the immense potential of the drone market, which would explode in the coming years.

By the way, a fun fact: one of the founders of Parrot is named Henri Sedoux—and he’s also the father of Sedoux. During a trade show, Tao met Colin Gin—a guy who is both a social media star and a luxury home photographer. They hit it off so well that a few months later, Tao entrusted him with the American market under the company name—an impressive gesture considering how possessive Tao can be about his company. He gave Colin 48% of the new branch, and Colin did a fantastic job; he threw himself into presentations, interviews, and built genuine hype. And since his content was in English, it wasn’t limited to the States—it spread worldwide. The result? The Phantom sold very, very well. Yet, curiously, things did not go exactly as one might expect between DJI and Colin Gin. Following disagreements, Tao and his team wanted to buy back Colin’s shares in DJI North America in exchange for a rather paltry amount—about 0.3%, which, as Colin says, is not much. He makes it clear that he feels he contributed a lot to the success and has absolutely no intention of selling his shares. This corporate standoff between Tao and Colin eventually led to the firing of the entire North American branch—including Colin—on New Year’s Eve 2014. If this story is true, it reveals two things about DJI and Tao Wang: a rather inhuman management of human resources and complete opacity about almost everything.

But that’s not all. A few weeks later, Colin filed a lawsuit for wrongful termination, and the case was settled amicably with a multi-million-dollar check. The year 2014 was a turning point for the drone world. The market was exploding—the sales had multiplied by five between 2013 and 2014, which is huge—and many investors were eager to catch up, with money pouring into the sector. Among the brands benefiting the most were 3DR Robotics, an American drone company that had raised a lot of money and was set to compete with DJI and Parrot. And guess who joined them very recently? Colin. (A side note: it was around this time that DJI was in discussions with GoPro about a collaboration that ultimately did not materialize. Not much is known about it except that it did not end well, with Tao later saying that, in short, GoPro did not respect them enough.)

The following year, 2014, Tao kept busy and presented the Inspire—a drone dedicated to professional aerial photography. I won’t go into all the drone models—I’m not the best person to talk about their specifics—but we must talk a little about the Inspire. The Inspire is a drone that has everything. In the following years, it would become the high-end workhorse for audiovisual productions—whether for music videos, fiction, advertising, or documentaries—by offering an all-in-one drone with a high-quality integrated camera. It’s an iconic model in DJI’s work. Also in 2014, the Ronin was released. The Ronin is a stabilized gimbal—a platform on which you mount your camera—and it has three axes that pivot to counteract vibrations and movements during filming. It is important to note that I’m not claiming to be a pioneer with this tool since a U.S. company called Freefly had released a similar product the previous year. However, the difference is that the Ronin costs much less, even if it isn’t exactly the same. It came to compete with the Steadicam—a system that required a lot of knowledge and skill—whereas the stabilized gimbals allowed for very beautiful shots quite easily. Once again, DJI would become a huge player in the stabilizer market by simplifying the process and creating smaller, more powerful, more manageable, and simpler gimbals than the competition. Today, it’s almost impossible to find a production that doesn’t use a stabilizer—often DJI’s stabilizers.

By January 2015, Tao Wang was pleased—the sales kept increasing every day. In a few months, he would present his new model, and Wang Feng—a Chinese rockstar—would propose to the very famous actress Zhang Ziyi using a Phantom 2 to deliver the ring. It was a great year for Tao until one morning on January 26, when he was awakened by a call from one of his partners telling him to turn on the TV and tune in to one of the American news channels:

“City drone was flying at a low altitude—it went down!” A DJI Phantom had crashed in the garden of the White House, one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the world. The investigation moved quickly. A White House employee, after having a few drinks on Sunday night, had launched his drone from his apartment for a flight over the White House, and it malfunctioned. And who did it crash onto first? The Secret Service. This incident allowed the Americans—and eventually part of the world—to discover the name DJI. The American administration demanded answers from the company, and under the mounting pressure, Tao finally spoke. He then addressed the Western press confidently, “I don’t think it’s a big deal—it’s a minor incident.” If he can be so arrogant, it’s because he already has a solution—and he has already started implementing it in China. It’s called Geo-fencing. Basically, DJI programs all its drones with GPS coordinates for areas in the world where flight is restricted or even impossible—in these cases, what we call “no fly zones,” areas where you simply cannot fly. Eventually, DJI would set up no-fly zones on all sensitive locations worldwide, such as nuclear plants, prisons, airports, and many other sites. And so, one week later, boom, no one could fly a DJI drone near the White House. This event shined a spotlight on drones, having a double effect: on the one hand, it was an incredible boost for drones in general, and particularly for DJI—for example, when Obama later expressed his concerns about this technology. It was also the first collective realization of what could be done with a drone, and above all, the complete Юридичний gray area surrounding the subject.

But for Tao, 2015 was not limited to that—in fact, it was the year he became a billionaire. He even graced the cover of Forbes Asia under the title “The Drone Billionaire,” and he also became a member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). We won’t go into detail about the CCP because that isn’t the point of the video. But if you’re not too familiar, basically it’s the only real political party in China—a tremendously powerful party. In reality, even the word “party” doesn’t quite capture what the CCP is from our perspective: it’s an omnipresent political ecosystem in China that you must deal with daily when you are a citizen—and even more so when you are a business leader. Not everyone is a member of the CCP; roughly 8% of the population are members, and being a party member as a company boss in China often signals that you collaborate with and support the party’s policies.

So, in 2015, Tao was a billionaire, a CCP member, and about to present his latest drone. You might remember the rivalry with Parrot and 3DR Robotics. That rivalry would never be as pronounced again as it was then. At that time, Parrot presented its Parrot Bebop, 3DR Robotics released its 3DR Solo, and DJI came out with its Phantom 3, all within a few months of each other. The results? By the end of 2016, 3DR had sold 25,000 3DR Solos, Parrot had sold 90 Bebops, and DJI had sold 500,000 Phantom 3s—almost five times as many as Parrot and 3DR combined. Tao Wang had won.

Just as an aside, a new player in the drone world arrived a bit later: GoPro with its GoPro Karma. Although quite ingenious, it didn’t sell more than the 3DR Solo; in fact, it would be GoPro’s first and last drone. We are now in early 2016. DJI dominated 70% of the global market, made $1.5 billion in revenue in 2016—a figure that would double in 2017—and now had 14,000 employees worldwide. There was only one thing missing for Tao—a single thing: that is for you to subscribe to this channel. So, what are you waiting for, Tao? Hurry up!

And as if to add insult to injury, just when all these sales figures were starting to come in, he presented his absolute banger—a foldable, ultra-stable, robust drone packed with sensors that can fly for 20 minutes over long distances for just over $1000. In the blink of an eye, six years had passed. Six years—it’s crazy, it’s unbelievable.

There is a sort of fairy tale here: 20 years earlier, a prototype called the Mavic Pro existed. Its promise was a drone that anyone could pilot—and that was the beginning of the summer of 2017. Twelve million Americans were in front of their televisions watching the Emmy Awards, Better Call Saul, Game of Thrones, Ninja Warrior—and many of the productions nominated had used DJI drones during filming. It is no coincidence, then, that the ceremony awarded the brand the “Emmy Award” for the greatest technological innovation of the year—an absolute coronation for Tao Wang. However, it wasn’t long after that, far from Los Angeles, that the characteristic sound of DJI drones was heard. It wasn’t the signal that a filming was taking place nearby, but rather that it was time to run.

The Islamic State was using DJI drones, rigged with explosives, to carry out attacks. The international press then made big headlines about DJI. DJI quickly reacted—not only condemning any malicious use of their drones (which is logical), but going further with a radical solution you now know as Geo-fencing. It became impossible to launch a DJI drone in zones where the Islamic State was carrying out attacks in Iraq and Syria—a very effective solution that allowed DJI to show a strong stance to the international community.

At the same time, DJI’s expansion continued. Beyond the consumer market, it started to impact the professional civilian sector: not only videographers and enthusiasts, but also firefighters, rescuers, and technicians around the world were equipping themselves with DJI drones. Even on the black market, with drug traffickers using them to smuggle drugs, and for bombarding rival cartels—as seen in this video in the jungle where a drone is eventually shot at. Political opponents also seized them. In 2018, during an assassination attempt against Maduro, the dictatorial president of Venezuela, three DJI M600 drones—each carrying a kilo of explosives—were used during a speech. Although the attack caused injuries, Maduro came out unscathed.

Conventional armies, like the Israeli army for example, bought Mavics and M600s equipped with night vision cameras for surveillance, notably over the Gaza Strip. The U.S. Army also made a habit of including DJI drones in their equipment. However, an internal Pentagon investigation concluded that the data sent and received by DJI drones was not secure enough and that there was a major risk of leakage. This led, in August 2017, to a complete ban on using or purchasing DJI drones by the entire U.S. military. Let’s be clear: for years, DJI has denied all these accusations, consistently affirming that the use of their drones is perfectly secure. Later, several states even banned DJI from various public services that would have used them, and eventually, every federal service was prohibited from using a DJI drone. In other words, in one year DJI was banned from a considerable number of services in the U.S.—the world’s leading power and a key potential market for DJI.

But then, three years later, 90% of the drones used in the United States in services such as surveillance, Пошук і порятунок, or firefighting are DJI drones. In fact, it’s absolutely crazy—despite the ban, DJI’s dominance in these sectors is even more pronounced than in the consumer market, where purchasing DJI drones is still allowed.

As for the military, it took years before there wasn’t a single DJI drone among the ranks, simply because no Western drone offers such a complete product for that price. I think you understand: DJI seems unstoppable. The company now employs thousands of people worldwide and continues to be at the forefront of innovation. In 2018, DJI filed nearly 3,000 patents—that’s a lot. By comparison, its most serious competitor, Parrot, filed around thirty patents at the same time. For comparison, Tesla filed 350 patents that year—almost 10 times fewer than DJI. Also in 2018, DJI acquired Hasselblad, a prestigious Swedish camera manufacturer known for its iconic cameras from the Apollo program. DJI acquiring the camera that once symbolized American aeronautical genius was a significant move during a time of American mistrust towards the brand, even as U.S. agencies were struggling to let go of their DJI drones.

It must be admitted that the symbolism is amazing. Nothing seems able to stop DJI’s expansion. By the end of 2019, DJI represented nearly 77% of the global drone market. Meanwhile, Tao Wang and the company continued to release more and more specialized drones—such as the Agras MG-1P for agriculture, the DJI Matrice 200 or M200 for research and rescue, and the Mavic Enterprise series, which offers various tools for infrastructure monitoring and also for surveilling you and me. And it can be said that the timing was impeccable: lockdown, lockdown, lockdown—the lockdown of millions of inhabitants in quarantine, long supermarket lines, lockdowns all over the world—and all the images you have just seen, which are undoubtedly familiar to you, were filmed by DJI drones.

But that’s not all. A tragic event would further spotlight them. On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine and bombed strategic points in the country. Putin declared that the operation would last only a few days. The military advanced very quickly—so much so that American officers announced the fall of Kherson in the coming days. Yet, one of the world’s most powerful armies slowed down, the conflict stagnated, U.S. support, European support, Ukrainian strategy, weather… But not only Ukrainian civilians like you and me were hacking drones and turning them into weapons—they developed 3D-printed systems to drop bombs using a Mavic. Note that although the following images are not graphic, they depict war and may shock some viewers: some Russian soldiers are shown, for example, surrendering, or another appears to say goodbye to his opponents shortly before being killed by a kamikaze drone. In Ukraine, it’s not only DJI’s consumer drones that are used; there are also FPV drones, which are much more rudimentary, usually homemade and cheaper than DJI drones, and that can go very, very fast. FPV drones are used by attaching an explosive charge and crashing into the enemy—hence the name “kamikaze drone.” They can surprise the enemy and reach targets in very tight spaces, such as when the enemy believes he’s protected inside a bunker or in a moving vehicle—leading to setups reminiscent of Mad Max to protect themselves. They can even track a soldier, providing images we thought were only possible in science fiction. Here, a soldier is seen running as he tosses a bag at the drone attempting to kill him.

The downside of these FPV drones is that they require a certain level of skill to pilot, as they are completely manual—unlike DJI drones, as you know. They also have much shorter battery life and limited range. FPV pilots in Ukraine are particularly appreciated and sought after for their skills; many of them were originally just drone enthusiasts who found a very important place in the army during the Russian invasion. So these two types of drones—DJI drones and FPV drones—coexist on the battlefield, sometimes even complementing each other, as here where the Mavic carries a repeater to extend the FPV drone’s signal range, or here where it provides enemy coordinates to another pilot, filling the sky with flying devices. Some even intercept collisions with fighter jets, and others recover damaged drones from the battlefield so that they are not captured by the enemy.

Let me be clear: I repeat, DJI firmly condemns everything I’ve just described. Officially, DJI does not want its drones used for anything other than leisure or civilian professional purposes. Yet remember Geo-fencing in 2017 following the Islamic State attacks, or even in 2015 with the White House incident. DJI would never have done that in Ukraine—I found no trace anywhere of such a measure. And to be completely frank, I was utterly stunned to see that Geo-fencing in Ukraine only affected airports, as in any other country—here is Paris, here is Rome, here is Berlin—and here is the Ukrainian front. One can hack a DJI drone to bypass Geo-fencing, but 1) it doesn’t work on all models, 2) it is not perfectly reliable and can lead to complications, and 3) it requires expertise and, most often, these services are paid. So although there are ways to bypass DJI’s Geo-fencing, it remains cumbersome, doesn’t always work, and creating a no-fly zone over all of Ukraine would undoubtedly reduce the malicious use of DJI drones. It’s important that I tell you this: I’m not taking a side; what I’m pointing out is the contradiction between DJI’s public condemnations of malicious use of its drones and, on the other hand, their reaction— or lack thereof—in Ukraine compared to the White House or the Islamic State incidents. No Geo-fencing decisions were implemented in Ukraine.

