What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
On February 4, 2026, the MK30 was conducting a commercial flight at a commercial facility in Richardson, TX. The drone took off and delivered the package. Just after delivery, ascent from the delivery point, the drone contacted the multi-unit building that was the delivery site. Telemetry and log footage confirmed that during ascent, the drone came into contact with the building at approximately 65’. The drone experienced significant damage and impacted the ground.
The drone sustained significant damage, including additional damage upon impact with the ground. There were no injuries. There was surface damage to the multi-unit building, but no significant damage to third party property. The fire department was called but left shortly after arriving after determining there was no risk.
Post-flight logs confirmed that during the climb, multiple global positioning satellites began exhibiting position estimation errors that intensified with altitude. The signals from multiple satellites were not consistent across the set of satellites. The GPS satellite constellation system appeared to be functional. Distorted GPS signals were a result of the environment around the multi-unit building (structural inference). Despite having fault detection and fault exclusion capability from the GPS receivers, the parameters for the GPS satellite error via structural interference were below the GPS receiver filter tolerance for fault detection / exclusion capability. As a result, the aircraft could not accurately determine its position relative to its exact location post-delivery.
As the FAA filed it
ON FEBRUARY 4, 2026, THE MK30 WAS CONDUCTING A COMMERCIAL FLIGHT AT A COMMERCIAL FACILITY IN RICHARDSON, TX. THE DRONE TOOK OFF AND DELIVERED THE PACKAGE. JUST AFTER DELIVERY, ASCENT FROM THE DELIVERY POINT, THE DRONE CONTACTED THE MULTI-UNIT BUILDING THAT WAS THE DELIVERY SITE. TELEMETRY AND LOG FOOTAGE CONFIRMED THAT DURING ASCENT, THE DRONE CAME INTO CONTACT WITH THE BUILDING AT APPROXIMATELY 65’. THE DRONE EXPERIENCED SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE AND IMPACTED THE GROUND.
THE DRONE SUSTAINED SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE, INCLUDING ADDITIONAL DAMAGE UPON IMPACT WITH THE GROUND. THERE WERE NO INJURIES. THERE WAS SURFACE DAMAGE TO THE MULTI-UNIT BUILDING, BUT NO SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO THIRD PARTY PROPERTY. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS CALLED BUT LEFT SHORTLY AFTER ARRIVING AFTER DETERMINING THERE WAS NO RISK.
POST-FLIGHT LOGS CONFIRMED THAT DURING THE CLIMB, MULTIPLE GLOBAL POSITIONING SATELLITES BEGAN EXHIBITING POSITION ESTIMATION ERRORS THAT INTENSIFIED WITH ALTITUDE. THE SIGNALS FROM MULTIPLE SATELLITES WERE NOT CONSISTENT ACROSS THE SET OF SATELLITES. THE GPS SATELLITE CONSTELLATION SYSTEM APPEARED TO BE FUNCTIONAL. DISTORTED GPS SIGNALS WERE A RESULT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AROUND THE MULTI-UNIT BUILDING (STRUCTURAL INFERENCE). DESPITE HAVING FAULT DETECTION AND FAULT EXCLUSION CAPABILITY FROM THE GPS RECEIVERS, THE PARAMETERS FOR THE GPS SATELLITE ERROR VIA STRUCTURAL INTERFERENCE WERE BELOW THE GPS RECEIVER FILTER TOLERANCE FOR FAULT DETECTION / EXCLUSION CAPABILITY. AS A RESULT, THE AIRCRAFT COULD NOT ACCURATELY DETERMINE ITS POSITION RELATIVE TO ITS EXACT LOCATION POST-DELIVERY.