Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears procurement and cybersecurity lessons from Texas and state police drone programs
Summary
State and public-safety drone practitioners described operational security practices, fleet diversification and training approaches; officials noted regulatory uncertainty and federal audits could force changes to fleet composition.
Experts and public-safety practitioners briefed the Joint Interim Committees on procurement, cybersecurity and training for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), outlining practical safeguards states can adopt and flagging federal policy uncertainty.
Chad Tillman, procurement subcommittee chair, introduced Ben Tristan, who described his work as a training instructor for Alto Robotics and as a member of the Texas Department of Public Safety criminal investigations unit. Tristan said Texas operates a large, diverse fleet and has adopted “off-network” workflows and U.S.-based management software to limit exposure. “Keeping any and all equipment off of critical infrastructure networks … using US-based software to deploy on equipment … and that we control the access to any network” are among the measures he recommended.
Why it matters: Committee members asked how states can procure and operate drone systems while meeting cybersecurity audits and potential federal restrictions on some foreign vendors. Tristan said agencies should diversify fleets and rely on U.S. management platforms (he named DroneSense and Team Awareness Kit) while keeping real-time systems on closed networks where feasible.
Tristan described practical limits on isolating systems: video requires significant bandwidth and, without Internet or satellite links, is difficult to stream long distances. He said local-area-network or mesh-radio solutions can support closed networks, but many “drone-in-a-box” (DFR) systems that remain ready-to-deploy will typically depend on some cloud or Internet connectivity. “You’re not going to be able to implement a program like that without having some type of Internet connection,” Tristan said.
Tristan also described how the Texas Department of Public Safety pursues redundancy and waivers to enable extended operations: the department runs a mix of platforms, seeks beyond-visual-line-of-sight (BVLOS) approvals and presents multiple mitigation measures to the FAA to avoid single points of failure in safety cases.
Committee members raised questions about timelines and federal action: one member referenced the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act cybersecurity audit that may restrict use of specific vendors. Tristan said state programs are discussing contingency plans, including regionalized teams with more specialized equipment if some platforms become unavailable under federal rules.
On training, Tristan and other panelists said there is no single national standard for public-safety drone curricula; agencies generally run internal programs, including a week-long initial RPIC (remote pilot in command) course and ongoing proficiency training. Several speakers pointed to non‑profit and peer networks—“Drone Responders,” Texas Rangers training materials and state-level sharing—as practical ways to distribute lessons and curricula.
Formal action: The committee convened, confirmed a quorum during roll call, heard presentations and then adjourned on a motion. The motion to adjourn passed by voice vote.
