Which drones are approved for Florida schools?
What s. 934.50(7), F.S. asks of a district, tier by tier.
The three federal rules that reach a district's drone purchase, what each one does, and where a manufacturer is actually checked. For CTE directors, STEM coordinators, procurement officers and district IT.
"NDAA compliant" is shorthand most buyers use for one question: can this drone be bought and flown with public money. Three federal rules sit behind it, and the newest is the broadest.
On December 22, 2025 the FCC put all foreign-produced unmanned aircraft systems and their critical components on its Covered List. That one turns on where the equipment was produced rather than on a company appearing on a list, and it reaches flight controllers, navigation systems, cameras, batteries and motors, not just the finished aircraft. It governs what can be authorized for import and sale in the United States at all.
The two older rules are narrower. Section 889 of the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act covers named telecommunications and video surveillance equipment. The American Security Drone Act, at FAR 52.240-1, covers the aircraft in federal procurement, and its prohibitions took effect the same day the FCC acted.
A district buying a classroom drone with federal funds is reached by all three.
Section 889 of the FY2019 NDAA prohibits federal agencies, their contractors, and recipients of federal award funds from procuring or using covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment. The statute names the producers: Huawei Technologies and ZTE Corporation for telecommunications equipment, and Hytera Communications, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology and Dahua Technology for video surveillance and telecommunications equipment. The prohibition extends to their subsidiaries and affiliates.
The part that reaches a school district is 2 CFR 200.216, which applied the prohibition to recipients of federal award funds effective August 13, 2020. A district spending federal money is inside it.
This matters more than it first appears, because a drone is a radio and usually a camera. Section 889 asks who made the components, not where the aircraft was assembled. An aircraft can be put together in one country from parts made by a covered producer.
Perkins V money is federal award money, and so is Title IV-A. A drone fleet bought with either is a purchase governed by 2 CFR 200.216.
The American Security Drone Act was enacted in the FY24 National Defense Authorization Act and is implemented for federal procurement at FAR 52.240-1. Where Section 889 reaches components, this clause reaches the unmanned aircraft system itself.
The clause defines an American Security Drone Act-covered foreign entity as an entity included on a list developed and maintained by the Federal Acquisition Security Council, and an FASC-prohibited unmanned aircraft system as one manufactured or assembled by such an entity.
It prohibits three things:
Read the second and third together, because the distinction is the one districts miss. The prohibition reaches operation, not only purchase. A fleet bought before the date is not carved out of the rule by the date it was bought.
On December 22, 2025, the same day the American Security Drone Act prohibitions took effect, the Federal Communications Commission released Public Notice DA 25-1086 and added two categories to its Covered List: all foreign-produced unmanned aircraft systems and their critical components, and the communications and video surveillance equipment of two named foreign drone manufacturers, including their subsidiaries, affiliates and partners.
"Critical components" is defined broadly. It reaches ground control stations, communications systems, flight controllers, navigation systems, sensors, cameras, batteries and motors.
The effect is on equipment authorization. An FCC equipment authorization is required to import, market and sell most wireless equipment in the United States, and equipment on the Covered List cannot receive a new one. This is the broadest of the three rules, because it turns on where the equipment was produced rather than on an entity appearing on a list.
What it does not do is worth stating just as plainly. The FCC said the action does not prohibit the import, sale or use of device models it had already authorized, and does not affect anyone's ability to keep using a drone they already bought. Existing authorizations stand unless they are separately revoked.
So for a district the practical question this one raises is about what will be available, supported and serviceable in future years, not about the fleet already in the closet.
The list the federal rule runs on is a list of covered foreign entities, developed and maintained by the Federal Acquisition Security Council. FAR 52.240-1 does not name entities in the clause. It directs a search of SAM.gov for the current list.
So the check a district performs is a negative one. There is no federal roster a manufacturer applies to join and no certificate a vendor receives. The question the rule asks is whether the manufacturer or assembler of the aircraft appears on the covered-entity list at the time of the purchase.
