[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS:
INTEGRATION, OVERSIGHT, AND
COMPETITIVENESS
=======================================================================
(113-84)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 10, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
_____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
91-735 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDREE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
------ 7
Subcommittee on Aviation
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin RICK LARSEN, Washington
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania ANDREE CARSON, Indiana
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
JEFF DENHAM, California SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky CORRINE BROWN, Florida
STEVE DAINES, Montana ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina (Ex Officio)
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice Chair
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v
TESTIMONY
Margaret Gilligan, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety,
Federal Aviation Administration................................ 19
Matthew E. Hampton, assistant inspector general for aviation,
U.S. Department of Transportation.............................. 19
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office.................. 19
Captain Lee Moak, president, Air Line Pilots Association,
International.................................................. 19
Jesse Kallman, head of business development and regulatory
affairs, Airware............................................... 19
Nicholas Roy, Ph.D., associate professor of aeronautics and
astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology............ 19
PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED
BY WITNESSES
Margaret Gilligan:
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Answers to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, of New Jersey.................... 64
Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., of Tennessee................... 66
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, of Arkansas.............. 68
Hon. Richard L. Hanna, of New York....................... 69
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia.. 71
Matthew E. Hampton:
Prepared statement........................................... 73
Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New Jersey................................................. 86
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.:
Prepared statement........................................... 88
Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New Jersey................................................. 110
Captain Lee Moak, prepared statement............................. 114
Jesse Kallman:
Prepared statement........................................... 124
Answer to question for the record from Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New Jersey................................................. 128
Nicholas Roy, Ph.D.:
Prepared statement........................................... 133
Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New Jersey................................................. 137
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Hon Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, request to submit the written statement of Lillian
Z. Ryals, senior vice president, The MITRE Corporation, and
general manager, MITRE's Center for Advanced Aviation System
Development.................................................... 5
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, written statement of Mark
Baker, president............................................... 140
Modovolate Aviation, LLC, joint written statement of Henry H.
Perritt, Jr., chief executive officer, and Eliot O. Sprague,
chief operating officer........................................ 144
National Agricultural Aviation Association, written statement of
Andrew D. Moore, executive director............................ 149
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS:
INTEGRATION, OVERSIGHT, AND
COMPETITIVENESS
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The committee will come to
order. I would like to ask unanimous consent that members not
on the committee, in addition to members not on the
subcommittee, be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing--there is a great deal of interest--and offer
testimony and ask questions. Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank all of you for being here. The United
States has been the global leader in aviation. We are all very
proud of that. And American leadership in aerospace,
manufacturing, air transportation, flight safety and
technological innovation is tremendous. The aviation industry
contributes billions of dollars to our economy, supports
millions of jobs throughout our country, and is a source of
pride for all Americans.
Unmanned aerial systems, or UAS, have been increasingly in
the news, but they're not truly new. It has been almost 100
years since the U.S. military began developing the first UAS.
Like other new technologies, UAS offers both exciting
opportunities and daunting challenges.
The previous FAA reauthorization law contained provisions
directing the FAA to take steps towards safely integrating UAS
into our Nation's airspace by September 2015. Among other
things, we directed the FAA to create test sites and
regulations for UAS. The results so far appear to be mixed, and
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the FAA's
efforts.
There are many issues surrounding UAS we need to consider;
first and foremost, and has always been, safety. Our Nation's
safety record is the result of decades of hard work by
thousands and also some hard lessons learned. Safety is the
cornerstone of the U.S. aviation industry, and without it, the
UAS industry cannot succeed, period. Thus, I am very concerned
when I read in the Washington Post that the FAA is receiving
about 25 reports each month from pilots about UAS flying too
close to their aircraft, sometimes even near major airports.
Protecting privacy is equally important as we further
integrate and deploy UAS, whether by individual hobbyists or in
commercial applications. I know the FAA and aviation industry
are taking the issue very seriously, and Congress will continue
to be actively engaged.
We can all agree that UAS represents a tremendous economic
opportunity. The FAA estimates that $89 billion to $90 billion
will be invested globally in UAS over the next 10 years and
major U.S. companies have begun investing in UAS technology in
a major way. There are many valuable applications in real
estate, agriculture, medical transport, and infrastructure
maintenance, with many more on the horizon.
It is not hard to imagine UAS making existing industries
more efficient and giving rise to entirely new ones. All of
this could mean new jobs and vast economic opportunities for
the American people if we do this right. So it also concerns me
when I read in The Wall Street Journal about major U.S.
companies taking their UAS research and development activities
to foreign countries, such as Canada and Australia, because FAA
regulations are too burdensome and too slow.
It also concerns me that the road builders in Germany and
farmers in France today are enjoying economic benefits from UAS
because safety regulators there have found ways to permit such
flights.
I can't help but wonder that if the Germans, the French and
the Canadians do some of these things today, then why can't we
also be doing them? Are they smarter than us? I don't think so.
Are they better than us? I don't think so. So we really need
these questions answered. I hope to get a better understanding
of this issue during today's hearing.
As I said earlier, safety is paramount and the challenges
are difficult, but if there is a country that is up to the
challenge of safe UAS integration, it is certainly the United
States of America. We have the very best engineers, the
smartest inventors, the most creative minds, and the
knowledgeable regulators to ensure American leadership in
aviation in the decades ahead. I know this, because many of our
best and brightest minds in aviation work at the FAA's
Technical Center flagship, which is in my district. The FAA
Tech Center is a one-stop shop for the best and brightest to
research, develop, demonstrate, and validate new aviation
technologies and data sources. It has had a role in many
advances in flight safety, including air traffic control, which
is key to safe UAS integration. It is a place where new ideas
are developed and old ones are improved. Work on UAS is
underway there already, and I fully expect their contributions
will continue and they will be invaluable.
I am interested in hearing today where we are in terms of
the UAS industry and what lies ahead, what progress the
Government has or hasn't made, and what industry and FAA need,
and how we in Congress can help as we consider the next FAA
reauthorization bill.
And I talked with Mr. Larsen and members of the committee
and Chairman Shuster, we are really looking at this very
closely, because as we prepare the next FAA authorization bill,
we are going to be looking for substantial improvements and
advancements in this particular area, and we will be looking at
specific language, if necessary, if we don't see these advances
in a timely way.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these
topics and thank them for joining us today.
Before I recognize my colleague, Mr. Larsen, for his
comments, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material for the record for this
hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
I would now like to yield to Mr. Larsen for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for calling
today's hearing on the U.S. unmanned aircraft systems
integration oversight and competitiveness. I appreciate you
holding this hearing at my request. And safety is and must be
the FAA's number one priority, certainly is mine, I know it is
yours as well.
We have looked at unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, twice
earlier this year, but last week's report of numerous near
collisions between UAS and manned aircraft are a stark reminder
that the FAA must be prepared to ensure UAS operations are
safe, both for those in the air and people on the ground, so
this hearing is timely.
The UAS industry has great potential to drive economic
growth and create jobs, including in Washington State, where I
am from, and which is an epicenter of aviation R&D; however,
there is no doubt there are some near-term challenges. For
example, the FAA says it receives about 25 reports each month
from pilots who've seen unmanned aircraft or model aircraft
operating near their aircraft, including some near collisions.
But we rise to challenges; we do not shrink from them. And
I want you to consider these headlines with cautionary tales.
``Planes crash in air, man killed.'' That is from the Wyoming
State Tribune. ``Two killed in a crash in air,'' Trenton
Evening Times. ``Crash in air kills two.'' ``Pilots die when
two machines collide in practice flight.'' That is the
Oregonian. All these headlines are from 1917, 1917 and 1920. I
found more than 80 stories of this kind alone all written
before 1921.
These reports could have caused the American public to give
up on developing things that fly, what they used to call
machines, now we call airplanes, but we didn't. Had we given up
on commercial air travel then, we would not have the safe and
efficient passenger airline system that we have today. So while
near collision headlines reflect undeniable challenges that
must be addressed, we have to keep moving forward to ensure
progress and competitiveness, but let's be clear: integration
of UAS must never come at the expense of safety. So to help
guide this effort, the last authorization set forth specific
requirements and milestones for the FAA to safely integrate UAS
into the national airspace. We have heard a number of concerns
from industry that FAA's not moving quickly enough.
The Department of Transportation inspector general reported
in June that FAA had completed work toward nine of the
milestones in the act, but that agency was--but that the agency
was behind schedule on remaining milestones. The bill required
the FAA to publish a rule on small UAS by August, August 14th
of this year. We expect that rule soon. The bill also required
the FAA to establish six test ranges for UAS research; however,
while these test ranges are up and running, we continue to hear
from stakeholders that those test ranges are not being utilized
as much as they can be.
However, given the magnitude of the safety implications of
incorporating this technology into our sophisticated and
crowded airspace, we have to give credit where credit is due,
and the FAA is proceeding with caution and is making some
progress. For example, section 333 of the act gave the FAA
authority to authorize certain UAS operations on an interim
basis in advance of the final rule on small UAS. The FAA is
just beginning using this authority and has granted several
exemptions, including some this morning. We must ensure,
though, that the agency allows prudent testing and operations
to begin safely, even if on a limited basis.
We have also heard concerns from other countries--that
other countries afford more flexible environments to test and
operate UAS. So while we must hold safety paramount, we do not
want to fall needlessly behind.
Privacy is another major concern that must be addressed,
and I share the public's concern about implications of aerial
surveillance from UAS operators, and work to ensure these
concerns are addressed through the proper channels.
Within the past 2 years, we have seen the FAA make progress
on implementing NextGen capabilities, with the strong
bipartisan support of this subcommittee and the leadership of
Chairman LoBiondo. Our work on NextGen shows us the absolute
necessity of FAA's collaboration with stakeholders, especially
pilots and air traffic controllers, who will be directly
affected by new technologies.
Our goal with regard to UAS integration should be to keep
safe integration on track so that we are not here in 2024
talking about a plan to integrate UAS into the airspace.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask unanimous
consent to enter the written remarks from MITRE into the
record. MITRE is engaged in research and development for the
FAA, and its input is critical as we look towards
reauthorization.
Mr. LoBiondo. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILALBE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
hearing from all our panelists about why we are here today,
what we can do to keep the integration of UAS on track and to
ensure safety. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Very pleased to welcome the chairman of the
full committee, Mr. Bill Shuster, and thank him for his
tremendous interest and involvement in this issue and the FAA
authorization bill. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to
start off by saying welcome to our panelists here today. We are
interested in hearing your testimony and your views on this
issue, but I share Mr. Lobiondo's views on safety. Safety in
our skies is simply paramount. That has to be first and
foremost to us. So we in Congress are very interested in UAS.
In the last FAA bill, we directed the FAA to safely
integrate that into our airspace by September 2015, but the UAS
industry cannot develop unless it is proven safe. And based on
the opening statements by the chairman and the ranking member,
Republicans and Democrats are united in our views about the
priority and importance of safety.
We also understand that UAS are an exciting technology with
the potential to transform parts of our economy. I am intrigued
by how UAS might improve our modes of transportation. For
example, the UAS might be used for certain kinds of bridge
inspections without closing lanes, for traffic stopping, or
requiring workers to have to climb up to high places to do
inspection. And the UAS, I am told, can survey 180 acres of
land in less than an hour during construction projects.
UAS can safely help us get more bang out of the taxpayers'
buck on infrastructure projects, and with that in mind, it is
our responsibility to look at this and take a close look at
this technology.
I know there are some challenges to getting this right. I
am confident that the American inventors, engineers and
entrepreneurs are up to the challenge to ensure the United
States retains its lead in aviation technology. As we work
towards safe integration of UAS, we cannot let a few
irresponsible individuals jeopardize the safety of the many and
set back a potentially promising technology.
So I am glad you are all here today. And thank you for
holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Thank you, Mr. Shuster.
I want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses today.
