Implementation of Uncrewed Aircraft Systems Operational Capabilities: A Guide (2025)
Chapter: 5 Framework and Tools for Coordinating Resources
CHAPTER 5
Framework and Tools for Coordinating Resources
One of the many keys to the ongoing successful use of UAS across a state DOT’s operations is continuous coordination and communication. This chapter outlines the common coordination challenges for both UAS and AAM technologies and provides a coordination framework using committees that many states have found effective. Best practices related to the establishment and operation of these committees and the coordination or management of data are discussed. Various broader coordination efforts between states and at the federal level on UAS and AAM topics are also presented.
Coordination Challenges
State DOTs face a variety of challenges regarding UAS and AAM technologies. The nascent nature of these technologies, coupled with their swift evolution, makes it difficult for local and state agencies to keep pace with trends and align integration efforts with the genuine needs of their constituents. State DOTs can, at times, be hesitant to invest in UAS because they are afraid that the hardware purchased will be outdated by the time it is effectively implemented for daily operations. In addition, the challenges of implementing a UAS program to use UAS as a supplemental tool and the challenges of adopting AAM technology are different and unique.
UAS Program Coordination Challenges
When a state DOT is starting its UAS program or seeking to mature its program, it can often struggle with coordinating the efforts with the right internal stakeholders. It can be difficult to convince decision-makers of the potential benefits and the necessity of embracing UAS as an additional tool. State DOTs are often siloed, and it can be challenging to communicate between the silos and coordinate implementation efforts. Implementation efforts involve training personnel, establishing standard operating procedures, and ensuring that UAS operations complement traditional methods without causing disruptions. Coordinating these efforts is significant and works best through a committee framework outlined later in this chapter.
AAM Adoption Coordination Challenges
The adoption of AAM, whether it be aerial package delivery or passenger eVTOL operations, presents many unique challenges and will take robust coordination efforts. One of the largest coordination issues identified in the focus groups is the disparity between the intense push from the industry for AAM adoption and the alignment with the actual needs of communities. Industry education efforts often fall short in addressing the nuanced concerns, priorities, and specific requirements of state and local agencies and the citizens they serve. Stakeholder coordination or
outreach checklists generated by the industry may not account for the unique circumstances of different communities, leading to a lack of synergy between the industry’s vision and the practical needs of the communities that the state DOT serves.
The lack of coordination and alignment between industry stakeholders and state DOTs can pose a significant challenge. Establishing clear lines of communication and coordination is important so that industry efforts complement the initiatives of the state DOT and its constituents. Coordination efforts should focus on shared goals and outcomes to create a cohesive strategy for integration.
To overcome coordination challenges, it is important for state DOTs to recognize AAM not merely as a technological or aviation issue but as an integral component of the broader transportation and logistics landscape. States can use a robust coordination framework outlined later in this chapter to achieve greater alignment with industry partners to better address community needs and concerns.
Internal UAS Coordination
Successful coordination of UAS integration efforts within a state DOT involves various elements, including the internal organization of the UAS program, the establishment of a stakeholder committee, and the timing and method of communication with executive leadership or the state legislature. This section will outline common organizational structure models regarding how a UAS program can be organized and governed within state DOTs, and it will also provide a framework for establishing and using a UAS steering committee. It is important to note that each state is different and has unique internal characteristics. It is important for each state DOT to consider what will be most beneficial regarding which comes first: the establishment of the committee or the organization/governance of the UAS program. Perhaps these activities would happen simultaneously in some states, while for others, there is a clear option to do one before the other. This section will provide general information regarding the organizational structures, their general advantages and disadvantages, and the framework for using a UAS steering committee.
UAS Program Organizational Structure Models
State DOTs across the country have taken varying approaches to the organization of UAS programs from a governing or management perspective. Three main organizational structures have been adopted:
- The aeronautics model.
- The state DOT model.
- The central agency model.
