[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENSURING AVIATION SAFETY IN THE ERA OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
=======================================================================
(114-28)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 7, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) 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
96-926 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
TOM RICE, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
ROB WOODALL, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TODD ROKITA, Indiana CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
JOHN KATKO, New York JARED HUFFMAN, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
(ii)
Subcommittee on Aviation
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Columbia
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina JULIA BROWNLEY, California
ROB WOODALL, Georgia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
TODD ROKITA, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MIMI WALTERS, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida Officio)
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
WITNESSES
Michael G. Whitaker, Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Responses to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:...........................................
Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo of New Jersey..................... 53
Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri.............................. 53
James Hubbard, Deputy Chief, State and Private Forestry, U.S.
Forest Service:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Captain Tim Canoll, President, Air Line Pilots Association,
International:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Richard Hanson, Director of Government and Regulatory Affairs,
Academy of Model Aeronautics:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 73
Mykel Kochenderfer, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Aeronautics and
Astronautics:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 99
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Letter of October 30, 2015, from Denis J. Mulligan, General
Manager, Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation
District, to Chairman Frank A. LoBiondo and Ranking Member Rick
Larsen, Subcommittee on Aviation............................... 103
Written statement of the National Association of Mutual Insurance
Companies...................................................... 107
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ENSURING AVIATION SAFETY IN THE ERA OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order. I would like to thank everyone for being here. I ask
unanimous consent that Members not on the subcommittee be
permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today's hearing,
offer testimony, and ask questions.
[No response.]
Mr. LoBiondo. Without objection, so ordered.
Today we look forward to hearing from various stakeholders
on the very important topic to our country: aviation safety in
the era of unmanned aircraft systems.
Unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, represent the latest
frontier in aviation technology. While still a new industry,
UAS are already contributing to our economy and changing how
companies do business. Across the country, we already see UAS
used for a myriad of operations, from surveying, photography,
safety inspections, medical delivery, and search and rescue.
With each new use, businesses and commercial users can save
time, money, and even, in some cases, lives.
But like any other new technology, UAS bring new challenges
as well. In the past year, pilots have been reporting sightings
of UAS near airports at an accelerating rate. In 2014, the FAA
[Federal Aviation Administration] received 238 reports of drone
sightings. In 2015, the number has already exceeded 600. Safety
is paramount in aviation and the increased number of suspected
sightings raises serious questions and concerns.
Some of these reports involved airliners and occurred at
low altitudes near the Nation's busiest airports. Other reports
involve pilots of general aviation aircraft in less busy
airspace. The real possibility of a midair collision must be
taken seriously in order to prevent tragic consequences.
To be clear, it is also my understanding that some of these
reported sightings may involve something other than a consumer
unwisely operating their new gadget in busy controlled airspace
or restricted airspace. In at least some cases, the reported
UAS may have been a Government-operated aircraft, lawfully
operated UAS, or simply a bird in flight. To that end, we need
to understand what precisely is going on in our airspace: what
is the actual risk and how do we manage and mitigate it? With
retailers readying for significant UAS purchases by American
consumers this upcoming holiday season, this conversation and
subsequent action cannot wait. There are real consequences if
we are not cautious enough, though we must not go to the
extreme which could unnecessarily restrict the UAS industry's
growth and innovation here in the United States because of the
so-called false positives.
The key is balance, and I believe that this committee, as
well as the FAA and stakeholders, continue to strive for just
that, balance. The answer to these questions will be complex,
though I am confident that our country can and will address
them. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and thank
them for joining us today.
Before I recognize Mr. Larsen for his comments, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to
revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous
material for the record of this hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. LoBiondo. Without objection, so ordered.
I would now like to yield to Mr. Larsen for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for holding
today's hearing on ensuring aviation safety in an era of
unmanned aircraft systems.
