#83 Amit Ganjoo, ANRA: Lessons from the Dallas Key Site UTM implementation

Amit: 0:00

And companies like ours, I wouldn't say pivoted, we moved over to Europe because U-Space regulation was falling into place. So we invested a lot of time and we spent all our time and effort there to test our technology, evolve our technology and roll out our technology. We are getting certified by EASA. We are going to be the first, USSP certified by EASA globally to offer our U-Space services in all European member countries. The challenge was, we didn't have a target to shoot at in the US. You need a target otherwise they can keep throwing stuff at the wall and hope it sticks. But in Europe, the U-Space regulation gave us a target to shoot at. And now, with Part 108 in the making and what's happening in Key Site with the LOAs and the entire process, we believe very strongly that that's going to make its way into Part 108. So that gives us a target, and then it's just scaling up from there on.

Jim: 1:56

Hey, welcome into 2025. We hope you have a great year. And welcome to another terrific conversation this time with Amit Ganjoo, founder and CEO of ANRA Technologies. And we thank many of you in our audience who have been recommending, we have Amit on our podcast. He's certainly very respected in the industry and this conversation you find out why. We start with a conversation around how Amit views, the eventual integrated airspace. And what steps we'll have to take to that end. He even touches upon the use of AI and as he discusses, there's a lot of controversy on the role of AI with UTM and ATM. We then discuss UAS traffic management or UTM. When it has been is, and the UTM of the future, as well as how it may eventually interface with ATM. We discuss the difference between the U S federated model and the centralized model deployed in many other parts of the world. We've had several episodes on UTM and a wide variety of conversations in various episodes. So it's good to get a Amit's perspective, especially as he and his company are considered a global leader in UTM. We then have a deep dive and spend a lot of time at the Dallas Fort worth operational evaluation. Positioned as the first commercial deployment of UTM in the US. The operational evaluation is a collaborative program, which includes several drone delivery companies, including Manna and Wing, along with ANRA as a UTM service provider, the Key Site gathers information to help shapes the FAA's policy decisions concerning BVLOS operations. We discussed the lessons learned on the UTM business model discussing operators who insource UTM services and those who outsource the pros and cons of each. And for those who outsource, we discuss their willingness to pay for such services. We've had many conversations on how companies make or don't make money on UTM. And if they will, what kinds of services customers may be willing to pay for? So getting Amit's perspective on the business model is obviously very helpful. Amit thanks for joining us and to our listeners, again, welcome to 2025, and hope you enjoy our talk with Amit Ganjoo as you profitably innovate in The Vertical Space. Amit Ganjoo is the founder and CEO of ANRA Technologies with offices in London, Washington, DC, Tallinn and New Delhi. ANRA is a global provider of end-to-end uncrewed aircraft operations and track management solutions for enterprises, operators, and airspace managers. He has over 20 years of aviation, telecom, robotic and wireless experience, in both the federal and commercial space. He is an engineer and licensed pilot, Co-Chairs ASTMs Standards Working Group for UTM and Co-Chairs ASTM UAM Interoperability Working Group. He was appointed by the US Secretary of Transportation to the FAA Advanced Aviation Advisory Committee. Amit welcome to The Vertical Space. Great having you on.

Amit: 5:22

Likewise. Thanks, Jim. It's good to be here with you all.

Jim: 5:25

First question, is there anything that very few in the industry agree with you on?

Amit: 5:31

I wouldn't say very few, but this is one of those controversial areas, topics that we often get into debate on. It's use of AI. role of AI in airspace management systems. And some people, I shouldn't say oversell it. And some people believe it can be used for safety critical applications. whereas I believe strongly that at least in the initial phases, while we are still learning AI is maturing, it will be more in advisory capacity versus purely safety critical applications.

Jim: 6:07

Tell us a little bit of both sides of the argument, Amit.

Amit: 6:10

Aviation is one of the safest industries in the world. There are highest level of safety standards there. So there's a reason why there's a human in the loop. Now, if you take completely with AI, you take human completely out of the loop. Like, so for example, I have aircraft flying and all of a sudden an off nominal happens, and I want a new route for the aircraft. So I can tell AI, hey, based on your intelligence, give me a new route. It can give me a new route, but it may not have trained on, it may not have the latest and the most current data sets trained, and have been trained on that. So having a human on the loop reviews, it gets the recommendation, but it accepts it before it gets activated. That's just advisory versus blindly accepting it. I think that is our incremental phase that we have to go through, and then eventually it will become all automated.

Jim: 7:06

Are there people, do you think, listening today who believe that it should be something other than advisory?

Amit: 7:13

Uh, yes. Yeah, I'm not sure if I want to go there, but no, it depends. AI is an amazing thing. I love chat GPT. It's great. There are people that believe that we can get to a level of automation where AI will do everything. Now, AI can help a lot of, in aviation, AI can help in reducing cockpit load for the pilots, or if you're talking about uncrewed aviation, it can help you handle one to many flights by simplifying, instead of you looking at 10 different screens, it can automatically identify what area or what aspect you need to focus on and address that. So, uh, from that point of view, it speeds up the process. That's what, in a sense, it does. Uh, it's not completely eliminating, but instead of you having to look at 10 different things and taking 10 minutes, within 30 seconds or less than that, it's already given you a laser target on this. Hey, just look at this thing. This is what requires your attention right

Jim: 8:15

Yes, this will be something we're going to be dealing with, with UTM and ATM in the years to come. There's so many different factors that have to be considered with the ATM, especially. Could you give us an area within UTM where people may not necessarily agree with you on a little more tangible day to day things where you may be controversial?

Amit: 8:35

In UTM, not necessarily AI related, Yeah, check. So one of the areas, uh, which becomes a discussion, uh, more globally, and it's not, we are not talking North America specifically, are

Jim: 8:46

We don't have to be, no, you choose.

Amit: 8:48

All right. Yeah. uh, all uh, what I'll see uh, in US. As one of the places where the regulator and the air navigation service provider is FAA, so it's one entity. It's different. It's government. But when you move to the other parts of the world, it's different. So the air navigation service providers are privatized, and there are multiple of them, like, sometimes even in 1 country, there are 60 of them and then there's the regulator. So there's a different business model, how ka ching, ka ching, each transaction makes money. So what happens is, uh, different narratives get put out there. And then the real, how do you solve the UTM, to answer your question, how do you solve the UTM problem? What is the best architecture? How do you solve this problem? Technically, that doesn't necessarily become the topic. A topic becomes, people will argue against it. Even though technically it's feasible because that doesn't serve their business model. It becomes a bread bowl discussion versus a technical discussion. So it's one of those things, uh, you hear in the UTM world, federated versus decentralized, architecture centralized from the point, from a technical point of view, it's just moving ones and zeros. And I know I'm oversimplifying here, but that's what, at the end of the day, what it is. Whether it's centralized or decentralized, like a lot of people say, oh, there's a safety critical or it wasn't invented here, so it's not good enough. I always ask, so tell me, what is the technical problem that you're solving that you can't solve with this approach? There are aspects that need to be centralized because in US it's completely federated. FAA doesn't want, FAA just wants to provide oversight, but in other parts of the world, they have this concept of a common information, uh, CISP, common information system service provider. And they have this concept of a USSP, UAS service supplier, right? So, uh, many countries have designated a single CISP. The regulator decided, okay, that's going to be a single CISP, and the regulation keeps it very simple, saying the CISP is going to provide authoritative airspace data. I'm going to create geos to provide geozone information and I'll stop any authoritative, and then the rest of the logic kind of sits in the USSP world. However, now that regulation is being interpreted differently in different markets where in a particular stakeholder such as an ANSP, because if they let that happen, their role is marginalized because all they're providing is this data and everything else is done by the USSP. So they want to take some of that USSP functionality and move that in. And I think that's reasonable. There's nothing wrong in that. It's a business model, but I don't think it should be. It's centralized versus decentralized. It's more business models, because for us, we are a technology provider. enable either or, but it should be call a spade a spade kind of stuff. What is it? It's a business model that's driving the decision making.

