Aircraft, Controller, Flight App and Cloud Records
Drone Flight Logs and Media Recovered From Aircraft and Controller
A quadcopter clipped a power line, hovered outside a bedroom window or crossed into controlled airspace, and now the flight is the case. Global Digital Forensics recovers the flight logs, the controller, the companion app and the cloud account behind the aircraft and rebuilds the disputed flight from the records it left.
Court Qualified Examiners for Drone Evidence
Global Digital Forensics has served AmLaw 100 firms, Fortune 1000 companies and small and midsize businesses since 1992, and the examiners who work the evidence are the ones who explain it to judges and juries, whether the client is an insurer, defense counsel or the operator. Our examiners have testified in federal and state courts, and Veronica Perez’s casework on device evidence, application activity and location records, with her JTAG, chip off and embedded hardware training, is the background a damaged airframe or an encrypted log fragment calls for. The work follows NIST SP 800-86, Guide to Integrating Forensic Techniques into Incident Response.
A recorded track places the aircraft; tying it to a pilot or to visual line of sight takes corroboration such as authorized controller records, witness observations and independently retained imagery, and we build that corroboration into the scope. A Remote ID broadcast is a transmission, so a look back at a past flight works from what a device, an application or an independent receiver actually kept. We read the records against the FAA’s Remote Identification of Drones requirements and the DJI Developer documentation.
Before agreeing an examination we confirm the airframe, controller, application and firmware versions and whether our decoding method supports them, because a file named like a DJI log is not necessarily readable or decrypted. We preserve the original aircraft, controller and application records, document every parser exception and reconcile the clocks before combining any two sources. A timeline built on unreconciled clocks is the first thing an opposing expert takes apart.
Before anyone opens the flight application again, call (800) 868-8189. A synced or reinstalled app can replace the cached records your matter needs.
The engagement
Aircraft, Controller, App and Cloud Joined Into One Flight
A single flight leaves records in several places. The aircraft stores its own flight data, the remote controller logs control inputs, the phone or tablet running the flight app caches telemetry, summaries and media, and a connected cloud service may hold synchronized logs and an account history. Each keeps different fields at different rates, and each can be lost on its own: the aircraft in a crash, the phone when the app is deleted, the cloud account when a subscription lapses. We find all of them at the start and preserve what still exists.
We acquire each supported source with hash verification where the method allows and custody documentation throughout, then reconcile the events on a normalized timeline. For DJI systems that can mean FLYxxx DAT records from the aircraft, DAT and TXT logs from the app and encrypted fragments where decoding is supported. Autel, Parrot, Skydio and enterprise systems are assessed against the coverage of our methods for that model and firmware, and onboard SD media is preserved separately so the imagery can be tested against the flight record.
The workpapers keep the source files, decoder versions, parameters and assumptions, so another qualified examiner can test the reasoning. Where a record is missing or a decoder has changed, the report works from the surrounding evidence and shows how. You learn early whether the flight record helps or hurts, and the findings are ready for cross examination.
Scope
DJI flight log analysis
FLYxxx DAT records, app DAT and TXT logs, encrypted fragments and DJI GO or DJI Fly artifacts for supported systems, read for GPS position, altitude, ground speed, battery state and control inputs.
Other drone manufacturers
Autel, Parrot, Skydio and other airframes, examined where the tools and app records support a reproducible method for that source, confirmed before engagement.
Controller and Remote ID evidence
Controller inputs and retained Remote ID state or captures, compared with automatic dependent surveillance broadcast and ground station records another party supplies.
Onboard media authentication
SD card media preserved, the image and video containers examined and their timing reconciled with the flight record to test the sequence of the event.
Enterprise fleet and cloud records
Authorized records from DJI FlightHub or its successors, AirData UAV, DroneDeploy and comparable fleet platforms, with the operator account and export coverage confirmed first.
Criminal defense and prosecution support
Independent analysis for federal or state matters involving alleged reckless operation, restricted airspace or observation, and rebuttal of an opposing expert’s report.
Technical facts for FAA operating questions
The altitude, airspace, Remote ID and visual line of sight facts that matter under FAA Part 107 and Part 89, documented from the retained records.
Methodology
How We Examine a Disputed Drone Flight
Define the drone sources and the disputed flight
What each source retains, conflicts with manufacturers and fleet operators checked, and the aircraft, app, controller and media in scope fixed.
Preserve and acquire
Aircraft storage, app records, controller storage and SD media acquired with hash verification where supported and custody documentation throughout.
Compare flight logs and control records
Primary and secondary logs, controller inputs, app caches and cloud records compared, with time zones and coordinate conventions settled before events are combined.
Report and testify
A report of the flight findings and the methods behind them, with deposition and trial testimony when the matter requires it.
Evidence commonly examined
Drone Evidence We Examine
Aircraft storage and FLYxxx DAT records are examined where acquisition and decoding support the source, and DJI GO 4, DJI Fly and comparable app records from iOS or Android supply the mobile side of the flight. Controller storage adds control activity, onboard SD media preserves the imagery and its processing context, and authorized fleet exports document the operator account. Automatic dependent surveillance broadcast, air traffic control and ground station records produced by other parties add independent context, under the court orders, protective orders and ESI protocols in the matter.
What you can expect
Flight Findings and the Expert Report
The report sets out the drone’s recorded behavior during the event, with a timeline appendix reconciling the aircraft, controller, app and cloud records and a media appendix covering the SD evidence and its container authentication. Testimony explains the opinions in the report, a rebuttal declaration can test an opposing drone expert’s analysis, and demonstratives built from the retained logs and media show a jury what the records hold.
Call (800) 868-8189 to talk it through with an examiner, or send the details.
Frequently asked
What a Flight Record Can Show
Which drone platforms can you examine?
DJI, Autel, Parrot, Skydio and other systems, wherever the model, firmware, tools and app data support the method. We confirm support for the specific aircraft and firmware before accepting the engagement.
Can encrypted DJI flight log fragments be examined?
Yes, where the method supports the specific model and firmware. When a fragment cannot be decoded, the surrounding aircraft, controller, app and media records often carry the same events, and the report builds from them.
Do you examine FAA Part 107 and Part 89 Remote ID questions?
Yes. The report sets out what the flight record shows on the operating questions at issue, including altitude, airspace and the broadcast state the records retained, so the technical facts are in hand when the rule is argued.
How do you preserve a crashed or damaged airframe?
Under conditions agreed with counsel and the responsible safety personnel. For a damaged aircraft we start with the access that preserves the source and move to more intrusive methods only as needed, documenting the damage and each recovery step.
Can you review an opposing drone expert’s report?
Yes. A rebuttal engagement tests the opposing opinion against the aircraft, controller, app and cloud records, and identifies the specific points where the logs and the opinion part ways.
Free consultation
Tell Us About the Flight
On the first call an examiner asks for the airframe, the controller, the app and the event date, tells you how to keep the app and aircraft from changing the records, and outlines which sources we can decode, the reconciliation and the report with a timeline.
Court tested examiners since 1992, with a 24/7 hotline.
GDF does not accept pro se litigation cases, and GDF may decline matrimonial or family law cases at our discretion.
Reviewed by Joseph Caruso, Founder, CEO and CTO, CISSP. Last reviewed .