I am pleased we are here this morning to address this
important and timely topic of the safety of UAS in the national
airspace. The number of unmanned aircraft being sold in the
U.S. is staggering. According to one industry group, the number
of UAS sold this year could reach 700,000. That is a 63-percent
increase over last year. Other reports suggest that figure will
soon reach 1 million, and it will continue to grow.
So, the natural question becomes who are flying these
million-plus unmanned aircraft? Many, as we are going to hear,
are responsible and safe users. These include serious
hobbyists, such as those represented by the Academy of Model
Aeronautics, who are here today, and commercial users with a
financial interest in safe, responsible operations.
But, unfortunately, they also include people who are not
familiar with the rules of aviation or concepts of aviation
safety. There are 600-plus reports of near misses between
conventional aircraft and drones so far this year that tells us
what we need to do more to reduce the likelihood of a drone
ending up in the flight path of a commercial airliner with
hundreds of people on board.
These 600-plus pilot sightings suggest that allowing anyone
to fly a drone on or near the Nation's airways is like letting
people drive remote-controlled model cars on the interstate.
Unless more is done, it is not if an accident will happen, it
is when.
The committee staff found some pilot reports in NASA's
[National Aeronautics and Space Administration's] Aviation
Safety Reporting System of some pretty scary encounters. One
pilot reported that he ``encountered a drone that came close
enough to hear the propeller noise from the drone from inside
my cabin...The small size of the drone made it impossible to
see until it was too late to take any evasive action.'' And the
list continues.
In addition to risks in the air, unmanned aircraft pose
risks on the ground. This year an aerial vehicle crashed into
parade-goers in Seattle, injuring one woman when it crashed
into her head. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today about what the FAA and stakeholders are doing to address
the safety risks before it is too late.
But we cannot deny the extensive public and commercial
benefits of unmanned aircraft, as well. UAS can be used for
search and rescue, wildfire mitigation, as well as the
inspection of bridges and other critical transportation
infrastructure. The UAS industry has great potential to drive
growth and create jobs. One industry trade group estimates
that, in just 10 years, unmanned aircraft will create 100,000
jobs, and add $82 billion in value to our economy. That is
particularly important to States like my home State of
Washington, a hub of aviation research and development.
This committee has an enormous opportunity to be proactive,
to listen to these experts today, to understand what Congress
can do to help keep our Nation's skies safe, and produce
legislation about UAS that will reflect our safety agenda,
while doing no harm to a promising industry.
The FAA Act of 2012 directed FAA to safely integrate
unmanned aircraft by 2015, and required the agency to issue
regulations on small, unmanned aircraft. While FAA expects to
issue this delayed rule next year, this action will provide
regulation to safely implement primarily commercial operations.
The question I hope we get at today is what should Congress do,
and what can FAA do, as well, to ensure the safety of
recreational UAS operations.
Some have said that section 336 of the 2012 bill prohibits
the agency from taking any meaningful action to regulate small
recreational unmanned aircraft. I would caution against a broad
interpretation of that provision, which is crafted to apply
very narrowly. In fact, in light of all the safety events that
have emerged this year, maybe it is time to revisit that
provision.
So, I look forward to hearing from all of our panelists
today about what Congress, about what the FAA, and, importantly
as well, what the industry can do to keep the integration of
UAS on track, and to ensure safety. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Rick. I would like to really thank
Rick Larsen for the close working relationship, and also Bill
Shuster and Peter DeFazio, on this very important issue that we
spend a lot of time with.
Chairman Shuster is not here yet. Mr. DeFazio, some opening
remarks?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the
opportunity, appreciate the fact of you convening the committee
on this important topic today.
Yes, there is tremendous potential in commercial
application of drone technology. But, first and foremost, we
have to establish the rules that absolutely ensure the
integrity and the safety of our aviation system today. We have
seen instances mentioned by the ranking member earlier of these
toy drones in critical airspace. At this point we don't really
know what happens when you suck a quadcopter into a jet engine.
And, at my request, the FAA is moving forward with an
evaluation.