Our first panel will include Ms. Peggy Gilligan, Associate
Administrator for Aviation Safety to the Federal Aviation
Administration, essentially all things UAS; Mr. Matthew
Hampton, assistant inspector general for aviation for the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector General;
Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director of Physical Infrastructure
Issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office; Captain
Lee Moak, who is president of Air Line Pilots Association,
International; Mr. Jesse Kallman, head of business development
and regulatory affairs for Airware; and Dr. Nicholas Roy,
associate professor of aeronautics and astronautics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
And, Ms. Gilligan, you are recognized. We welcome your
remarks.
TESTIMONY OF MARGARET GILLIGAN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR
AVIATION SAFETY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; MATTHEW E.
HAMPTON, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AVIATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, PH.D.,
DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; CAPTAIN LEE MOAK, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE
PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; JESSE KALLMAN, HEAD OF
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, AIRWARE; AND
NICHOLAS ROY, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF AERONAUTICS AND
ASTRONAUTICS, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Gilligan. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Congressman
Larsen, and Chairman Shuster for the opportunity to appear
before the subcommittee to discuss unmanned aircraft systems,
or what we know as UAS.
In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Congress
mandated the safe and efficient integration of UAS into the
National Airspace System. Administrator Huerta, in announcing
his strategic initiatives, identified integration of UAS and
commercial space operations into the NAS one of his top
priorities, and we are working hard to meet those mandates.
In the act, Congress mandated that the Secretary of
Transportation consult with Government partners and industry
stakeholders to develop a comprehensive plan and 5-year roadmap
for UAS integration. Both documents have been published, and
outline the path ahead for UAS.
As called for in the statute, these documents set out a
phased approach that must be carried out thoughtfully to ensure
safety is not compromised.
Consistent with congressional direction, we announced six
UAS sites to aid in UAS integration. As required, we set out to
have one test site operational within 6 months of selection. We
surpassed that goal, with the first test site operational
within 4 months and three more sites operational within 6
months of their selection. Now all six UAS sites are fully
operational and have established their research agendas. The
data and information from the test sites will help answer key
questions about how unmanned aircraft systems interface in the
airspace as well as with air traffic control.
The FAA Technical Center in Atlantic City is playing a key
role in data collection and analysis, and will continue to make
significant contributions to UAS integration as we work closely
with the test sites to identify the data that will be the most
useful to the FAA.
We are moving forward with UAS integration through
rulemaking. As mandated by the act, the FAA initiated
rulemaking to permit civil operation of small UAS in the
airspace. We all agree that that project is taking too long,
but I am pleased to say that we believe we now have a balanced
proposal that is currently under executive review.
In the meantime, and consistent with the act, we are
looking at activities that do not pose a risk to others who
operate in the airspace, to the general public, or to national
security, and that can be operated safely without an
airworthiness certificate. Once the Secretary of Transportation
is able to make that determination, FAA then grants relief from
other FAA operating regulations. We have authorized 11
operators, including five exemptions that we have issued today,
to conduct commercial UAS activity in the national airspace,
covering activities such as surveying, inspection and movie
making.
We continue to facilitate the use of UAS by public
entities. For more than two decades, FAA has authorized the use
of unmanned aircraft for important safety missions such as
firefighting and border security. Working closely with the
Departments of Defense and Homeland Security and other
agencies, we are taking advantage of the extensive Federal
investment that has been made in these systems.
In addition, more than 35 law enforcement agencies now
operate unmanned aircraft under certificates of authorization,
and we are also working with law enforcement agencies to
address the unauthorized use of UAS, for they are often in the
best position to help us deter, detect, and investigate such
activities.
We are working hard to educate the public about the
requirements for operating UAS in the national airspace, and we
believe opportunities like this will help us in that endeavor,
but that has proven to be a challenge. Unlike traditional
manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft are widely available for
purchase by individuals who may not realize that they are
entering the National Airspace System or that they must comply
with FAA regulations. They may not appreciate the significant
safety risk that is presented by unauthorized or unsafe UAS
operations in the national airspace.
Just as you directed in the 2012 Act, FAA can and will take
enforcement action against anyone who operates a UAS in a way
that endangers the safety of the national airspace, but we
continue to lead with education, because we believe the vast
majority of UAS operators want to comply with FAA regulation.
We remain committed to serve as world leaders in this
segment of the aviation industry. The United States is proud to
lead the Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Panel recently
formed by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The
U.S. will be leading the way to establish standards and
recommended practices, procedures, and guidance materials to
facilitate the safe integration of remotely piloted aircraft
systems around the world. Together with our international
partners, we will facilitate integration at the international
level while continuing to lead the world in aviation safety.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I look forward
to answering your questions.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hampton.
Mr. Hampton. Chairman Shuster, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking
Member Larsen, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me to testify today on FAA efforts to integrate
unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, into the National Airspace
System.
The increasing demand for UAS systems has enormous economic
and competitive implications for our Nation. As you know, the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act was a catalyst for UAS
technology. The act directed FAA to take steps to advance UAS
integration, with the goal of safely integrating UAS technology
by 2015.
In June, we reported on FAA efforts and made 11
recommendations specifically aimed at helping FAA to more
effectively meet the act's goals.
My testimony today will focus on FAA's progress in
implementing the act's provisions and the challenges the agency
faces in safely integrating UAS technology.
To date, FAA has completed more than half of the 17 UAS
requirements in the act. This includes selecting the test sites
as well as publishing a roadmap outlining agency plans. In
addition, using the authority granted in the act, FAA recently
authorized 11 companies to operate UAS in commercial
operations. However, FAA is behind schedule on the act's
remaining requirements, many of which are key to advancing UAS
integration. For example, FAA missed the act's August 2014
deadline for issuing a final rule on small UAS systems. These
are systems weighing less than 55 pounds.
While FAA expects to issue a proposed rule soon, it will
likely generate a significant amount of public comment that the
agency will need to consider before issuing a final rule. As an
result, it is uncertain when a final rule will be published.
Ultimately, FAA will not meet the act's overarching goal to
safely integrate UAS technology by September 2015.
As FAA works to implement the act's provisions, the agency
also faces significant technological, regulatory, and
management challenges. On the technological front, the
evolution of detect and avoid technology is paramount. Also,
the risk of loss link scenarios, when an operator loses
connectivity with an unmanned aircraft, remains high.
Furthermore, establishing secure radio frequency spectrum to
support UAS communications has also proven difficult to
address.
FAA, DOD and NASA have several important research projects
underway, but it remains unclear when the technology will be
robust enough to support safe UAS operations.
Regulatory challenges have also affected progress to date.
Also FAA has authorized limited UAS operations on a case-by-
case basis, it is not yet positioned to certify civil UAS
operations on a large scale.
FAA has worked with a special advisory committee for more
than 9 years, but has not yet reached consensus with
stakeholders on minimum performance and design standards for
UAS technology. Much work remains to set requirements for pilot
and crew qualifications, ground control stations, and
communication links for UAS systems.
Finally, I would like to turn to challenges in areas that
need significant management attention. FAA lacks the training,
tools and procedures air traffic controllers need to manage UAS
operations. FAA also lacks standard databases to collect and
analyze safety data from current UAS operators and a severity-
based classification system for incident reporting. Data from
FAA's UAS test sites will provide critical information related
to certification, air traffic control, and detect-avoid
technologies I discussed earlier. All of these can inform FAA's
decisions and advance progress.
Other important and much needed steps include publication
of the small UAS rule and developing an integrated budget
document that clearly identifies funding requirements in the
near and mid term.
In conclusion, UAS will be and remain a front and center
issue that requires significant management attention. It
remains uncertain when and at what pace UAS technology can be
fully and safely integrated into our airspace. Now is the time
for FAA to build on the knowledge base to make informed
decisions, set priorities, identify critical path issues, and
develop the basic regulatory framework for integrating UAS
technology into the National Airspace System. We will continue
to monitor FAA's progress on these issues and keep the
subcommittee apprised of our efforts.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will
be happy to answer any questions you or other members of this
subcommittee may have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Hampton. That is--wow. OK. We
will leave it at that for right now.
Dr. Dillingham.
Dr. Dillingham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Larsen, Chairman Shuster, members of the subcommittee.
My statement this morning is based on our ongoing work for
this subcommittee and focuses on three areas: First, FAA's
progress towards meeting the unmanned aerial systems provisions
of the 2012 FAA Reauthorization Act; second, key research and
development activities needed to support unmanned systems
integration; and third, how other countries have progressed
towards integrating unmanned systems into their airspace.
Regarding the provisions of the 2012 Act, the act included
17 specific provisions for FAA to achieve safe unmanned systems
integration by September 2015. While FAA has completed most of
these provisions, key ones remain and additional actions are
needed to effectively leverage the completed provisions for the
integration effort. For example, a critical step for allowing
commercial operations is the publication of a final rule. To
develop the rule, FAA must publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking; however, as you have heard, the NPRM has been
significantly delayed. Given the time that is generally
required for rulemaking and the tens of thousands of comments
expected on this NPRM, the consensus of opinion is that the
integration of unmanned system will likely slip from the
mandated deadline of September 2015 until 2017 or even later.
The delay in the final rule, which will establish
operational and certification requirements, could contribute to
unmanned systems continuing to operate unsafely and illegally,
and lead to additional enforcement activities for FAA's scarce
resources. Additionally, without a small unmanned systems rule,
U.S. businesses may continue to take their testing and research
and development activities outside of the U.S.
Regarding research and development activities, the key
technology issues remain essentially the same as they have been
since the beginning of the unmanned systems era, including
detect and avoid, command and control, air worthiness, and
spectrum issues. There are a wide range of stakeholders
involved in addressing these issues and there has been some
notable progress, including the establishment of the test
sites; however, in spite of the progress in research and
development, the role of the six test sites remains unclear.
The designation and operational startup of the six test
sites, viewed by many as a major step forward in acquiring the
necessary data to address the technological and operational
challenges associated with integration. Our preliminary work
suggests that this development has not lived up to its promise.
The test site operators told us that they were significantly
underutilized by FAA and the private sector and that they were
unclear as to what research and development and operational
data was needed by FAA to support the integration initiatives.
However, our preliminary work suggests that FAA has
provided some guidance to the test sites regarding the needed
research and development and data needs. FAA officials said
that Federal law prevents them from asking the test sites for
specific data. According to FAA, the law does not allow the
agency to give directions to the site or accept voluntary
services without payment. As we continue our study, we will be
trying to better understand the relationship between the test
sites, FAA, and the needed research and development and how the
test sites can achieve their highest and best use.
Regarding developments in foreign countries, as is the case
in the U.S., many countries around the world allow commercial
operations under some restrictions. Also similar to the U.S.,
foreign countries are experiencing problems with illegal and
unsafe unmanned systems operations; however, a 2014 MITRE study
and our preliminary observations have revealed that several
countries, including Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom and
Canada have progressed farther than the United States with
regulations supporting commercial operations for small unmanned
vehicles, but the regulations governing unmanned systems are
not consistent worldwide. Some countries, such as Canada, are
easing operating restrictions through a risk management
approach, while other countries, such as India, are increasing
unmanned systems restrictions. Our ongoing study for this
subcommittee will look further at the experiences of other
countries for potential lessons learned for the United States.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
today.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham.
Captain Moak.
Mr. Moak. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member
Larsen, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to
provide our perspectives on the critical importance of safely
integrating unmanned aircraft systems into the National
Airspace System.
Our country's national airspace is the most dynamic and
diverse on the planet, and also I want to underscore this, the
safest. We need to protect it and maintain it to deliver the
safest, most efficient air transportation possible.
UAS and remotely piloted aircraft systems include aircraft
ranging in the size from a small bird to as large as an
airliner. Some UAS aircraft are operating completely
autonomously. Their flight route is computer-programmed and the
device operates without a pilot. Other UAS aircraft are flown
remotely by pilots from an operational center or control
stations that can be located at the launch and recovery site or
perhaps thousands of miles away.
ALPA supports the safe use of unmanned aircraft systems. We
recognize the potential benefit to our Nation's economic
competitiveness, but we also recognize the potential for a
safety risk if we don't treat them as what they are: airplanes
in airspace.
We have all seen photos of the damage that can be caused to
an airplane by a bird strike in flight. Unmanned aircraft can
be much smaller or much larger than birds, but they harbor
added risk in that they carry batteries, motors and other hard
metal components.
