Here are several ways to contact us
Are you an existing customer and need support? Submit a support request here. We will have an agent contact you within 24 hours or on the next business day.
Are you interested in signing up for service or are you an operator interested in working with us? Send us a note at hello@ariascend.com.
Why do you limit the types of crops you will survey?
Each crop is different and needs to be analyzed in different ways. We are limiting the initial crop types we will survey in order to give our customers the most relevant and actionable analyses.
How do I get started?
Create a login and request an initial consult!
Who owns the data?
You, as the grower own the data. You can take the data anywhere. But, we will retain non-personally identifiable information.
When do I get charged?
Growers are charged on a monthly basis.
Why do you limit the types of drones that can be used?
When growers are making decisions on their livelihood/crops, the data needs to be consistent and accurate. Data can change significantly based on the platforms that are used.
How do I become an operator?
Send your business information or resume to fly@ariascend.com.
CONTACT INFORMATION:
ARIASCEND
Kenji Sugahara
503-302-4935
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PATENT FOR BROADCAST REMOTE ID AWARDED
Visionary UAS remote identification patent awarded to long time industry veteran.
SALEM, OR, Jan.4, 2021- Ariascend, an Oregon unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) drone research and development company, announced that their CEO, Kenji Sugahara, was recently awarded a patent for broadcast remote identification of drones. The recent FAA announcement of the final rule on Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft and the upcoming ASTM standards, cements the patent’s applicability and relevance in the industry.
The United States Patent Office issued U.S. Patent 10,825,345, titled “Devices, methods and systems for close proximity identification of unmanned aerial systems” on November 3, 2020 with priority to March 9, 2017. The “digital license plate” system described in our proposal and in the patent served as the foundation and was the genesis of the framework for Remote ID as described in the FAA final rule.
“I am honored that the whitepaper that I had brought to the FAA Remote ID ARC planted the seed for what we see today in the FAA’s final rule,” said Kenji Sugahara, CEO of Ariascend. “It is the reflection of our vision, perseverance, and hard work. While Remote ID will evolve over time, broadcast will remain the cornerstone of remote identification for the near future.”
Ariascend continues to look forward to working with both the FAA and industry partners to make Remote ID a success.
About Ariascend and Kenji Sugahara
Founded in 2015 by Kenji Sugahara, Ariascend is a UAS research and development company. Kenji is an attorney and is one of the most knowledgeable drone policy experts in the field having played critical role in the 2017 FAA Remote ID and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee. He is an active member of ASTM working on industry standards for remote ID. He continues to serve on a number of task groups for the Federal Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) and most recently is serving on two DAC task groups. He is also Chief Pilot for A-Cam Aerials, a drone service provider, and CEO/President of the Drone Service Providers Alliance, an advocacy group for small and medium sized drone service providers.
Analysis of the FAA Reauthorization Act
PDF Download
Does not cover recreational UAS
By Kenji Sugahara, Ariascend
Section 342 Update of FAA Comprehensive Plan (H.R. 302 pages 102-103)
This section of the law instructs the FAA to update the FAA comprehensive plan that considers:
This is important as it updates the roadmap to integrate drones into the national airspace. Why is this significant? It will explore the usage of UTM for operations and may require participation in UTM down the road.
Section 345 Small Unmanned Aircraft Safety Standards (H.R. 302- pages 106-108)
This section deals with the FAA creating a process for the acceptance of risk-based consensus safety standards for sUAS. This section is important for manufacturers, custom builders, and homebuilders.
Section 346 Public UAS (H.R. 302- pages 109-110)
This section deals with public unmanned aircraft systems and instructing the FAA to make it easier for public bodies to use sUAS. The actively tethered sUAS exemption is new and very interesting. Some of the highlights are listed below:
Section 347 Special Authority for Certain UAS (H.R. 302- page 111)
Section 347 simply replaces Section 333.
Section 348 Carriage of Property by sUAS for Compensation or Hire (H.R. 302- pages 111-112)
Addresses drone delivery. Requires that rulemaking provide for performance-based standards, risk analysis, consider unique characteristics of autonomous sUAS, requirements for safe operation.
Section 350 Use of UAS at Institutions of Higher Ed. (H.R. 302- pages 115-116)
This is significant for educators. sUAS use by an institution of higher education for educational or research purposes is now considered a“recreational purpose”. Thus, instructors no longer need to have a Part 107 certificate as long as they adhere to the new Sec. 349. However, there are limitations and considerations. (read the entire section if you are in education)
Section 351 UAS IPP (H.R. 302- pages 116-119)
Codifies the IPP.
Section 352 Part 107 Transparency and Technology Improvements (H.R. 302- page 119)
Instructs the FAA to publish on the FAA website representative samples of safety justifications offered by applicants for waivers and authorizations for each regulation waived or class of airspace authorized. Section B is very welcome- It instructs the FAA (within 90 days of enactment) to revise Dronezone to provide real-time confirmation that an application that has been filed has been received- and to provide the status of the application.