We did, after an investigation in 2009 for Pittsburgh--or
1994, Pittsburgh, possible bird strike, they calculated a 4-
pound bird hits an airplane moving at 260 miles an hour,
generates a force equal to 14 tons. Well, you have some of
these toys up there in the air that weigh that much. And so,
what could that do, if ingested? So we need to know.
What are the solutions? Well, clearly, there are commercial
applications, which the FAA is moving forward with. The issue,
I believe, can be kind of drawn between toys and commercial
applications. And the toys need to be restricted, in terms of
where they can operate. That is, they should be programmed
before they can be sold, so that they can't fly in restricted
airspace, they can't fly over 400 feet. And anybody who is
found to have hacked that should be subject--and operates
irresponsibly--should be subject to serious penalties and
fines.
I think we might also have to look at registration. I had
an instance in my hometown of Springfield. Somebody, a Peeping
Tom, was using a little drone, looking with a camera, looking
in people's windows. It was sighted by the neighbors, and
ultimately it crashed. Well, the police have no idea who was
operating that thing. We have no way to track it back. There
should be a way to track these things back to irresponsible
operators, people who are using them illegally, improperly, and
endangering both personal privacy and, potentially, safety of
the traveling public.
So, I think there is a lot of work to be done. We are going
to hear today from the Forest Service. We had interruption in
critical firefighting activities this summer because of idiots
flying their toy drones into areas where we wanted to operate
aircraft to fight the fire, and they had to suspend operations.
There needs to be consequences for people who do those
sorts of things, and I expect this committee to work with the
FAA to see if they have the authority to take proper action
against these sort of people, or whether they need new
authorities, and we need new regulations, so that we can divide
between people who are using them responsibly, whether for
recreation, or those who are using them responsibly and
commercially, and those who are the minority, who are using
them irresponsibly.
I was called by a reporter last week. They said they expect
1 million of these toy drones to sell for Christmas this year,
1 million. How many of those million people have any idea--
obviously, a lot of them live in restricted airspace--what
restricted airspace is, and whether or not they can operate the
drone there? I don't think they know. So there also has to be a
massive educational campaign, in part, which should be pushed
forward and paid for by the manufacturers of these toys, who
are profiting from their sale. With that, Mr. Chairman, I look
forward to the testimony. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio. I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today. They are Michael Whitaker,
Deputy Administrator for the Federal Aviation Administration;
James Hubbard, Deputy Chief of State and Private Forestry for
the United States Forest Service; Captain Tim Canoll, president
of the Air Line Pilots Association, International; Richard
Hanson, director of government and regulatory affairs for the
Academy of Model Aeronautics; Dr. Mykel Kochenderfer--am I
correct there, Doctor? Thank you. Assistant professor of
aeronautics and astronautics at Stanford University.
Deputy Administrator Whitaker, you are now recognized for
your statement.
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL G. WHITAKER, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; JAMES HUBBARD, DEPUTY CHIEF, STATE AND
PRIVATE FORESTRY, U.S. FOREST SERVICE; CAPTAIN TIM CANOLL,
PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; RICHARD
HANSON, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, ACADEMY
OF MODEL AERONAUTICS; AND MYKEL KOCHENDERFER, PH.D., ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS
Mr. Whitaker. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss----
Mr. LoBiondo. Excuse me, could you pull your mic a little
closer?
Mr. Whitaker. I will scoot closer.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Whitaker. OK. To discuss the safe operation of unmanned
aircraft.
The popularity and variety of unmanned aircraft have
increased dramatically in recent years. Many commercial uses
are becoming commonplace today, including infrastructure
inspection, surveying agriculture, and evaluating damage caused
by natural disasters. UAS play an increasingly important role
in law enforcement, firefighting, and border protection.
At the same time, the demand for recreational drones has
exceeded anyone's expectations. This demand is driven, in large
part, by individuals who are completely new to the aviation
experience. They are not necessarily the traditional model
airplane operators, members of local clubs who follow safety
guidelines and rules. These new entrants are often unaware that
they are operating in shared airspace. The proliferation of
small and relatively inexpensive UAS presents a real challenge.