This was a bird strike, please take a look at this, on a
commercial airplane, and this next photo of a military
airplane's encounter with an unmanned aerial vehicle. Hit it in
the wing root there.
We must not allow pressure to rapidly integrate UAS in into
the NAS to rush a process that must be solely focused on
safety. Standards and technologies must be in place to ensure
the same high level of safety as is currently present in the
NAS before a UAS RPA can be authorized to occupy the same
airspace as airliners are operating in areas where it might
inadvertently stray into airspace used by commercial flights.
We also need to make certain that UAS pilots are properly
trained and understand the consequences of possible
malfunctions.
Now, I knew I would be speaking before you today, so I went
online last Thursday and purchased this quadcopter for the
committee for just a few hundred dollars. I received it 2 days
later, and as the marketing promised, it was ready to fly in a
few minutes and I was flying it in my office.
Now, this UAS can carry a camera, it has a GPS, which with
the purchase of additional software can be used to pre-program
a flight plan. It has the capability, this one, to fly as high
as 6,600 feet for 15 minutes, and that means it could easily
end up in the same airspace I occupy when I am on approach to
land at Newark or at Seattle or at any other airport.
Now, if we took this aircraft out in the courtyard
building, it has the capability to fly from this courtyard to
the final approach path at Reagan National Airport, and from
the park at the end of the runway. That is Reagan Airport, that
is that Gravelly Point Park. You can see it would be even
easier to fly right into the aircraft zone.
Now, a well trained and experienced flight crew is the most
important safety component of the commercial air transportation
system. A pilot in the cockpit of an aircraft can see, he can
feel, he can smell, and he can hear indications of a problem
and begin to formulate a course of action long before even the
most sophisticated indicators verify trouble. Without a pilot
onboard, we lose this advantage, and as a result, it is
essential that UAS pilots are highly trained, qualified and
monitored to meet the equivalent standards of pilots who
operate manned aircraft.
We also need to make certain that UAS aircraft can't stray
into areas where it poses a hazard if the operator loses
control, that it behaves like it is supposed to, and if there
is a failure, the aircraft doesn't endanger other aircraft or
people on the ground.
If UAS is intended to be operated in civil airspace or
could unintentionally be flown into our airspace, airline
pilots need to be able to see them on our cockpit displays, and
controllers need the ability to see them on their radarscopes.
UAS aircraft also need to be equipped with collision avoidance
capability.
And, finally, the FAA resources are limited, and the agency
must have a long-term sustained source of funding as well as
realistic timelines and a systematic approach that builds the
path of UAS integration based on safety.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify today. We look
forward to working with Congress to ensure that safety is held
paramount in bringing UAS into the national airspace.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Captain Moak.
Mr. Kallman.
Mr. Kallman. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify here today.
I am the head of business development and regulatory
affairs for Airware, a San Francisco-based company developing
flight control systems for commercial unmanned aircraft,
enabling companies to use commercial UAVs to collect, analyze
and disseminate data for a growing number of commercial
applications around the world.
Airware has raised over $40 million from several of the
world's leading venture capital firms and our team has more
than doubled over the last year.
I also serve on the board of the Small UAV Coalition, which
was formed earlier this year to promote safe commercial
operations of small UAVs here in the United States.
This is a critical time for the UAV industry and Airware.
The Small UAV Coalition and others in the community would like
to ensure that the United States becomes the global leader for
commercial UAV technology development and operations while
maintaining the safest airspace in the world.
Today I will focus on three key issues for this
subcommittee: one, the current state of UAV technology and
potential implications in a variety of industries; two, the
need for a risk-based approach to UAV regulations; third, the
effective current and expected regulations on U.S. businesses.
First, the UAV industry is one the fastest growing markets
here in the United States. Many here today may be familiar with
the small consumer UAVs used for personal enjoyment or
photography, but I would like to focus on the commercial-grade
UAVs which are tackling some of the biggest problems across a
variety of industries.
Commercial UAVs are being used for disaster management, oil
and gas exploration, search and rescue, inspection of wind
turbines, and surveying of crops. These UAVs are equipped with
many technological features to ensure safety and reliability of
operations, such as geo-fencing systems, which keep a UAV
within certain altitude and distance limits as well as away
from sensitive areas. Also, contingency management systems,
which in the case of an issue onboard the aircraft, enable the
UAV to automatically return to a safe landing location.
These types of technologies are developing at an
increasingly rapid rate and are enabling safe operations around
the world today. In addition, NASA's also working to develop a
UAS traffic management system to provide a means for safely
managing a lot of these small systems.
Through my past experience working at the FAA, I understand
the challenge in regulating this new and revolutionary
technology in the United States, but there are steps we can be
taking to begin to open up operational environments now. Most
commercial UAV operations will take place below 400 feet, 100
feet below the typical minimum safe altitude of 500 feet for
manned aviation.
This brings me to my second point. We must take a new,
risk-based approach to regulating UAVs. For example, a very
small aircraft operating over a remote farm field at 300 feet
would be subject to minimal regulatory requirements, whereas a
larger aircraft operating over populated areas would require
highly reliable avionics, additional training, geo-fence
technology, and fail-safe mechanisms, like a parachute. These
are the types of risk models being used to allow commercial
operations in Europe today, including France.
I am pleased that the FAA recently stated its intentions to
shift to this type of model, I applaud them for this, but the
critical question is how quickly can it be implemented?
Finally, I would like to discuss the effect of delayed
regulations on U.S. businesses. As I mentioned, France allows
low-risk commercial applications, as does Canada, the United
Kingdom, Australia, and many other countries. The United
States, typically a leader in aviation, is one of only a few
countries that currently prohibits commercial UAV operations,
except pursuant to an exemption. While we wait, small and large
businesses in the United States are moving UAV testing and
operations abroad, where regulations are more advanced.
Delayed and overly restrictive regulations aren't just
slowing the growth of the UAV industry. Many of the largest
industries and corporations in America see this technology as
key for remaining competitive in the global marketplace.
Airware has raised a strategic investment from one of the
largest corporations in America, General Electric, who could
use UAVs across many of their different business units.
The Farm Bureau has also recently noted that U.S. farmers
will not be able to keep up with foreign competitors if they
are not allowed to use the same technology.
UAV technology will have a major impact on our economy. In
the first 3 years of integration, conservative estimates
include creating more than 70,000 jobs and adding $13.6 billion
into the economy. With each year of integration delays, the
U.S. loses more than $10 billion in potential economic impact.
We want the jobs, economic benefits, and core intellectual
property created from this work to be here in the United
States.
We know that no matter the outcome today, UAV technology
will create jobs, it will save lives, and it will grow the
economies of those countries with the foresight to act. The
United States is poised to lead the way for this growing and
game-changing industry. We have the talent and the workforce to
create the technology needed to safely integrate into the
world's most complex airspace. Let's act quickly before major
opportunities are lost.
Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Kallman.
Dr. Roy, welcome.
Mr. Roy. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, Chairman
Shuster, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss the unmanned
aviation industry in the United States.
I am a professor in the Department of Aeronautics and
Astronautics at MIT. I lead a research program on unmanned
aerial vehicles, or UAVs, with a focus on unmanned flight in
urban, civilian, or populated environments. Most recently, I
worked to Google to found Project Wing, a UAV-based package
delivery system. I returned to MIT full-time in September of
this year. In this testimony, I am speaking today solely for
myself, and cannot speak for either MIT or Google.
My main message today is that the U.S. does lead the world
in UAV development, but both testing the next wave of
technology needed for commercial UAV applications and training
the next generation of engineers, both are more difficult in
the U.S. than in other countries. Let me explain further.
Firstly, the issues around small UAV commercialization are
quite different compared to large, primarily military, UAVs.
Large UAVs are as safe and as reliable as manned aircraft. The
U.S. is the unquestioned leader in this space, so I am going to
focus today on small UAVs for civil use.
The vast majority of small UAVs are basically toy aircraft,
such as model airplanes or quadrotor helicopters. This current
generation of small UAVs exist because advances in technology,
such as computers, GPS receivers or batteries, leading to
smaller, cheaper UAVs that are easy for anyone to fly.
There are many companies proposing to use these
technologies for commercial use, but right now most commercial
vehicles can only fly simple missions, generally with the same
reliability as a toy. A lot of example uses have made the news
in this country and other countries, but are for the most part
prototypes or vaporware.
In reality, the current civil UAV markets around the world
are tiny, only hundreds to a couple thousand vehicles at best.
There are real technology gaps limiting the growth of UAVs.
The recent FAA call for a center of excellence for unmanned
aircraft systems is a pretty good roadmap for what technology
is needed for growth, but let me give you some examples. Most
people know what it is like for the GPS in their car to get
confused. This can and does happen to UAVs too. The vehicles
need to have sensors and algorithms to let them know where they
are at all times. UAVs need to know about ground obstacles and
aircraft around them and how to avoid collisions.
We need radio spectrum and new radio technologies that
ensure the pilot in command can control the vehicle at all
times.
As the number of UAVs grows, the air traffic management
infrastructure must grow alongside in order to coordinate the
large number of UAVs flying through the National Airspace
System at any altitude.
Lastly, an unmanned vehicle only makes sense when the
operational cost is less than a manned aircraft. Onboard
vehicle intelligence is needed to drive down the human labor
costs in more applications.
My point is that another wave of technology is required to
scale up to products for imaging, agriculture, emergency
response or package delivery.
U.S. researchers and companies absolutely lead in these and
other technology areas. We do have a demonstrated track record
in autonomy, algorithms, sensors and communication, but there
are hurdles.
Firstly, from the Wright Cycle Exchange 100 years ago in
Ohio, to Hewlett-Packard, to Apple, the creation myth of some
of the most successful technology companies in the world is the
small team of investors tinkering in a garage. The point is not
the garage itself, but it gives the ability to test anywhere
that is safe, and this massively accelerates the development
cycle. Unfortunately, it is much harder to test UAV technology
in the U.S. than in other countries. It is not impossible, the
FAA does have a number of authorization mechanisms, but there
is a considerable bar to enter for people who just want to work
on the technology.
The current processes might be right for authorizing a UAV-
based pipeline inspection service across the length of North
Dakota, but they are onerous for a two-person start creating
basic technology.
Unfortunately, there isn't a single set of rules or
procedures I can point to that can be adopted from another
country that would work here, but there may be ideas to be
learned. For example, a clear definition of legal test flight
instead of a case-by-case approval process will let engineers
know where they can literally set up their garage and start to
work.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the U.S. position
of leadership depends on our ability to train engineers and
scientists with the skills necessary to develop the requisite
technologies. There are a growing number of universities
teaching UAV technology to undergrads.
To learn the foundations of UAVs requires flight, requires
real flight. While some institutions have access to COAs or are
near one of the approved test sites, there are too few and the
cost is substantial. The same processes that inhibit access to
test areas limit how our educational institutions provide
training in UAV technology.
Furthermore, the support for basic research in UAV
technologies is diminishing. Much of the progress in unmanned
vehicles in the U.S. has been funded by forward-thinking
program managers in ONR, ARO, AFOSR, DARPA and NASA. These
program managers have not only funded the technology to enable
UAVs, but have funded the students who write software that is
running on UAVs today. It is these students that are going to
solve the technology challenges. Universities outside the U.S.
are acting both as training grounds for a generation of UAV
researchers and as incubators for UAV companies.
Let me conclude by saying that the U.S. is not currently
lagging other countries regardless of the publicity around
prototype demonstrations. The same technical hurdles will need
to be overcome in any country before commercial UAVs become a
reality of everyday life; nevertheless, there are issues and
constraints in this country that may allow other countries to
overtake the U.S. both in technology development and in
training the generation of engineers required to carry out that
development.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Dr. Roy.