Jim: 11:40

Can you give us an example of two different countries or locations that are doing each of the two you're describing?

Amit: 11:47

Uh, we can pick US. US is purely federated, decentralized, right? So that's already given. So if you know what's happening in Dallas, uh, where we are a provider, right? We are the only non vertically integrated provider right now that has the FAA letter of acceptance and then TAP approval as well. And so there's Wing operating, there's the Zipline, Drone Up, and then we are powering Manna Drone Delivery, and Arlington PD, then in California, Matternet is using our system, right? So, but we are federated. So it's pure federated. FAA is providing the oversight. So there's a industry led governance, uh, body, like we have a governance structure where there's a technical committee and an operations committee. I also chair the operations committee for the key site, but FAA sits on both of them. Like, so FAA, we have a monthly briefing, and so FAA is providing oversight, but letting the industry manage it with the formalized governance structure, which has rules, responsibilities, processes, board, structure, everything. And now, the other example is now, if you go Europe, I'll I'll just pick, I'm not trying to pick on one country or another. So let's pick on Spain, because they're the one that has probably moved the farthest ahead. uh, the ANSP there has been designated as a CISP and they're being their own USSP as well. So they're still going through certification process. they have to get certified as a CISP and then the USSP aspect has to be certified as well. So that is a very centralized kind architecture that you're looking at there.

Jim: 13:15

Great.

Amit: 13:16

Italy would be another example that is looking very closely at a centralized model.

Jim: 13:20

What's the controversial part of this? What's the area that you're taking a position on that you feel is a little bit controversial?

Amit: 13:27

So the controversial is how they handle the data exchange. For example, should strategic de confliction, should that be handled by a centralized entity such as the CISP that becomes the source of truth and that's giving the approvals versus can I do peer to peer exchanges and, uh, de conflict that way? So the technical architecture is such you can move things around. Like, so for example, in US we have peer to peer exchanges, but it uses an entity for discovery, that tells it who to talk to, how to call to and deconflict. Now in a centralized architecture, I could take that same discovery mechanism and put it in a centralized architecture and in essence accomplish the same thing. We actually did this in like 2018 or 2019 in UK when as part of a research project called Open Access UTM, they wanted federation, but they said no, some functions need to move up one level into a centralized entity and have that It was called the O-U-T-M-S-P. So we actually proved that it can be done. uh, that is kinda so you don't have to reinvent the wheel and implement new standards, new interfaces. You can still use the new interfaces. The deployment model might change a little bit, but there's a push right now. Sometimes it happened. It wasn't invented here. So it's not good enough. Like, and, uh, both sides of the pond are to blame. Like Europe says it wasn't invented. It's not good enough. U. S. says it wasn't invented here, so it's not good enough. So it's because that actually kills the industry. Because us, as a technology provider, I don't want to have to build two different technologies. Like that's, that kills the business model. It's not a sustainable business model. If I build technology here, it should be able to deploy it elsewhere as well, if that makes sense. And that's how we have done it. We have, our technology is very modular, microservices based, so it can be tailored very easily to the model, business model that it requires.

Jim: 15:19

Let's move on to your vision of the integrated airspace?

Amit: 15:23

It's a little tricky because in the U. S., we are maintaining a separation between low altitude airspace and higher airspace. So, small drones flying below 400 feet and stuff like that. And then you have aircraft that are technically supposed to, except if you're a crop duster or a medivac helicopter, supposed to fly over 500 feet. But then you have these new entrants, eVTOLs, Advanced Air Mobility, that are going to start low, but they're going to go up higher where crew traffic is. So they crisscross both the boundaries. it's kind of a different beast here in the U. S. because you still have some level of segregation for small UAS below 400 feet. But when you move to other markets internationally, U. S. is big, we have a lot of airspace. But when you move to Europe, the smaller countries, and very limited airspace, so they don't have the luxury of segregation necessarily that's saying small U. S. will fly only below four or five hundred feet. So they have to look at integration from day one. So that means I have to fly in the same airspace where eVTOLs are flying, I have to fly in the same airspace where helicopters are flying, where crewed aircraft are flying. flying. So need to be have a complete situational awareness, a common operational picture, and a de confliction capability. That is the main difference. And how do we get to integration? At the end of the day, it all boils down to what is the information I need to exchange, changing everything to digital exchanges. I know, I think Peter is a pilot too, he's an aviator too, right Peter? he'll, he'll, he knows like, I'm a pilot, so if I take, I'm used to making voice calls. I can talk to ATC, I can make CTAF calls at the airport, but now when you moved into the uncrewed world, there's no one on board. I can have someone fake or use a voice over IP gateway and make voice calls, but that is not sustainable. That's not scalable. It may work in the initial early hours when you have very few flights happening. But as you move forward, you have to make all these exchanges digital, whether it's a small drone, whether it's a big drone, these needs to be digital exchanges that can be interpreted and understood by UTM systems, by ATM, or whatever the future of ATM looks like, a unified traffic management per se. And the UTM system, it's a step in, I don't think a lot of people say UTM is the end all be all. It's not. It's a step in the right direction. It's a concept, right? UTM is proving that digital exchanges can enable such operations, and what we need to do is use that as a foundational principle as we look at building something similar to allow the traditional air traffic management to move into that space, away from your traditional voice, analog calls, and stuff, and make it more digital exchanges. Today's aircraft, like Airbus' and Boeings of the world, there's a pilot in the cockpit, but if you're flying transatlantic, it's autopilot is flying. It's technically autonomous if you look at it that way.

Luka: 18:24

What you see as a realistic path to digitizing all of that flow of information, understanding how the industry works today?

Amit: 18:32

So you have to look at, what are the data elements? You have to peel the layers in essence. You have to look at what are the data elements that you need to exchange? What does that minimum set? Like you can have a super set, but what's the minimum amount of information I need to deconflict myself from yourself in the same airspace system. And then once you define those data models or data elements, then rest is just technology. This is like technology. How do I move ones and zeros around and exchange those data models using mechanisms that have been solved in the IT and cybersecurity industry forever. So that's not it, but it's agreeing on the data models and how they get interpreted and, integrated into the various systems involved.