To successfully integrate unmanned aircraft into our
airspace, we must integrate these new operators into our
aviation safety culture. We want people to enjoy this new
technology, but we want to make sure they do it safely. This
requires education, as well as creative and collaborative
public outreach.
This is why we have joined with our industry partners,
including several seated at the table today, to launch the Know
Before You Fly campaign. This effort provides UAS operators
with the guidance they need to fly safely, and is raising
awareness of where they can and cannot fly.
We also have an ongoing No Drone Zone campaign. This
campaign reminds people to leave their unmanned aircraft at
home during public events, such as football games and, most
recently, the Pope's visit to several major U.S. cities.
However, we firmly believe that education and enforcement
must go hand in hand. Our preference is for people to
voluntarily comply with regulations, but we won't hesitate to
take strong enforcement action against anyone who flies an
unmanned aircraft in an unsafe or illegal manner. When we
identify an operator who endangers other aircraft, or people
and property on the ground, we will work with our local law
enforcement partners to prosecute these activities.
To date, the FAA has investigated hundreds of incidents of
UAS operating outside of existing regulations. Earlier this
week the FAA proposed a $1.9 million civil penalty against a
company that knowingly conducted dozens of unauthorized flights
over Chicago and New York. This sends a clear message to others
who might pose a safety risk: Operate within the law, or we
will take action.
We recognize that the technology associated with unmanned
aircraft is continuing to evolve. This is also true for the
many technologies that could further advance the safety and
capabilities of these aircraft. Earlier today we announced a
research agreement to evaluate technology that identifies
unmanned aircraft near airports. Working with our Government
and industry partners, we will assess this capability in an
operational environment without compromising safety.
We recognize, too, that our regulatory framework needs to
keep pace with technology. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act
of 2012 laid out a framework for the safe integration of
unmanned aircraft into our airspace. The FAA has taken a number
of concrete steps toward accomplishing this goal.
A key component of these efforts is finalizing regulations
for the use of small, unmanned aircraft. Earlier this year, we
proposed a rule that would allow small UAS operations that we
know are safe. The rule also meets the majority of current
commercial demand. The FAA received more than 4,500 public
comments on this proposal, and we are working to address those
as we finalize the rule.
The rulemaking approach we are using seeks to find that
balance that you referred to, Mr. Chairman, that allows
manufacturers to innovate while mitigating safety risks. We
also recognize the need to be flexible and nimble in how we
respond to the emerging UAS community. As technologies develop,
and as operations like beyond line of sight are researched, we
want to be able to move quickly to safely integrate these
capabilities.
While we have made substantial progress on UAS in recent
months, we still have more work to do. Recently, the FAA
elevated the importance of unmanned aircraft issues within the
agency by selecting two seasoned executives to oversee our
internal and external integration efforts. Major General Marke
Gibson, U.S. Air Force (Retired), and Earl Lawrence, who most
recently served as manager of FAA's Small Airplane Directorate.
Both of these gentlemen are seated behind me with me today.
The FAA has a long history of integrating new users and
capabilities into our airspace, and we are well equipped to
apply this experience in the area of unmanned aircraft. I am
proud of the team we brought together to accomplish this, and
of the approach we are taking to ensure America's aviation
system remains the safest in the world.
Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions you may
have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Whitaker.
Mr. Hubbard, you are now recognized.
Mr. Hubbard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. The Forest Service, just as a little bit of
background of how we get into this, our latest fire season we
responded to 47,000 fires. We had 9 million acres of affected
territory. We mobilized 27,000 people, with another 5,000 in
reserve for initial attack.
The future of wildland fire, especially in the West, is
probably not going to be much different than that. It--the
vegetative conditions, the drought, and the nature of our
forests is going to be prone to this kind of fire for some time
to come.
Our primary initial attack firefighting tool is aviation.
We send air tankers as fast as we can. They don't put fires
out, ground troops do, but they are an initial attack response.