Chairman Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here. We appreciate you bringing
your expertise here, but I think it is important to point out
that on this subcommittee, on the full committee, we have
members that have expertise, we have pilots on this
subcommittee. And I think I got them all down here: Congressman
Graves is a pilot; Congressman Hanna; Scott Perry, Congressman
Perry is a helicopter pilot, but a pilot; we are going to be
joined next Congress by Congressman Rokita, who is a pilot; and
Congressman Jeff Denham, when he served in the Air Force, was
an aircraft mechanic; and our counsel, Naveen Rao, is a pilot.
So we have a lot of expertise here, a lot of folks that
understand what you are saying, and so I think it is going to
be important as we move forward, listening to you, but
listening to the experts that we have here on the subcommittee
is very, very beneficial to us, and I am happy that they are
here and with us and able to help us, guide us through this.
The first question to Captain Moak, in your written
testimony, you stated that commercial UAS operators should hold
a commercial pilot's license and instrument ratings. And we
have heard that the skills to fly UAS are different,
significantly different, from those to fly a passenger jet.
Some parts of the curriculum really seem to have little
relevance to flying UASs. For example, UAS operators need to
master stall and recovery techniques in a Cessna if they plan
on flying a quadcopter. So what would be the relevance there,
how would it benefit safety, and is there a scientific basis
for your recommendation?
Mr. Moak. So even on another committee I sat on, we have
had the Air Force, where they were working--initially all their
UAS pilots over the last several years were coming out of the
pilot pipeline, but as the need for more UAS operators for U.S.
Air Force increased, they set up a separate UAS track, which
you may be familiar with. In that track, they do go through all
the all the basic skills of flying, for a couple reasons: one
is to understand when they are in the airspace, and the other
is to make sure they are operating the UAS properly. So the Air
Force has briefed us on that. We think it is a good model.
With what the FAA has been doing, treating and--treating
these as an airplane and go through--going through a process of
certificating the aircraft, certificating the operator, the
person trying to operate it, the company, and then
certificating the pilots, OK, and then monitoring and oversight
of all that, I think, is one of the precepts, the foundations
of having a--continuing with a safe national airspace.
Mr. Shuster. And so----
Mr. Moak. On your specific on should they----
Mr. Shuster. Cessna.
Mr. Moak [continuing]. Be able to recover from a stall or
each of that, I think there is room for that in any curriculum.
I agree with you on that. I just think we need to be focused on
that safety part of it.
Mr. Shuster. All right.
Mr. Moak. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shuster. So to modify it, you are not opposed to that
if it doesn't make sense. OK.
Mr. Moak. Absolutely.
Mr. Shuster. The second thing is that we have got some
reports from newspapers and other media sources that are
leaking out some of the proposed rulemaking. And this question
is to Captain Moak, Mr. Kallman and Mr. Roy. There appears to
be a rule not to be permitted to operate beyond the line of
sight. And if that were the case, my concern is it would
significantly reduce or almost eliminate the benefits that a
UAS system brings to us. So can you comment on beyond the line
of sight?
Mr. Moak. Right. So you have seen the--there are news
stories all the time, but there have been two recent ones, one
at JFK and one at Heathrow. And this would be a different
hearing if this would have went down the engine of an aircraft.
It would have been, you know, catastrophic, and we would have a
different hearing today.
I think what is important is if it is going to be operated
in that--in that method that you are talking about, there needs
to be a way to have pilots that are flying be able to see it.
And it is very difficult, if not impossible, to see this,
because much like other things in the air, if there is not
relative motion, your eye can't pick it up. All right?
And on the airspace issues, for example, for helicopters,
you know, 500 feet and below is where helicopters, Life Flight
and lots of other planes operate. So I would just suggest this:
if we are going to be operating it beyond line of sight in
densely--in dense areas, you know, big sky, little airplane,
but lots of airplanes, there needs to be a way for air traffic
control to see it, for the airplanes to see it, for the person
who is operating it to be able to communicate with air traffic
control and with the airplanes in the area. And that--I believe
with that, you could very easily operate beyond line of sight.
And then the only other thing, and we have experts over
here, if you are in an area that is not populated by other
airplanes, then of course you could operate it in that manner,
but the only thing would be what do you do with a lost link,
which, you know, has happened quite a bit in the military.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Kallman, based on what Mr. Captain Moak
said there, can you comment?
Mr. Kallman. Thank you. I think this gets back to the
earlier point I made on taking a risk-based approach. So in the
case of beyond-line-of-sight operations, you would be in a
scenario where there are higher risks, but think you can
mitigate that through technology. So, for example, in France
today, what they are doing for beyond-line-of-sight operations
is they are only operating at very low altitudes, where there
isn't general aviation traffic or commercial traffic, and they
are enhancing it through technologies, such as cameras onboard,
the system where an operator can actually see if there is other
traffic in the area, to the point on lost link scenarios, they
are utilizing technology, I mentioned earlier, for a
contingency management.
So in the case where you do lose link with your operator,
you are able to pre-program in so the UAV knows exactly how to
respond in those cases. So depending on what the area is, what
the environment is, it knows what a safe location is to return
to. So these are the types of technologies that are already in
place today.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would yield me 1
more minute so that Mr. Roy can respond to that, because I know
he has worked with Google and MIT, and this would be
beneficial.
Mr. LoBiondo. Without objection.
Mr. Roy. So my answer is very consistent with the previous
two answers in the sense that beyond line of sight is eminently
doable. A risk-based profile makes a lot of sense. It is more
feasible in unpopulated environments or where you have some
notion of what the airspace contains.
The technology issues are very consistent. Loss of link,
there needs to be a contingency plan. Loss of link is a
challenge. Maintaining situational awareness as the vehicle
returns, that is a technology question that needs to be
addressed, but these are eminently doable.
Mr. Shuster. All right. Thank you very much.
For the benefit of the FAA, I hope you heard a lot. To me
it was loud and clear. Safety is paramount, absolutely. I think
we all agree with that. This can be done, and as we move
forward, making sure that we are looking at the technology and
the safety aspect. And, again, one size doesn't fit all. Thank
you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to focus my initial questions on this end of the
table. I know folks from my side of the aisle have some
questions on the--for folks down here, and--but I wanted to
talk a little bit about on the technology side.
And is it doctor? Dr. Roy. Have you looked at the use of
the six test sites and made any assessment about whether they
are being used as much as they can? And if you have made that
assessment, what would you suggest be done otherwise?
Mr. Roy. So I--the six test sites are not my area of
expertise, so I personally haven't done an assessment. MIT was
heavily involved in setting up the NUAIR test site. And I got
back to MIT this September, so been a bit busy, haven't done--
haven't looked at what is available there, but we hope to be
flying there soon.
Mr. Larsen. Well, given--given your research and your
course of study, what would be an ideal environment?
Mr. Roy. So that is a good question. One of the
limitations, I think, is the distance with which one has to go
in order to get to the test sites and the--I guess the onus on
setting up operations there. In an ideal world, I describe in
my written testimony the ability to designate local test areas
anywhere--local flight areas anywhere as test areas, have clear
rules so that, for instance, if you are more than 150--I am
picking these numbers up entirely arbitrarily, but 150 meters
from people on the ground or a ground structure and you have
secured the airspace, then if you had the ability to do that,
that would allow--you know, presumably you could not do that in
downtown Cambridge, but you could go further afield to an area
where, you know, you could take your student more easily than
having to drive through Griffiss Air Force Base and fly.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Mr. Kallman, do you have some comments on
just generally what an ideal environment for these test sites
would look like?
Mr. Kallman. Absolutely.
Mr. Larsen. Or how they would operate, that is.
Mr. Kallman. Yeah. And I agree. I mean, I think the
important thing for test sites is the ease of access so that
small companies, large companies all have the same
opportunities to go utilize the airspace. Obviously safety is
of utmost importance, so being able to do that safely through,
for example, issuing a NOTAM to other operators in the area so
that they understand that there is some testing going on in
these areas, but ensuring that these areas are able to allow
for companies to get that approval and be able to come and
utilize that space quickly and rapidly and at low cost to these
companies.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Well, we will talk to the test sites
about whether that is happening as well as some of the
stakeholders.
You talked a little bit about the risk-based approach and
what it would look like. Is there--is there any scenario where,
since you are in the private sector, where you can envision a
test-to-operation scenario where you--you know, where--like, on
the Armed Services Committee, we sort of broke through some of
the acquisition on certain things to sort of--you know, to
break through the slowness of the Pentagon to act on things.
Is there--using that model, is there a scenario where we
can get to a test-to-operation scenario at these test sites in
certain cases?
Mr. Kallman. Absolutely. And I think that could be very
valuable. And I know organizations like NASA Ames are already
engaged in looking at things like this to allow companies to
bring their technology to showcase what it is capable of doing
and ensuring that it will respond safely in a variety of
different scenarios. I think that will be very important to
have, and I think that there should be infrastructure for that.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Dr. Roy?
Mr. Roy. I completely agree with that. I think that is
essential, because there are going to be operational scenarios
that can't be represented in the test sites. So, for instance,
as the commercial application of infrastructure inspection,
package delivery and so on, they are going to require more
urban environments for testing. And so as we want--as we stand
up those markets, the test-to-operation is going to be an
important part of that.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. In the minute I have left, I just want to
come down to Ms. Gilligan about--on the test sites and the
issue of designated air worthiness representatives.
Ms. Gilligan. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. You have designated one for Nevada, the Nevada
test site. What about the others, and is that something that
test sites need to request or is FAA trying to conclude that
they ought to have these?
Ms. Gilligan. We have offered that as a tool, a technique
for the test sites to be able to attract industry into those
locations. We did it in Nevada. We have offered the training to
all of the test sites. They have not yet offered a candidate
for that training. We are ready whenever they are ready. And,
after the training, the designee then has to actually
demonstrate that they have the skill. That will be done with
one of our engineers, and after that, the designee will be able
to actually approve the operation of the vehicle for the test
sites. We think that will help to enhance the attraction for
industry to come to those test sites.
Mr. Larsen. So is this an ODA model, essentially?
Ms. Gilligan. At this point it is individual designees. It
is not necessary that it actually be an organizational
designation, because we haven't seen that level of demand.
Certainly, if the demand expands and we think an organizational
model makes sense, we could move to that.
Mr. Larsen. OK. I am going to--I will yield back, Mr.
Chairman, and look forward to the rest of the questions.
Thanks.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Ms. Gilligan, the question I am going to try to get to is
the effectiveness interaction with FAA and the test sites. And
there is a lot of FAA activity with UAS arena, with the test
sites and section 333 and so on.
Could you explain the respective roles of the FAA Tech
Center, the test sites, the centers of excellence, cooperative
research and development agreements, section 333 in terms of
how they are getting us towards UAS integration? I mean, it
seems like there is a lot of stuff out here, but we are getting
reports that the test centers are somewhat frustrated because
there is not the interaction that they were expecting and were
not getting results. Can you talk about this?
Ms. Gilligan. I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman. We have
biweekly conferences with all of the test sites, and so I think
we have begun to alleviate some of those early concerns.
I do think the test sites got off to perhaps a slower start
than we and they were anticipating as they really came to
understand what it was that they had undertaken. I think we are
seeing good movement there. They all have approved COAs, and
they all have flight operations underway. We are collecting
some amount of information from those, but, of course, the
numbers are still small, because they really are all just
getting underway.
I believe the improvement that Mr. Larsen referred to with
the ability for the test sites to have a designated
airworthiness representative who can work with companies that
want to use the test sites will go a long way to increasing the
appeal of the test sites to some of the companies that my
colleagues on the panel have talked about, who want to do
research in these areas. So we think that will be an important
improvement as well.
Mr. LoBiondo. So does the FAA have a plan to use these
assets in a coordinated fashion?
Ms. Gilligan. For FAA research, we are looking at what our
research needs are, and to the extent the test centers can help
us fulfill those needs, and to the extent that we have funding
for that research, we will certainly look to use the test
sites. Right now, FAA has not placed research at any of the
test sites.
These test sites, as I say, were set up in accordance with
the intent that we saw in the act, which was to allow industry
to complete research. As my colleagues have said, right now it
is difficult for industry to have access to airspace for the
purposes of research and development. We believe the test sites
offer the perfect opportunity to meet those research needs here
in the U.S., and that is why we are working with the test sites
to expand their ability to attract that kind of research.