Luka: 19:16

Yeah but, we all know what the pace of adopting new technology is like in ATM so how do we actually go about doing this in a realistic stepwise fashion?

Amit: 19:28

Yeah, that's a great question. it's a challenge. That's the thing, right? So if it wasn't a challenge, we would have already solved it. This whole UTM journey started back in 2015, 2016, and we are still at it, right? what I call it is the coalition of the willing. Uh, and if you look at what's happening in US, most of the, in the advanced air mobility segment, because we have what we call PSU and other things, but initial AAM operations, first of all, are going to be piloted, right? one operator that believes they'll go autonomous day one, like without pilot, but most of the other operations are going piloted day one. So they can leverage traditional, your IFR, VFR routes and make calls and fly. It's no different. It's not, we're calling it advanced air mobility. It's not, it's just an electric aircraft that's flying, right? So you can fly using existing aviation rules, but again, Is that scalable? I don't believe so. Will it work for the next few years? Probably yes, because the scale isn't going to be there. Uh, And then when eventually we move past that, that's where we need these digital exchanges and automation. But for the small, drone segment, as things, because it's part 108 coming along and what's happening there and hopefully things scaling up as we are seeing where there is actually demand coming from the market and there's a need for multiple operators to operate in the same airspace. There's no other way because you can't be picking up a phone I'll give you an example. So, I think we are operating in Texas. I won't name the operators. Currently, they had to de conflict and they used to pick up a phone and call the PD or the PD will call vice versa. Hey, we are flying in this area. That's not sustainable. Now, what we have enabled there is just a digital action. They don't even talk to each other. They just have screens and they see what comes up and just their flights are going around each other.

Jim: 21:20

We've had some people talk about UTM, on the podcast and obviously you're one of the global leaders. Give a little bit of a history of what drove the need and its history for the last, 10 years.

Amit: 21:31

So it started as a research paper out of NASA back in 2014, right? The concept of UTM. And we started with a bunch of these trials. NASA started something called TCLs, Technical Capability Level Demonstrations, TCL 1, 2, 3, 4, and we were part of all of them. Like it seems like forever and it's just researching. It was a research concept What happened is we started this journey on the research path and hoping that we would have a regulatory framework in place that will mandate it so that we can start to roll it out operationally in the U. S. And guess what? The regulatory framework didn't come. And all of a sudden everyone was like, Oh shit, I've invested millions of dollars in this and nothing is happening. So what do we do? And companies like ours I wouldn't say pivoted. We moved over to Europe because USPACE regulation was falling into place. So we invested a lot of time and we spent all our time and effort uh, test our technology, evolve our technology and roll out our technology, right? We are getting certified by EASA. We are going to be the uh, USSP certified by EASA globally to offer our USPACE services in all European member countries. Like we're getting certified at the EASA country. there was, the challenge was, we didn't have a target to shoot at in the US. Like you need a target to, otherwise they can keep throwing stuff at the wall and hope it sticks. But in Europe, the USPACE regulation gave us a target to shoot And now, with Part 108 in the making and what's happening in Key Site with the LOAs and the entire process, a lot of what's happened at are, we believe very strongly that that's going to make its way into Part 108. So that gives us a target, and then it's just scaling up from there on.

Peter: 23:15

Okay, so with respect to Part 108, I know we're all, hoping to see the NPRM really in a matter of weeks at this point. What do we know so far from statements that have been made about its content that's relevant to this question?

Amit: 23:32

If you look at what's happening in uh, Texas right now. We based it on 8040. 6, 8040. 6A, which is the publication from FAA to look at the hazards and the classification and how we mitigate those. So, based on that, uh, and what the statements we know and what's happening in Texas. UTM and services such as strategic coordination, services such as priority and preemption, prioritization of flights are going to make its way into the NPRM, and that will be one of the ways to comply with Part 108 and launch these operations, amongst other things, so it's not going to be the sole thing uh, that you can run with across the country, but this is going to be one of the, those services uh, allows you to scale and launch BVLOS operations.

Peter: 24:31

And the work at the Key Site is demonstrating the ability of multiple operators to share the same airspace in these, I would say pretty highly automated drone operations where you have one human managing a lot of drones, right? As people look ahead to the actual rollout of these drone services in cities across the country, is the consensus that there are going to be multiple operators sharing the airspace from the get go, or is this, you know, something that is several years further down the road, and that there's just so much greenfield territory to build services out into, that operators are going to be operating in a de facto way alone in the airspace in the regions where they're providing service. What is the conversation around the table right now around what, what this, rollout is going to look like in the real world?

Amit: 25:19

Sure. So I can give you our example because we have customers, commercial customers. So drone delivery is not just our only customer. We work with critical infrastructure. We work with public safety and those kind of users too. So to answer your question, where does UTM scale and where does it, as you start to scale it across the country, you're looking at places where there's a true business opportunity. So if you, I'll take it one step at a time. So let's say delivery operations, drone delivery operations. There's no real value in doing drone deliveries in rural urban areas. Right? There are business opportunities in dense urban areas, but there's a lot of population and people want stuff delivered to avoid traffic and get it quickly. Guess what? They're not just going to like the monopoly of one provider. They would want multiple providers to offer the service. So you have the need for multiple operators to operate in the same airspace there. However, now, if you look at other areas, you have, uh, New York Power Authority is our customer, New York MTA is our customer, they are doing operations across the state, but they are operating where sometimes in suburban urban areas and sometimes in rural areas, but they have, so let's say, a hypothetical situation, I can't speak on behalf of NYPA, so let's say they're operating in the city, and New York PD is operating there as well. So this is not, we're not talking commercial. The PD has to operate drones and how do they coordinate today? So there's a need. So now there's a need in that situation, which is two different, very different use case from a delivery. Now, if I go in Montana in the middle of nowhere and I'm the only operator, do I need a UTM? No, I don't. I absolutely don't because the risk is so low and I'm the only one by myself. So You will see these pockets and bubbles pop up and, then continue to expand as the uptake, increases as we move along.

Peter: 27:13

Okay, so from what you're seeing, the sweet spot for the delivery mission is going to be in more dense urban areas, or are we still really talking about suburbs where this is going to occur?

Amit: 27:25

You're going to start the initial if you look at where it's happening currently, like, Pecan Square area in Texas, right? Hillwood area. So it's a suburban area. It's not truly an urban area. So what I was talking about, where real scale as we move forward. So your initial operations will start not in rural, definitely not in rural area. There are operators that have tried it in rural area. It's just not business It's not viable. You can do stuff. So it'll start in suburban areas and move towards urban areas. Depending on how airspace evolves around there.

Luka: 27:57

But, Peter, your question reminded me of, the gas station phenomenon where you might not have a gas station for miles and miles, and then you have, two gas stations at the same intersection, right? And somewhat to your point where you're thinking, okay, well, there's this vast territory for drone delivery businesses, for example, to go and start their deliveries and don't have a need to de conflict with any other operator. There's many suburban slash urban areas, across the U S and, and Europe. yet, will they converge into the same territory with that same gas station analogy? Will they all want to operate in the same territory?