And it doesn’t stop there. Even more troubling, a few months after the start of the war, DJI quietly stopped selling its “aeroscope”—a product priced at €60,000 that was used to detect the position of nearby DJI drones as well as their pilots. It was one of the only solutions available on the market to effectively protect against DJI drones. The company later justified this by saying that the product had been designed for Americans, and that after so many sanctions and intimidation measures, they were fed up and decided to stop selling it. Perhaps that is true, or perhaps there is no link with the war in Ukraine—it is entirely possible—but it coincided with many requests from Ukraine for DJI to stop all Aeroscope services in Ukraine. Following that, DJI simply stopped selling the Aeroscope to anyone on earth.

Now, the question I asked myself is: what does this new market—the war in Ukraine—represent for DJI? In other words, is it significant for DJI, or is it an insignificant fraction of their activity? It’s not easy to know, but we have some clues. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has spoken of a need for 100,000 to 120,000 drones per month, all types combined. Then, the Ukrainian Prime Minister indicated in 2023 that they needed to produce many more drones domestically, adding that the Ukrainian army would purchase, according to SD, 60% of the Mavics sold by DJI. That figure is important because it is one of the only, if not the only, data point that allows us to estimate the market that the war in Ukraine represents for DJI. The problem is that DJI hasn’t disclosed any sales figures for years now—they don’t say how many drones they sell, which models sell the most, or even break down revenue by model. So we have to do some guesswork to have an idea of what 60% of the Mavic sales by DJI represent.

According to Statista, about 5 million consumer drones were sold worldwide in 2020—a figure that increases every year. To be cautious, for 2023, let’s start with that figure of 5 million, and we know that DJI sells 70–80% of the world’s consumer drones. Seventy percent of 5 million means that DJI would have sold at least 3.5 million consumer drones in 2023. And here it gets trickier, since neither DJI nor its dealers disclose the proportion of Mavics sold. Frankly, I spent about ten hours looking for something—anything—that would give us an indication of the number of Mavics sold. The only thing I have to show you is a sales document from a Chinese chain store (similar to La Fnac (or Best Buy in the US)) from 2021 that clearly illustrates the huge success of the Mavic, since at that time, the nine drones sold in their store were all Mavics. So, if I’m being completely honest, the latest DJI models—the DJI Air 3S and Mini 4 Pro—are no longer labeled as Mavic, which complicates things further, as it’s then hard to know whether the Ukrainian Prime Minister’s figure includes those models or not.

So, considering that Mavics have long dominated the market and remain extremely popular, let’s assume that at least one out of every three drones sold by DJI is a Mavic. I would have liked to provide a more precise figure, but we’ll go with that assumption: 30% of the 3.5 million DJI consumer drones sold in 2023 would be Mavics, which gives 1 million Mavics sold in that year. If we assume that 60% of these are purchased by the Ukrainian army, that would be 600,000 Mavics. With an average price of over €1000, that represents roughly €600 million in hypothetical revenue for DJI from the war in Ukraine, just from the Ukrainian side—since the Russians also use DJI drones. This estimate is imperfect, but the figures I present are consistent with other indicators such as the official drone requirements of the Ukrainian army, the estimated drone losses due to Russian jamming (over 10,000 per month), or even punctual statements from geopolitical experts like Dominique Trinan during debates about the Ukrainian front. Currently, there are 2000 drone operators daily, each using five drones because theirs get destroyed—so that’s 10,000 drones per day. Over the year, that amounts to between 3 to 4 million drones consumed. Obviously, DJI is assumed to sell 60% of its Mavics to the Ukrainian army, and at the same time, it is entirely true because the company has ceased all transactions in Ukraine and Russia. What happens is that some European countries supply DJI drones to Ukraine, as well as Ukrainian citizens who are regularly encouraged to buy them in neighboring countries and bring them to the soldiers, who then send thank-you videos for each purchase.

So, as you can see, it is likely that a significant number of DJI drones end up on the Ukrainian front. This is simply because DJI drones communicate with DJI servers, and you will see that this is a point of major concern today. DJI drones are equipped with cameras, sonar, radar, infrared sensors, microphones, GPS, and they collect a huge amount of information about the terrain—information that, for a long time, was not encrypted, meaning it could be intercepted and read by anyone, and also that it could be exploited by DJI at the end of the chain. But since May 2024, DJI finally has the users’ data. Unfortunately, the problem is not entirely solved because now DJI reportedly provides USB decryption keys on a case-by-case basis to security groups equipped with drone detection hardware, so they can decrypt this data—the risk being that DJI chooses who is allowed to decrypt or not the sky around us in terms of using drone data, and perhaps the Chinese government as well. The issue remains: yes, everything is encrypted, but the company holds the decryption key. In an interview in early 2024, one of DJI’s American representatives gave an ambiguous answer regarding this destabilizing argument. DJI regularly presents audits—in other words, analyses by organizations presented as independent—that claim there is no evidence of data leakage on their servers. However, these audits have been challenged, notably by Henri Sedoux—you may recall, the founder of Parrot—in an interview. We looked at DJI’s audits and we think they are extremely superficial and merely “convenience audits.” We examined how DJI’s software is built; it’s obfuscated, and in certain conditions, DJI has full control of the drone and can load any software it wants without the user knowing. Extremely serious things can happen. When you use a DJI drone, you do not know which data is being sent to China, but we are certain that something is hidden and that sensitive data is being transmitted.”

This is only a short excerpt, but I strongly encourage you to watch the full video—it’s fascinating. I’ll put the link in the description. I have a hard time believing, purely personally, that DJI and the CCP do not use this enormous mass of data—which represents extremely valuable data, especially with the advent of artificial intelligence that could very well synthesize this information to decipher the strategies of various parties in Ukraine, or even play a crucial intelligence role in a conflict of this magnitude. If I say this, it’s because a few weeks after the conflict, DJI was accused of sharing data on Ukrainian positions with Russia—an accusation that DJI immediately denied.

We’ve now covered quite a few points about the war in Ukraine and the use of DJI drones, but there is one last one. At the time when DJI was banning the sale of its products in Russia and Ukraine, the company was introducing new drones whose design might seem particularly suited for armed conflict. But before talking about that, I must mention a little about Xi Jinping, the Chinese president. Since 2015, Xi Jinping has set the goal for his country of achieving military, technological, and economic domination by the 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China in 2049, and he has introduced a strategy of military-civil fusion—a strategy that consists of having China’s major tech companies work closely with the People’s Liberation Army so that their products are as useful in civilian life as they are for the military. In short, all major Chinese companies’ products must be as useful for you and me as they are for a soldier. On this subject, China is very secretive, particularly when it comes to armaments and military innovation—as is the case for all great powers. However, as early as 2017, a journalist present at the 2nd World Drone Salon in Shenzhen, a city known for DJI, reported in the local press—according to industry experts—that the military-civil fusion in the drone industry was inevitable and that technological advances play a key role.

Let me be clear: no concrete evidence exists regarding DJI’s participation in this program, but DJI’s products can often be seen from both military and civilian perspectives. For example, the Mavic 3 Enterprise and the 30T, both released since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine, come with thermal cameras, 200x zoom, and night vision. They can even display coordinates on screen when you point at an object, which can be super useful for many things—notably for guiding artillery. These models were immediately adopted by soldiers, who even customized them for greater autonomy, more robust drones intended for the agricultural sector that could, for example, carry a wounded soldier to safety, drop heavy explosive charges, or be equipped with heavy weapons, as seen here. Recently, DJI also introduced its DJI Avata series—a FPV drone with extremely simplified controls thanks to a new remote that allows you to pilot the drone just by tilting your hand. It’s an absolutely amazing drone for fun, for shooting cinematic footage—and it could make kamikaze drones more accessible to untrained soldiers.

For instance, the French company Abot now presents a whole range of equipment for the Avata 2 dedicated to intervention groups, like the BRI. They themselves say that all this is linked to the new remote that allows any operator in an intervention unit to pilot easily and without any training.

I repeat: nothing clearly proves that DJI participates in military-civil fusion in China. However, we do see companies emerging that illustrate the terrible potential of this sector in armaments, particularly in the United States. As I write this video, Feloni and Aerospace have presented two drone models that look very much like the Mavic but would be equipped on one side with an explosive charge and on the other with a 5.56mm bullet-firing weapon, along with thermal cameras, night vision, and 40 minutes of flight autonomy. Yes, it’s terrifying—and here the inspiration from DJI’s drones is obvious. Proof that Tao, regardless of his wishes, has already marked the history of armaments.

Now the question I ask myself is: what comes next?

“Aniper, that little bang is enough to penetrate the hull and destroy the nuclear contents. Nuclear is obsolete—take out your entire enemy virtually risk free. Just target him, release the … and rest easy.”

What you just saw is a short science-fiction film from 2017 produced by an association aimed at raising awareness about the dangers of autonomous weapons. At the time, we could reassure ourselves by thinking that the technology was not yet mature enough to allow something like that one day. That’s what I thought back then. Whether it was the miniaturization, artificial intelligence, camera quality, or piloting algorithms, today such a drone is technically within reach. The big drawback then—and still today—is battery life. Even now, drones rarely fly more than about 30 minutes on a single battery, even those much larger drones that can carry heavier batteries. Now, imagine an autonomous drone that can fly for hours or even days. I was skeptical, but that is no longer really the case since Betavolt, a Chinese company, presented its “nuclear battery” the size of a one-cent coin that can deliver power for 50 years. Imagine a conflict where the sky is saturated with autonomous drones that search relentlessly for the enemy day and night for 50 years.

Why am I telling you all this? Because I believe that if there is one company today capable of producing a drone like that technologically, it is DJI. I even think there are many factors that could push them to do so. You remember the beginning of the video about the Japanese search in 2005 on Yamaha autonomous helicopters—if Japanese police were that worried about seeing their products sent to China, it was because even in 2005, Japanese intelligence services claimed to have evidence that the People’s Liberation Army was arming its soldiers, notably along the border with Індія. And yet, ironically, 20 years later, those devices are completely obsolete, and Japan is very far behind China in the field of drones, especially considering Xi Jinping’s strategy of military-civil fusion, the innovation displayed at arms fairs in China, and the fact that China’s military budget increases every year. It is imaginable that DJI and the CCP might collaborate in creating a weapon like this. I’m not saying it exists—I’m not even saying it’s probable—I’m just saying that we have every right to be afraid. No international law limits the construction and use of autonomous weapons; drones like these can very well be legally designed, and as for Tao Wang—Tao hasn’t spoken publicly since 2017. The thoughts of DJI’s CEO are even more secretive than the construction of their drones. His childhood passion for model aviation is now a distant memory as he sits atop DJI’s twin towers, 200 meters high, far from his old 20-square-meter workshop where it all began. A detail that I find meaningful is that on the door of his office is written a phrase that could be translated as “Use your brain without your feelings.” Young Tao, who had simply dreamed of piloting a radio-controlled helicopter with ease, went on to mark the history of his country, of model aviation, but also that of war—and perhaps a part of our future.

I just finished watching the editing and I realize it makes you kind of want to “fly away” yourself. I am truly sorry if it affected you. I have one last piece of information: I sent an email to DJI’s communications department with plenty of questions, leaving them the opportunity to respond regarding this video, and they did not reply before the video ended.

I’d like to talk a little about the background of this documentary. First, I’m not an expert in drones or weapons; my job is to tell stories with a camera—most often true stories, which we call documentaries or reports—and I’d like to share some footage I’ve shot with DJI drones and stabilizers over the past years. For nearly 10 years, DJI has found a special place among the tools that accompany me in filming, and just under a year ago I bought the DJI Avata 2, which I mentioned in this video, and I realized that I didn’t know anything about this company, even though I’ve been a loyal customer. And it was precisely by investigating—first a little bit, then every day for weeks—that I was struck by the same vertigo that you probably felt during this video. It was a shock for me because I love DJI’s products, especially the drones. The first one I used was the Phantom 2, then the 3, then the 4, then the Mavic 1, then the Mavic 2, then the Avata—as I told you—and these drones have allowed me to capture fantastic footage in sometimes very challenging shooting conditions. It is sometimes difficult to explain the relationship between an artisan and his tool, but I truly have a lot of love for DJI drones over the years.

Now, DJI’s products give me the means to pursue my ambitions anywhere and anytime, and beyond capturing beautiful shots, they capture shots that tell a story—stories I could not have told with my main camera. Discovering that these flying cameras I love so much hide a very dark side really hit me hard, and it was precisely that shock that made me want to make this little documentary and launch this YouTube channel. It took me about a year to make this video—not only because I wanted it to be good and because it was a new challenge for me to speak like this, but also because I have other projects on the side. What took the longest was the investigation into DJI, because the company is very secretive and it took me weeks of work to gather everything you saw. In fact, there is still a bit that I couldn’t cover in the video and that I will put in the comments for those of you who are curious.

All this to say that I hope you really enjoyed it, and that one of the things that drives me to come on YouTube is the ability to exchange with the people who watch what I do—something that is not possible on television. So if you liked it, or if you didn’t like it, if you have questions, if you have things to say or clarify—especially if you want to debate—express yourself in the comments. I would really enjoy reading and replying to you. And if you want more formats like this, like the video and subscribe—I have several documentary ideas that could follow. I’ve been thinking about it for several months, if it appeals to you and if enough of you subscribe because, well, it’s a lot of work. I’m really excited—take care, and I hope to see you soon.

When will the DJI Mavic 4 be launched by DJI?

The first thing my friend told me is something we have all guessed (but was never comfirmed) the expected and set launch date of the upcoming DJI Mavic 4. It will be launched on … Thursday the 24th of April, 2025. I consider this date to be true, both of these little birds individually told me this date and have never once gave me wrong info on previous leaks. So set your calendars to the 17th, where we can expect the official DJI teaser.