Each position across these three models is essentially the same. For the sake of understanding the three organizational structures, the roles and responsibilities of each job function within these organizational structures (e.g., UAS training coordinator, UAS pilot) can also be viewed as largely the same, although these job functions will be specifically defined by each state.
There are potential advantages and disadvantages to each organizational structure for state DOTs to consider when determining which model will most effectively serve the needs of the department. The following summary and discussion of organizational structure models are adapted from Wheeler et al. (2023a).
Currently, the most prevalent model is the aeronautics organizational structure, as shown in Figure 13. This is the organizational structure when the UAS program is housed within the
division of aeronautics, which, for some states, is a division or bureau within the state DOT, while for other states, it is a separate or stand-alone agency. Twenty-four states have adopted this structure, housing the UAS program within their division of aeronautics. The model involves a UAS program manager overseeing a team that includes a UAS training coordinator, full-time UAS pilots, functional division pilots, and supplemental consultant pilots as needed. This approach offers a key advantage in leveraging existing aviation knowledge and resources and minimizing overhead costs associated with procuring additional office space and equipment. Divisions of aeronautics already possess relationships with the FAA and understand FAA regulations, providing a solid foundation for establishing a UAS program.
However, a potential drawback of this model is the risk of organizational silos within the division of aeronautics, leading to a lack of understanding of functions in other state DOT divisions. To address this, the suggestion is to establish a UAS committee that involves key stakeholders from various departments interested in UAS applications. This committee framework is thoroughly discussed in the following section.
To further mitigate potential challenges of this model, checklists are a useful tool for the requesting division and the division of aeronautics to clarify expectations and deliverables. Pre-UAS operation meetings are suggested for more complex operations to clarify communication and address any changes in regulations related to specific use cases. This proactive approach helps the division of aeronautics stay informed about evolving requirements, such as those related to surveying, bridge inspection, geotechnical, and environmental applications.
In the second most common organizational model, observed in 21 states, UAS programs are placed under divisions within the state DOT other than the division of aeronautics. For instance, Virginia houses its UAS program in the Virginia DOT’s Office of Research and Innovation, and
Colorado houses its UAS programs in the Colorado DOT’s Survey, Mapping, and Geographic Information System (GIS) Division of Project Support. This structure, depicted in Figure 14, streamlines organizational complexity compared to the aeronautics model. Each functional division under this state DOT model has its UAS personnel responsible for specific operations, with oversight from a UAS program manager. However, challenges can arise if departments are culturally isolated or lack support for coordination.
Similar to the aeronautics model, the state DOT model has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage lies in having subject matter experts within functional divisions handling UAS operations tailored to their expertise, such as engineers conducting bridge inspections. The drawback is a potential lack of aviation knowledge crucial for UAS success. Establishing a UAS committee can address this issue and enhance program strength. Despite differences in program design, leadership by a UAS program manager and a robust internal training program remain essential.
The third organizational model is known as the centralized or central agency structure, which is when an independent, centralized agency serves all of the UAS needs across the state. This separate UAS department is independent of the state DOT and/or division of aeronautics and maintains its own dedicated budget, personnel, and equipment. The depicted organizational framework in Figure 15 features a central agency comprising a UAS program manager, a UAS training coordinator, full-time UAS pilots, and the possibility of engaging consultant pilots as required. The full-time UAS pilots are responsible for conducting operations across various functional divisions within a DOT and other state organizations.
An advantage of this centralized organizational structure is full control of the UAS program, which is provided by the nature of it being a stand-alone, independent agency. A potential strength of this model is that scalability could be more feasible when compared to the other two
models (Wheeler et al. 2023a). Ohio is currently the only state using a truly separate and centralized UAS agency—the Ohio UAS Center. This UAS center deploys UAS pilots to meet the needs of all state agencies, including the Ohio DOT (Ohio DOT, n.d.).