That has a practical consequence worth building into the process: the list can change, so the date of the check belongs in the file next to the result.
Federal rules are not the whole picture. A number of states have enacted their own drone procurement statutes. They differ widely in who they bind and what they cover, so the statute itself is the place to check:
Florida is the one written with schools in it. A drone used by a school exclusively as instructional technology is classified as Tier One, the lightest of the rule's three tiers. The Florida requirements are set out here in full.
The Hopper is designed and manufactured in the United States. FTW LLC is a Delaware company headquartered in California, majority owned and solely directed by a United States citizen, with no foreign country of concern ownership or control.
FTW owns its flight control and telemetry stack, which is why firmware updates reach drones already in classrooms rather than requiring new hardware.
The aircraft carries two radios, Bluetooth Low Energy and WiFi. The WiFi is the Hopper's own access point. The computer joins the drone, and the Hopper does not join a school network or any other existing network as a client. The link carries video and flight telemetry to the locally paired device and nothing else. No flight data, video or student data reaches FTW Robotics or any third party.
The Hopper also flies from its own handheld controller, with no computer involved at any point, for districts that prefer that posture.
We will put those facts in writing for a procurement file. The rules above leave verification with the buyer, which is why we state specifics rather than offer a general assurance.
Four items cover most of what an auditor or a business office will ask for later.
We can provide the first of those for the Hopper on request.
It is shorthand for three separate federal rules. Section 889 of the FY2019 NDAA covers named telecommunications and video surveillance equipment. The American Security Drone Act, implemented at FAR 52.240-1, covers the unmanned aircraft system itself and the entity that manufactured or assembled it. Separately, on December 22, 2025 the FCC added all foreign-produced unmanned aircraft systems and their critical components to its Covered List, which governs equipment authorization rather than procurement.
The list the federal rule runs on is a list of covered foreign entities, developed and maintained by the Federal Acquisition Security Council. FAR 52.240-1 directs a search of SAM.gov for the current list rather than naming entities in the clause. The check is whether a manufacturer appears on that list.
They reach a district through federal money. Section 889 was applied to recipients of federal award funds at 2 CFR 200.216, effective August 13, 2020. FAR 52.240-1 prohibits the use of federal funds for the procurement or operation of a prohibited unmanned aircraft system.
Under FAR 52.240-1 the prohibition on operating a covered system in contract performance, and the prohibition on using federal funds for its procurement or operation, both took effect December 22, 2025.
Perkins V is federal award money, so a purchase made with it is subject to 2 CFR 200.216. The same is true of other federal education funds. Where a purchase is made entirely with local or state money the federal grant rules are not the operative constraint, though state drone procurement law may still be.
Section 889, FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act, Pub. L. 115-232 · 2 CFR 200.216 · American Security Drone Act, FY24 National Defense Authorization Act · FAR 52.240-1, 48 CFR 52.240-1 · FCC Public Notice DA 25-1086, released December 22, 2025 · Fla. Stat. 934.50 and Rule 60GG-2.0075, F.A.C.
Read against the clause text in September 2026. This page is general information about these rules, not legal advice.
What s. 934.50(7), F.S. asks of a district, tier by tier.
Which Perkins uses a drone program fits, and how to write it up.
What to ask any vendor before a purchase order goes out.
Hopper Firmware 2.0 is here. A brand new sensor fusion and flight stability algorithm delivers decisively better flight.
Hopper holds position better, responds more precisely, and handles rough landings without drama. Crash detection was rebuilt, so a normal landing no longer leaves the drone unable to take off again.
Every Hopper gets it. Free. It loads onto drones already in the field through the FTW Fly app in a few minutes. Nothing to buy, nothing to ship back, no new hardware.
That is possible because FTW owns its entire flight control and telemetry stack. American built, wholly owned, zero outside dependency. When the software gets better, the drones already in your classroom get better with it.
Watch the walkthrough, then open FTW Fly and update yours.