Amit: 28:38

Yeah, that's a good question I can't answer for all the operators, but I can answer, I can tell you what we are experiencing based on our customers, commercial customers. So, like, for example, with Manna Drone Delivery in Texas, right? They're operating, Wing is operating in the same area, Arlington PD is operating in the same area. Guess what? Manna is doing tons of deliveries in Dublin, Ireland, and Wing just launched their operations. Guess what service they're going to use in Ireland now? And then expand to other markets. It's the same solution.

Peter: 29:09

Okay, but these are the very early innings of the industry, right? And so, they may well be flying in the same location because, well, like with the Key Site they literally, that's the purpose, is to fly together to learn how to share airspace. They may be flying together in Dublin, because, they have, relationship with the regulators. They have experience there. There are operators on the ground who are already familiar with the drone delivery model. I don't know if, we go another year forward, that there's going to be so much coordination and overlap with the operators expanding region to region together. It's fine if they do, but I could see it playing out another way as well.

Amit: 29:51

You're absolutely right. So I, that's why I said delivery is one of the use cases. Delivery is not going to create world peace and solve all the use cases for UTM. It is one of the vignettes. It's not the only vignette. You have critical infrastructure inspections happening everywhere. You have surveillance operations happening. You have, public safety operations happening across the country, pretty much anywhere, just name the location that it's happening. Drone delivery is just one of them. So from a, what's happening in Ireland, or, or, let's use a different example, you said Key Site as well, people didn't necessarily come there just because we wanted to test there, because even if you look in Texas, there are seven operators, they are spread all across, but their geographies are expanding and overlapping. So, they were all in the DFW metroplex area, but they're expanding and overlapping. So, it's not for the sake of testing. It just becomes a need and necessity at that point.

Jim: 30:48

As were talking a little bit about UTM at scale and the future of UTM, let's talk a little bit about Dallas Give some background. What's the purpose of it? What's your role? How is that going, Amit?

Amit: 30:59

the Dallas stuff, uh, like this was the FAA symposium, not this year, the previous year. we had just wrapped what was called UTM Field Test for FAA at Virginia. And we had FAA senior management show up there, at Blacksburg and we all walked into a room and say, okay. Now that we have done this test, what's next? What do we need to do? Right? How do we take it from there? Or is it just a research thing? And they're like, okay, no, let's find an area where there's an operational need to deploy it. Like, obviously, where we did the USP, there was no operational need because there weren't multiple operators that has a business driver. And it just so happened that multiple operators were already looking for waivers and approvals and exemptions to operate in the DFW area to do drone deliveries. So guess what that became by defacto the area where we want to try it there. So then FAA tasks the industry. Okay. Tell us how you can manage this airspace with our oversight, but industry governance, so a global UTM association had set up a governance framework that we used and adapted for Texas and a coalition of the willing operators came together and say, okay, we want to do this in Texas because we have a need and let's bring it in. So that's how the whole concept started and the initial MOUs and agreements. got signed and they were seven signatories and some of them were vertically integrated operators, which means they are an operator as well as a UTM provider. And then they were non vertically integrated, which was us providing services to multiple. And, as part of the governance structure, uh, there was a whole technical governance, a technical committee set up, an operations committee set up, which put together the framework in place, the, uh, roles and responsibilities, the cadence of meeting, what are the onboarding gates where, how do you get onboarded? How do you maintain quality and ensure the safety? So it's not a wild, wild west. It doesn't become a wild, wild west where, and anyone says, I'm there and I'm gonna can operate. So you have to actually go through gates. There's a gate one, gate two, gate three is ranging from as simulation to actually showing operational practicality and life flight. So, all these operators have to go, and there's a onboarding process, and there's an offboarding process if you don't meet the requirements. So that whole process was set up, we became the UTM service supplier for Manna drone delivery and our Arlington PD. Wing was already there, DroneUp was there, Zipline was there, and Flytrex is there too. So, it just happened out of the areas. Wing and Manna's areas overlapped. So, that's where the initial, usage of the system came up, because Drone Up is operating, a little bit further East, not where Pekan Square is. So, even though they're in the same system, but there were no necessarily overlapping flights. So, what you saw, back in July was the first time ever FAA came down to witness actual live operational flights happening with, at that time, it was just Manna drone delivery and Wing, with ANRA providing technologies from Manna and Wing. And those, since then, the system has been operational, so it's an, it's not a test, it's not a trial, it's actually a live production system that is continuously running, so there's no like turning it off or on, it just continuously is running. And, just, a few weeks back in November, we had, uh, an event in Texas at the FAA regional headquarters called, uh, Harmonized Skies, where we had 30 regulators from around the world come. And 150 to actually come and witness live operations to see how this is working and how this concept can be replicated, adapted, modified for use in other parts of the world. And they came and witnessed and this go around, things have scaled since then So Arlington PD was also operating compared to June, July time frame. So we had Arlington PD, Wing, Manna, all operating in the same airspace. And as things move forward now, DroneUp is expanding their operational area. I can't speak on their behalf, so you'll have to talk to them. But other operators expanding, their reach and I know now many of these operators are expanding operations in other states across the U. S.

Luka: 35:21

Can you talk in a little bit more detail what that deconfliction looked like? What was the information that was exchanged? How was that information exchanged? What was the scale of the operation?

Amit: 35:31

Sure, so, if you look at, this goes to define what is UTM and how do you define UTM. So UTM is not a thing by itself, it's a concept, like how do you safely manage the airspace for these aircraft. So if you look at, and the reason I'm taking a little bit to answer your question because I want to tie two things together. So if you look at what's happening in Europe, the U-Space regulation designated four mandatory services and two optional services. It's a law that says, so you have flight authorization, registration, traffic information, and, network identification service. Four core services and weather and conformance monitoring, optional services. So that's what the U-Space bundle is. Now, if you come transplanted over to Texas, what are we doing? What's in place right now? So as opposed to Europe, it was, the model is all in. We are going to do it day one, all services. In US it was like crawl, walk, run approach. So the only service that's deployed currently in Texas is Strategic Coordination, which is a subset of Flight Authorization Service So we are not even using the other three European mandatory services, so it's only technically think what's currently being rolled out is, the first basic service and as we started, the goal was to roll it out and kind of learn from it. Is it enough? What works? What doesn't work? Do we need to adapt? Because FAA is monitoring this closely, they're calling this an operational evaluation. It's not a trial. That means this data is feeding directly into their rulemaking. So they get monthly reports from all the operators and the service providers to see what's happening, aggregate conformance monitoring reports and other stuff like that. So we have to report it. So, this service is deployed, so as we launched it, now we have realized, the initial rollout of the service was, uh, it's everyone comes in at the same priority. If a police department is coming in and filing a flight plan, and Wing or Manna are filing a flight plan, it's first come first serve. Guess what? It doesn't work in real world. We realized that even though the standard, the ASTM standard that's powering this supports the concept of priority, it wasn't part of the initial scope. The constraints weren't part of the initial scope. So as soon as we launched it, public safety said, Hey, I will have certain 80 percent of the time I don't need priority, but there's that 20 percent of the time where I need priority. So guess what's the next thing we are deploying in Texas? It's the prioritization framework. So, technically, it's already available. So, it's taking those baby steps, adding capabilities to the services, and eventually get to that collection of whatever four, five, six services we end up.