READ MORE: First DJI Mavic 4 Pro sample pictures and zoom test leaked on TikTok

7 key features now confirmed on the DJI Mavic 4

While we have all seen the enormous leaks and one early video of the DJI Mavic 4 in the past months, it is good to know they were previously all from unknown and unverifiable Chinese sources. It’s not that I think there aren’t relevant, but I personally rather wait for the day DJI is sending official statements into the world. Enough said! Here are the 7 key features the DJI Mavic 4 Pro will be known for:

1. The drone will have 3 camera’s. Focal lengths will be 28mm, 70mm and 168mm.
2. Maximum recording will be 6k with a bigger sensor size then the DJI Mavic 3.
3. The all new designed gimbal will have 360° multidirectional movement.
4. Say goodbye to the ND filter lens attachments, the DJI Mavic 4 Pro will have an electronic ND Filter System.
5. The flight time of the DJI Mavic 4 Pro will be 52 minutes (advertised).
6. The charging of three DJI Mavic intelligent flight batteries will take only 90 minutes. (Like we learned from the leaked 240W charger specs last week.)
7. The drone will come with the all new DJI RC Pro 2 Controller with a 7-inch, tilting touchscreen.

What will the price of the DJI Mavic 4 Combo’s be?

• The DJI Mavic 4 Pro (with DJI RC2) will cost $2,250
• The DJI Mavic 4 Pro Fly More Combo (With DJI RC2) will cost $3,200
• and last but not least: The DJI Mavic 4 Pro 512GB Creator Combo with the all new DJI RC PRO 2 Controller will cost $4,400.

The countdown begins

Although the DJI Mavic 4 is only 5 weeks away from being launched, people in the Сполучені Штати are already wondering if they can even get their hands on a unit and what the prices of these Chinese drones will do at the border customs. Європа probably won’t have any problem getting the drone delivered one or two weeks after launch.

More leaks in the next weeks?

Personally I hope this article gives you some clarity in times of uncountable leaked pictures and multiple rumors around this drone. If you like to read more like it and want to support my articles. Please share this page or tweets on X. With that you truly show support for my hunt on original and exclusive leaks. More information will ‘pop up’ soon, I am sure. Cheers! Jasper

A Leap in Drone Range and Strategy

Zelensky shared the news during his evening address following a meeting of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Ukraine’s top military decision-making body. “Our drone has passed a 3,000-kilometer test,” he stated, highlighting its potential to reshape Ukraine’s defensive and offensive strategies. Capable of reaching targets nearly 1,900 miles away, this UAV could strike key Russian military infrastructure—such as airfields, oil refineries, and logistics hubs—previously considered out of reach.

Ukraine has increasingly turned to long-range drones to compensate for limitations in its conventional missile inventory. Strikes on Russian assets, including airfields in Moscow і oil depots in Kaluga, demonstrate the operational impact of these systems. The successful test of this drone suggests a significant enhancement in both range and reliability, offering Kyiv a cost-effective tool to disrupt Russian operations far from the front lines.

Technical Feasibility and Design Insights

While specific technical details about the drone remain undisclosed, its 1,864-mile range places it among the elite tier of military UAVs globally. For context, this surpasses the reported range of many Western drones, such as the U.S.-made MQ-9 Reaper, which tops out at around 1,150 miles. Achieving such a distance likely requires a combination of lightweight materials, efficient fuel systems, and advanced navigation technology—possibly including satellite guidance for precision targeting.

Ukraine’s drone development has leaned heavily on innovation under pressure. Models like the Palianytsia і Peklo—missile-drone hybrids with turbojet engines—illustrate this approach, blending UAV flexibility with missile speed. The newly tested drone may follow a similar hybrid philosophy, though its extended range suggests a focus on endurance over velocity. Industry observers speculate it could carry an estimated payload of 50–100 pounds, based on Ukraine’s prior designs, sufficient to damage hardened targets.

Complementary Advances: The Long Neptune Missile

The same meeting spotlighted progress on the Long Neptune, a long-range missile system exclusive to the Ukrainian Navy, according to spokesperson Dmytro Pletenchuk. While distinct from the drone program, the Long Neptune shares a strategic purpose: extending Ukraine’s reach into enemy territory. Zelensky expressed satisfaction with recent strike results but emphasized the need for increased production. “We need to produce more missiles, more drones, and we will be talking about this with our partners this week,” he said via Telegram.

The Long Neptune’s integration into naval operations hints at a multi-domain approach, pairing sea-launched missiles with air-based drones. This synergy could complicate Russian defenses, forcing them to contend with threats from multiple vectors—an evolution of tactics seen in Ukraine’s earlier Black Sea campaigns.

Market and Production Ambitions

Zelensky has set an ambitious goal of producing at least 30,000 long-range drones in 2025, a target that reflects both military necessity and economic strategy. Ukraine’s Індустрія безпілотників has surged during the war, with startups and established firms alike adapting to wartime demands. The Kyiv Independent notes that this ecosystem thrives on agility, often repurposing civilian tech for military use.

At an estimated cost of $10,000–$50,000 per unit (based on similar systems), scaling to 30,000 drones could require an investment of $300 million to $1.5 billion—figures speculative without official data. Zelensky’s upcoming talks with international partners, inferred to include the U.S. and EU nations, will be critical to securing funding and technical support. As of March 19, 2025, these plans align with current economic conditions.

Regulatory and Infrastructure Considerations

Operating drones with a 1,864-mile range raises complex regulatory questions, even in wartime. Ukraine must navigate domestic airspace controls and international agreements, particularly if these UAVs traverse neutral territories en route to Росія. The lack of a formal regulatory framework for such long-range systems could invite scrutiny from global aviation bodies post-conflict.

Infrastructure poses another challenge. Launching, controlling, and recovering these drones demands robust command-and-control networks, likely reliant on satellite links vulnerable to Russian jamming. Ukraine’s ability to protect these assets—potentially through encrypted systems or decoy signals—will determine their battlefield longevity.

A Strategic Shift with Broader Implications

The successful 3,000-kilometer test flight signals Ukraine’s emergence as a serious player in Технологія безпілотників, with implications extending beyond the current war. A fleet of long-range UAVs could deter Russian aggression by holding critical assets at risk, while also positioning Ukraine as a future exporter of affordable, battle-tested systems. The integration of drones and missiles like the Long Neptune suggests a layered strategy that maximizes flexibility and impact.

Looking ahead, the push for 30,000 drones in 2025 could strain resources but also catalyze innovation, drawing parallels to wartime industrial booms. DroneXL’s take: Ukraine’s advancements highlight how necessity drives progress, potentially inspiring other nations to rethink their aerial arsenals. As Kyiv ramps up production, the global drone market—and the balance of power in Eastern Європа—may never look the same.

Expanding Protections for Iowa Farms

The legislation redefines the protected area from a “secured farmstead” — previously limited to animal feeding operations and a 400-foot radius — to a “farmstead.” This broader term now covers contiguous land of at least 40 acres used for farming or pasture, generating a minimum of $15,000 in annual commodity sales. The bill prohibits drone flights without landowner permission within 400 feet of farm animals, equipment, or structures like residences, barns, and manure storage facilities. This expands coverage beyond the feeding operations highlighted in the 2024 law.

Sen. Dan Zumbach, R-Ryan, underscored the bill’s intent on the Senate floor: “Farmers don’t want their privacy invaded any more than you and I.” He noted that drones can frighten livestock and disrupt farm operations, a concern echoed in the original source. Penalties remain consistent with current law: a simple misdemeanor for flying over restricted areas and a serious misdemeanor, with fines up to $2,560, for drones equipped with surveillance devices capturing audio or video.

Enhanced Surveillance Definitions

Senate File 491 sharpens the definition of “surveillance” to include transmitted images or sound that can identify animal species, equipment types, or the use of farm structures. This update, directly sourced from the bill’s text via the Iowa Legislature, aims to ensure that even basic footage could trigger penalties if it reveals operational specifics. Like the 2024 law, the bill excludes farmsteads within city limits from protection, focusing solely on rural properties.

Industry Context and Stakeholder Reactions

Iowa’s agricultural sector, with over 85,000 farms and significant livestock production, faces growing drone activity. The USDA’s 2023 data pegs the state’s farm output at $33 billion, highlighting its economic stakes. Drones are increasingly common for tasks like crop monitoring, with the FAA reporting over 200,000 registered commercial drones nationwide as of early 2025. Yet, their use by activists to document animal welfare at feeding operations has fueled this legislative push.

Commodity groups back the bill, seeing it as vital for protecting farmers. The Sierra Club Iowa Chapter, the sole registered opponent, likely views it as a barrier to oversight of animal treatment, a tension noted in the source material. Undecided groups, including the Iowa Newspaper Association and Iowa Broadcasters Association, may be assessing implications for press freedom, as hinted in prior coverage of the 2024 law’s passage.

Market and Regulatory Implications

The bill could affect drone operators and manufacturers. Models like the DJI Mavic 3 Enterprise, retailing around $3,600 (based on current market trends), might see curtailed recreational or activist use in rural Iowa. Fines matching mid-tier drone costs reinforce deterrence, though commercial flights with farmer consent remain unaffected. No specific market data is cited beyond the source, so this reflects industry norms.

On the regulatory front, Iowa joins states like Техас with similar drone restrictions over farms, per NCSL tracking. The FAA oversees airspace, but states handle privacy laws, creating a fragmented landscape. This bill’s rural focus aligns with Iowa’s needs but may draw federal attention as drone rules evolve.

Practical and Technical Feasibility

Enforcement poses challenges. Drones can fly up to 400 feet under FAA guidelines, and monitoring vast 40-acre farmsteads relies on local sheriffs with limited tools. The bill specifies no new infrastructure, a gap the source implies but doesn’t detail. Technically, drones with 4K cameras (e.g., 3840×2160 resolution) can easily identify targets from 400 feet, supporting the bill’s surveillance concerns. Geofencing could aid compliance, though it’s not mandated.

Senate File 491 fortifies Iowa’s stance on rural privacy, expanding drone restrictions to reflect modern farming realities. Its passage to the House signals strong support, but enforcement and adaptability will determine its impact. As drone use grows, this law could influence other states, reshaping aerial oversight of agriculture.

DroneXL’s Take

The bill protects farmers but risks limiting transparency in an opaque industry. Balancing privacy with accountability remains the challenge as Iowa navigates this drone debate. A bigger issue looms: the FAA’s 2018 stance that it holds exclusive authority over national airspace, reiterated in its December 2018 fact sheet, could clash with state laws like this one. Iowa’s restrictions hinge on privacy and trespass, areas states can regulate, but the FAA’s preemption claim might invite Юридичний challenges if drone operators argue federal rules override local bans. This tension between state rights and federal oversight could define the bill’s fate—and the broader drone regulatory landscape.

Drones After Dark with Kyle Nordfors

Bobby Ouyang: So, season five, we’re back again. We’re back because Louis was texting me about all the drama, and he couldn’t just keep it to ourselves. It has to be shared—all the drama that’s going on. We also have our special guest, Kyle Nordfors is here, friend of the pod. He’s been going to quite a few conferences and also joining in on the drama still.

Luis Figueiredo: I know. Where do we start? Yeah, Greg, Kyle, you got anything new?

Kyle Nordfors: Um, well, yeah, I guess we could start right off with the Drone Responders Conference that just happened over the last couple days. I got home this morning, in fact, so it ended yesterday. I had to wake up at 3:00 AM East Coast time to drive the three hours up to Washington, DC, to catch the 7:30 AM flight to Salt Lake City—which would’ve been 1:00 AM our time out here, Mountain Time. So it’s been a long day for me, but all in all, the Drone Responders Conference was actually very good.

I understand some of the original speakers had to back out, so DJ Smith had to pull one for the team. He was on a few more panels than he originally planned, and he just absolutely crushed it. That man is a wealth of information and an amazing advocate for the industry—particularly for the SLTT community. He’s out there advocating as hard as he can and doing an absolute great job.

Of course, the big topic was DFR [Drone First Responder], and all the different vendors had a DFR program or platform of some sort—some more functional and operational than others. You had all the main players there. One player in particular showed up with their DFR product in the bed of a truck, which they claim it’s designed to do. It had a ratchet strap around the enclosure as they drove around. Wow, kind of kills the purpose of the whole DFR—or security strap, I don’t know. It was hilarious when we saw that picture. But by and large, it was a smooth, good conference where a lot of people exchanged a lot of ideas.

The dinners were great. I was able to go to dinner with the Flock team and hang out with Brett Conda, John McBride, Fritz Reber, and they had Elk Grove out there with them—their first big agency that’s running their system. Huge agency.

[00:04:00]

Bobby Ouyang: Nate Lang. Shout out to Lieutenant Lang.

Kyle Nordfors: Yeah, yep. It was just a good time. The evening after-party, the social event, was great. So there really wasn’t any drama, any real situation at this particular conference. Drones did not crash like at previous conferences.

Luis Figueiredo: Yeah.

Kyle Nordfors: We’ll get to that. But it was good, real good. I had a real good conversation with a gentleman named Dave—I don’t want to give away too much ‘cause I think we need to keep it on the down low with the project I’ll tell you guys about later. We got a really good game plan to try—it’s gonna be a disruptive thing in search and rescue, at least, the things we were talking about. Pretty exciting stuff, all in all. As far as new equipment, not really. It was just more DFR talk and progressing with DFR.

The presentation I had, I talked about heavy-lift drones and how to implement them in public safety. I had a bunch of videos of us using the FlyCart 30. We’ve been flying that around with search and rescue, mostly delivering litter medical kits and the like—pulling, let’s say, a mountain biker who crashes, has a femur sticking out of their skin, and the bike is just totaled. Instead of leaving that on the mountain or having one of our ground crews try to carry it off, we can lift that mountain bike off with the FlyCart, which just saves time and energy and ensures our ground teams can get home quicker and safer. Just all good stuff, really, from the Drone Responders Conference.

[00:06:00]

Luis Figueiredo: Are you excited about the rumored Matrice 400 coming out?

Kyle Nordfors: Yes, I don’t know much about it, but the 350 was a good incremental step from the 300, and the H30T is such a powerhouse of a payload. I don’t know if with the 400 they’re gonna have an updated version of the H30T, but quite simply, nothing compares to it in the industry. The H30T is absolutely amazing as far as the total package goes, and for the price point. Do you have any more details on it? Have you heard, have you seen?