Section 356 Authorization of Appropriations for Know Before You Fly Campaign (H.R. 302-page 120)
Gives $1 million per year for 5 years to the campaign.
Section 357 UAS Privacy Policy (H.R. 302- page 120)
States that it is the policy of the US that the operation of any UAS shall be carried out in a manner that respects personal privacy consistent with the Constitution along with federal, state, and local laws.
Section 357 UAS Privacy Review (H.R. 302- page 120)
The review authorized by this section should be something that the industry keeps a very close eye on. It instructs the Comptroller of the US in consideration of efforts by the NTIA to carry out a review of privacy issues and concerns associated with the operation of UAS in the NAS. In essence unless, we provide consistent and positive feedback- it may end up either creating recommendations for NFZs, altitude limits, or create huge headaches for operators such as those proposed by the Uniform LawCommission. It will be critical to ensure that the process is not hijacked. The Comptroller will:
Section 359 Study on Fire Department and Emergency Service Agency Use of UAS (H.R. 302- page 121)
If your interest is in fire department and emergency service agency use of UAS, take a look at this section. You may be able to provide feedback or get involved if you are involved with national fire and emergency service organizations.
Section 360 Study on Financing of Unmanned Aircraft Services (H.R. 302- page 122)
This is another study that the industry must keep an eye on. It instructs the Comptroller General to initiate a study on the appropriate fee mechanisms to recover the costs of the regulation and safety oversight of sUAS and the provision of air navigation services. E.g. How to cover the costs of Dronezone, LAANC, etc. While theComptroller is instructed to look at a variety of factors, they are specifically instructed to take into consideration the recommendations of Task Group 3 of the Drone Advisory Committee. While TaskGroup 3 did not make a specific set of recommendations, they outlined a number of ideas.
Section 361 Report on UAS and Chemical Aerial Application (H.R. 302- page 122)
This may give a sliver of hope to those who want to use UAS to spray crops and are flummoxed by Part 137. While it is only a report- it’s a start.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of thisAct, the Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report evaluating which aviation safety requirements under part 137 of title14, Code of Federal Regulations, should apply to unmanned aircraft system operations engaged in aerial spraying of chemicals for agricultural purposes.
Section 362 Sense of Congress Regarding UA Safety (H.R. 302- page 122-123)
While only a sense of Congress and not law- this one will likely have an impact on FAA operations. This section encourages the FAA to pursue all available civil and administrative remedies including referrals to other government agencies for criminal investigations with respect to persons who operate UAS in an unauthorized manner. Says that FAA should still prioritize education. Also encourages the FAA to partner with state and local agencies to enforce laws in regard to interference with emergency responders.
Section 363 Prohibition Regarding Weapons (H.R. 302- page 123)
Prohibits operation of UAS that is equipped or armed with a dangerous weapon unless authorized by the FAA.
Section 372 Enforcement (H.R. 302- page 127)
This section deals with the creation of a 5-year pilot program to use remote ID and tracking technologies for safety oversight including enforcement actions against operators not flying in compliance with federal regulations and laws. Part of the pilot program includes the establishment of a mechanism for federal, state, and local law enforcement to report suspected violations of federal laws and regulations.
Bottom line: Remote ID is coming.
Section 373 Federal and Local Authorities (H.R. 302- page 128)
This is another study to keep a close eye on. This section instructs the ComptrollerGeneral of the US to study the relative roles of all levels of government in the regulation and oversight of low-altitude operations of UAS in the NAS. This is another ULC potential. The report will review:
Section 375 Federal Trade Commission Authority (H.R. 302- page 129)
If you fly for compensation or hire and you have a privacy policy and violate it- it becomes an unfair and deceptive practice subject toFederal Trade Commission penalties.
Section 376 Plan for Full Operational Capability of UAS Traffic Management (H.R. 302- page 129-130)
Begins setting the stage for UTM services- allows testing, blanket waivers, etc. Will eventually have an impact on commercial operations but some UTM services probably still away off. Includes establishment of an implementation plan that requires the development of safety standards, establishment of roles and responsibilities, and assessment of UTM technologies.
Section 377 Early Implementation of Certain UTM Services (H.R. 302- page 132)
Allows for early implementation of certain UTM services.
Section 378 Sense of Congress (H.R. 302- page 133)
Sense of Congress that each person or business that uses UAS for business purposes should have a privacy policy. As noted, if you have one and violate it-then you are subject to FTC penalties. Note that this has a potential to create headaches and hassles depending on your operation. Note- a privacy policy is NOT required by law.
Section 379 Commercial and Governmental Operators
Generally deals with governmental actors but includes a section that requires that the FAA create a spreadsheet of UAS registration, including the city, state, and zip code of each registered drone owner. It is unclear whether what, if any other information would be included.