The Ohio UAS Center offers a valuable insight: despite having skilled and seasoned UAS pilots within a centralized agency, there are instances when these pilots may lack the practical expertise required for certain operations. For example, there are occasions when skilled UAS pilots may not possess specific knowledge about optimal methods for conducting bridge inspections to ensure that deliverables meet expectations on the initial attempt. This underscores the importance of genuine collaboration and teamwork, where the strengths of all subject matter experts involved can be used to address such gaps effectively (Wheeler et al. 2023a).
Figure 16 is a map that reflects which UAS program organizational structure is used across different states. Regardless of the organizational structure that a state DOT employs for its UAS program, the coordination framework discussed in the next section of this Guide can be leveraged to ensure the successful integration of UAS across the organization.
Coordination Framework: Using a Committee
Internal coordination within a state DOT is foundational to the successful integration of UAS technology. States such as Michigan, Utah, South Dakota, and many others that have successfully adopted UAS throughout their operations have used a steering committee as the coordinating framework. A UAS steering committee with knowledgeable and motivated individuals can serve as the heartbeat of coordination efforts. Their composition should include representatives from, at a minimum, the various divisions of the state DOT. A member of the executive leadership
team should also sit on the steering committee to ensure consistency with the state DOT mission and directives and to understand the ongoing status of UAS adoption efforts at a leadership level (Wheeler et al. 2023a). The steering committee could also include external members such as subject matter experts from local academic institutions, a legislative representative, and other relevant stakeholders. Steering committee members should possess a genuine interest in understanding UAS technology and how it can assist the state DOT personnel in daily operations.
The UAS steering committee should serve as a central advisory body that can strategize, plan, and recommend policies and practices related to UAS operations within the state DOT. The dynamic nature of UAS technology requires a cohesive and multidisciplinary approach to effectively address safety, privacy, infrastructure, and integration concerns (Wheeler et al. 2023a). A UAS steering committee brings together key stakeholders from various stakeholder groups to navigate these challenges collaboratively. Regular and formal meetings facilitate open discussions and collaboration to consider all perspectives. Executive leadership support is pivotal in giving these committees the authority and resources needed to drive the UAS agenda forward.
Another use of a UAS steering committee is to form a larger scope committee of multiple state, tribal, and local agencies that actively use UAS. This committee is often separate from the internal state DOT committee described earlier and could include DOTs, emergency management agencies, police and fire departments, environmental protection agencies, search and rescue teams, public health departments, utility companies, academic institutions with UAS programs, and other relevant agencies using or interested in adopting UAS technology.
The collaboration of multiple state, tribal, and local agencies can provide a multitude of benefits. It may be beneficial to invite federal agency representatives to sit on this larger committee, as appropriate, to enable better coordination between state and federal agencies. One of the multiple benefits of this large committee is that this collaborative effort fosters a more comprehensive approach to addressing the challenges and opportunities associated with UAS technology. It could provide opportunities to pool the resources, expertise, and perspectives of various agencies. This approach fosters a more inclusive and adaptable framework for UAS integration and promotes efficiency by avoiding redundancy in efforts.
Additionally, the participation of multiple agencies in this larger committee could facilitate enhanced coordination and communication between various levels of government, including streamlining the regulatory process on applicable UAS regulations, addressing jurisdictional issues, and establishing consistent standards for UAS operations throughout a state. Another benefit of such a committee is that it provides a platform for the exchange of knowledge and experience, enabling agencies to learn from one another and stay abreast of emerging trends and technologies in the rapidly evolving UAS landscape. The synergy between state, tribal, and local agencies can lead to safe, reliable, and well-coordinated integration of UAS technology. Additionally, the collaborative committee provides a platform for the exchange of knowledge and experience, enabling agencies to learn from one another and stay abreast of emerging trends and technologies in the rapidly evolving UAS landscape.
The Alaska DOT&PF has seen great success with its participation in the Alaska Geospatial Council (https://agc.dnr.alaska.gov/), which facilitates coordination across multiple state agencies on providing the public with the best geospatial data and technologies possible. Because UAS are key to collecting geospatial data, the Alaska DOT&PF is an active participant in this council, demonstrating how a cross-agency approach can bridge silos. Involving all UAS operators across state agencies, the council facilitates discussions on best practices, operational challenges, and collaboration opportunities. This model not only promotes knowledge sharing but also supports the development of training programs, the pursuit of grants, and the effective deployment of UAS technology throughout the State of Alaska.