Peter: 38:12

Okay. And for background in this, Texas deployment, what are the standards for separation of these air vehicles and how do they dictate the capacity in the air space? Because if you have, the ability to fly the aircraft relatively close to each other, then capacity doesn't become a factor and prioritization becomes an academic issue. So how does it really play out with the standards in this particular instance?

Amit: 38:38

Sure, that's a great question. So, first of all, prioritization does become an issue because we realize because the CONOPS for Public Safety are not trajectory based. They don't know. They just block out this big area and I am going to fly it to search and rescue, or I'm chasing the culprit. I can't tell you exactly where I'm going to be. I just need to be in this area. So people have to work around it. So, whereas the other operations are trajectory based. This one is typically more like an area based operation. It's not your typical trajectory based operation. So that was the thing. So that's where the prioritization comes in. And then how are the separations managed? What we are doing initially, it's up to the USS to create these. And it's interesting because you can see, as we are collecting this data, we are running the systems, different people have different ways of how optimized those volumes are versus how not optimized they might be in certain cases. So it depends on the operator's maturity and comfort level and confidence that they can maintain that aircraft within that small corridor per se. So, right now, we have not enforced like this is the minimum size of the volume, but what's happening, all that data is getting captured. So, FAA is analyzing this data, we are analyzing this data, so as density of operations increases because the density isn't quite high, then we'll see at what point do we need to look at fairness and fair and equitable use of airspace, like do we have to set tolerances, you cannot be more than this, or you get penalized if you uh, are abusing the airspace and hogging the whole airspace. I can tell you, what we do in our case is like, if it's a trajectory based operation, we have a vertical and a horizontal threshold based on the performance characteristics of the aircraft, and each aircraft is different. So when we create those volumes, it's based on the performance characteristics of the aircraft, uh, vertical and horizontal thresholds. And the standard says 95% of the time you need to be in that volume, right? That's what the standard says. So you have to have that level of confidence in your aircraft that you can maintain that conformance 95% of the time. Now, other USSs may have different vertical horizontal thresholds. I know how our ours operates, and that's tied to the performance characteristics of aircraft. If it's a fixed fixed wing versus a multi rotor versus an eVTOL.

Luka: 41:02

I think our audience would appreciate, knowing a little bit more how this strategic coordination is done. Maybe we can just take an example from takeoff to landing and to kind of explain what are the, calculations that are happening in the background, how does that ultimately get to the, mission control, flight planning software that say Manna is using or WING. Describe that workflow end to end.

Amit: 41:28

Sure. So we can use, uh, an example, like you said. So let's say we are operating in an area X, Y, Z, and customers are ordering because you're talking about delivery operators here. So I'll stick to the delivery use case. So, Manna gets an order for a delivery or multiple orders. Same thing, WING gets a delivery. So as soon as Manna gets a delivery, whatever they do in their system, they'll check, I have an aircraft available. I have the product available XYZ. Then they'll send a request to our system. Say, there are two options here. Option one is they'll say, I want to go from point A to point B. Give me the most optimum route, right? So we, based on our system can create the optimum route for it, factoring into account terrain, obstacle, other constraints that might be in the system. And we'll give them a set of waypoints. Or the other option is, they can say, hey, I already know how I'm going. Here are this series of waypoints. So once we get those waypoints, we get, next step is we create volumes. So think of it as if you were to take a hose and pull a string through it The string is the flight plan, the trajectory of the flight, and hose is the volume. So we are creating this hose, but it's not one big hose, so I'm not blocking the whole volume for the whole time. I take this hose and I cut it into smaller chunks. So each chunk has a start time and end time. So it's in four dimensions, space and time, so that I'm making optimum use of this space because one, I have a takeoff volume, a vertical leg, and then I transition to the other leg So once I pass this volume I release this volume. I don't need this anymore. I've already moved on, so someone else can use it. So these small segments and the segments down here, they're not active. It's in space and time. So someone else can be crisscrossing there till I go here So the first person, so let's say Manna was the first operator that is planning the flight. So they'll go ahead and plan a flight and we will put a marker in what's called a discovery and synchronization server saying hey, in this area, Manna has an operation. Wing comes in next. They have a delivery happening and guess what? Their path crisscrosses this stuff. So they're going to go to the Discovery Service and say, hey, can you tell me if there's any other operation in this area or operator? So Discovery Service is going to tell it, hey, Manna has an operation you need to go talk to ANRA this is all happening digitally. There's no human talking. So then Wing system is going to call our system and our system. Hey, I have to operate here. Tell me what you have going on here. So we'll tell them here are the volumes in space and time we have. So Wing will plan their volumes around it to de conflict it in space and time. And then once they have created their route, they will send a pointer to the discovery service and add a pointer there. So now we have two de conflicted paths already there. Now let's say a third operator comes in. Manna gets another delivery request. Now they all, they again have to follow the same process. Say, okay, I'm going to their two already paths and if it's in the same area, I'll plan another route. Or if it's in a completely different cell or a geographical area, it doesn't matter there's no one there. So this is what's happening currently. Now, let's take it one step further. Let's talk about the public safety use case. Let's say Arlington PD came in now and say, I have a hostage situation here. I need to operate here. And once we enable priority and preemption, when they submit the flight plan, it'll have a priority level. So, at what time it goes into the system, they see what's there already, but it will still allow it to create the operation and it will, in real time, notify both Wing and Manna and saying, there's a higher priority operation in this area, you have X amount of minutes to clear the airspace, so I can launch operations. Or, if that operation for Manna and Wing hasn't started yet, that operation will get terminated and they can fly anyway.

Jim: 45:13

Is the emergency request going through UTM? Are they using a UTM service?

Amit: 45:18

Yeah. Our, our UTM suite.

Luka: 45:21

And I wonder at what point do you think, in terms of scale or perhaps some other factors, does this strategic deconfliction stop being as effective as something that is more tactical in nature. If you're trying to predict the segments of the airspace with a particular time associated with them at which they will be occupied or non occupied, at a certain density of operations, whatever that is, it becomes a very rapid domino effect that might make the entire system break.

Amit: 45:54

That's a great question. So I'll tell you, there'll come a point we are way, it's way down the line. There will come a point and it will happen in dense urban areas. It ain't going to happen in rural suburban areas, but in dense urban areas, when these operations begin to scale, that's where you will see. And at that point you have to look at a combination of strategic and tactical mitigations the same same airspace. But I will tell you, like, two years back, we got a contract from FAA to do a project like this, where it's like, okay, similar, I want to see what happens to the airspace when I have not just one, two, ten aircraft, but have thousands of aircraft in the same airspace. So this was not real. This was an exercise run in simulation. So we actually simulated 50, 000 simultaneous drone flights over Las Vegas and injected off nominals in the system. So, can the system dynamically reconfigure the airspace? And it all worked fine in the reporters with FAA. Now, if I, instead of whole Las Vegas, if I was to shrink that and bring that in to just the strip area, would that have worked? Probably we would have had issues, and if an off nominal got injected in, we would have to rely a lot more on tactical as well. So eventually we will get there, so there will be some tactical, but technically you have to understand if we do the strategic deconfliction correctly, tactical should always be the last issue to solve It's only when off nominals get injected or an off nominal happens, then you need to worry about tactical.