Again, if FAA needs can be met at the test sites, we will
certainly look to fund projects at those test sites as well.
Mr. LoBiondo. So when you say you are working with the test
sites to expand that opportunity, can you tell me a little bit
more about that?
Ms. Gilligan. Again, we are trying to keep them well
informed about what they are able to do under the agreements
that they have with the FAA. We now have individuals actually
from the FAA Technical Center who will be traveling to each of
the test sites to work with them more closely on what it is
that we might be looking for to be able to get research data
through the test sites. Once the test sites take advantage of
the ability to have a designee on site, we think that that will
really open the doors for industry to take advantage of the
test sites.
Mr. LoBiondo. Can you tell us a little bit about how you
are engaging with U.S. companies that might want to do research
and development here in the U.S. versus overseas and--what I am
after is about some of these media reports that companies are
frustrated. Are you interacting with these companies, or how
are we trying to keep them to keep the jobs here, is what I am
getting at?
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir. The staff in our UAS office are
interacting with industry constantly. There is a large annual
conference, for example, this week out in New Mexico. We are
well represented there and we are reaching out not only in
public sessions, but in private meetings with manufacturers to
try to understand what are their needs and whether and where
they can meet those needs.
In terms of the recent newspaper report that you saw, we
have been working with that applicant. They are looking at both
an exemption under part 333 as well as what we are
recommending, which is that they seek certification for their
vehicle under our special certification rules for the purposes
of research. And we think that we can actually enable them to
accomplish what they need to accomplish here in the U.S.
through the test sites and through their own certification.
Mr. LoBiondo. Well, there are obviously a lot of areas of
interest here that we as the committee want to try to keep our
fingers on. But while keeping safety paramount, the economic
opportunities in an economy that can desperately use it is also
at the top of our list. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Gilligan, there is this inanity of the Antideficiency
Act where you can't give direction to someone utilizing a test
site because they are providing an uncompensated service. Have
your lawyers really looked at that to see whether or not there
is a way around that, or are we going to need to legislate to
fix that?
Ms. Gilligan. Our lawyers have looked at it, sir, at this
point, and that is the advice that they have given us. I
certainly will ask them to look more closely to see if there is
some alternative. But at this point, we are, again, supporting
the test sites by trying to make them attractive to industry
which really is the party that is interested in the research.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. And I have also heard from some who use
the test sites that there is quite a bureaucratic process that
comes in. And if you want to run one flight you have to file
all these papers, and then you want to modify something and run
another, you can't just like do it. You can't just say, well,
we are going to change eight parameters and we are going to do
another flight.
Ms. Gilligan. We are working with the test sites. We have
actually asked them to come in with a proposal for what we are
calling a broad co-authorization. They are working on that
proposal so that we can start to address some of these
concerns.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. I mean, you have got the test site, you
know, we will get all those parameters in place, and then
someone comes there and says, oh, well, come back and another
30 days if you want to run a little modified operate. They
should be able to do it on a test site, be able to do multiple
operations with different parameters would be useful for your
people to observe. It would be useful, obviously, for their
development or greatly facilitate things. So I hope that we can
do that very quickly.
Why aren't there more test sites? We limited it to six, but
why couldn't we have more? I mean, we just limited it to six.
Is there any reason why we couldn't have more test sites? It
doesn't cost you anything, right?
Ms. Gilligan. Well, it does cost us in----
Mr. DeFazio. In terms of personnel monitoring, yes, et
cetera.
Ms. Gilligan. Yes. We have people who work very closely
with the test sites, and so there is a resource----
Mr. DeFazio. Yeah, but I don't consider them very well
geographically dispersed. There is a lot, I mean, as the point
was made down here, for a small startup to have to travel 1,000
miles to a test site. That is another thing we ought to look
at.
Are we seriously pursuing a risk-based approach, which just
makes so much sense to me, living in the West and knowing that
there are vast areas with agriculture where you could be
operating safely and there are no potential conflicts or
virtually none.
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir. We are using a risk-based approach
as we look at each of the 333 requests for exemption, for
example, to make sure that we understand the level of risk and
what limitations need to be added to it. I think one of the
panelists referred to it. We do have applicants who want to
actually certify the systems, and we are using the same risk-
based approach there. We are looking at our certification
rules, and, with the applicant, we are looking at the risks
that need to be addressed by design standards and what we can
pick from the standards that exist right now for----
Mr. DeFazio. Right. Well, geographic makes a lot of sense
as a starting point for risk-based approach, in terms of
density of operations, proximity to secondary tertiary, general
airports, you know, critical airspace, whole different problem.
So I hope you are seriously working on that.
There is one other question to you, and that is, the staff
has provided something they say that in the case of the film
industry that after they got the section 333, they have to get
a separate operating authorization which has not yet been
granted. So----
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, they need approval to operate in the
airspace, and we need to be able to put out a notice to airmen
where the operations are occurring. I believe all but one of
them have now gotten that approval for at least one location.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Ms. Gilligan. But we agree that under the exemptions
process, we might be able to make that more efficient as well.
We are looking closely as how we could do that.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And this is to the panel generally or
maybe that end. I mean, transponders, how small can a useful
transponder be these days?
Mr. Kallman. Some of the smaller transponders that can be
used now in UAVs can be right now about the size of a cell
phone, maybe even smaller.
Mr. DeFazio. A what? Cell phone?
Mr. Kallman. Yeah, about cell phone size. So those are some
of the smaller systems. There is still some cost associated,
but I think it could be a helpful technology when you are at a
higher altitude when there could be other traffic in the area.
Mr. DeFazio. Yeah. We said over a certain altitude get out
a transponder. In certain kinds of critical airspace, you have
got to have a transponder. I mean, because right now these
things are invisible----
Mr. Kallman. Yeah.
Mr. DeFazio [continuing]. Through our crude radar systems.
So that is correct.
OK. And then this lost link. I mean, that has been a
problem with the military. You know, you think you have got
that nailed in terms of if you have the geospatial restrictions
and that is all somehow programmed in, and these things can
find a safe harbor point remotely and they know they have lost
a link so they are going to go to that point?
Mr. Kallman. Uh-huh. Typically how that would work is the
manufacturers of the vehicles know what a safe, you know,
amount of lost link time is. And, for example, they can specify
in certain applications where lost link is absolutely critical,
and if there is any sort of lost link, it needs to be
immediately returned to the landing location in a way that is
safe.
In other cases, a lot of these systems are so highly
autonomous that interruptions in the link may not be as
important if it is in an area where it is controlled. So it is
all depending on the risk of the situation, and you can
actually program a lot of that into the actual avionics of the
system.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up on some of what you were just sharing,
Mr. Kallman. You know, you talked a lot about technology and
where we are. You know, we see an aircraft sitting in front of
Captain Moak there. Is it possible to put in the type of
technology, or can you expand on the types of technology that
would increase safety but yet not require an aircraft license
as the gentleman to your right is advocating that would keep us
safe? What other technologies are out there?
Mr. Kallman. Yes. So I mentioned two very important ones:
The geo-fence technology, which is very common in the industry
and can be used on vehicles as small as the ones you see here;
the contingency management functionality, it gets to a lost
link; also, loss of GPS functionality so that should the
vehicle no longer be able to make itself aware of where it is,
it knows how to land safely.
There is a lot of really great research going on right now
here in the United States and other parts of the world that
Professor Roy talked about on sense-and-avoid technology. I
think that is going to be a critical piece for enabling a lot
of these higher risk applications at higher altitude with, you
know, other traffic in the air, and there is already very
significant advancements in that area as well.
Mr. Meadows. So how confident are you that if we do not
change our regulatory scheme that Canada, Australia, Europe
will own this type of technology, and on a scale of one to ten
being most confident that if we don't change things that we are
going to lose out?
Mr. Kallman. I would say I am pretty confident, because we
are seeing a lot of the highly skilled manufacturers in Europe
really surpassing a lot of the U.S. companies because of their
ability to go and iterate, do very frequent testing, do a lot
of research on their products where they are able to actually
go two or three generations in their products where a U.S.
company may only be able to do it once. So we are starting to
see some of that.
Mr. Meadows. So they are actually doing a lot more testing
in Europe or Canada or other places than we are here?
Mr. Kallman. So it is because a lot of the main
manufacturers there have easy access to testing facilities.
Mr. Meadows. So Ms. Gilligan, let me come to you. From an
FAA standpoint, obviously, we have some six sites that we are
talking about, but if there is so much work going on in these
foreign countries, are you gathering data in terms of
commercial activity from them, successes, failures, or are we
just being more focused on the United States and not learning
from their mistakes or their successes?
Ms. Gilligan. No, sir. There is a lot of coordination at
the international level, both in terms of what we as an
industry should be establishing as the standards for these
operations, as well as sharing experiences seen around the
world. But, I do want to comment on the vast differences in the
complexity of our airspace and our aviation system over some of
the other countries where there is some easier access.
We have 10 times the number of registered airplanes than
our friends to the north. We have multiple times the numbers of
operations----
Mr. Meadows. And that is without a doubt, but as Mr.
DeFazio is talking about, there are certainly areas where the
risk would be minimal. I have learned today that I probably
violated a Federal law by taking pictures of a golf course.
Now, there was more danger of somebody getting hit by a golf
ball than there is from the drone that flew over it to take the
pictures. But as we see that, can we not look at it on a risk-
based assessment and really open up the testing so that our
airline pilots can feel comfortable with what we have but yet
not keep it so confined?
Ms. Gilligan. We are working closely with the test site in
North Dakota, for example, with just that in mind, recognizing
that there is lower level of air traffic over most of the State
of North Dakota and they are looking at how they can broaden
access for that test site. So yes, sir, we agree that there are
areas where this can safely be accomplished, and we are looking
at working with the test sites on how we can expand that.
Mr. Meadows. So have we implemented any recommendations
that we have received from foreign countries that would
actually help alleviate some of this, or are we just gathering
data?
Ms. Gilligan. I am not aware that we have recommendations
from foreign countries that would address this, but we are
learning from their experience and looking at how we----
Mr. Meadows. If we are learning and not implementing, that
is not doing any good, is it?
Ms. Gilligan. I am sorry, what I was going to say is we are
learning from them and looking at how we can implement what
they have learned safely here in this system. We continue to
look for ways to do this safely.
Mr. Meadows. All right. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Thank you, Mr. Meadows.
I want to thank the Members for watching the clock. You may
have noticed Mr. Larsen and I kept ourselves on the clock. We
have a lot of folks who want to ask questions so I appreciate
that.
We will now go to Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent Las Vegas,
so there is a lot of enthusiasm in Nevada for the development
of drones or UAS. We have got a lot of open space. We have got
Creech Air Force Base. We have got a very creative gaming
industry that wants to provide bottle service by the pool with
these things. I mean, the potential is great. We applied to
become a test center. We got that. I was supportive of that. We
have been working on it. But the enthusiasm is starting to wane
because that test site is not producing like we thought it
would.
Now, I hear Ms. Gilligan being positive about it, but the
things that I hear from people who have briefed me from Nevada
are more in line with what Dr. Dillingham pointed out. They
just don't think it is getting off the ground, so to speak. And
I have heard Ms. Gilligan say about three different times, ``We
are working on this so we can start to address some of the
concerns.'' Well, that doesn't give me a lot of comfort because
you have been working on the rule for such a long time, I don't
think working on it address the concerns is going to get us
there in time to be competitive. I don't know why business
wouldn't just go test in Canada instead of going to one of our
test centers.
Seems to me there are three problems that I hear over and
over from the different folks from Nevada who come and talk to
me. One is, they don't know what information should be
collected. It has just not been clear to them what data is
needed, how to put it together, what procedure should be
followed. Now, I hear Dr. Dillingham say you are working on
establishing that, but there is no timeframe for when that is
going to be done so that could be--who knows when that might
be.
Second problem that they seem to have is this speeding up
the COA process. We heard some reference to that. You have to
do it over every single time, takes so long. I wonder why we
couldn't maybe prioritize the COAs for the test sites over
others because that seems to be where we want to put our
emphasis.