Luis Figueiredo: The only thing I’ve heard so far is it’s gonna be able to carry a heavier payload. I think the max weight is 20 pounds or over 20 pounds, something like that. So it’s gonna be a good medium between what the M350 carries now and what the FlyCart carries. It’s gonna have a smaller footprint than the FlyCart but slightly bigger than the M350—probably somewhere in between. I’m sure it’s not gonna be crappy, right? Like any other DJI product. We’re gonna get it, and we’re gonna be like, yep, it’s exactly what we expected.

Kyle Nordfors: And it’s gonna work.

Luis Figueiredo: Yep. But back to the conference—is there a reason why some of those people pulled out, like the speakers?

Kyle Nordfors: No, I just overheard a conversation with DJ, and he was telling us that’s why he was getting up on stage so much. I do know of one particular gentleman who had to back out—his wife just had a child, so he needed to stay behind with his wife.

Luis Figueiredo: Valid excuse.

Kyle Nordfors: Yeah. It was items like that—not any drama or anything else, just family issues. So DJ took one for the team and got up on stage a lot more than he was planning on. He did great.

[00:08:00]

Bobby Ouyang: Kyle’s right—DJ’s a powerhouse. So that was a drama-less conference, Louis. Do you wanna say something?

Luis Figueiredo: No, I was gonna say, Kyle mentioned Flock—they had a big announcement today, right? They raised, what, like 200-something million? I saw they were all posting about it. I guess they’re gonna build their own facility or something—an R&D facility?

Kyle Nordfors: In Грузія, right? Yeah, they have a facility. I was talking to Raul a couple weeks ago, and that guy has big plans and big goals for Flock in the direction they’re going. They’re even building their own drones. My understanding is they’re not quite ready for prime time yet, but maybe I shouldn’t have said that—I don’t know. They have really big plans, and they have a powerhouse team too. Their lineup at that company is—Raul is really stacking the deck in his favor with who he has employed right now. It’s gonna be fun to see how far they go, and truthfully, I’m cheering for them.

Bobby Ouyang: Yeah, Flock has a powerhouse team as a whole. I was watching a few interviews with Garrett Langley, and he was talking about how every single time he got on a plane, you could almost guarantee $40,000 in annual recurring revenue just from meeting with agencies. He said that based on how many cameras they install and how many crimes they solve, they can predict how much more sales they’d be getting as a result of it. The way the entire organization runs is really fascinating because he has his Chief Revenue Officer whose entire job is just to hire salespeople—that’s it. Building this incredible sales organization, hundreds and hundreds of people in sales getting hired every single year. It’s very well-run, and they hire some really fantastic people.

[00:10:00]

Luis Figueiredo: Listen, they have a good product, right? Especially when it comes to the LPR [License Plate Recognition] system. As a user of both Flock and Motorola’s Vigilant, I think Motorola’s done what they do with a lot of companies they buy—don’t invest too much into them, and the technology stays the same. Flock came in and identified areas where Motorola wasn’t doing well. Their cameras can go up everywhere—I was just at Home Depot last week in my town, and there are Flock cameras all over the parking lot. So I guess now they’re doing private too, not just public safety agencies and cities—they’re doing commercial accounts. Their interface could be a little better, but it’s an easy-to-use product. They simplified the installation of cameras—the solar panel ones can be put up anywhere. The only advantage Motorola has at the moment is they have the contract with repo companies and those companies driving around all the time, getting license plate hits, while Flock is more stationary cameras. But it’s a great product—I’m not gonna sit here and talk crap about Flock because of Axiom. It’s a good product.

Bobby Ouyang: Well, you’re talking about DFR with the repo companies. One really interesting drone-in-the-box solution I was talking about with the CEO of a parking ticket company—instead of using fixed stationary cameras to detect if a vehicle’s parked in a spot too long, like at a baseball field where you can only park 15 minutes or something—they’re looking at putting drones in boxes and doing patrols of the area. It’ll detect whether a vehicle’s there, and if another drone comes over 15 minutes later and it’s still there, it’ll take a picture of the license plate.

[00:12:00]

Kyle Nordfors: That’s a great system. Before I say something, I wanna say hi to Tom. I just saw that he stayed up late—he’s a hero. Hey, Tom, I’m actually excited to hang out with you in Manchester. We’ve got the UK Robotics Conference coming up next month in Manchester, England, and Tom’s gonna be coming over to help teach all of us low folk how to fly FPV for real. I’m excited to get to know Tom a little better and learn from the master.

But I think one way Flock has an advantage over other companies is because they sell to private companies like Lowe’s, Home Depot, or Costco with their cameras. You can envision that being at construction sites with their DFR program—technically, that’d be a drone-in-the-box system, but they could easily convert that into something a commercial company would want. Substations, railroads, a whole bunch of different programs where it’s a bigger system that Axon probably wouldn’t do.

Bobby Ouyang: Yeah, it’s also their interesting go-to-market strategy. Typically, as a startup, suppose we’re fixing to hit $10 million in annual recurring revenue this year—halfway through the year, we’d talk to some investors, raise $20 million to scale up and grow even faster. What Flock did in the early days is they’d only raise a couple million dollars, even though they were doing a lot more in revenue, just to test something out for two or three months. They knew they had a good product, they knew they were gonna dominate the market—it was just a matter of how and what’s the fastest way to do it. They tried multiple go-to-market motions, multiple product motions, and a lot of them failed. But because they didn’t raise that huge amount of money, their failures didn’t hurt as much—it didn’t shut down the company as a whole. It’s really fascinating.

[00:14:00]

Luis Figueiredo: Yeah, but enough of Flock—Rahul’s living his Miami Vice days right now. I heard he got a white Ferrari and he’s wearing Hawaiian shirts—I don’t know. Let him enjoy it.

Kyle Nordfors: Rahul, you need to send us that picture.

Luis Figueiredo: I’m sure AI can generate it if he doesn’t wanna share. So you didn’t get any Air Force Ones or any kind of new socks at the conference?

Kyle Nordfors: No, but I was close, and I think I still might get some of those socks. Skydio does have some employees who are still ethical and good people and haven’t sold their soul yet. I was able to spend time with one of their employees—I don’t wanna rat this person out. I requested those socks because I don’t want that particular employee to get lectured for talking to me or letting me buy them a drink.

Luis Figueiredo: Or they’ll block you.

Kyle Nordfors: That’s the Skydio way, right? They block you as soon as you have any intellectual conversation or debate their premise—they cower and block you because every single one of their stances can be countered. It’s childish. But hopefully I’ll get a pair of those socks—it’ll be as comical as them posting it from their actual Skydio account. Their Chief Marketing Officer attacked me personally, never even met me, and tried to come after me. I thought it was beautiful.

[00:16:00]

Luis Figueiredo: My days of getting socks from Skydio are done—I don’t think they’re gonna give me socks again after what I put their last socks through. The sneakers are pretty cool, though. What’s the story about—

Kyle Nordfors: They wanted to participate and have more items made in China. They wanted more than just their batteries made in China.

Luis Figueiredo: The way I perceived the message on those socks initially—I started, maybe I read too much into it, but I don’t think I did—was “Don’t fuck with Skydio.” They’re not a consumer company anymore—you can’t walk into a Best Buy and buy a Skydio drone. They’re making drones for public safety. I took that message personally, like, is that a shot at public safety, at law enforcement? Are they telling us, “Don’t fuck with us because no matter what you do, we’re still gonna shovel a shitty product down your throat”? That’s how I saw it. DroneXL’s Hyatt made a really good article explaining his thoughts behind it. I can see now that maybe that could’ve been the message, but I still took it extremely personally. I think it’s a direct shot at everybody—like us—who speak up against them. We do it all the time, call them out, to the point where they block us. Their employees still troll my posts, but Adam Bry and a few others have blocked me. I saw that and thought, this is a direct shot at public safety.

[00:18:00]

Bobby Ouyang: Right now, they’re probably not gonna go out of business. I think all the legislation worked out for them. In previous seasons, we talked about how Skydio wasn’t gonna be around anymore, but it seems like they found their product motion—ban DJI and scale it out.

Luis Figueiredo: I think they’re still around now because after they lost that $100 million Army contract, it seemed like almost simultaneously Axon was like, “Hey, Skydio, here’s a lifeline.” That’s what it seems like—it happened at the same time. If it wasn’t for Rick Smith—the guy who wanted to put a taser on a drone, and I think they did a sick 360 on one too—I don’t know if Skydio would be around for another year or two. Their burn rate’s way too high, especially when they’re spending money on fancy socks and sneakers. By the way, we have to do something about the “Skydio” name—those first three letters, “Sky.” Can we rename it “Eyebrows” or something? Get rid of the “Sky.”

Bobby Ouyang: That sounds like an old porno website. Oh my gosh.

Kyle Nordfors: It’s really too bad we have a US-based company—I shudder even calling them an American company because they don’t act like Americans—that sources Chinese parts for their drones. Everybody’s aware of that. It’s the misconception: “Oh, it’s an American-made drone,” but a lot of the components are Chinese—even the batteries. They’re shipping out X10s with one battery because they couldn’t source any more.

[00:20:00]

Luis Figueiredo: Sorry, I didn’t mean to cut you off.

Kyle Nordfors: No, you’re fine—it’s a valid point. What’s sad to me is this was probably our best opportunity to have a solid product, and they come out claiming they’re here to help public safety, but all their actions fall short. Rather than innovating to make a good product, they’re spending money on foolish items, lobbying efforts, and cutting our legs out from underneath us instead of being there for public safety. If they just took the higher road and said, “Hey, we’re a US-based company trying to do the right thing—please give our product a try, we’re here to support you, we’ll do whatever we can to make sure you’re successful,” and ignored DJI or Teal, just did their thing and provided the best product with open hands and a solid heart, law enforcement and public safety across the country would support them 100%. They’d say, “Absolutely, we’ll help you develop your product, we’ll buy your products when we have the money, we’ll talk to our city council or county commissioners to justify paying a little extra to support the American company.” But instead, our cries and needs are falling on the deaf ears of their executive staff, and all they seem to care about, from our perspective, is making money. The people who are going to suffer are those we’re trying to serve.

I’ll still stand by this—it’s factual: when I have an X10 side-by-side with my Matrice 30, Dragonfish, or any Teal products, the Skydio product falls short. It does not make it up the mountain, cannot get there.

[00:22:00]

Luis Figueiredo: It’s not even a fair comparison. Put it up against an M30? You’d have to compare it to a Mavic 2 Enterprise or a Mavic 3—that’d be more fair. I don’t think the X10, even years from now, will compare to what an M30 is now.

Kyle Nordfors: Oh yeah, let’s not even try to compare it to the Matrice 4—the Matrice 4TD with its IP rating knocks it out of the water. Look at a company like ACSL from Japan—they’re trucking along, doing their best, reaching out, bringing public safety and other professionals over to Tokyo, saying, “Tell us what you want, what you need, be brutally honest.” Their engineers are right there taking notes, configuring, so the next drone they come out with is exactly what we need and want. They’re trying to meet our demand, rather than multiple US-based companies trying to tell us what we need—and telling the warfighter what they need. I’ve trained with SF groups, NSW groups, been with them in training scenarios, and what the two biggest US-based companies have is not what the warfighters want or need. Regardless of what the generals or big guys negotiating contracts say, the men and women on the frontline don’t want that product because it’s useless to them. It’s not reliable—we know it’s not reliable, we know they crash. NIST has all the data comparing it with actual numbers and proof that it’s an inferior product. It’s just too bad.

[00:24:00]

Luis Figueiredo: Even on the federal level, federal agencies can only buy Skydio, Папуга, Teal—I don’t hear much about BRINC. Those are the three brands they can buy. Their academies have drone training programs—they send agents to fly drones out of their offices. Do you know what they’re training these guys on? DJI Minis, Mavics, Mavic 2s, Mavic 3s. They’re training federal agents on DJI products, then sending them back to their field offices to use Skydio, Teal, Parrot—some are getting set up with Skydio X10s. But the way they’re setting up these accounts, the field offices can’t log in. It’s crazy—they sell the equipment, then it’s like, “Hey, you’re on your own, figure it out.” Not only are they shoving equipment down their throats, there’s no support—they’re left on their own.

Bobby Ouyang: It’s incredibly predatory upsells too. One of our earlier customers from 2021 was forced to buy Skydio—they got sold Skydio 3D Scan, which just allows the camera to point upwards, fly, and take pictures. It doesn’t make the 3D scan itself. They were sold that because their chiefs saw the presentation, were wowed by it—no live demo, just a slide deck. Their chiefs didn’t know they were already in a multi-year contract with us, so they threw away almost $5,000 in the first year doing nothing, and Skydio did nothing to help them.

[00:26:00]

Luis Figueiredo: We know why they don’t do live demos—their success rate is extremely low. But even with their sales approach now, what’s scary is they have Axon support—huge in public safety. For departments putting up resistance, they’re like, “We’ll give you free equipment, trade up on your new Axon contract when you renew.” Some departments are being bypassed—they go to city officials: “We can save you money if you trade up your equipment.” By the time the department hears about it, city council or the mayor is telling them, “This is what you have to do.” At that point, it’s either no drone program or go with what they’re told. It’s scary—they’ve got Axon’s muscle now. By the way, Kyle, the next person I’m trying to get on my block list is Axon’s CEO, Rick Smith. At some point, he’s gonna be fed up with me tagging him on everything.

Kyle Nordfors: It’ll be interesting to see if he’s fed up with you tagging him or with customer complaints because the aircraft simply isn’t working. When we get into these conversations online—Facebook, LinkedIn, other forums—people with a different perspective strawman my argument to slap it down easier. The cognitive dissonance they operate in is fascinating. At the end of the day, I sincerely don’t care about the name on the aircraft I’m flying—Boeing, Airbus, Skydio, BRINC, DJI, Teal—I don’t care. What I care about is the ability to save lives. As a search and rescue volunteer, I show up when the call comes and want to deploy the aircraft to save lives. That’s it.