Luka: 47:23

What were some interesting insights, lessons learned out of that, operational testing in July of this year that perhaps were not what you expected?

Amit: 47:34

July one, to be honest, it was just a flight and it was just Manna and Wing and it just worked. To be honest, there wasn't a whole lot. The learnings the recent one Uh, The November one, so it's interesting when we were flying, uh, so because we had different use cases. It was not delivery versus delivery, it was delivery, delivery plus PD. So that was different priority stuff. And then it was interesting because if you understand what we're doing in Dallas Fort Worth area, are operating in a Mode C veil the DFW mode c veil which is 10, 000 square kilometers. So it's mode c veil means, ADS-B is mandated, right? So all crewed aircraft are squawking ADS-B. So while we had 30 regulators onsite watching these live flights, we actually had a crewed aircraft go above, like a small, I think it was a Cessna or something, it flew over us. It was about 500 feet. It tells you the system works. It was de conflicted and we had a crewed aircraft, and it wasn't planned. It wasn't staged. It was just something that happened. And we had like 150 people there just watching it in real time.

Peter: 48:42

So today with the trials, when the PD needs to make a flight, they're taking priority and they're grabbing a big volume of airspace in which to operate. Is that right?

Amit: 48:51

So first of all, if FAA was on this call, they will yell at you because you will use the word trial. It's operational evaluation. It's not a trial. So FAA is very sensitive about that.

Peter: 49:02

Okay, this, this operational evaluation. in today's, case, is that what happens? And, and really where I'm going with this question is the future of DFR, and if we have a lot more drones flying on the DFR mission, how are they going to play in a more cooperative, more efficient manner with respect to sharing the airspace?

Amit: 49:28

So what's happening today, Arlington PD has access to the system and they file flight plans that automatically comes into our system and it gets de conflicted with others and when they're cleared, they go and fly. Uh, they don't, like I mentioned, prioritization isn't implemented. So there's a prioritization task force that is working jointly with FAA to set the different priority levels, who gets priority versus who not, in what cases, just because it's a public safety operation doesn't mean it always gets priority. Because if it's just a training mission, does it really need to be a priority operation, right? So currently what's deployed out there today, as of now, it's first come, first serve. No priority. Prioritization by Q1, we expect to roll out prioritization frameworks, so then PD or whoever else has priority can go in and file, if someone else is there, file a priority operation and get the first right to fly there. Does that answer your question?

Peter: 50:19

Yeah, it does, but I'm also looking ahead to much higher utilization of drones for DFR missions of a spectrum of types. It could be to go gather photographs at a car accident, or it could be responding to a 911 call. We can just anticipate a lot of potential missions, granted a more complex concept of operations, much more complex than delivery, for instance. But, it just seems if, this system is going to scale and if this use of the airspace is going to be balanced and if we are actually going to have the ability to grant prioritized access for the missions that actually really need the priority and really need flexibility in the airspace in order to grab priority for not just a typical volume of airspace but a big swath of it for a mission that is actually deserving of that, then we need to be thinking ahead now in terms of which DFR missions are going to be at that level of priority and which DFR missions are going to be on an equal footing with everything else in the air and how we're going to sort that out because, because otherwise the system is going to become imbalanced. There's going to be some huge unintended consequences

Amit: 51:35

That's a great question and that is precisely why we have what we call it as a prioritization task force that has worked, and it has participation from NASA, from FAA, from public safety, everyone. That is precisely what's happening right now, exactly what Peter articulated. We need different levels. Just because it's the DFR doesn't mean it gets priority. So, even just because it's critical infrastructure inspection doesn't mean it gets priority. Right? It's, the fine print, in what case do you get priority? So those are the things that are being worked on right now, which is why, because standard currently today supports prioritization, but the reason we haven't rolled it out is precisely because we need, we have the technical means of implementation, but we need a regulatory overlay that tells us what is what. What gets priority over others and that is what's being worked on and once that is done, it's just a matter of turning it on.

Luka: 52:28

How does the experience, with the operational evaluation, I'm careful with my terms, uh, compare to the original NASA UTM research paper? What proved to be correct? What didn't?

Amit: 52:42

Good lord, you know the NASA paper was written so far back. It's like 2014 and we went through so many iterations I'll tell you because we've been there. We've been through I think we're the only one standing that's been there since day one.

Luka: 52:54

I, can I just interject real quick? The reason I'm asking is because we often get pushback from the industry saying that NASA was really trying to look for a solution to a problem that the industry didn't have. And this, you know, over indexing on strategic de confliction, where industry players were really thinking on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Amit: 53:14

I can't speak on behalf of NASA, but what I'll tell you is it has evolved a lot. When we had what we call the TCL 1, the concepts that were tested and evaluated are a lot different than what we tested in TCL 4. So, what we tested in TCL 4, acted as a baseline for UFT and that's what the standard has. So if you were to compare to what we started with and where we ended up, there were quite a few differences on how we were discovering, how we were de conflicting and stuff like that. But the closest one would be TCL4 and then followed by the UFT, UPP and UFT. That's precisely what's in the operational evaluation. So technically, remember I told you we did the UFT2 and the FAA said what do we do next? So we technically basically took exactly what we did in UFT2 and took a subset of that and rolled it out in the Key Site. So technically there's no change. The UFT2 is what's happening in operational evaluation?

Luka: 54:11

So do you think that when part 108, comes out, or at least the draft version of it for comment, do you think that strategic coordination, prioritization of flights, broadly UTM services, will that be a way of mitigating and reducing risk of the operation or do you think that this will be, mandated that you need to have that whenever you're flying a BVLOS operation

Amit: 54:37

I wish I had a crystal ball, uh, to give you an answer, but from what I have heard, it is at a minimum going to be a means of compliance mitigating the UA to UA risk.

Luka: 54:50

How does that relate to how U-Space fits into the SORA framework?

Amit: 54:55

The SORA is, so when you do at look at UTM, this, uh, UA to UA is just looking at air, air to the UA to year risk. When you look at SORA you're looking at air risk ground and a bunch of other things, your OSO, your containment volumes, and stuff like that. So, it's not necessarily an apples to apples comparison. There are some similarities in how the datasets help you inform when you're doing deconflicting and stuff like that. But it's not, I'm not calculating SAIL levels, I'm not putting in containment volumes, I'm not looking at OSOs and stuff like that.