Third, the problem of intellectual property, protecting
industrial secrets, so to speak, of companies that come and
test there that have to give all this information to the FAA
and the public. I just wonder if you would address some of
these questions, Ms. Gilligan; and, Dr. Dillingham, would you
give us your perspective on it?
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, ma'am, I would be glad to. If I could
start with the last one first. That is why we are very pleased
to see that Nevada has stepped up to begin the approval process
for a designee. We believe, and I think they believe, that
using a designee will allow them to bring industry into the
site without having to jeopardize the intellectual property of
the folks who want to work at that site. So we think that is an
important step forward.
I believe the approval for that designee should be
completed this month. And so I think with that, the test site
will see that they can now sort of market that they have the
ability for industry to bring their research projects to this
test site and not put at risk intellectual property, which was
a concern earlier on. So I think that is an important
improvement, and we applaud Nevada for stepping out first to
take that on.
In terms of the COAs, we do prioritize the requests. All of
the test sites have approved authorities now for airspace.
There are some that are still pending. We are, again, trying to
work through those as quickly as we can, because we agree with
you; the test sites have been designated as a location where we
can take advantage of our ability to continue to integrate UAS
safely. So we are pursuing that as well.
And I am sorry, I forget the first one.
Ms. Titus. I have forgotten the first one myself. What
information should be collected?
Ms. Gilligan. The data. I am sorry, yes. Again, we saw
these sites initially and primarily--and continue to see them
primarily--as a place where industry can go to do the research
and development that they want to do, the work that some of my
colleagues here on the panel have talked about. In terms of
what data the FAA needs, we now realize that that is a valuable
piece of information for this test sites to have.
With the applications for the Centers of Excellence, we
have identified the research needs that the FAA has, and,
again, in our biweekly conference calls with the test sites as
well as now with the visits that will be made by our staff from
the Technical Center, we are going to be working closely with
the test site operators to make sure is that we and they
understand what could be helpful to FAA based on the work that
they are seeing at their test sites. So we will be----
Ms. Titus. Dr. Dillingham.
Dr. Dillingham. Well, Ms. Titus, you hit on all the key
points, the same stories that we have been hearing from the
test sites. We have had the opportunity to interview half of
them and visit some of the test sites and those are the key
issues.
I think in terms of increasing their value and their
capacity to input, I think Ms. Gilligan, as FAA fulfills those
things that Ms. Gilligan talked about, that will go a long way.
But I think sort of key to this is something that Mr. DeFazio
said about looking at this antideficiency law and seeing is
there a way that funds could be made available to pay for
research or support research at the test sites.
And also, in terms of the idea that we only have six test
sites, I mean, our information suggests that in Canada, for
example, they are ready to designate a very large airspace up
to 18,000 feet for testing beyond visual line of sight. So
perhaps as we move towards the next stage of this, that not
only additional test sites and maximum use of the current ones
that we again think in terms of this risk-based approach to it.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to question. I don't sit on this subcommittee, but
I have a great interest in it.
From the context of safety juxtaposed with the industry and
the things that we are missing out on, I think, as well as the
time it has taken to come by the rule, my mindset is many, but
I am just looking at an article in the local paper. On November
14 of this year, which is not too long ago, at 4:30 in the
afternoon, on a Wednesday, so it is not on the weekend, an EMS
helicopter flown by a guy that I used to fly with in the
military at about 600 or 700 feet AGL encountered a UAS about
50 feet away from the aircraft and, you know, did a pretty
strong evasive maneuver to make sure that he didn't hit the
aircraft.
Now, he didn't have his patient on board. He was coming
back from having the patient on board, but that concerns me. It
is not just EMS, it is, you know, reports from Kennedy where
just in the same month, on November 16, one came within 10 feet
of a left wing of a Delta Airlines flight, which is concerning.
And so we want everybody to--hobbyists, people that want to use
them for business and so on and so forth to be able to access
the airspace, but we also need to make sure that we all
understand what the rules are and that they make sense.
With that in mind, just one question for you, Mr. Moak.
What is the cost of one of the engines on the airplane you fly?
Mr. Moak. Millions and millions of dollars.
Mr. Perry. I mean, literally over a million dollars just
for the engine?
Mr. Moak. Absolutely.
Mr. Perry. So if, I mean, if it is fodded out----
Mr. Moak. No, no.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. If the UAS were to fly through it
or hit it----
Mr. Moak. Well, this is, just to be clear, because I think
maybe this wasn't clear, this has a GPS in it. This has
geocoding in it. It has the ability to do the things. When it
loses lost-link, it is supposed to come back. So this going
through an engine would do that damage that we showed in the
earlier picture.
And to really be clear, we are all over this risk-based
security, risk-based approach to it, and we also commend the
steady hand of the FAA in making sure that as we bring them on
they are safe. But, again, we would have a different
conversation if it ran into that EMS helicopter or it was 10
feet closer to that Delta jet, you know. We need to be focused
on----
Mr. Perry. Ms. Gilligan, can I ask you a question in that
regard. What specifications, if you can enumerate at this point
or give us some insight, is the FAA contemplating to
incorporate into UAS to ensure that pilots can detect and avoid
and--pilots don't look just straight ahead in the direction
they are flying. You have to look almost in 360 degrees. You
can't look behind you, but--and then if you could address all-
weather capability of UAS and what the plan is for that
anonymous operation. If that aircraft were to hit the other
aircraft, how do we know who owned it? And then maybe
liability, if that is germane to this current conversation?
Ms. Gilligan. Thank you, Congressman. On the question of
standards, we have several groups that are industry groups that
are working on advising us on what those standards should be.
Through the RTCA, we have had a special committee working on
UAS standards. They expect to put forward their first set of
draft standards around this time next year, with final
standards due about a year after that, which is the standard
process that we use when we are setting new design standards.
In the meantime, we do have some applicants who have come
in to get certification for their vehicles. They are working
out of our Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office. We are
approaching the certification basis with those applicants by
looking at our current regulations and identifying those that
are appropriate for this kind of technology.
As it relates to small UAS, we do have a rule that will be
coming out shortly which will make proposals around a number of
these areas, and we will look for comments back on those as
well.
Mr. Perry. For instance, lighting, a strobe or after hours
a darkness required lighting, proximity warning or TCAS or
something of that magnitude. And then if you could address the
anonymous component or the ability to track who owns it if
there is a liability issue?
Ms. Gilligan. Again, we do not have existing standards for
the design or manufacturer of unmanned aerial systems for civil
use. That is why we are working with RTCA and ASTM, both of
them internationally recognize standards setting organizations
to define working with the industry, what should those
standards be. And that is work that is underway and that the
community completely agrees needs to be well developed to
address just the kinds of risks that you are talking about.
The other issue, which is something we are seeing now, the
operation of small UAS by people who are able to buy them but
who have no aviation history or experience, and who, in many
cases, don't even realize they have a responsibility to know
that they are operating in the National Airspace System.
Our first approach to that is through education. We are
doing a tremendous amount of outreach. We are working with
manufacturers who are voluntarily putting information into the
kit, into the box when you get it, about what those
responsibilities are, if you are going to operate a small UAS.
They are directing people who buy them to look at the, modeling
the American Modelers Association Web site, which has a
tremendous amount of safety information for the operation of
these kinds of small vehicles.
The dilemma is not many of the folks who buy these are
really modelers as you and I might have understood that, which
was about building the airplane and the joy of that. As Captain
Moak indicates, you can now purchase small UAS very easily and
fly them pretty quickly after you have gotten them to your
home.
Mr. Perry. Thank you. I yield.
Mr. LoBiondo. Ms. Esty.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
on the future of unmanned aircraft systems, and I want to thank
all the witnesses.
I am sort of at the opposite end of our spectrum from
Representative Titus. I live in the State of Connecticut where
we have some of the most congested airspace in the country. And
so for my State, which has been long at the forefront of
aerospace design, I see both tremendous opportunity for
American businesses and for workers in my State, but also
serious risk. I was at an event recently, a charity event,
which I had my first encounter with a drone, which was a little
hard to actually be appropriately reflective during a
benediction while a drone was overhead. So it kind of brought
home what the reality of that is.
So I want to return to one of my favorite topics, which is
NextGen, and ask several of you, and it really goes to your
point, Ms. Gilligan, I don't think we can rely on the hobbyists
here to take the time that modelers have always taken because
they see themselves in the aviation space. These are people who
are enjoying toys in some cases and don't have that sense of
responsibility of if seagulls can take down an aircraft, what
do we think something out of metal can do? And all it is going
to take is one horrific accident.
So I would like to ask you, Captain Moak, can you talk a
little bit about how you see what we need to do in NextGen to
keep your pilots and all of the air passengers safe in this
country, what we need to be doing with NextGen and how quickly
and what resources and how we need to integrate--and, Mr.
Hampton, you are next on deck on this--about the utter
importance of integrating both of these together, which I think
is tremendously important. We need to move very rapidly. Thank
you.
Mr. Moak. OK. So we work with the unmanned aircraft systems
groups, and they shouldn't be defined by this because they also
have the same concerns we have of one of these causing an
accident, all right. So the risk-based approach where we are
working with them on, we are working with the FAA.
On NextGen, the larger type of systems that would be in the
airspace, there has to be a way for the pilot in the cockpit,
if it is going to be in the same airspace to be able to see it.
There has to be a way for our controllers, who keep the
airspace very safe, to be able to see it on their scopes, in
their control room.
Currently, you know, we do that with IFF. We have ADS-B In
and Out with NextGen coming on line, and I am confident that
these technological challenges that we are facing here, going
through a process, same kind of process we use to certify
aircraft and operators, that we will be able to do that at some
point. But right now, they are being defined by this. And what
we have to be mindful of is, as the airspace gets more crowded,
not less, that we have those same capabilities. When the Air
Force comes and the NextGen Committee sits on it, their concern
is how they are going to be integrated in the airspace, ADS-B
In and Out and whatnot. So I think that is really the focus and
the tie-in with NextGen, Congressman.
Ms. Esty. Mr. Hampton, about this integration effort of
NextGen with UAS.
Mr. Hampton. Currently a lot of today's discussion has been
focused on the smaller UAS. When we did our review last year,
we noted that some UAS are operating today. Of those that are
authorized, referred to as ``COA,'' there are about 500. DOD
operates them now in the NAS. They are on the border,
Albuquerque Center, Los Angeles Center. And only preliminary
work has begun to look at the air traffic control systems and
the adjustments that have to be made.
In particular, the automation systems such as the $2.4
billion ERAM system, a flight planning system, are going to
have to be adjusted. Another one we talk about is the voice
switch. Today, most of the discussion has been about how pilots
talk to controllers via voice commands. Now that discussion is
going to have to be with the person that is operating the
system that is on the ground, not in the cockpit of the
aircraft.
So a great deal of work has to begin to think about how air
traffic control systems will need to be adjusted. Some work has
begun. It is in its infancy and that has to be done now. I
think the planning and requirements adjustments, that is
something that has to be done very quickly.
Ms. Esty. And if anyone has got thoughts on the funding,
you know, if this is appropriate to go to the industry to seek
the resources to realize both the safety but also the
opportunity for industry. And if anyone would care to get into
that, I would love to hear your thoughts.
Mr. LoBiondo. Your time is just about expired.
Ms. Esty. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Farenthold.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We will start with Ms. Gilligan. We created section 333 to
push the FAA to begin allowing small U.S. operations before
finalizing the rule. You all stated the goal was to approve
these petitions within 120 days; however, only 7, according to
my figures, have been granted to date, and 60 applications are
past the 120-day window. What is the status of these petitions,
and can we expect to see more timely response to them,
especially with regard to areas you have predesignated as the
test site? It seems obvious that you can let the airmen know
that in these areas, there is going to be a presence of UAVs,
you can dedicate airspace to them. You certainly ought to be
able to streamline around the test centers.
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir. I am pleased to say that there were
5 additional exemptions that were issued today, so there are
now 12 exemptions that have been granted. But----
Mr. Farenthold. There are 200 filed?