[00:30:00]

When people take backhanded, backdoor deals, lobbying to force me into using an inferior product that impedes my ability to save lives, it becomes personal. Some people are still alive because of this technology, because of the drones I used—they’ve become family friends. When you’re lobbying for something that takes away first responders’ ability to save lives, that’s unethical, immoral. If you’re placing sales and return on investment for your investors over that, you should go to jail—it’s criminal, you’ll have blood on your hands. In states like Флорида and Tennessee, where Skydio’s lobbying efforts have been successful, I wish we could document how many lives have been placed in danger because of that. It’s impossible to quantify, but I wish we could. It’s so incredibly frustrating—lives are on the line. That’s the only basis for my argument: I want to save lives, and the current products from American manufacturers—I can’t call them American because their actions are anti-American—don’t do that.

Luis Figueiredo: I agree. The same people troll my posts all the time—one guy who looks like he’s wearing transition lenses always says, “Well, DJI lobbies too.” I’m like, dude, one is lobbying to get rid of a competitor, the other’s lobbying to stay in business—they’re not lobbying to get rid of Skydio, just to sell their equipment. People swear I get paid by DJI—I think you’ve been accused of that too, right? Being on the take or something. It’s not like that. I could complain about DJI—tons of stuff I don’t agree with. It might be a cultural thing or whatever. They give us drones like the M200 and up with hot-swap batteries—Bobby, don’t worry, I’m not going where you think with Autel. The 200 series, 300, 350, M30—they got us used to hot-swapping, then with the Matrice 4TD, they took that feature away. Their response is, “You can power cycle and put a new battery in in 20 or 25 seconds.” I’m like, yeah, but I don’t want to do that—I want to pop the battery out, drone stays on, and it’s up in five seconds. I’ve gotten used to that. Hot-swapping’s the best feature ever for a drone—when you’re searching or on an op, you want to land and have it back up in five seconds.

[00:34:00]

But one of my favorite DJI stories is how they empowered BRINC’s existence. Years ago, when the Mavic Mini came out, I told DJI engineers, “Why don’t you make an enterprise Mini? Everybody’s asking for it.” If Tom’s still awake watching this, what he’s doing now is what DJI should’ve done years ago. Imagine BRINC trying to raise money for their Lemur drone, and investors ask, “Is there any competitor doing this?” BRINC says no, because there wasn’t—they had the first interior drone, the Lemur. If DJI had made an enterprise Mini with a small thermal sensor, lights, something like that, BRINC wouldn’t be as powerful now—they wouldn’t keep raising money because DJI would’ve given public safety what they needed. I have a lot of complaints about DJI—every chance I get, I give them shit, just like everyone else. They’re too big a company, too many layers—they put out a good product and think, “This is what public safety needs,” but they don’t hear our opinions much because they’re disconnected from boots on the ground.

Bobby Ouyang: What’d you call them, Louis? Chinese 25-year-olds?

Luis Figueiredo: Dude, I think the issue with DJI is their average employee age is mid-20s. They can be great engineers, but—

Bobby Ouyang: Wait, Louis, I used to be a Chinese 25-year-old. I think we met when I was a Chinese 25-year-old, right?

Luis Figueiredo: Not to mention NASA—remember how bad that was?

Kyle Nordfors: NASA in the ‘60s, launching rockets—all kids 25 to 28 years old.

Luis Figueiredo: Don’t get me wrong—I’m not saying—now I’m gonna piss off a bunch of 25-year-olds. What I’m trying to say is they don’t have the experience. They’re disconnected from boots on the ground. Kyle, do you think a 25-year-old engineer in China building DJI drones knows what you need for search and rescue?

[00:38:00]

Kyle Nordfors: No, but I don’t think they’re the ones making the decisions either. They send people over here—Freda comes over, she’s amazing, she listens to us. We talk about how big DJI is, but they’re not as big as we think—as far as—

Luis Figueiredo: You have one guy making all the decisions.

Kyle Nordfors: Yeah, it’s kind of a pyramid—everything goes to the top, the top makes the decision. Vic just logged in, and we’d be remiss—we’re focused on public safety and how terrible this lobbying is for public safety, but what about him? The hundreds of thousands of small businesses out there—photographers, roof inspectors, real estate photographers, agriculture pilots—it’d be catastrophic not only to the drone industry but to our economy at large. Imagine if farmers can’t do pinpoint accuracy drone use with sprays—herbicides, pesticides—they use multispectral drones first, then spray drones. If they can’t do that, food prices will increase significantly. All this lobbying is shortsighted, poorly thought out, only there to make money for certain investors in US-based Компанії, що займаються безпілотниками—every other argument falls short or is pointless.

[00:40:00]

Luis Figueiredo: Another thing that pisses me off—Florida’s a lost cause—but what bothers me is when I see comments and pictures of guys like, “Got my Skydio drone, can’t wait to fly,” and I see where they’re located. We’re our own biggest enemy because of stupid decisions. If you’re in a state like Florida or parts of Tennessee—or where legislation’s being proposed—and there’s no law saying you have to buy non-Chinese drones, why the hell are you supporting companies like Skydio that are lobbying? All that does is hurt everybody else. Your cool picture holding that Skydio drone—“I got it for free on my Axon renewal”—you’re hurting every other cop, firefighter depending on the drones they use. You probably have no knowledge about the technology—if you did, you’d say, “No, I’m not buying this.” We can blame the fearmongering—Skydio’s second part of their campaign. I get calls all the time from departments in my state: “We heard we can’t buy Chinese drones.” I’m like, “What? Who told you that?” “Axon was here, renewing our contract—they said pretty soon all our DJI drones are gonna get grounded, we need American-made drones.” I’m like, “That’s bullshit, don’t fall for that.” I feel like I’m doing more damage control weekly with calls like that. These guys should know better—we’re not doing a good job educating.

Kyle Nordfors: There’s an additional part—certain former lieutenants and captains retired from public safety jobs now work for these US-based companies. They’ve sold their souls, selling out law enforcement and public safety across the country. Some of these guys posting are lobbying Skydio for their post-retirement job—positioning themselves as fanboys. To get a job at Skydio, you have to drink the Kool-Aid, wear the socks, act like an infant—you can’t question the narrative.

[00:44:00]

Luis Figueiredo: To me, those dudes have zero credibility—I don’t care who you work for now or that you sold your soul. You got your department to buy Skydio in states with no ban, then retired and started working for them—some have moved to other companies. Good dudes, except one who confronted me at the Police Chiefs Conference a few months ago. No credibility—you can talk about drones, say whatever, be on panels—to me, you’re a lost cause. You’re doing it to people in your own profession. It’s like telling cops, “You can’t buy Glocks or SIGs anymore, you have to buy Hi-Point”—some crappy gun manufacturer—then going to work for them, pimping that shitty gun to your colleagues. That says something about a person’s character.

Bobby Ouyang: Let’s look at the ramifications of the DJI ban in certain states. Florida’s banned DJI for a couple years now—in the early days, we heard of sheriff’s offices still flying DJI drones because sheriffs there are like kings of the county. But last week, I was listening to a webinar or podcast in the morning, and they were talking about how some of these sheriff’s offices are now forced to switch because the state’s cracking down. They’re not gonna win against their competitors with the way things are going.

Luis Figueiredo: I think they’re so cocky right now that shit like this—the mailer, the socks—they think they’re untouchable. Is the company being poorly run? I don’t get it. They’re wasting too much money on non-drone innovation, and it seems like nobody cares about it.

[00:53:00]

Kyle Nordfors: They’ve pivoted how they’re advertising and selling their equipment. Originally, they tried marketing to us—operators, program managers—and we quickly learned how awful it is, how it compares. If we had the X10 seven years ago, we’d have loved it. But compared to current technology, it’s just not that awesome. So they’ve pivoted away from us, teaming up with Axon, going after chiefs, city council members, county commissioners, police chiefs, saying, “You already have an Axon budget—depending on your agency, a few million dollars—what’s an additional $200,000 to your $4 million budget? It’s nothing. Let’s package it, toss it all in.” The chiefs are woefully unaware of how terrible the subscriptions are, everything they have to get to make this device work—if it decides to work, as long as it doesn’t crash.

Bobby Ouyang: I’ll say it again this season: it’s cheaper for Skydio to spend money on marketing and lobbying than on engineering to build a good product. That’s why they’re doing this—it’s working for them.

Luis Figueiredo: Speaking of crashes, wasn’t there an incident in Burnet, Техас, a few weeks ago with a Skydio drone?

Bobby Ouyang: I don’t know, man.

Kyle Nordfors: I don’t go to that conference. Their pilots were flying without strobes on first and had to be told—they weren’t flying with beacons, and someone asked if they had a waiver to fly without them. They stumbled and turned their beacons on, but yeah, one crashed. I wasn’t there, didn’t witness it personally, but there’s video of it happening. We’re just pointing out their hypocrisy. If they weren’t so hypocritical, if they just had a humble heart and were trying to do the right thing—not coming out with stupid socks—they get in their own way. If they sincerely tried their best and asked us for help, we’d do it. I was a beta and alpha tester for Skydio back in the day, worked with some guys still there. They couldn’t take the hard truths—like with the S2 during COVID, they’d send me updates to convert it to an interior drone system. I’d fly it around, give them the hard truths, and if they didn’t like it, they’d dump you rather than listen. They’re taking the easy road.

[00:56:00]

Luis Figueiredo: I felt for a second like during the summer there was a cry for help. You got the same cry, right? Then it went away. There was an outreach we both received—like maybe they’re trying to get our feedback on what they’re doing wrong, squash a few things. Then it disappeared—no follow-up, at least on my end. What about yours?

Kyle Nordfors: No, it was dropped as soon as you provided anything. They ignored you—especially if it was, “You need improvement here.” All they wanted to hear was, “This is awesome, you’re the best, we love you.” If you said, “It’s weak in low-light scenarios,” they didn’t want to hear it.

Bobby Ouyang: Skydio doesn’t hire dumb people—you don’t become a unicorn by hiring dumb people. They’re doing something similar to what Flock did—try a bunch of experiments, see what works. In this case, lobbying away public safety’s ability to use DJI or Autel drones is working for them.

Luis Figueiredo: Dude, it’s still lobbying. It seems like we’re picking on Skydio too much and not giving BRINC enough attention. It’s a lot of smoke and mirrors—I say that all the time. Lobbying, marketing, tactics—but BRINC’s doing the same shit. It’s worse for them—they’re hiding repeaters inside houses at demos. They bring agencies in, “We’re gonna fly the Lemur through the house,” and everyone’s like, “Holy shit, BRINC’s improved, it can fly through and not disconnect.” Little do they know they’re hiding repeaters for these demos—that’s the smoke and mirrors. I tell everyone, do your due diligence—if they really want you to buy it, they should have no problem giving it to you to test first. But they’ll never do that. Have you heard about the repeater story, Kyle?

[00:59:00]

Kyle Nordfors: Yes, I’m very aware of the situation where it happened—I know the individual who hid the repeaters. It comes back to honesty—if they’d just be honest, shoot us straight, say, “Yeah, our product’s not perfect, it might need improvement, can you help us?” and put it through its paces with us, we as Americans could grow and learn together. Instead, they’re forcing us to use an inferior product. What gets me is the guys pushing this—former law enforcement—know it’s inferior. They’re hiding repeaters, crashing drones during demos, but still pushing it because they want to make money for themselves, everybody else be damned. It’s shockingly bad. But there are American companies doing the right thing—couple from the Bay Area. Ascent Aero Systems just announced a new drone at the TIC conference in Texas—purchased by Robinson Helicopter. I’ve flown Robinsons—they have an amazing product, stood the test of time. They’re not lobbying, not doing shenanigans—they’re NDA-compliant, quietly doing their thing. Their prices are higher than public safety can afford right now, but they just came out with a new product I’m excited for. I hope to get my hands on one—fantastic quick-deploy, flies in all weather, great ISR vehicle. No zoom or thermal, but great for accident reconstruction, small, compact, sub-250 grams, coaxial design, flies a long time. Price is higher, but expected with an American company. They’re trying to do the right thing—those companies need to be promoted and celebrated.

[01:02:00]

Luis Figueiredo: I agree—the biggest issue with those companies is the price point. They’re out of our reach. Hopefully someday they’ll be more affordable, but at the moment, they’re priced out of our league.

Kyle Nordfors: With participation, it’ll take one or two agencies or private companies to purchase the first stock, prove the use case, start manufacturing in mass to bring the price down. If they showed up with a humble heart, the American community would help. If it’s an inspection-style drone that’s NDA-compliant, hundreds of private companies would rather use Ascent Aero Systems over Skydio or BRINC for all the reasons you wouldn’t want their products. An honest company trying could make their way easily, especially with a giant like Robinson backing them.

Luis Figueiredo: What’s Uniform Sierra? That’s Duncan’s company, right? Flock just bought it. Duncan came to see me a few years ago—he had this interior drone, a competitor to the Lemur. A college kid—just graduated or still in college—with classmates, brought me this drone. We flew it, and I’m like, “Dude, your drone’s better than the Lemur, and you did this in a dorm room with school funding.” I’m glad Flock saw the potential and bought them—imagine what they’ll come out with now. Going back to BRINC—some department on social media was promoting, “We just signed on with BRINC for DFR, leading technology, we’re gonna be the first beach doing it—”

Bobby Ouyang: Long Beach Police Department.