South Carolina took a different approach in organizing its UAS operations. In this case, several individuals from multiple state agencies and academic institutions formed a nonprofit organization to coordinate UAS efforts throughout the state. These individuals also invited UAS industry stakeholders to participate in the newly formed nonprofit organization. This rather untraditional approach highlights the effectiveness of a nonprofit model in breaking down silos and fostering collaboration. A nonprofit organization can bring together diverse stakeholders through a board of directors while potentially reducing the bureaucratic red tape so often present in places of work. Quarterly meetings of the nonprofit organization members serve as a platform for sharing best practices, discussing operations, and creating a cohesive and collaborative UAS environment.
Successfully integrating UAS technology within a state DOT requires an approach that emphasizes internal coordination, strong leadership, and collaboration across diverse stakeholders. UAS steering committees, formal communication channels, and the various coordination models all play crucial roles in breaking down silos and fostering a collaborative environment. With executive leadership support and a commitment to regular and meaningful engagement, states can continue to mature their UAS operational capabilities.
To drive UAS initiatives forward, a champion or group of champions is essential. These individuals lead the efforts, garner support, and bridge the gap between UAS technology and state DOT operations. The champion(s) must advocate for UAS integration and communicate its potential benefits to internal and external stakeholders.
Leadership and Legislative Coordination
Earning and maintaining executive leadership support for the UAS program is an essential part of its continual success and maturation. Formal communication channels are crucial for keeping all stakeholders informed and engaged. Success stories, use cases, and program statistics can be systematically collected and communicated regularly to state DOT leadership and to the governor and state legislature, as appropriate. An annual report, supplemented by monthly updates, serves as a valuable tool to showcase the achievements of the UAS program. It is important for the annual report to quantify the ways UAS have increased cost savings, safety, and overall efficiency across state DOT operations. This transparency about UAS operations and demonstration of its ROI fosters support from leadership and demonstrates the tangible impact of UAS technology. Figure 17 shows that 4 percent of the sample set of state DOTs use annual reports to document and communicate UAS program details to stakeholders.
Coordination with leadership can occur in multiple ways; for example, informal conversations provide an avenue to retell success stories from recent UAS operations and communicate how they served a project. Formal or informal monthly reports or emails can be used to document UAS happenings during that month, program needs, and ongoing successes. Figure 17 details how many state DOTs currently employ these methods. Consistently using all of these avenues of communication will keep UAS initiatives at the forefront of state DOT and state political leadership.
UAS Data Coordination
UAS are powerful data collection tools, but the large amounts of data that can be collected can be overwhelming without a data management plan. UAS data collection missions typically result in several gigabytes of data per mission, and if an organization flies multiple UAS data collection missions several times each week, data storage drives can quickly fill up (Wheeler et al. 2023c). One way to develop a data management plan that can work effectively across the organization is to include the state DOT Information Technology division or the Chief Data Officer on the UAS steering committee.
Some best practices for coordinating UAS data include standardization, secure storage, collaboration, and investment. Adopting standardized data formats ensures compatibility and interoperability between different UAS platforms, projects, and divisions. Standardizing the process and data formats can simplify the integration of data from various sources and help facilitate more robust interagency collaboration. Better data coordination and information sharing can lead to more comprehensive analyses and data-informed decision-making.
Implementing robust data storage and management systems is important for maintaining the integrity and security of UAS-collected data. The data management plan should consider things such as encryption protocols, access controls, and frequency of regular backups.
When a state DOT begins to use UAS frequently as a data collection tool, it may need to invest in the proper data processing and data storage tools. Purchasing the right tools and providing training for personnel involved in UAS data management can help mature the implementation of technologies. Additionally, investing in data management technology keeps the state DOTs at the forefront of advancements in UAS capabilities.