The DOT is required to publish the following- if it is made available to them- for all UAS that collect personally identifiable information– the DOT must make available on the website information for each UAS:
Section 380 Transition Language (H.R. 302- page 134)
Addresses the transition.
All orders, determinations, rules, regulations, permits, grants, and contracts, which have been issued under any law described under subsection (b) of this section before the effective date of this Act shall continue in effect until modified or revoked by the Secretary ofTransportation, acting through the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, as applicable, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law other than this Act.
Section 383 Airport Safety and Airspace Hazard Mitigation and Enforcement (H.R. 302- pages 135-137)
Title 18- Aircraft Sabotage Act, Computer Fraud and AbuseAct, Wiretap Act, Pen/Trap Statute no longer apply to counter UAS when systems are used by the FAA, DoD, Homeland Security, and other federal security agencies (DOJ). Provides that FAA work with above agencies to develop a plan and test around C-UAS. Recommend reading very closely if you are interested in C-UAS.
Section 384 Unsafe Operation of Unmanned Aircraft (H.R. 302- pages 137-138)
Heads up- this section authorizes criminal penalties including jail time.
Knowingly or recklessly interfering with or disrupting the operation of an aircraft carrying one or more persons in a manner that poses an imminent safety hazard to such occupants shall be a fine or imprisonment for not more than 1 year.
Creates runway exclusion zone around class B, C, D at the surface- anyone who, without authorization knowingly operates a UAS within a runway exclusion zone is subject to penalties. Runway exclusion zone stretches one statute mile along the direction of the runway from the end of the runway with a width of ½ statute mile. This exclusion zone includes ½ mile width from the runway itself.
Any person who causes serious bodily injury or death through reckless flying shall be fined and/or imprisoned for up to 10 years.
Any person who causes, attempts, or conspires to cause serious bodily injury or death by knowingly interfering or disrupting a flight or knowingly flying in runway exclusion zone shall be fined and/or imprisoned for any terms of years or for life.
AriAscend Proposes an Electronic ID for Remote Identification of Drones
Electronic ID would function as a drone “license plate”
April 12, 2017 – AriAscend, an Oregon unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) drone services and data company, proposed a remote identification technology and framework to allow authorities and citizens to identify drones in air.
“AriAscend understands the frustration felt by many lawmakers, law enforcement, and citizens at what they feel are reckless or intrusive activities by drone owners,” said Kenji Sugahara, CEO of AriAscend and Policy Director of the 25,000 member Drone User Group Network. “However, we believe that any solution needs to be narrowly tailored, accessible, inexpensive, technologically simple, and balanced. Our solution achieves those goals while ensuring both accountability and remote pilot privacy.”
In November of 2015, AriAscend shared documents and e-mails that outlined a proposal for in-air identification of unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”) with the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), EPIC, DJI, the University of Southern Denmark, Loretta Alkalay, and others. Those communications formed the basis of AriAscend’s whitepaper.
On March 22, 2017, AriAscend submitted a proposal for in-air identification in response to AUVSI’s call for proposals. One week later on March 29, 2017, the FAA and AUVSI held a session on remote identification at the FAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems Symposium held in Reston, Virginia. The participants discussed remote identification and the upcoming FAA Advisory and Rulemaking Committee (“ARC”) addressing this issue.
“Serving on the UAS Workgroup that advises the Oregon legislature, we hear the complaints of UAS spying and flying dangerously. Even if the complaints are without merit, we understand the frustration faced by citizens and law enforcement at the apparent lack of accountability,” said Kenji.
To be effective, AriAscend believes that any solution has to be universally accessible. The normal citizen should be able to capture the encrypted digital ID without having to buy any additional hardware. The proposed solution envisions utilizing Bluetooth beacons so that anyone with a cellphone or Bluetooth enabled handheld device could capture the encrypted digital ID.
AriAscend suggests that any identification system separate the digital “license plate” or ID of the UAS from the FAA’s remote pilot database, and that lookup should be limited to authorized users to prevent vigilantism. Regulations should mirror those that regulate access to personal information in state motor vehicle records or mirror the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC 2721. Only authorized individuals such as law enforcement should be able to perform any cross referencing and lookup of personal information.
AriAscend has proposed a cost effective, accessible, technologically feasible, localized, and effective way of creating accountability for UAS and their operators. The solution provides a narrowly tailored approach to identify UAS while in the air while preserving pilot privacy.
Further, AriAscend also believes that this framework should be part of a larger solution. AriAscend believes that it makes sense to have different identification schemes for different types of operations. For example, Bluetooth may be adequate for lower altitude operations ADS-B out could be required for higher altitude operations.
AriAscend hopes that these ideas are integrated into the recommendations of the FAA’s Advisory and Rulemaking Committee as part of the identification ecosystem that is necessary to secure our airspace, ensure accountability, and advance the UAS industry.
For additional information, please contact:
Kenji Sugahara, AriAscend CEO- kenji@ariascend.com