Luis Figueiredo: Could’ve been. I commented, “Congrats on spending money on a private something”—forget what I said. They were bragging about it. I’m thinking, you bought a product that’s not even tested yet. I don’t think anyone’s actively using their responder platform—they have that great marketing video with Vegas PD, but people are gonna have to wait a year for it. Imagine the issues when it’s delivered, and they’re bragging on social media. At what point does someone say, “Think about what you just posted—you bought an untested, innovative DFR system”? There’s nothing innovative about BRINC’s system—or Skydio’s. NYPD has Skydio docks—they’re not even working yet. In controlled environments, demo flights, sure—but it pisses me off when trolls on my posts give opinions, and you click their profile—they’re not in public safety, don’t fly drones. We depend on this equipment daily—hit the power button, adrenaline’s going, we’re on a call, we need it to go up and perform. We’re credible—we use it, know what we’re talking about. They’re like, “Data’s being sent to China”—Skydio drones haven’t been tested to the extent we use DJI or Autel. If you’re using Skydio and can prove me wrong, reach out—but you’re not doing hundreds of thousands of flights like us. Last year, we did over 6,500 DFR flights—no way an X10 could do that. Half would be down—they don’t perform in wind, rain. I’ve seen videos of a garden hose on an X10—it freaks out, can’t handle normal water pressure. NYPD can market it because they’re the biggest agency in the world, but it’s not gonna work for them.

[01:08:00]

Kyle Nordfors: One thing I think’s gonna happen with Axon—their customer support lines will be flooded: “How do I make this thing work with the Samsung Galaxy tablet in the controller? How do I get it to take off?” I’m pledging this now—if Skydio, BRINC, any lobbying company stopped today and said, “We won’t lobby anymore, we just want to help public safety, will you help us?”—yes, absolutely. I’d be first in line to help, promote, develop their product. My only thing is we need the best equipment to save lives—we can’t be forced to use an inferior product risking American lives. That’s what’s stopping me from being their biggest fangirl.

Bobby Ouyang: Kyle, since you’re on the show, will you help make Skydio better for search and rescue?

Kyle Nordfors: Absolutely—I’ve been begging to get our agency on it. With the Olympics in 2034 here in Utah, there’s a lot of 3D mapping needed for downhill slopes, the Utah Olympic Winter Sports Park—bobsled, all that. We’re using the FlyCart to establish a use case for the Olympics. Skydio would be awesome to help with that. At the latest conference, Vic Moss had a brilliant idea—sit down with reps from CSI, fire rescue, search and rescue, law enforcement, without naming names or being political—just, “What’s your current fleet? Chinese or US-manufactured?” Every time, it was Chinese-based—randomly pulled people. We asked, “Why’d you choose that fleet? What’d happen if you were forced to switch to US offerings?” Every one said their program would fold—no way to justify spending $200,000 a year on a drone program with US drones. These were medium-sized fleets—not Texas DPS or Elizabeth City with hundreds of drones—just four or five. Vic’s gonna put that together eloquently to show local politicians the damage to public safety. He’ll add small business owners—inspectors, surveyors, photographers—what would they do? Only the biggest companies could afford functional US offerings.

[01:14:00]

Vic and I had an interesting conversation with a big nationwide rental company’s UAS head—they’re looking at docks. Draganfly was there with a trailer—imagine a Dock 3 on that, rentable to construction companies, surveyors, plug-and-play. He said, “Yeah, but we’re storm chasers, operate with FEMA, so we have to use American.” We said, “The federal government uses DJI—I’ve worked with DOD, they use DJI, despite what people say.” That’s the direction he’s heading—the money they’ll drop to accommodate basic emergency services, then hope it works and doesn’t crash like Skydio did during Helene in North Carolina and Texas.

Luis Figueiredo: If I was Skydio, I’d be nervous. Selling X10s standalone—it might work, might crash, whatever. But pivoting to DFR, selling to cities as an emergency response tool—“Hit a button, it goes to shots fired, fire calls”—you’re selling this force multiplier to agencies with hiring issues, small departments, high response times. Now it’s not gonna happen—we know it’s not. It’s gonna be bad—they can’t hide under Axon’s coverage. Someone’s gotta answer for this. Adam’s under pressure—at some point, they’ll ask him to step down. You’re selling this idea to cities, and it’s not delivering—not initially, because it’s nightmares.

Kyle Nordfors: It all comes back to money—it makes me sick, sad.

Luis Figueiredo: You set up a DFR program—one launch location, $125,000 to $150,000 a year—that’s what agencies are paying. It’s not cheap. That’s why the shift happened in DFR. A year and a half ago, we’d be talking Motorola Cape, Paladin, DroneSense getting their feet wet—not Skydio, Flock, BRINC. They didn’t exist in DFR conversations. Why’d they shift so quick? Money. Sell one launch location for $125,000-$150,000 a year with one dock—less X10s to sell standalone. Get one contract, convince the next department.

[01:18:00]

Bobby Ouyang: It’s not hard convincing departments with massive understaffing—additional budget goes to officers, not docks.

Luis Figueiredo: But you sell them on that idea—they’re buying into it, like that department bragging about BRINC’s DFR solution: “We can’t wait to supplement patrol functions.” Then they’ll get it—“Holy shit, this isn’t working half the time.” Horror stories about Axiom, everyone’s had problems—it’s tech, glitches happen—but the extent of issues from Skydio systems, selling this idea—it’s like, come on, you’re responsible for this.

Kyle Nordfors: The DFR model has a capacity—it won’t be as widespread as manufacturers think. Many agencies’ territories aren’t set up for it to be effective—counties, sheriff’s offices. We’ll reach DFR 2.0 capacity quick with agencies that can afford it. The next big money’s gonna be drone docks in police cruisers—off a canine switch, launch during a traffic stop. If a chase ensues, you’ve got eyes on—officer hits a button, signals the station, another officer flies it, crew resource management. More agencies could accommodate that—smaller drones in cruisers, once funding comes down.

[01:21:00]

Luis Figueiredo: Absolutely. Going back to departments ecstatic about equipment—today, legislation in Texas proposed banning DJI drones. Same day—Skydio lobbying—Texas DPS posts pictures with X10s, bragging about American-made drones. Sounds planned—day it’s proposed, pictures pop up. Texas, Connecticut—two weeks ago, Connecticut had an anti-China drone ban on the governor’s desk. Issues in Georgia too—am I missing any?

Kyle Nordfors: Vic would know the skinny on that. There’s Origin, north of you, Lewis—makes boots, jiujitsu gear, bringing manufacturing back to the US. They’re an example of how US-based companies should behave—be better, perform better than the competition. Sadly, in the drone industry, we’ve got intellectual dishonesty, manipulating, spying, hiding repeaters—a swarm of dishonesty, lying to politicians, unproven narratives. On LinkedIn, this clown said the reason we don’t have evidence of DJI spying is it’s suppressed by an AUVSI board member.

Luis Figueiredo: That’s some deep drone-state shit. Wouldn’t AUVSI put it out if they had it?

Bobby Ouyang: No, DJI’s lobbying AUVSI too—they’re taking from both sides.

Luis Figueiredo: Nah, not Michael Robbins—we know his thoughts on the drone industry.

Kyle Nordfors: The sad thing with him—his op-eds are verifiably untrue, and he’s telling politicians that. Does he even fly drones? Never seen him fly, never spoken knowledgeably on operations—just politics.

[01:25:00]

Bobby Ouyang: He has a lobbying firm, Intrepid—co-founder—while doing AUVSI. Skydio, BRINC basically.

Luis Figueiredo: Has Skydio or BRINC hired his consulting firm? Follow the money—there’s a paper trail.

Kyle Nordfors: BRINC and Skydio are big AUVSI donors. Robbins worked for the Airline Pilots Association—my union—before AUVSI. He’s been a politician in this industry the whole time. If we were worried about Chinese spying, we’d ditch our Chinese-made computers, laptops, cell phones, Alexas, Googles—but it’s just drones. TikTok.

READ MORE: Розкрита правда: Реальна позиція AUVSI щодо заборони дронів DJI

Luis Figueiredo: Even drone detection—DJI stopped selling Aeroscope in the US years ago, but current radio-based, Remote ID detection systems are based on the Aeroscope framework. Sensors from Aerial Armor—now DDX, part of Axon—majority of that infrastructure’s DJI Aeroscope stuff. Years ago, they claimed data was going to China—mitigated by AWS servers in the US, and the fearmongering went away. These systems are at airports, critical infrastructure—oil and gas, refineries—anything with remote ID detection. They forgot about it—until Skydio or BRINC goes into drone detection, then it’ll be, “Current systems have dormant DJI spy stuff, they’ll hit the switch.”

[01:28:00]

Kyle Nordfors: That highlights the intellectual dishonesty—with counter-UAS at critical infrastructure and airports, SLTT isn’t empowered to act, no airspace restrictions above it. Manipulating politicians into thinking banning drones from a country solves it is complete BS—it solves nothing. In aviation, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel—Congress needs to define critical infrastructure, set restricted areas, make it illegal to fly over it. Right now, any Joe Schmo can legally fly any drone, take pictures of critical infrastructure, and send it to whoever.

Luis Figueiredo: DJI got shit for geofencing—“Why’s DJI controlling the NAS?” They got rid of it—“They did it before the inauguration, Super Bowl—what’re they up to?” Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. I had a two-day counter-UAS class two weeks ago—point was, you can’t rely on the FAA to enforce critical infrastructure. They’re good at making public safety jump through hoops for drone programs, but enforcement? Nothing. Municipalities can’t enforce airspace, but they can enforce flying within critical infrastructure—schools, police departments, jails. Create city ordinances—not deterring bad actors, but the guy flying near an airport for cool plane pics. If it crashes into a plane, show up—“City ordinance, here’s your ticket.” In New Jersey, at the Meadowlands—Giant Stadium, FIFA World Cup final—state police had issues with tailgaters flying drones. They’d say, “You can’t fly,”—that’s it. They got the municipality to pass an ordinance—now they can ticket, “You can’t fly here,” second or third time, tag the drone for safekeeping.

[01:32:00]

Kyle Nordfors: It’s not your jurisdiction—even safe flying isn’t. Same problem national parks have—you can launch outside and fly in. A regulation’s a good start, then take it to the FAA—“We’ve done this, still have an issue, need airspace help”—negotiate restrictions for more penalties.

Bobby Ouyang: As an airline pilot, FAA regs are written in blood—until something goes down, nothing changes. Not proactive, unfortunately.

Kyle Nordfors: That’s how regs come about. At Drone Responders, LETA conferences, we talk aviation safety culture—bridge the gap between drone pilots and manned aviation for safer skies. Shocking how little the average drone pilot—107 or not—knows about the National Airspace System. In North Carolina, operating with manned aircraft, we need to speak the same language. Drone pilots must tell helicopter pilots altitude in MSL—not AGL, not ASL—or it’s meaningless. Educate ourselves, others, to operate safely with reliable equipment.

[01:36:00]

Bobby Ouyang: Well said, Kyle. On that note, we’ll wrap it up for this episode with pilot and search-and-rescue extraordinaire, Kyle Nordfors. Thanks for joining, everyone.

Kyle Nordfors: Thanks, guys. Good seeing you.

Bobby Ouyang: Thanks, Kyle. And we are no longer live.

Delayed Video Plans and Key Features

I’ve been meaning to make this video for a couple of days since the update dropped a while ago. The standout feature they’ve introduced is exciting, though it comes with a caveat I’ll reveal shortly. One major addition is the ability to use the Pocket 3 as a webcam or for live streaming in D-Log M. This offers more dynamic range and greater control over the look. I don’t typically use it this way, but it’s a handy option if you do. The feature I’m most thrilled about, however, requires a quick trip over here to show you.

Exploring the New 40 mm Mode

The highlight I’m eager to try is the new 40 mm mode. It lets you zoom in with a crop that promises better image quality. What’s coolest is that you can still zoom further. My big questions were: How does it stack up against the regular 2x zoom? And can you zoom beyond 40 mm to something like an 80 mm field of view? Right now, you’re seeing the standard field of view. Switching to 40 mm tightens the focal length significantly.

It looks pretty neat. The downside? It doesn’t support ActiveTrack, so I can’t track myself moving around. You’re locked into the shot you frame. But how does it compare to a 2x crop on the regular camera? Here’s a side-by-side with two Pocket 3s—yes, I own two, thanks to an unfortunate incident. On one side, you’ve got the 2x crop using the joystick; on the other, the new 40 mm mode.

Medium Telephoto Mode Comparison

DJI calls it “Medium Telephoto” mode. How do they look? I’m curious: Does the background change when I get close to the camera? It’s hard to tell on these tiny screens, but with Medium Telephoto mode, you can zoom even further. So, on one side, it’s a 2x crop; on the other, it’s 40 mm mode with an additional 2x crop, still in 4K. I don’t fully grasp how DJI pulls this off, but how does it look? And up close, what about the details and out-of-focus background?

For reference, the normal field of view is 20 mm. I need to wrap this up—the tide’s coming in, and I’ll get wet soon. But check out the zoom range difference. It’s incredible how far you can now zoom on the Pocket 3 with decent quality. Cropping in 400% like this loses sharpness, but the new mode holds up better. If you’re enjoying this, consider subscribing. I test gear in Аляска‘s harshest conditions and share tips and tutorials.

Quality Insights and Limitations

I’m not sure how DJI does it, but it’s impressive. There’s some quality loss—side by side, the 2x in regular 4K mode might edge out the 40 mm mode slightly. Yet, getting an extra 2x on top of Medium Telephoto mode to reach what feels like 80 mm is wild. It starts to degrade, but for a 4x crop, it’s still decent. Well done, DJI!

A couple of limitations: As mentioned, ActiveTrack doesn’t work in this mode, so no dynamic movement tracking. Depth-wise, it doesn’t mimic a true 40 mm or 80 mm lens on a full-frame camera with shallow depth of field—it’s a bit different but still looks good. Also, it’s restricted to normal mode; D-Log M and HLG aren’t options here.

Focus Breathing Compensation

DJI also added focus breathing compensation. Normally, focusing on something close shifts the frame’s edges noticeably. With this feature, the change is far less pronounced—likely a slight crop, but much subtler than before. It’s not perfect, but for such a tiny camera, it’s a shock they’ve packed this in. It’s not on par with a big mirrorless camera like a Sony or Canon, but it’s a huge improvement. Compare the two: one camera shifts a lot, the other barely does. It’s a small but nice touch.

Wrapping Up and What’s Next

Watch my next video for 18 months of near-daily Pocket 3 use, what killed my original one, and more. Got questions? Drop them in the comments or join my live stream, most Wednesdays at 4:00 p.m. Alaska time, 8:00 p.m. Eastern. See you in the next one. Cheers!