Tools for coordinating and sharing UAS data include:
- Data Analytics Software: Software can process raw imagery data and raw LiDAR data into useful data models. Advanced analytics tools can help extract actionable insights from UAS data. These tools can identify patterns, predict maintenance needs, and support data-backed decision-making for infrastructure improvements and investments.
- Cloud-Based Data Platforms: Cloud-based platforms allow for centralized storage, accessibility, and real-time sharing of UAS data. Cloud-based solutions help get the right data to the relevant stakeholders and provide them with the information they need, fostering better coordination.
- Geographic Information System: GIS platforms enable spatial analysis and visualization of UAS data, offering a comprehensive view of infrastructure conditions or project progression. GIS can be a centralized tool to facilitate long-term storage and cross-agency sharing to leverage UAS-collected data across disciplines and expertise.
For additional information on other considerations for coordinating and managing UAS data, consult FHWA’s “Tech Brief: Data Management and Governance in Unmanned Aircraft Systems” (Wheeler et al. 2023c).
UAS Fleet Coordination
UAS fleet management is another important coordination aspect of a UAS program, which involves overseeing the organization, control, and maintenance of multiple UAS platforms, batteries, sensors, and supporting software. Various off-the-shelf solutions are available for this purpose, offering features such as flight planning, real-time tracking, data management, and compliance reporting. These commercial software solutions are designed to integrate with different UAS platforms, providing a unified interface for diverse UAS fleets. However, some state DOTs prefer custom, in-house fleet management systems tailored to their specific operational needs and workflows. While custom solutions can offer greater flexibility and adaptability, it may be challenging to manage all key aspects across various platforms.
A core coordination aspect of fleet management is a robust maintenance strategy to ensure the safety, reliability, and longevity of the fleet. Regular maintenance and following manufacturer recommendations can help keep UAS in optimal condition and prevent malfunctions that could lead to operational downtime or accidents. Some maintenance tasks can be performed in-house, such as routine inspections and minor repairs, which allow for quicker turnaround times and reduced costs. However, more complex maintenance and repairs may require specialized expertise; therefore, state DOTs can consider sending the UAS to certified technicians to avoid liability issues. Ensuring that all maintenance activities are meticulously documented and that UAS are consistently compliant with regulatory standards is crucial for mitigating risks and maintaining the operational integrity of the UAS fleet.
Peer-to-Peer UAS Coordination
When state DOTs are new to UAS adoption, they may not be aware of available resources, including where to start. All state DOTs are using UAS to one degree or another, and many of the state DOTs with mature, robust UAS programs are happy to assist and share resources with their peers. Figure 18 shows that the most common way for state DOTs to coordinate is at industry conferences, followed by FHWA peer exchanges, and then using phone calls and emails to supplement.
Ten percent of the polled state DOT participants reported feeling largely on their own, with no one or no way to coordinate UAS integration.
FHWA has been a leader in providing tools and resources to state DOTs on UAS technology adoption as well as opportunities for peer-to-peer coordination. Over the last five years, FHWA has provided outreach and resources specifically tailored to UAS integration by delivering ten peer exchanges, 11 local workshops, four regional workshops, six technical briefs, six webinars, and 16 National Highway Institute course models specific to UAS use across multiple use cases. These efforts brought customized UAS content and facilitated networking and collaborative experiences to more than 2,400 attendees. These peer exchanges and workshops provided opportunities for state-to-state interactions and state-to-federal coordination because representatives from both FHWA and FAA attended these events. FHWA has scheduled ten additional UAS peer-to-peer exchanges for state DOTs between 2024 and 2026. More information and additional resources are provided at FHWA’s website dedicated to UAS: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/UAS/.
The FAA also provides resources and guidance, especially as it relates to the regulations that govern UAS operations. The FAA also provides educational resources such as publications, tool-kits, and webinars to assist people with safely conducting UAS operations and building UAS programs. The regulatory agency has a website dedicated to these UAS resources: https://www.faa.gov/UAS/.
