13 May 2026 | Interaction | By Editor Robotics Business NEWS <editor@rbnpress.com>
As the UAV industry pushes toward large-scale commercial deployment and beyond-visual-line-of-sight (BVLOS) operations, manufacturers face mounting pressure to balance performance, safety, compliance, and cost. In this conversation with Robotics Business News, Ian Blasch, Senior Director of Business Development at Jabil, explores how evolving regulations, power redundancy standards, and supply chain realities are reshaping drone design and accelerating the need for system-level innovation.
Why is it critical for UAV companies to integrate safety and compliance considerations from the earliest stages of design rather than treating them as add-ons?
Safety and compliance in UAVs aren’t separate concerns; they’re tightly connected to system architecture, power management, materials, and how the product is manufactured. For UAV companies targeting sales to the U.S. government, these considerations are even more critical. Programs must account early for Federal Communications Commission (FCC) certification, Blue Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS) requirements, Buy American Act compliance, and broader National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) constraints that directly influence sourcing and the supply chain. All drones sold in the U.S., at a minimum, require FCC certification, and government-focused platforms face an even higher regulatory bar.
When safety or regulatory requirements are treated as afterthoughts, companies often end up facing late‑stage redesigns that increase weight, drive up costs, or hurt performance. Building safety and compliance into the design from the outset allows teams to make smarter decisions around SWaP tradeoffs, redundancy, overall system integration, and supply chain planning — helping reduce the risk of component shortages, production delays, and unexpected cost increases.
As UAVs take on more demanding missions, particularly BVLoS operations, safety is no longer a box to check at the end. It becomes a core design driver that directly affects endurance, autonomy, market and mission viability.
What are the most common gaps you see today in how UAV developers approach regulatory readiness as operations scale toward commercial deployment?
One of the biggest gaps we see is how quickly regulatory requirements can influence hardware decisions, and how often that impact is underestimated. Many UAV developers prioritize flight performance or autonomy software, but don’t fully account for how future requirements, like power redundancy or certification standards, will affect weight, thermal design, or whether a system can be manufactured at scale.
We also see a growing mismatch between regulatory requirements and the realities of the American supply chain. Domestic suppliers for batteries, motors, and other critical components remain extremely limited, making it difficult to balance regulatory readiness with cost competitiveness. As more programs are shaped by Buy American and NDAA-driven constraints, supply‑chain decisions increasingly become design decisions, and those tradeoffs are often not addressed early enough.
Another common issue is relying on waiver‑based operations as a long‑term solution. As regulators move toward more standardized frameworks, platforms designed only to meet today’s permissions may face real challenges scaling commercially without expensive redesigns.
Power management is increasingly described as a “gating factor” for UAV innovation. Can you explain what that means in practical terms for manufacturers and operators?
Power management sets the boundaries for what a UAV can realistically do. Payload, range, flight time, redundancy, and even regulatory requirements all have to pull from the same limited energy supply. As drones are asked to fly farther, carry heavier loads, and operate BVLoS, improvements in battery density alone aren’t enough.
Manufacturers have to think more holistically, looking at hybrid power architectures, smarter energy management, and real‑time system optimization. Without progress in these areas, innovation isn’t limited by sensors or software, but by how energy can be produced, stored, managed, and safeguarded.
At the same, many companies are transitioning from multirotor platforms to fixed-wing designs to achieve extended range, endurance, and overall efficiency.
How do evolving energy demands impact the balance between performance, safety, and compliance?
As energy demands continue to grow, manufacturers are forced to strike a careful balance between competing priorities. Adding backup power improves safety and helps meet regulatory expectations, but it also adds weight and complexity, which can cut into range or payload capacity. That’s why system‑level optimization is so critical. Performance, safety, and compliance can’t be tackled in isolation anymore; they should be designed together, using accurate modeling, advanced materials, and integrated manufacturing approaches. The platforms that succeed will be the ones that view power management as a core system enabler, not simply a limiting component.