Incident Details and Technical Context

The drone involved was an Ізраїль-made Heron, a large reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) known for its long-endurance capabilities, often used for surveillance missions. The collision caused a fire, but swift action by military personnel contained the blaze. The South Korean military confirmed no GPS jamming by Північна Корея, a recurring concern in the region, was detected during the incident.

The Heron UAV, manufactured by Israel Aerospace Industries, is a sophisticated platform with a wingspan of approximately 54 feet and a maximum takeoff weight of 5,070 pounds. It can operate at altitudes up to 35,000 feet and has a flight endurance of over 40 hours, making it a critical asset for reconnaissance. This incident marks a rare mishap for the Heron, which has been deployed by several militaries worldwide.

Industry and Regulatory Implications

Such accidents highlight the challenges of integrating advanced UAVs into military operations, especially near airfields with mixed traffic. The South Korean military’s ability to extinguish the fire quickly underscores the importance of robust safety protocols. However, it raises questions about drone-helicopter proximity and the need for enhanced collision-avoidance systems.

This is not the first incident involving a Heron in the region. Last November, a similar UAV crashed near Yangju, suggesting potential recurring issues with maintenance or operational procedures. The South Korean government may need to Огляд its UAV training and infrastructure to prevent future incidents.

This collision underscores the growing pains of unmanned aerial systems in military use, particularly in high-stakes environments like South Korea. Improved technology and stricter operational guidelines could mitigate such risks. As UAVs become more prevalent, the industry must balance innovation with safety, a challenge that will shape future regulatory frameworks.

A Technical Triumph in Episode Two

The standout moment occurs at the end of episode two, where the camera begins at ground level near a school, ascends via a drone over traffic lights, and travels 0.3 miles to the crime scene. Netflix’s behind-the-scenes footage, cited by The Independent, shows a team attaching a camera to a drone, which flies across the site. A crew of grips then catches the camera mid-flight, transitioning it into a close-up of Stephen Graham. This real-time feat showcases exceptional coordination, amplifying the narrative’s tension.

Barantini, who refined the one-shot method in Boiling Point, expanded its scope for Adolescence. Unlike the single-location restaurant of his prior work, this series spans multiple settings, requiring two weeks of rehearsals—one for the cast and one for the tech crew. He told The Independent that support staff, dressed as Поліція. and teachers, blended into scenes to cue action without breaking the shot.

The Drone Technology Behind the Magic

While the drone model isn’t specified, systems like the DJI Inspire 3 or Freefly Alta X—capable of carrying 6–8-pound payloads—are plausible candidates for the lightweight cinema camera used. The 0.3-mile (1,584-foot) flight fits within typical drone ranges of 4–5 miles, though regulatory limits likely kept it line-of-sight. The drone-to-ground handoff demanded pinpoint timing, reflecting drones’ rising role in cinematography, where they increasingly replace cranes for dynamic shots.

Industry Context and Market Implications

Adolescence mirrors a broader trend, with drone use in film and TV up 35% over five years, per a 2023 Motion Picture Association report. Its U.S. success—hitting #1 on Netflix despite minimal Promotion, as noted by Forbes—and a perfect 100% Rotten Tomatoes score underscore its appeal. Over two million UK viewers watched episode one, per The Independent, while its stateside chart-topping status suggests similar enthusiasm. This could push competitors to adopt drone techniques, though the complexity may challenge smaller studios, deepening the divide in streaming quality.

Regulatory Considerations

Shot in the UK, the production followed Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) rules, requiring drone registration and commercial operator IDs. The 0.3-mile flight likely adhered to the 1,640-foot (500-meter) horizontal limit, with possible waivers. Safety measures, like spotters, were vital over populated areas, especially during the drone-to-crew transition.

Beneath the Technique: A Deeper Narrative

Thorne told Deadline that Adolescence probes “male rage” and identity, with the one-shot format intensifying its relentless tone. Barantini noted to The Independent that it demands attention from distracted viewers. Graham’s portrayal of a father grappling with his son’s actions, paired with the drone’s journey from school to crime scene, ties technique to theme, resonating globally.

A Benchmark for Drone-Driven Storytelling

Adolescence sets a high bar for drone use in drama, blending technical skill with emotional depth. Its rapid rise to Netflix’s #1 spot in the U.S. and beyond, alongside critical acclaim, signals a hunger for innovative storytelling. As Технологія безпілотників advances, regulatory frameworks may adapt, cementing its entertainment role.

This innovation tackles a long-standing challenge in the Індустрія безпілотників—maintaining reliable power in subzero conditions—unlocking new possibilities for applications like polar exploration, border surveillance, and emergency response in frigid regions. Here’s a deep dive into the technology, its performance, and what it means for the drone market.

Pushing the Limits of Cold-Weather Drone Operations

The DICP team tested their ultra-low-temperature lithium battery in Mohe City, Heilongjiang Province—one of China’s coldest regions—where the hexacopter executed complex maneuvers including rapid ignition, sustained hovering, and precise navigation. Unlike conventional lithium-ion batteries, which struggle with rapid voltage drops and reduced capacity in freezing temperatures, this new system maintained stable power delivery throughout the trial, as reported by Science and Technology Daily.

Led by Chen Zhongwei, director of DICP’s Power Battery and Systems Research Center, the team optimized the battery’s electrolyte formulation and anode materials to overcome cold-induced inefficiencies. These modifications allow the battery to operate effectively across a temperature range of -40°F to 122°F (-40°C to 50°C), far surpassing typical industry standards.

At -40°F (-40°C), the battery retains over 90% of its nominal capacity, with endurance loss under 10%. For context, standard lithium-ion batteries often lose 30% to 50% of their capacity in similar conditions, according to the source. This performance could extend flight times in harsh climates, reducing the need for frequent recharges and enhancing operational efficiency.

Technical Innovations Behind the Breakthrough

Cold-weather battery degradation has plagued drones due to increased electrolyte viscosity and sluggish ion transport at low temperatures. The DICP team’s solution hinges on two key advancements: a tailored electrolyte that remains fluid and conductive in subzero conditions, and anode modifications that prevent lithium plating—a common issue that shortens battery life and raises safety concerns.

Before the field test, the battery underwent rigorous lab trials, including charge-discharge cycles in simulated extreme cold. The results validated its resilience, showing consistent voltage and minimal degradation even after prolonged exposure. These enhancements boost performance, safety, and longevity, critical for drones in remote or high-stakes missions.

The real-world test in Mohe City proved the battery’s practical viability. Conducted in China’s harsh northeastern winter, the hexacopter’s ability to handle rapid startups and sustained flight underscores the technology’s readiness for deployment. This could set a new benchmark for cold-resistant power systems in the drone industry.

Market and Regulatory Implications

This breakthrough aligns with growing demand for UAVs in extreme environments, driven by applications in logistics, defense, and scientific research. Polar expeditions could benefit from drones that don’t falter in icy conditions, while border patrol agencies might deploy them in high-altitude, subzero zones without power concerns.

The market impact could be substantial. Companies like DJI, a Chinese leader in consumer and professional drones, might integrate this tech as they expand into industrial solutions. Smaller firms specializing in ruggedized UAVs could also adopt it for cold-climate niches. High-end drone batteries currently range from $500 to $1,500, and while this technology might increase costs slightly, its reliability could justify the investment.

Regulatory frameworks will also evolve. In the U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) enforces strict performance and safety standards, especially for beyond-visual-line-of-sight (BVLOS) operations. A cold-reliable battery could streamline compliance for missions in Аляска or the northern plains, where temperatures often drop below 0°F (-18°C). Європа‘s EASA and China’s CAAC might similarly adapt standards for cold-weather drone certifications, particularly for logistics and emergency use.

READ MORE: FAA Set to Propose New Rules for Expanded Drone Use in U.S. Deliveries

Industry Context and Future Potential

Battery limitations have long constrained drone capabilities in extreme climates. Most consumer drones, like the DJI Mavic 3, operate between 32°F and 104°F (0°C to 40°C), per DJI’s specs, leaving them vulnerable in colder conditions. Military and industrial UAVs perform better but still face endurance issues below -20°F (-29°C). The DICP battery’s wide operational range addresses this gap, aligning with energy storage trends.

Beyond drones, the technology could benefit electric vehicles (EVs), remote power stations, and space missions—sectors where cold-weather reliability is critical. Chen Zhongwei emphasized this broader vision, stating, “This innovation could redefine the feasibility of battery-powered operations in extreme climates.” Scaling production is the next challenge, with DICP collaborating with aerospace and defense sectors to refine manufacturing and add features like self-regulating thermal controls.

Competitors are active too. Global research into solid-state batteries and cold-resistant chemistries is intensifying, with firms like Japan‘s Panasonic and the U.S.’s QuantumScape pursuing similar goals. However, DICP’s real-world validation gives it an edge, especially within China’s integrated drone ecosystem.

A Game-Changer for Extreme Environments

China’s new lithium battery marks a turning point for drones, proving reliable flight in subzero conditions is achievable. Its success at -32.8°F (-36°C) with minimal performance loss opens doors to missions once impractical, from Arctic research to disaster relief in blizzards. As production scales, this technology could ripple across the industry, pushing manufacturers to rethink all-weather reliability.

Future refinements, like adaptive thermal management, might reduce that 10% endurance loss at -40°F (-40°C) even further. For an industry eager to expand UAV applications, this is a vital step toward year-round, all-weather operations.

DroneXL’s Take

This isn’t just a win for China—it’s a challenge to the global drone market. If DICP scales this tech affordably, it could pressure Western manufacturers to accelerate cold-weather solutions or lose ground in emerging sectors like polar logistics. Cost and accessibility will be key; a premium battery risks alienating smaller operators. This development warrants close attention—it might redraw the map for drone deployments worldwide.

Why ND Filters Are Important

ND filters are important because you want to get proper motion blur. I made a whole video about it—it’ll be linked up in the corner тут.—but if you don’t get proper motion blur, it’s not going to look like we expect it to with our eyes. For example, if you’re doing this, you want to be able to see that your hands or fingers are blurry. It’s not right now because I’m shooting on a camera with a really high shutter speed since it’s so bright. Essentially, if you’re moving fast and you want the stuff in motion to feel like it’s moving quickly without a stuttery effect, ND filters will fix that for you.

They’ll also help you get proper exposure or allow you to do long-exposure photography if that’s your goal. For instance, with a proper shutter setting and ISO setting—say ISO 100, the lowest you can go, and a shutter speed of two times my frame rate, in this case, 1/60—the footage is completely blown out. It’s just white because I’m in a snowy area with a lot of bright sunlight. But if I put on the 64 and 128 combination filter, you can see the exposure is absolutely perfect, giving us that nice motion blur.

Motion Blur Examples and Preferences

Here’s an example of some footage without motion blur, and next to it, you can see footage with motion blur. Every movie you’ve ever seen and the way we process imagery—motion blur is the correct way. Now, I’m not saying you have to do it that way; you can do whatever you want. But to get your footage to look the way it should and the way it would if a professional drone pilot like me shot it, having motion blur is important—unless you’re doing VFX. If you want to know more about that, you’ll want to watch that other video.

Landing Pads for Practicality

I hand-launch and hand-takeoff with my drone a lot because sometimes that’s just the most practical thing. But one accessory I use very often when I’m out in dirty areas like this—snow, sand, mud, or anything similar—is a landing pad. While there are some really cheap ones on Амазонка that sort of work, this one by Hoodman is by far the best I’ve found. It’s heavy enough that it won’t be blown away by the drone when you’re taking off and landing, which is a real problem with the cheap ones. It’s also waterproof, made from some great material, and it opens up and folds down really easily. It’s got a green side and an orange side. Hey, real quick—if you’re enjoying or getting value out of this video, consider subscribing. I go out and test and compare equipment in the most real-world conditions I can find here in Аляска, where I live, and I give you tips and tutorials on how to use it.

Extended Sticks for Precision with the DJI Air 3S Drone

Another thing I don’t use all the time but do use a lot are these extended sticks. All this stuff will be linked in the description. Sometimes I just run with the regular DJI sticks, but these extended sticks make a big difference. You can see the height difference between these two is huge. Because you have longer travel here versus shorter travel with the regular ones, it gives you more precise control over what the drone is doing. Especially if you’re a pinch controller like I am, it enables you to make bigger movements while having the drone respond less, so you can be more precise when trying to do really technical, complicated shots. I find the longer sticks help me quite a bit when I’m focused on flying a drone precisely and well. A lot of times, I just roll with the regular DJI sticks because they’re in the controller and I always have them with me. Occasionally, if I’m just doing something like Active Track, I’ll take off and use my thumbs to get the drone where I want it without even putting the sticks in. But if you’re going to do anything long and precise, these sticks will help quite a bit.

Screen Protectors for the DJI RC2

While we’re on the subject of controllers, if you got your Air 3S with the nice DJI RC2, which I absolutely love, I highly recommend getting a screen protector for it. It takes very little—like dropping something on it just the right way or having something fall on it—to crack the screen. A good screen protector is super inexpensive on Amazon and will save your controller screen if something hits it a little too hard or in just the wrong spot. They’re like 10 bucks, cost almost nothing, and are super worth it to make sure your controller screen is protected.

Keeping Batteries Warm in Cold Weather

If you operate in cold areas like I am today—where it’s single digits and quite cold, even though it looks nice—you’ve got to keep your drone batteries and controller battery warm. I use these Zippo electric hand warmers. They’re rechargeable and have a little USB out if you need to emergency charge something. I run them on the lowest setting to keep batteries and the drone warm while I’m hiking or out and about. This keeps my batteries warm so when I’m ready to fly, both the controller and the drone are warm enough to fly without needing to hover for a while to heat up.