Luka: 55:30

Uh, when we're just looking at the air risk mitigation on the SORA side, having a U-Space implemented automatically reduces the air risk class to ARC B, if I'm not mistaken. Is there an equivalent way of thinking about this risk classification and assessment and what we know might be in Part 108, where a complex airspace might automatically be classified as a lower risk operation if UTM is implemented. And if so, what is that going to look like?

Amit: 56:05

I'm trying to understand what you're asking me, because it's, it's the FAA order 8040. 6a, which talks about the different hazards and the safety risk management. So that's what's kind of was used as a baseline. To go to FAA saying, hey, UTM, this UA UA strategic de confliction helps you mitigate some of those UA to UA risks by leveraging UTM. That, that's in essence how it rolled out.

Peter: 56:33

What I'm interpreting is that the UTM would still be used in an advisory sort of form, and the ultimate responsibility for separation would lie on the shoulders of the operators. But the use of the UTM is seen to reduce the risk? Is that where we're

Amit: 56:50

Uh, not quite. So the eventually operator has liability and USS has liability as well. If I deconflicted. Incorrectly for you. And I told you this area is de conflicted and you went and bumped into something. I have liability.

Peter: 57:04

Okay, so if your software did a poor job of strategic deconfliction and created intersecting flight paths, you would bear liability for that. But for the execution of the flight to stay within the reserved volumes, That lies on

Amit: 57:17

that's operator. That is operator. That is operator's responsibility. Yes. And then, then just 1 more follow up to Peter's question. And then, then as part of this operational evaluation, we are also, we have reporting requirements called aggregate conformance monitoring, which the USS provides and has inputs from both operator and USS. And that gets consolidated and submitted on a monthly basis.

Luka: 57:40

What use cases will, do you think require a UTM system in place? And how do we describe that use case in terms of the density of the air operations in a given, airspace? Is it how the airspace is classified? How will an operator decide or, you know, be forced to implement UTM?

Amit: 58:01

I don't think it's necessarily a use case of delivery versus critical infrastructure. The way I look at it, it's more like a UTM is needed when you have overlapping operations and more so when you have overlapping operations when there's VLOS and BVLOS or BVLOS and BVLOS. Because if you and me both are flying VLOS, we can visually separate. I don't really need UTM, right? I can separate. You're flying there. I'm across from you. I'm controlling my drone. I can manage. I can visually separate. But anytime I have BVLOS, BVLOS or BVLOS, VLOS, that's where I need UTM.

Jim: 58:31

How would one decide to use something in house versus an outsourced UTM in those scenarios?

Amit: 58:37

I would tell everyone they should use us. I'm just kidding. No, I guess it depends on how tightly, uh, I can't even say how tightly integrated because our services are very tightly integrated with Manna and, uh, Matternet. It's integrated into their business processes. I guess it depends on the business model and the scale, right? So a great example is if, a service, a drone operator, uh, is planning to operate across different geographies, having a third party service provider like ours makes sense because, for example, we are getting certified by EASA. If another operator had to go, they would get certified here and then each individual member state. Whereas if they go with us, by default, they can go anywhere because we are already, and we are maintaining compliance and evolution as the regulations improve. And now some entities such as Wing, because they may have resources and stuff, they are, they want to spend a few million dollars and just build it and maintain it. But, uh, for majority, and we're just talking about delivery use cases in this case, but there are other operators that are not going to want to invest that kind of money and then keep the, maintain the lifecycle, do the lifecycle management of that key, because it's not just a one time thing to get certified. We have been at our EASA certification for almost 18 months now. It's harder than an ANSP certification because it's never been done before. And it's not just the software. It's your business management system, your cyber security, your software assurance, all those things. It is a very intrusive process and a painstaking, long drawn process that you have to go through and not talking about the financial aspects of it, too. Uh, so it's not something that everyone would want to go through, but bigger entities may want to for whatever business reasons want to do that.

Jim: 1:00:25

Is there any advantage that an operator would achieve by having their in house UTM capabilities, or is it merely they just don't want to pay for, an outsourced capability? Is it just, does it come down to money?

Amit: 1:00:38

Yeah. Yeah. I think if they have expendable funds to spend on something like this, they would just do it in house and then keep maintaining the roadmap and ongoing certifications and stuff. I don't think there's a necessarily a technical reason to do that.

Luka: 1:00:53

For those operators who decide to outsource that service? What have you learned about their willingness to pay and what does that business model look like?

Amit: 1:01:02

So it's, that's a great question because that's what everyone always asks. How do you make money in this thing? We have, we've been fortunate to work with the operators that we do. Because they see the scaling. It's not like how much money are you making today? We have commercial contracts. So full disclosure, we have commercial contracts, but it's not something I would retire on today, right? So, but this shows you how you scale as I go from 1 operation to 10 to 100. And when I go from 1 market to market 2, market 3, market 4, so it shows you a path to get there. And then. I would rather not get, like, then we have some specific arrangements with our customers where we as a company have a lot more capability than just what we are talking about here. So there are some additional value added capabilities our operators use as well.

Peter: 1:01:52

Beyond the minimum set of requirements that you certify with in order to, you know, have the system in use, what are the areas where you can add value beyond that, if you think about not just convincing a customer to use an outsourced system versus build their own, but if you think about how this competitive landscape is going to evolve amongst third party providers like you, on top of the bare minimum of what you have to certify with, what are the vectors along which you can build a product roadmap and add value on top of that and remain competitive?

Amit: 1:02:26

So I have to be careful how much I say, because we are at that place where we are, everyone is trying to penetrate the market. So, the secret sauce here is those value added services. It's not those core services. You hit the nail on the head, Peter, right? If everyone complies with the standards and builds the services and obviously builds it in a scalable fashion. So, having that certification is the key discriminator. Then the second one is these value added offerings. How am I going to make the life of the operator easier? Is it, I'm just going to throw out a random example, is like route planning, for example optimum route planning where they don't have to worry about and our system has algorithms built in based on performance characteristics of the aircraft trajectory, weather, terrain, obstacles, C2 coverage map, that I can pull all that and give them one stop answer. Give me a route and I'll give you a route. Then, uh, if something happens in route, can I dynamically give them a new route, right? How do I provide them awareness of broader airspace is another capability. Can I help them? For example, we're building our system is getting used, and granted, this is more of a research pilot project, is where they're using UTM services, but then it's integration into the hospital system, like a medical delivery network. So how do you integrate into the workflow there, where when they place an order, it automatically integrates into the inventory management, but in the back end, it talks to the, operator and sees, do I have a drone that can carry this kind of capability? Do I have to split it into multiple packages and how do I create the route? And then it talks to the UTM system. So there are these value added boxes that you put on top based on the customer and the use case. So it's not like a catch all kind of stuff. It's, uh, very nuanced and some of them are value added services that can be universally used across multiple operators and others are very specific to that vertical.

Peter: 1:04:26

Yeah, some of those things are very deeply interwoven into the operator's aircraft and how their operations work.

Luka: 1:04:35

And conversely, you might have other mission planning type software that might extend into UTM and offer those services, strategic deconfliction services as well. Do you see that as a risk or do you consider that there are some more fundamental moats that you can build around the business?