AASHTO is another organization that has provided publications and resources specifically for state DOTs on UAS and AAM integration. AASHTO also advocates at the federal level for policy, funding, and resources to be used to support the adoption of these aerial technologies to assist surface transportation agencies in their missions. AASHTO has a UAS/AAM Working Group, which is one of four inter-committee working groups that address emerging mobility topics. This working group brings together state DOT members and diverse members of the other AASHTO committees to coordinate and collaborate on these topics. Additional information and resources from AASHTO are provided at https://transportation.org/mobility/working-groups/uas-aam-inter-committee-working-group.
Another organization that has embraced UAS and has started providing resources and a forum for multistate coordination is the Highway Engineering Exchange Program (HEEP). HEEP is an international organization dedicated to the promotion of technological innovation and solutions for international, state, and local highway transportation agencies. This organization holds an annual conference at which UAS-focused presentations have been held for the past several years. The 2023 conference offered a fully dedicated UAS track in which 30 state DOTs participated across 17 UAS-focused sessions. HEEP is in the process of creating an online forum to allow peers to coordinate UAS integration efforts. The goal of this platform is to foster ongoing collaboration and serve as a repository of resources that can help state DOTs continue to mature and grow their UAS programs. For more information about HEEP and its UAS efforts, visit https://www.heep.org/.
The National Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO) also hosts a committee called the Emerging Aeronautics and Airspace Committee, which includes UAS and AAM. The mission of this committee is to provide recommendations relevant to NASAO stakeholders regarding policies and efforts directly related to UAS/AAM technologies. This committee meets quarterly and at the annual conference with a focus on understanding initiatives and opportunities to enhance infrastructure and workforce development to support these emerging technologies. For additional information about NASAO and this committee, visit https://nasao.org/page/committees/.
State DOTs can leverage these existing professional associations and networks to broaden their coordination efforts. Participating in conferences organized by organizations like those outlined earlier can facilitate connections with counterparts from other states and federal agencies.
Through these channels, state DOTs can showcase their UAS program successes, share challenges, and learn from the experiences of others. Establishing a community of practice within these organizations can foster ongoing collaboration, allowing agencies to pool resources, exchange expertise, and collectively address common issues related to UAS program implementation.
AAM Coordination
Many state DOTs have initiated efforts to understand AAM, the associated use cases, and the potential impacts of adoption. The committee framework described earlier for UAS coordination can also be used for AAM coordination. Some state DOTs have one committee dedicated to both UAS and AAM efforts, although it is likely beneficial to have two separate committees or subcommittees of a larger transportation committee because of the unique challenges and needs of each topic. Oklahoma has a larger transportation committee designed to meet the needs and concerns of many transportation issues and general transportation innovations. This larger committee meets monthly with the State Secretary of Transportation and provides the chairs of the subcommittees with a monthly opportunity to report back to the larger committee and state officials on the progress of their respective committees.
The main role of an AAM committee is to guide the formulation of an actionable framework or roadmap, prioritize initiatives, and foster collaboration among various stakeholders. There are several best practices to consider when organizing and formally establishing an AAM committee. Foremost among these best practices is securing unwavering support from executive leadership and fostering the necessary political will to propel AAM initiatives forward. The commitment of high-ranking officials creates opportunities for the allocation of resources and helps underscore the significance of AAM within the broader governmental agenda. It is important for the work of the AAM committee to be supported beyond the change of elected officials to keep the momentum going and avoid disruptions caused by transitions in leadership. This long-term perspective enhances the resilience and effectiveness of the committee’s efforts and fosters a sense of institutional commitment to equitable integration of AAM technologies.