With proposed U.S. BVLOS regulations gaining momentum, what key changes should industry stakeholders prepare for now?
Stakeholders should be ready for tighter expectations around redundancy, reliability, and system validation, particularly when it comes to power. Proposed requirements for onboard backup power could have major design implications, especially for smaller UAVs already operating within strict SWaP constraints.
Because these rules are aimed at BVLOS operations, regulators will also place greater emphasis on robust navigation, detect‑and‑avoid capabilities, and reliable onboard communications. In BVLOS missions, operators will not be able to see the aircraft during flight, which means the drone must be able to sense its environment, maintain situational awareness, and communicate effectively without human visual oversight.
At the same time, companies should expect fewer waivers and a stronger push toward standardized compliance. That shift means UAV platforms will need to be designed from the outset to meet regulatory requirements at scale, rather than relying on one‑off approvals.
How might backup power requirements influence UAV system architecture and cost structures?
Backup power requirements can reshape a UAV’s overall architecture. They often mean incorporating hybrid energy systems, additional power management hardware, and more advanced monitoring software. That complexity adds cost — not only in terms of components, but also in testing, validation, and manufacturing. That said, when these requirements are considered early in the design process, they can lead to more robust and scalable systems. It’s far more cost‑effective to build redundancy into the original architecture than to try to add it later as a retrofit.
In your view, will stricter safety and power redundancy standards slow innovation or accelerate broader adoption?
Clear, consistent requirements give manufacturers a defined target to design toward and give regulators, operators, and the public greater confidence in UAV operations. On one hand, simpler and more clearly defined regulatory requirements can support innovation by reducing ambiguity and helping teams focus their engineering efforts more effectively. While meeting higher safety and power‑redundancy standards raises the technical bar, it also reduces uncertainty and lowers the risk of late‑stage redesigns or operational setbacks.
At the same time, there is no avoiding the cost impact. Increased compliance requirements can influence the overall value proposition and return on investment, potentially limiting deployment in some price‑sensitive or lower‑margin markets. For certain use cases, especially early commercial deployments, those added costs may slow adoption even as the regulatory framework becomes clearer.
Historically, industries tend to move faster once regulatory expectations are well understood. In the case of UAVs, stronger safety and redundancy standards can ultimately allow more complex missions, support larger-scale operations, and build the trust necessary for wider commercial acceptance.
What strategies should companies adopt to future-proof their UAV platforms against evolving regulatory expectations while remaining competitive?
Companies should adopt a system‑level design strategy that prioritizes modularity, power efficiency, and regulatory flexibility. This includes leveraging advanced materials to reduce weight, integrating intelligent energy management systems, and working with manufacturing partners that understand certification, quality, and scalability.
Manufacturers that can sell drones in less‑regulated regions are able to iterate faster, prove use cases sooner, and bring in revenue while U.S. rules continue to evolve. That ability to operate internationally can be a real competitive advantage.
U.S. drone makers also face risk if foreign competitors are eventually allowed back into the U.S. market. Those companies may come in with lower costs and faster development cycles because they have not been limited by U.S. component and sourcing restrictions. Designing platforms that can work across different regulatory environments helps protect against that risk while supporting long‑term growth and scalability.
Ian Blasch Bio
For nearly 30 years Ian has spent his career at the intersection of innovation, technology, and business as an engineer, investment banker, corporate venture capitalist and entrepreneur.
Prior to joining Jabil Ian founded Micron’s Open Innovation Group with the mandate of incubating new imaging and memory technologies through acquisition, venture investment, strategic partnerships, or organic R&D. Additionally, Ian has held senior management positions at three deep technology startups and was a Captain in the United States Air Force.
Ian holds an MBA/MSE from Stanford University and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from MIT where he was a member of Pi Tau Sigma and Tau Beta Pi. Based on his academic and undergraduate research work at MIT, Ian was awarded a prestigious Marshall Fellowship to study for an MSc in Mechanical Engineering at Cranfield University.