Amit: 1:04:52

I don't think it's a risk. To be honest, if this industry scales the way we all hope scale, it's a big pond. There are plenty of fish and there will always be those specialized use case. If someone has a specific mission planning tool and stuff like that, I think they can always expand. There's nothing stopping them from expanding, but it will require a lot of investment and time on them to first build the capability. Building the capability is easy, but taking it through certification and then rolling it out and maintaining it is, it's a business decision. If someone wants to add that as a new vertical in their line of business, yeah, absolutely.

Jim: 1:05:26

Amit, if there's a hundred million dollars being generated a year, let's say two years from now, from UTM services globally, how is that being bifurcated? What services are generating the most revenue for the UTM provider two years from now? By the way, is a hundred million ungodly high or ungodly low or just, just right.

Amit: 1:05:46

I hope it's just right. Uh, that's a great question, Jim. I think it's a tricky question to answer. Because depending on where we are operating in the world, a different set of services will get deployed because it's not the same set. Like I told you, uh, because in Europe we are currently deploying four services, mandatory services. And here it's only just one. So it's hard for me to tell you exactly how it will get bifurcated across services, because we are planning to launch it into a European market soon. And they actually. may mandate one of the optional services being one of the mandatory services. So, uh, I honestly, uh, I don't know, like, how it would get bifurcated within those typical UTM services, but I can tell you if you're talking about the base services and value added services, if that was your question, I think value added will probably be a sizable chunk, more than 50 percent.

Jim: 1:06:46

Because the basic services are rather hard to monetize for some of the reasons we've talked about today.

Luka: 1:06:51

Have you explored the opportunity of route deconfliction and generation for the military use case and how they are solving this problem?

Amit: 1:07:01

Our system is currently in use by UK MOD and we have supported some NATO trials as well. That goes into those value added capability, which goes beyond just pure UTM.

Luka: 1:07:16

Can you speak to how airspace deconfliction is done today on the battlefield versus how you expect that to evolve?

Amit: 1:07:23

Well, it's definitely not using UTM right now. So, uh, it depends on the contested airspace. Do you typically have an air boss that's out there that's managing the traffic and directing the traffic in a particular area? But the challenge becomes between when you're trying to distinguish between a cooperative and a non cooperative asset. It's a lot easier to deconflict cooperative assets that are talking to you and sharing the information. It becomes a challenge when I'm In theater and all of a sudden I have non cooperative assets. So that actually is much broader than UTM. That is, uh, like I joke about it, uh, UTM and, uh, A counter US system getting married and making a baby. That's what you're looking for in that case. So you need both of these pieces to come together into one cop or a common operational picture. That's what's needed in the military space.

Jim: 1:08:17

Amit, what's the future of UTM, ATM integration? There are people listening today who are, let's say they're air traffic experts and they're thinking, Oh boy, if you think you're coming near my space, talk about how that's going to play? And what are some of the challenges with that integration?

Amit: 1:08:33

Yeah, I'll tell them because I'm a pilot too. I want to fly safely in the national airspace system too. So, uh, You know, when we first started the company, I had had this vision slide when we were planning to investors. So I had this vision slide, which was three phases. I had a UTM, ATM as two separate, first we had ATM, then I had a UTM as a separate bubble. Then you kept crawl, walk. Then you had. ATM as a thing, and then you had UTM and AAM as one bubble. And then as you move to the future, fast forward 15 years, 20 years, I had digital airspace management, which was the ATM we know today. And people may disagree with me, is not going to exist in it. It's going to exist, but not in its current form 15 years from now. It'll be an evolutionary system relying heavily on digital information exchanges. I don't think it's going to be called UTM, to be honest. it's going to be called something else, but it's going to rely on the same concepts and principles that we're talking about.

Jim: 1:09:35

Many people listening probably will say, well, it's going to be called ATM, but, who are the companies that are more likely to be managing that system, those that are managing the ATM system today with the data, maybe from the UTM providers? Or how do you see that playing out in, let's say 15 years, if you're saying that digital airspace could be 15 years from now.

Amit: 1:09:56

When you say who's going to be managing, there are 2 aspects. Who's providing the technology and who's managing? Managing is today it's Air Navigation Service Providers or ANSPs that are managing it. And as we move forward, ANSPS around the world are pivoting, right? They don't want to be left out. It's their bread bowl, and they want to get into this line of business. So they are augmenting their offering to add UTM like capabilities or UTM capabilities. So down the line, they can offer those services as well. What we will see going forward is you will have the traditional players that are in this space that are already offering air traffic management system services evolve to offer that service. However, there will be a lot of new entrants that were not in this space, leverage this technology and become technology providers in this space.

Jim: 1:10:43

Five, ten years from now, what's the high probability future looking like, for UTM and for the conversation of the things we've been discussing?

Amit: 1:10:53

So I think we will see a lot more operational, we'll see, we are seeing operationalization in the small UAS segment already. We'll see scale in the next 10 years, we'll definitely see a lot more scale in the small UAS segment. The eVTOL AAM side is going to take a while. We will have initial demonstration, limited trials, but it's going to take the same path that small UAS took, like innovation, experimentation, operationalization. I wish everyone the best. There are a lot of people that have poured billions of dollars into building aircraft and stuff like that, but at the end of the day, it's an ecosystem play. It's not just aircraft. It's just one part of the puzzle. Certification, integration, ecosystem, noise, and all those things have to play. So that is way further down in my opinion. So to answer your question, we will see small UAS scale and us moving from maybe innovation to somewhere in between experimentation and operationalization in the next 10 years in the eVTOL AAM space.

Jim: 1:11:57

And if you wanted to leave a message with our audience, what would be the one message you'd like to leave them?

Amit: 1:12:02

There's hope. There's light at the end of the tunnel. And I can tell you first hand, having been being at it for a while. It's finally, don't do the, don't join this industry. Don't come in this industry unless you have passion for this industry. If you're doing it purely for near term financial events, don't do it. But if you're really passionate about making a difference and seeing something come to fruition, yeah.

Jim: 1:12:23

All right, so given your answer, if somebody wanted a near term financial win in this industry, where would you point them?

Amit: 1:12:30

Start organizing conferences.

Jim: 1:12:32

Okay. All right. But, I mean, where do you see some money being made today that you think you wouldn't have seen a couple years ago?

Amit: 1:12:41

So, I, I think, in the enterprise segment, there are a lot of enterprises, whether we're, no matter where the rulemaking is and stuff, a lot of enterprises are looking to bring these programs in house, they are scaling operations, not just tens, hundreds of flights a day across states and across country, and there is a lot of opportunity there to work with those customers to enable those operations scale. And then as things start evolving, they, by default, need, will need to get linked into UTM. So like we've been working with New York Power Authority for like three years now. And now they're using our UTM services as well. They didn't use them till now, but now they are.

Jim: 1:13:21

Yeah, very good. I was just reading that press release on your site earlier. Amit, a great pleasure meeting you. Thanks for joining us. This has been a great talk.

Amit: 1:13:29

Thank you. Thank you. It's a pleasure.