Ms. Gilligan. I believe it was slightly over 160, but we
will confirm that number for you. Having said that, we agree
that we need to speed this up a little bit. Each of them is
somewhat more unique than we were anticipating, but we are
learning quickly as we thumb through this first set.
As to the test sites, we actually believe that the statute
intended for them to be separate from the test sites. They are
for commercial service, which is actually not the reason for
the test sites. The test sites are about research and
development.
Mr. Farenthold. Let me ask you real quick with commercial
service.
Ms. Gilligan. Sure.
Mr. Farenthold. First off, I am also worried about the cat
being out of the bag. I have got a quadcopter on my Christmas
list, as I suspect quite a few people do. So at some point,
there are going to be so many of these that are out without--we
are not going to know who owns them. I mean, you can look back
to the FCC and the walkie-talkies, they came with a card where
you are supposed to register them but nobody did. And I think
this is a more dangerous scenario, and it is something that I
think you guys need to be putting a priority on. When there are
too many of these out here capable of going, you know, beyond a
couple hundred feet and actually being able to go up to 6,000
feet, we have got a problem, and our failure to regulate them
we are going to have a genie-out-of-the-bottle issue.
So I am going to ask Dr. Dillingham: You studied this; how
can we speed this up? I mean, things move at Internet speed
now. These are considered tech devices. Silicon Valley gets
stuff done in weeks not years.
Dr. Dillingham. Yes, sir. This is a situation that,
although we have studied, we don't have an answer before
because, as you pointed out, we are talking about civilians,
regular public using these kind of platforms, and there are
already existing regulations that the modelers follow but the
public has not adhered to it. Because I would argue----
Mr. Farenthold. Do we have the resources to enforce that
against, you know, tens of thousands of these that are going to
be sold this Christmas?
Dr. Dillingham. It is going to be a difficult or almost
impossible task because FAA already has so many calls on its
resources. I think what Ms. Gilligan said earlier, probably is
one of the best steps, that is, education for the public that
there are, in fact, rules and regulations that they need to
follow. And when we see these public announcements of
individuals being fined or otherwise, the FAA acting on them,
that probably is going to have to be one of the incentives as
well.
Mr. Farenthold. I mean, even the existing regulations,
assuming they were enforced, let's say I buy a quadcopter, put
a GoCam on it and go out to my friend's ranches and film some
deer around a deer feeder. I am perfectly legal at that point.
I post that to my blog that has Google ads on it, all of a
sudden I have probably crossed into a gray area of commercial
use. And, I mean, that is a lot of fine line distinctions to
have to educate the public about.
Dr. Dillingham. I can't argue with that, sir. You are
right.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. And Ms. Gilligan, I will give
you an opportunity to answer my question or concern that we are
operating at the speed of the Internet, and if our regulations
can't keep up with technology and there are so many of those
out there, we are really going to have a dangerous situation.
Is there a sense of urgency?
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir, there is within the FAA. As I
commented in my opening remarks, our small UAS rule has been
delayed beyond what any of us think is acceptable, but we
believe our balanced proposal will be out shortly and will
start to get comment and finalize those rules.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. I see my time is
expired.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Gilligan, you mentioned that a rule would be coming out
shortly, and Mr. Hampton, you have documented the ways that we
are kind of behind schedule. I understand that things rarely go
according to schedule, whether you are in the private sector or
the public sector, but when you say a rule is going to be
coming out shortly, to quote a colleague, is that in a
geological time scale or in Internet speed?
Ms. Gilligan. The proposal is under executive review at
this point, sir, so I really can't tell you exactly what the
timeframe is. But as I said, I think all of us who are involved
in the project understand how important it is to get this out
as quickly as we can.
Mr. Massie. I would be remiss in my oversight
responsibility here if I didn't get a date or some kind of
commitment at this hearing so that when we are at the next
hearing we can measure progress toward that. What are some of
your goals in the next year?
Ms. Gilligan. Well, for the rulemaking, the Department of
Transportation has a Web site which shows the rule as scheduled
for release at the end of this year. Once the rule is released
it will go out for public comment. That period will last
anywhere between 60 to 90 days, depending on what the community
asks for. There is some concern that we will get a substantial
number of comments which will delay how quickly we can get to
the final rule, but we will certainly keep the committee
informed of how we are progressing once we are able to publish
the rule.
Mr. Massie. To Ms. Esty's point earlier, how are we going
to make sure these rules are copacetic with the NextGen? Is
putting ADS-B in every drone, is that going to be one of the
answers? Would that allow them to interoperate?
Ms. Gilligan. Well, sir, I can't really comment on what is
in the rule because it is a pending rulemaking. But, as I said,
we have the industry very tightly involved with us in
determining what should be the design standards for these kinds
of platforms, when they are to be certified by the FAA. So we
will base our decisions on what the community recommends.
Mr. Massie. One of my concerns for drones and the
commercial development of them is if you require something like
ADS-B and there is no low-cost solution to that, are we
throwing up another impediment, because the low-cost solution
to ADS-B doesn't exist right now for private aircraft? And do
you see any progress in that field?
Ms. Gilligan. Well, again, the industry and members of the
committees who are advising us know that they must address the
risks that are posed by the ability to sense and avoid other
aircraft and for the unmanned platform to be able to be seen by
both controllers and pilots in the system. They are working
hard on what exactly those technology solutions can be, and we
are sure they will find them.
Mr. Massie. I know you don't want to comment on a rule
because it has not been released, but can you give us some
indication, is it going to be risk based, or to what degree
will you incorporate those recommendations of a risk-based
strategy?
Ms. Gilligan. I can tell you that we did take a risk-based
approach. It is the approach we use now for all of our
standards. We also look at performance standards rather than
directing particular technology solutions, for example. Those
are just the general policies that we follow.
Mr. Massie. So I have got a question for Mr. Kallman, or
Dr. Roy here. Some experts have talked about integrating
privacy by design. You know, we are talking about safety, what
about privacy here? This is a concern, a genuine concern that
the larger public has, I think. Are you aware of any technology
solutions to the privacy issue?
Mr. Kallman. To the privacy issue, and I think it is
important to state that privacy is definitely one of the things
of utmost importance for the UAV industry and a lot of
companies in it. And to your point on privacy by design, I
think a lot of manufacturers are engaging this today and doing
things like restricting, for example, where cameras can and
cannot turn on and board the aircraft, protecting that valuable
information. But ultimately, I feel that privacy is really
independent of the type of technology that is collecting that
information. I feel that privacy is really about what
information is private, what information is public, and
ensuring that we protect that independent of the different
types of collection methods.
Mr. Massie. Dr. Roy.
Mr. Roy. I would also like to add that privacy is a little
bit of a moving target and it varies from not just country to
country, but across the U.S. as well. And it is really a
question of expectations. I think that when we talk about, your
suggestion of privacy technology, I think so long as the public
understands what information is being collected and has clarity
into that, then that will go a long way towards actually
defining privacy.
Mr. Massie. Quick question. I don't know if there will be
time for an answer. But one of the things in addition to a
ceiling that I would like to see is a floor. What is a
reasonable expectation on your property? If something is an
inch above the ground, is it trespassing? If it is 10 feet
above the ground, is it trespassing? And do you have the right
to engage a trespasser? So that is something that I would like
to see considered along the privacy lines. I think my time is
expired.
Mr. LoBiondo. It has.
Mr. Massie. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand, because
of the number of folks you have and the number of folks we
have, we will kind of go at two to your side and one to our
side and get through this.
I want to yield a little bit of time to Mr. DeFazio who has
a question and then I will take the rest of the 5 minutes.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman and try to do this
quickly. You know, when we see these things in the New York
airspace, have we found anybody operating illegally who was
putting people at risk? I mean, you have talked about some
commercial violations. Have you caught anybody who has like put
people at risk with one of these things?
Ms. Gilligan. I can't make the correlation, sir, to some of
the reports that we had and some of the cases that we have
pursued.
Mr. DeFazio. Right, because we don't know who is operating
them, who owns them or anything. How about a system where we
require registration, licensure with user fees. The user fees
go to help you with the deficiencies in your budget and you
vary the license according to the uses and the weight and the
capabilities so the cost, you know, would be appropriate, so it
is not going to be burdensome on, you know, little small--but,
so anyway, think about that. There is no real answer now, but I
think that is the way to go. We need to know who has these
things, who is operating them. And, you know, people are
putting people at risk, taking a plane down. They have got to
be prosecuted. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
So Mr. Hampton, the FAA UAS working group has recommended
the integration office be placed at a higher level with the
FAA. Have you looked at or do you have an assessment of whether
or not you think moving the UAS integration office would help
coordinate efforts better across the agency?
Mr. Hampton. That is a very good question, and for industry
that is a significant concern. At this time, I think we are
more concerned about outcomes. And going forward in the
reauthorization process, I think we would have to look a year
from now and see the outcomes and whether things have advanced.
The FAA is going to quickly move from a situation of planning
to actual execution on a number of fronts. I think we would
have to wait until about a year from now and see where we have
gone with the execution of the rule, where we have gone on
FAA's response to a number of our recommendations, such as
developing and executing a framework for collecting data, and
where we have come with the test sites. So I think that is a
very real possibility.
I am not too concerned about how FAA is organized and
structured, but rather on outcomes, sir. And I think that is a
very good question. The office is structured and it does a very
good job of coordinating. A year ago we were concerned about
staffing levels. They staffed up. We are also concerned about
the requirements of what is important for it to actually begin
to develop the regulatory framework and do controller training.
We are concerned about requirements and the position of the
office to execute plans and make things happen with a sense of
urgency. So I think we would have to take a look at that in
about 6 months to a year, sir.
Mr. Larsen. All right. Just for the record, I am hopeful we
will be done with this reauthorization well before that year is
up.
Mr. Hampton. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen. Dr. Dillingham, from your discussion with test
site operators and other stakeholders, do you have any thoughts
about how test sites could increase level of participation in
the UAS integration efforts?
Dr. Dillingham. Yes, Mr. Larsen. In our conversations with
the test sites, in addition to the blanket COA that Ms.
Gilligan talked about and the appointment of the air worthiness
director, the test sites also talked about perhaps they could
be a part of FAA's approval process of the section 333. That
number is going to increase, and it is a workload burden on
FAA. We are hearing that it will be 2 or 3 years before we have
a rule. So in the meantime, any tools that are available to
further the idea of commercial use of UAS will certainly be
helpful.
Something was talked about earlier, again, is the
development of an integrated budget that allows FAA to be more
supportive of the test sites, as well as, again, we bring back,
the issues around the antideficiency law that can be somehow
dealt with so that it allows FAA to adhere to the law but also
be supportive of the test sites.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. OK.
Captain Moak, just one final question on this: How are ALPA
pilots communicating their misses of unmanned aircraft to FAA?
Is there a structured way to do that, and are you confident
that every near-miss that is seen is being reported?
Mr. Moak. So if you see one of these, you are going to take
action to avoid it. You are then going to report it to the
controlling authority. So if we are out in the approach
corridor, we are going to be talking to the approach and let
them know immediately so that they can make sure someone else
doesn't go in the same airspace. If we are on the tower
frequency, we would report it to tower at that time. Then once
we are on the ground safely and have gotten to the gate, we
have an ASAP reporting program that we work with the FAA and
the companies with. We report it through that so that everybody
can know about it.
I am confident that when someone sees it we are reporting
it; I am not confident that we are seeing them, because they
are very small. And like I was saying earlier, we don't have
any indication in the airplane like we do with TCAS with the
other aircraft, and the relative motion necessary for your eye
to be able to pick it up is difficult, especially this size,
maybe just a little bigger. So it is a real issue. Our pilots
are reporting them and we just need to stay on top of it.
I would like to see us take some kind of construct on this
type of problem that we took with the green laser problem we
were having and we became a lot more successful on reporting
and also prosecution of people that were pointing those lasers
at pilots on final.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I echo the comments that Chairman LoBiondo and Chairman
Shuster on UAS, both from a safety perspective as well as an
opportunity for economic growth. The briefing materials that we
were provided by the committee cite that UAS systems will have
an $82 billion economic impact and possibly provide up to
100,000 jobs by the year 2025. So my questions should be viewed
through that lens.