Collaboration with metropolitan and regional planning organizations plays a pivotal role in the success of an AAM Committee. Recognizing the interconnectedness of AAM initiatives with broader community needs, it is important for committees to work closely with these regional entities. Metropolitan and regional planning organizations can help increase or improve AAM coordination given their multi-jurisdictional and multidisciplinary roles across transportation planning, operations, community development, security, technology initiatives, and energy and environmental efforts. These planning organizations possess valuable insights into local requirements, infrastructure capabilities, and socioeconomic dynamics that can provide key insights as AAM committees assist with or oversee the development of strategies to address specific community challenges. In addition to these planning organizations, the AAM committee should represent diverse constituencies. Representatives could come from throughout the state DOT, academia, industry, community advocacy groups, and elected leadership from various levels of government, including tribal nations.
As noted earlier, the main role of an AAM committee is to develop an AAM implementation or preparedness plan or actionable roadmap. While some states can use the committee to develop a guiding document, other states may consider hiring a third party to assist with the AAM coordination and development of such a plan. If the latter option is chosen, the committee should still actively be involved and continually communicate the state’s priorities as it oversees the work of the consultant. The committee can also offer advice, insights, and assistance to the appropriate legislative representatives who may be writing policy concerning AAM.
While industry stakeholders representing the many facets of the AAM ecosystem may be involved on these committees, it is important to have a collaborative relationship between industry and government agencies. Industry representatives should understand the local context and needs of the communities where they seek to provide AAM services. It is also critical that these committees or working groups are not inappropriately influenced by industry but are continually grounded in creating a framework that serves their constituents.
Broader AAM Coordination
While many states are working on in-state initiatives, broader national AAM coordination efforts are also in the works. In October 2022, the Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and Leadership Act was signed into law, which created the Advanced Air Mobility Interagency Working Group (AAM IWG). This federal AAM IWG has representation from the following federal agencies:
- Department of Transportation.
- Department of State.
- Department of Defense.
- Department of Justice.
- Department of the Interior.
- Department of Agriculture.
- Department of Commerce.
- Department of Labor.
- Department of Energy.
- Department of Veterans Affairs.
- Department of Homeland Security.
- National Aeronautics & Space Administration.
- Office of Management and Budget.
- Council of Economic Advisors.
- National Security Council.
- Office of Science and Technology Policy.
- Office of the National Cyber Director.
- Federal Communications Commission.
- Department of Education.
The primary role of this working group is to create a national strategy and framework to enable the early stages of long-term implementation of AAM (USDOT 2024). The creation of the committee demonstrates the federal government’s commitment to AAM coordination with diverse stakeholders. More information regarding the USDOT AAM Interagency Working Group is provided at https://www.transportation.gov/aamiwg/.
The FAA hosts an annual conference dedicated to UAS and AAM called the FAA Drone Symposium and Advanced Air Mobility Summit. This conference is well attended by industry, state DOTs, and other key stakeholders and provides an annual opportunity to coordinate the many UAS and AAM efforts at the various levels of government.
In March 2020, NASA established four AAM Ecosystem Working Groups: Aircraft, Airspace, Community Integration, and Crosscutting. These working groups comprise members from academia, industry, and government representatives. The working groups hold regular meetings to develop various resources to advance the AAM ecosystem. The meeting recordings, presentations, and developed resources are housed at https://nari.arc.nasa.gov/aam-portal/.
Other broader AAM coordination efforts include those where multiple individual states work together. The AAM Multistate Collaborative is an effort organized by Alaska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Representatives from each of these states initially met in November 2023 to officially kick off their efforts to develop policies, funding strategies, and infrastructure plans that will support and complement federal AAM implementation efforts (Costello 2023).
An international example of broad AAM coordination is the Canadian Advanced Air Mobility (CAAM) consortium, founded in 2019. CAAM has over 70 members from academia, government, associations, and industry. This not-for-profit federal consortium works on projects across Canada and is engaged with over 40 regional communities (CAAM 2024a). One of the many projects underway is the development of the Canadian AAM Master Plan. This master plan is focused on creating a 20-year roadmap for the country with a focus on safety, regulations, scalability, flexibility, and resilience through the lens of greater environmental and social responsibility and equity (CAAM 2024b). To learn more about the CAAM consortium and its approach to AAM coordination, visit https://canadianaam.com/.