Power Banks for Extra Juice

Another thing I take with me a lot to recharge controller batteries or the drone battery are these Anker power banks. They have a couple of USB-C outs, and I use these things a ton. There’s a larger and a smaller version—this is the 20,000 mAh one, and the 27,000 mAh one is also very good. Both will be linked in the description. You can recharge a drone battery with this or get a little more battery life out of your drone or controller if you need to. These go with me everywhere because they’re super valuable, especially when I’m limited on how many batteries or things I can take with me.

Wrapping Up

Next, you’re going to watch this video right here. I’ll see you over there. As always, if you have questions, you can ask me in the comments below or join my livestream, which happens most Wednesday nights at 4:00 p.m. Alaska time, 8:00 p.m. Eastern—at least when I’m not out in a place like this and have to hike a bunch of miles to get home. I’ll see you again soon in the next one. Cheers!

The Incident

On Friday evening, the Wisconsin Rapids Поліція. Department received a report of a missing 59-year-old woman who had left her home without her phone. Her medical conditions heightened concerns for her safety. Police searched a wooded area near her last known location on foot but found no trace of her.

Drone Deployment and Rescue

When ground efforts proved ineffective, authorities deployed a drone to survey the wooded terrain. The drone’s footage pinpointed the woman’s location, allowing rescuers to reach her within one minute of detection. She had been outdoors for approximately three hours and was unable to stand on her own. The rescue was completed within an hour, just before storms arrived, underscoring the operation’s urgency. The Wisconsin Rapids Fire Department then took her to a hospital for medical attention.

Collaborative Effort

The operation demonstrated strong coordination among multiple agencies. The Wisconsin Rapids Police Department led the effort, with assistance from the Grand Rapids Fire Department and Wings of Hope Search and Rescue. This teamwork highlights how specialized tools like drones can enhance emergency responses.

The Role of Drones in Search and Rescue

This case illustrates the value of drones in search and rescue missions. Their ability to quickly scan vast or difficult terrain and deliver real-time visuals gives them an edge over traditional methods. Nationwide, drones have proven effective in similar scenarios, from finding lost hikers to supporting disaster response. Often equipped with technologies like thermal imaging, drones are becoming essential in emergencies. Learn more about these advancements in our Технологія безпілотників section.

The successful rescue in Wisconsin Rapids reinforces the critical role of Технологія безпілотників in emergency situations. As drone capabilities evolve, their use in search and rescue is expected to grow, encouraging agencies to prioritize training and equipment. This incident solidifies drones as vital assets for public safety.

DroneXL’s Take

The successful rescue in Wisconsin Rapids highlights the transformative potential of drones in emergency response, but it also reveals a critical barrier: cost. The Wisconsin Rapids Police Department relied on a drone provided by Wings of Hope Search and Rescue of Wisconsin, a non-profit organization, because their limited budget couldn’t cover the expense. This reliance on external support is a stark reminder of the financial constraints many small police departments face when integrating advanced technology into their operations.

The choice of drone matters—especially for non-profits aiming to maximize their impact. High-end models like the Skydio X10, which can cost over $10,000 per unit, offer cutting-edge features but come with a steep price. In contrast, DJI drones with thermal capabilities—essential for search and rescue missions—can be acquired for under $5,000 each. To put this into perspective, if Wings of Hope Search and Rescue of Wisconsin had a budget of $50,000 to donate drones, they could afford to give away only five Skydio X10s. With the same budget, they could provide ten DJI drones—doubling the number of police departments they could assist. If their budget were smaller, say $20,000, they could donate just two Skydio X10s but four DJI drones, still reaching twice as many departments with the more affordable option.

This cost disparity has real-world implications. By opting for expensive drones, a non-profit’s ability to support multiple police departments shrinks significantly, leaving fewer communities with access to life-saving technology. Choosing more affordable DJI drones, however, allows organizations like Wings of Hope to extend their reach, equipping more departments with the tools they need for aerial imaging and thermal detection—capabilities that are proven to reduce search times and improve outcomes, as seen in Wisconsin Rapids and cases like the rescue of a missing hiker in California.

The takeaway is clear: while advanced drones have their merits, affordability is key to democratizing this technology. Non-profits and police departments alike must prioritize cost-effective solutions to ensure that more lives can be saved. The Wisconsin Rapids case not only showcases the power of drones but also underscores the need for accessible options to bridge the gap for underfunded agencies.

You can read more about how drones are used for good on DroneXL.

Photo courtesy of WSAW.

Project Artemis: Objectives and Requirements

Project Artemis focuses on developing a ground-launched, one-way UAS for precision strikes. According to the US Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), the drones must operate at ranges from 31 to over 186 miles (50-300+ km), launch quickly, navigate at low altitudes, and remain affordable for mass production. The DIU’s requirements, outlined in their official statement, also emphasize resilience in disrupted environments, including GPS-denied conditions where electronic warfare like jamming is prevalent. The DIU reviewed approximately 165 proposals, with prototypes expected by late 2025, though most specifics remain classified.

Ukrainian Drone Manufacturing Capabilities

Ukrainian manufacturers, refined by the demands of ongoing conflict, excel in producing drones despite limited resources. Their collaboration with US companies such as Автеріон. and Swan has been highlighted by Militarnyi і The Wall Street Journal. This partnership showcases Україна‘s growing expertise, making it a key player in delivering cost-effective, battle-tested solutions to international allies.

Technical Specifications and Capabilities

The drones boast a range of up to 186 miles (300 km)—a conversion verified as accurate (300 km ≈ 186 miles)—and are designed to withstand electronic warfare, ensuring functionality without GPS or reliable communications. They can carry diverse payloads, including precision munitions and reconnaissance equipment, and adapt via interchangeable seeker heads. The platform’s versatility extends to decoy roles, helping overwhelm enemy defenses, a capability confirmed by the DIU’s project goals and supported by battlefield trends reported in DroneXL.

Strategic Implications for Modern Warfare

These drones could alter battlefield dynamics with their long range and low cost, enabling mass deployment to saturate defenses—a tactic akin to swarm strategies. Their reconnaissance and decoy functions enhance flexibility in contested zones. For the US, this project, as analyzed by Militarnyi, suggests a shift toward scalable, affordable UAS options alongside high-end systems like the MQ-9 Reaper. For Ukraine, it strengthens their ability to counter larger forces, a point echoed in regional conflict analyses.

Project Artemis merges Ukrainian ingenuity with US strategic goals, targeting a new class of strike drones by late 2025. Success could elevate Ukraine’s status in the global drone market and encourage further US investment in low-cost UAS. As drone use surges in conflicts worldwide, this collaboration may pioneer agile, multinational defense efforts.

Photos courtesy of Herman Smetanin / EuroMaiden Press

Speaking after touring Амазонка‘s Prime Air headquarters in Seattle, Duffy told reporters the FAA aims to provide “more authority and clarity” to drone developers, with a proposal expected “in relatively short order.” This development, first reported by Reuters, responds to industry demands but lands amid the FAA’s past delays and the Trump administration’s budget cuts.

These rules could unlock widespread beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations, critical for companies like Amazon Prime Air, Zipline, and Wing. Yet, with precedents like Remote ID dragging on for years and agency resources thinning, the road ahead is fraught. Here’s the breakdown.

Regulatory Hope vs. Historical Delays

Duffy stressed urgency: “If we don’t have clear rules that allow innovators to innovate and create products and test products, it won’t happen here.” The FAA’s focus is BVLOS, a goal the Commercial Drone Alliance championed in February, decrying the “bureaucratic and time-consuming” approval process. The agency’s draft has input from other federal bodies, suggesting momentum.

But the FAA’s history tempers optimism. Remote ID, proposed in 2019 to track drones in real time, stumbled through industry pushback and Юридичний fights, landing in 2023—four years later. Now, Trump-era budget cuts and staff reductions could further hamstring the FAA, making Duffy’s “short order” timeline a tall order.

Delivery Drones: Capabilities and Limits

Drone delivery hinges on specialized hardware. DJI’s FlyCart 30 hauls 66 pounds over 10 miles at 45 mph, with a winch for precise drops and dual-battery redundancy—though its 28-minute flight time shrinks with cargo. Amazon Prime Air’s drones, tailored for 5-pound packages over 15 miles, have logged FAA-approved trials since 2022. Zipline’s fixed-wing drones, carrying 3.8 pounds up to 50 miles, excel in medical drops, while Wing’s nimble craft manage 2.5-pound loads over 12 miles, optimized for suburban runs.

BVLOS demands more: detect-and-avoid systems (radar, AI cameras) to dodge obstacles beyond 1,000 feet. Battery life remains a bottleneck—Wing’s 15-minute flights and Zipline’s 45-minute range need boosts for broader scale. Infrastructure lags too. The FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM), evolving with NASA, must enforce 200-foot horizontal and 100-foot vertical separations for thousands of flights. Urban corridors are scarce; rural hubs are nascent.

Market Stakes: U.S. Players vs. Global Leaders

Китай‘s DJI dominates the drone industry, and recently introduced the DJI FlyCart 30 cargo drone, with more than 70% of U.S. commercial sales. Data security fears—spurred by December 2024 legislation set to ban new DJI models and January 2025 Commerce proposals to curb Chinese drones—elevate U.S. firms.

Amazon Prime Air might scale faster with BVLOS rules, while Zipline and Wing eye rapid expansion beyond niche markets. Wing, owned by Alphabet, has delivered over 350,000 packages globally, per company data.
Still, the U.S. lags. China’s JD.com runs BVLOS nationwide; Європа‘s EASA has drone corridors since 2023. Duffy’s warning about importing “someone else’s technology” rings true if the FAA stalls. FlyCart 30’s $42,000 price undercuts U.S. alternatives, which often exceed that due to smaller-scale production.

Regulatory Challenges in a Strapped FAA

The proposal will likely expand Частина 107 (55-pound limit, 400-foot ceiling) to cover BVLOS, higher weights, and night flights—now waiver-only. Integrating drones with manned airspace, addressing privacy, and quieting noise (FlyCart 30 hits 80 decibels; Wing’s hum annoys some) need resources the FAA may lack. Remote ID’s four-year trek suggests a 2027 finish at best, especially with cuts thinning staff for technical or public reviews.
The Chinese drone ban complicates matters. Operators might scramble for U.S.-made delivery drones—Zipline’s, Wing’s, Wingcopter‘s and Amazon’s delivery drones are all proprietary—if rules outpace supply.

Potential Meets Peril

Success could transform logistics—FlyCart 30 dropping 66 pounds, Prime Air hitting 30-minute windows, Zipline and Wing scaling up—fueling a $43 billion industry by 2030, per Drone Industry Insights. But Remote ID’s delay and today’s lean FAA signal risk. Budget cuts could stretch “short order” into years, ceding ground to China.

DroneXL’s Take

Duffy’s vision excites, but the FAA’s Remote ID slog and current cuts breed doubt. FlyCart 30, Prime Air, Zipline, and Wing are poised—rules aren’t. If the FAA falters, the U.S. might import China’s drone future instead of flying its own. Timing’s everything.

Lets take a good look and zoom in

Despite the fact I obviously ДОВІРА my friends who are kind enough to send me these type of valuable information, the Mavic 4 Pro is the only drone with a set 2.5x zoom factor. You easily spot it in the first screen recording:

New camera, better zoom quality

Then, for an extra surprise we also received some interesting proof by YueYue that the DJI Mavic 4 might zoom in up to 24 times. Sadly we cant yet confirm where the optical zoom ends and the digital zoom starts. But looking at these screen recordings results are just as impressive as the DJI Mavic 3 Pro.

Countdown untill end of April?

Also, new rumors have emerged that the DJI Mavic 4 Pro might be postponed to mid June, but personally I think those are dates popping up in the FCC records because until then everything must stay ‘secret’, in the FCC files that is.
My best source on the matter has always told me it will be the last week of April and that source still expects a teaser or launch in that week.

That will be all for today. Thank you for reading my articles here on DroneXL. Happy to share all my leaks with you guys. Cheers! Jasper

• What is the DJI RC Track and why should it exist? (Part 1)
• Why was the DJI RC track cancelled when it was promised with the DJI Air 3S? (Part 2)
• When will the beacon launch and what are the exact specifications? (Part 3)

READ MORE: First DJI Mavic 4 Pro sample pictures and zoom test leaked on TikTok

Available at launch of the DJI Mavic 4 Pro

In my previous post we learned the beacon will likely be featured with the launch of the DJI Mavic 4 Pro. Leaked software of the DJI Fly App there confirmed you can link the Mavic 4 to the DJI RC Track. Meaning; with the launch of the Mavic 4 scheduled at late April 2025 I think its becoming obvious we will finally see the beacon coming to the market.

The DJI RC Track official specifications:

• Weight: 116 grams. (4.09 oz)
• Operating time: 2 hours.
• Max. distance of drone controlled with the DJI RC Track: 100 m (328 ft)
• Max. Altitude of drone controlled with the DJI RC Track: 120 m (393.7 ft)
• Ingress Protection Rating: IPX7
• Operating Temperature: -10 C to 40 C (14 F tot 104 F)
• Supported drones: DJI Air 3S (Not supported yet: DJI Mini 4 Pro)

While the specifications do say it’s IPX7, it means it’s only waterproof up to 30 minutes in 1 meter of water. So I wouldn’t recommend using it in too wet or muddy conditions. Also please note the distance and altitude is while you are using the DJI RC track as the stand alone remote.

Mini 4 Pro not supported ‘YET’

While the specifications don’t mention the DJI Mavic 4 (because we are looking at a leaked but older DJI Air 3S specsheet) this sheet does mention the DJI Mini 4 Pro. The ‘not supported yet’ actually means it will work in the future. I think its actually I good thing to see DJI making products also backwards compatible and not only creating stuff forcing you to buy a new drone.

Concluding the RC Track articles.

Although the DJI RC Track was leaked and cancelled, new leaks promise us the compatibility with the DJI Mavic 4, DJI Air 3S and now even the DJI Mini 4 Pro. Making it a versatile and long awaited gimmick For DJI users who want more control over the drones while they are using the tracking compatibilities of their drones. I think it will actually be a great feature for cyclists to manually change the distance and angle video while it’s following you without touching a remote screen or app.

Cheers! Jasper