I would like to start with Associate Administrator
Gilligan. One of the benefits I see with the UAS is more
efficiency in rural areas, like the one I represent, especially
viewing farmland and precision agriculture could be aided by
UAVs and we could reduce the costs of the farmers' input and
also make sure that we have proper drainage and better
production, better environmental impact. So one thing that can
hamper this is a requirement, if the rule required a pilot's
license in order for a farmer to operate a UAV.
Can you confirm that the small UAS rule would require a
farmer in my district to actually get a pilot's license in
order to use one?
Ms. Gilligan. Unfortunately, sir, because we are in
rulemaking, I am not able to talk about what is contained in
the rule. We are very mindful, however, of how easily UAS could
be applied to agricultural operations. Of course, we also have
a very active ag pilot community that we are dealing with, as
well, who are very concerned about operating in airspace with
these kinds of platforms. So we are looking at how we can
address all of those safety risks and how they can be
mitigated.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. Please note my concern of requiring
that, if that is going to be part of the rule.
Dr. Roy, the FAA's slow pace may be causing our best and
brightest to maybe leave the United States, especially when you
look at major U.S. tech companies that have moved their
research and development operations overseas. Do your students
have better job opportunities outside the United States in this
field?
Mr. Roy. So the field is small right now in commercial
UAVs, so the job opportunities are few and far between in the
U.S. and in other countries. But I think you have heard from
several people that the rate at which the opportunities are
growing in other countries possibly is going to lead to a lot
more opportunities. I would say that it is immeasurably small
around the world right now, but I would worry that there are
many more--I personally am seeing more startups, very, very
small startups, but more startups outside the U.S. than in the
U.S.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Kallman, one of the major issues with UAVs
is the flyaway problem, you know, where they lose connectivity
and fly away. It affects consumer UAVs but also very high-end
aircraft with the military. How do we mitigate that risk and
how do we integrate this into our aviation system?
Mr. Kallman. Yeah, and I think to reiterate also that
safety again is of utmost importance, and I think with the
flyaway issues, that is a matter of technology. I think that
the technology is increasing at a very rapid pace. I mentioned
earlier a lot of the functionality in a lot of these systems to
manage a lot of issues that happen on board the aircraft,
typically that is where you will see those types of things. You
will lose the GPS or something along those lines, so making
sure that systems have the ability to know how to automatically
respond should any system fail on board the aircraft and be
able to return it to a location that is determined safe before
the flight. So I think those will be very, very important to
ensure.
Mr. Davis. All right. Captain Moak, safety is paramount on
the flight simulators that many of your pilots use to train. Is
there a simulation for UAVs?
Mr. Moak. Not per se, but there is simulation for, you
know, detect and avoid, you visually pick up something, or if
you have a situation where you are losing control of the
aircraft because perhaps you had to maneuver it, maneuver it in
a manner that you wouldn't normally be maneuvering it, meaning
you were banking it excessively and how you recover from that
upset situation. We do have that.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Captain. And thank you, all, for
being here today. Obviously, this is an issue that we should be
able to address. We have seen unmanned aircraft fly sorties
within the theater of war in a much smaller area than they have
done it safely. We ought to be able to not fall behind
countries like Canada in putting together a rulemaking process
so that we can get commercial UAVs into the marketplace and do
it in a way that is going to be safe.
I have concerns too with our medical helicopters. I am in
the flight line of my house in Taylorville, Illinois. I want to
make sure that we have these rules in place. We can do this. So
I appreciate your work and look forward to hearing you at the
next hearing.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think most all the
questions have been asked, but a couple of comments I would
like to make, and I was pleased to hear Ms. Gilligan mention
agriculture, because I am very concerned about that. During the
periods between May and August, at least in the Midwest, we
have heavy traffic at and below 300 feet that is going to and
from the airport and that is on the site where they are
spraying too, and it is a big concern. And there is a huge
potential out there for UAVs and in the agriculture sector, but
they are in that same airspace and it concerns me a great deal.
And, you know, this comes down to, and Captain Moak
mentioned it, it comes down to visibility and being able to see
these things. And I don't necessarily know what the answer is.
I don't think transponders are necessarily the answer. That
certainly gives air traffic control visibility on them, but if
you are on a VFR flight plan, you are not talking to air
traffic control. You don't have the benefit of that site.
ADS-B, you know, if we put ADS-B Out on them, obviously,
that is going to paint them. But you have got to have ADS-B In
to be able to, you know, read that as well. And it still comes
down to situational awareness. And, you know, obviously the
people that are flying the aircraft, or at least the manned
aircraft, they have got that situational awareness.
But just as Captain Moak pointed out, you know, a VFR
aircraft traveling at 100 knots, right on up to our airlines
traveling at 350 knots, and everything in between. You are
moving pretty fast and that is awful small and it is very hard
to see it, particularly if there is no relative motion. So I
have got a huge concern with how we are going to move forward.
And, you know, I hope you are--and I know you are being very
diligent in this, and I am not so sure that we don't need to
take a more active role in Congress as well when it comes to
reauthorization.
But it concerns me. It concerns me in a big way. And we
haven't even began to talk about this safety of individuals on
the ground when these things do go rogue and what happens to
those folks. We are just talking about aviation and the
potential, and I don't want to run into one. I don't. You know,
interestingly enough, there are a lot of birds out there and we
have bird strikes, but birds have situational awareness too,
and they will get out of your way, for the most part. But this
is a big concern, I guess. There is no question in that, but we
need to move very, very carefully as we move forward.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Graves.
Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to thank all of you for being here today.
Appreciate it. I am from Texas. We have got a lot of airspace
in Texas. And my question to you would be, Ms. Gilligan, as
companies look for economical ways to modernize their delivery
systems, unmanned aircraft systems are looking more and more
attractive as we learned today.
Amazon Prime Air is currently investigating the possibility
of using small drones to quickly deliver their packages to
their customers. My office has met with Amazon Prime Air and
learned that they are having some difficulties getting
permission from the FAA to test their delivery system outdoors
in a rural area in Washington State. Would you please give this
subcommittee an update on Amazon Prime Air's petition for an
exemption under section 333 of the FAA Modernization Reform Act
of 2012 that would allow them to test the system outside here
and in the U.S.?
Ms. Gilligan. Yes, sir, I would be glad to. They have
applied for the exemption, and we have worked closely with
Amazon. We have been in regular contact with Amazon since, I
would say, over a year ago when they began pursuing this
project. We believe though, to some extent, that what they want
to be able to do they can do with a research certification for
the vehicle, and we are also working with them on taking that
approach because we think that will fit their needs better.
We and they are having those conversations. We know they
are not satisfied that they have to go that path, but I am
certain that we will reach some conclusions shortly so that we
and they can figure out exactly how to support what it is they
are trying to do.
Mr. Williams. Thank you. My second question would be also
to you, Ms. Gilligan. Looking to the future, do you see a time
when the FAA will have an Assistant Administrator for unmanned
aircraft systems, and if not, why, and if so, what do you think
the FAA is doing to prepare for this change?
Ms. Gilligan. We believe that unmanned systems are actually
like many other of the technologies that we have brought into
the system over the years, and so we do believe that there will
be full integration and that that will be handled within the
structure that we currently have. We do not see a need at this
point for a separate organization, because, again, we need to
make sure that the aircraft itself in those systems are
integrated in both design and manufacture with the aviation
system and that the operations are integrated with the
operation of the rest of the aviation system. So that is the
approach that we are pursuing.
Mr. Williams. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Petri [presiding]. Thank you. Mr. Rokita.
Mr. Rokita. I thank the Chair for the indulgence. I am not
on the committee yet, but I appreciate the time to ask some
questions. I have six pages of notes here, which for me has
been kind of an all-time record, so I can tell I am going to
hate being on this committee.
I thank the witnesses for their testimony. Mr. Roy, let me
start with you. If I heard your testimony correctly, it seemed
like you were defending the FAA process here and where they are
at when you said, look, other countries might be ahead in terms
of the regulatory schematic right now, but they are still going
to incur the technical difficulties. Did I get that accurately?
Mr. Roy. That is correct.
Mr. Rokita. OK. So, then, those countries must be acting
with reckless abandon or something.
Mr. Roy. No. I don't think that is--that is true. So the--
--
Mr. Rokita. So if that is not true, then why can't we
follow the same path?
Mr. Roy. So let me draw a distinction between a small
number of flights that demonstrate a capability or provide a
service and the--what is required in order to service all of,
say, agriculture and the U.S. So a good example is Japan. So
Japan is sort of a high-water mark in terms of precision
agriculture, in that about somewhere between 30 and 40 percent,
and the numbers are a little unclear, are sprayed using Yamaha
RMAX helicopters. It is interesting that one model of aircraft
is providing service for about 77 percent of all the UAV, and
it is doing so with about 2,000 aircraft. So that is a very,
very small number, and the effort required to actually support
that is relatively small.
So it is nice that Japan and the other countries have, you
know, the regulatory infrastructure in place, the permission
for testing, that allows companies like Airware and others to
go and develop their technology, but the--what is required is
another way of a technology actually scale up to the Amazon
Prime servicing all of DC or the Boston area. And I think that
next step is what is going to be required to really grow the
markets everywhere.
Mr. Rokita. OK. Thank you.
Tangential to that line of questioning, I would like to ask
any of you if you are aware of any actuarial studies that have
been done. If we are talking about a risk-based approach,
right, and you have all indicated that that is a fine approach,
well, insurance companies all day long do studies that analyze
this using math, right? So if we are worried about a strike,
you know, in an--in an approach corridor around an airport, we
could take the number of, let's say, birds that are in a square
mile of that airport or some area, and then let's say it is
10,000 or 20,000 or 100,000 or whatever it is, and then add the
10 drones that would be in the area potentially at the same
time and see what the increased percentage of risk is.
And then we could have a discussion based on science and
math and not what--not pictures and beliefs, because the fact
of the matter is a bird, which does have situational awareness,
I completely agree, but it still can be study--we still can
determine what the risk is.
Yeah. Captain?
Mr. Moak. So we have procedures for birds currently. So if
there are birds in the area when you arrive in the terminal
area, there is the ATIS system that the controllers are putting
bird reports out, meteorologists are putting that information
out. You can see some large flocks of birds on your radars. We
have procedures if we were to have a bird strike. So there is
all kinds of procedures for dealing with birds. It is not
preferred method to encounter a bird.
Mr. Rokita. But not a bird near-miss.
Mr. Moak. Pardon me?
Mr. Rokita. You outlined a procedure for a UAS near-miss,
and----
Mr. Moak. Bird near-miss, we have a procedure for that. You
report birds in the area, because you know you have another
plane coming right behind you, and you don't want them----
Mr. Rokita. Yeah. You report flocks of birds and that kind
of thing on the airport and if it is--if it is in the approach
corridor, but there is not--the detailed procedure you
indicated for a UAS.
Mr. Moak. There is. If you are going to hit a flock of
birds, you are going to maneuver the airplane in a manner----
Mr. Rokita. No. I meant you get down, you call, you--then
you alluded to a prosecution element that was----
Mr. Moak. You can't prosecute a bird.
Mr. Rokita [continuing]. Inherent with the laser stuff,
which is an intentional act, you know, so--but my question is
about the actuary studies. Have there been any actuarial
studies?
Mr. Roy. So----
Mr. Rokita. Dr. Roy.
Mr. Roy [continuing]. For the larger aircraft, I think that
is absolutely the case. For the small aircraft, the vehicles,
et cetera, I think the answer is no, and there is a couple
reasons for that: one is that we don't have good models of
the--we don't have good failure models for a lot of the
components; and the second thing we don't have good models yet
for the consequences of failures. So a bird strike actually
might be one that does exist, but for a lot of the other
failure models, I am reasonably certain they don't exist.
Mr. Rokita. Will they be helpful?
Mr. Roy. They will be extremely helpful.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
If there are no further questions, I would like to thank
all the witnesses for their testimony, and in absentia, the
other Members for their participation in today's program. The
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]