They also support large fire, and our priority is always life
and property, so that gets the most attention.
Unmanned aviation systems are also useful to us. In
firefighting they help us with situational awareness, they help
us with communication, they help us with monitoring and
tracking fire behavior, all safety issues that are valuable.
Our challenge is the incursions. I wouldn't say that our
statistics are significant compared to everybody else's, but
the trend is a little bit worrisome. In 2014, we only had four
incursions. In 2015 we had 21 incursions. So it is on the rise.
Twelve of those incursions stopped those initial attack
operations. That is not something that we welcome.
And it is further complicated because we are talking about
aircraft that operate in a complex environment. We are talking
about rotary aircraft, as well as fixed-wing aircraft over the
fire at the same time. We are talking about 150 feet of
operational altitude. We are talking about, prior to, temporary
flight restriction. So it is not a simple matter.
We don't presume to know how to address this. We rely on
the FAA. But the Department of the Interior and the Forest
Service and the State firefighting organizations all worked
together with FAA and the Department of Homeland Security on
the technology and how to work our way through this.
In the meantime, public education is important. When we
have fire, flames, and smoke in the air, we do get some media
attention, and we incorporate into that as a regular message
that, if you fly, we can't. So, trying to get that kind of a
word out so people understand. A lot of this is from those who
don't understand.
So, our risks are significant, we believe, if something
were to happen in the air with a drone and our aircraft. Our
frequency is not that much, but the trend would--is worrisome.
We worry about the risk of identification and avoidance, so a
few problems to solve.
We also recognize that this is--UAS is a valuable tool that
we also take advantage of. Be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK, thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
Captain Canoll, your statement, please.
Mr. Canoll. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member
Larsen, and the subcommittee, for the opportunity to be here
today.
ALPA [Air Line Pilots Association, International]
recognizes that unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, can allow us
to perform certain tasks more efficiently and safely than
conventional aircraft. We also understand the value of
advancing America's competitiveness in these technologies. That
said, ALPA's overarching concern is one of safety.
This summer the FAA released hundreds of pilot reports on
UAS sightings. The FAA numbers show more encounters are
happening more often. Noncommercial and recreational UAS
operations appear to be the primary source. Here are a few
examples: pilots operating an all-cargo flight near San Jose
reported a close encounter with a UAS flying 60 to 70 feet to
the left of the aircraft. They subsequently described it as
four-bladed and X-shaped. As an airline captain, I can tell you
if a pilot is able to report this level of detail, the UAS is
way too close.
Also, multiple UAS were recently reported by three
airliners on final approach to Newark Liberty International
Airport. In April, a pilot reported a blue metallic drone pass
about 100 to 200 feet under the left wing of the airliner
arriving at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
For pilots, these UAS literally appear out of the blue.
They are much smaller than other aircraft. Some UAS do not have
lights. They have limited contrast against visual background,
and they move much more slowly than airliners. As a result,
these UAS are extremely difficult to see in flight.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Canoll. In this example, you can see how the white
color of the UAS blends in with the sky. Imagine trying to
detect this UAS while flying at 280 miles an hour.
The number of near-miss events that have occurred in such a
short period of time demonstrate the risk. The growth in the
use of these systems shows the hazards will only increase. The
United States must put safety first. The FAA is making
progress, but we need to do more. While work on the final rule
regarding small commercial UAS operations is encouraging, the
agency must immediately address all UAS operations, including
recreational and noncommercial.
ALPA's recommended plan, action plan, has four elements.
Number one, education. Anyone who plans to fly these UAS must
understand the aircraft, the airspace, and the other aircraft
that share it. For those who want to do the right thing, there
are resources such as the Know Before You Fly campaign, of
which ALPA is a supporter. But we also need to reach, at the
point of sale, those individuals who may not yet appreciate the
danger. Individuals flying these UAS for recreation must adhere
to the FAA guidelines, including any minimum age requirements,
maintaining line of sight, and flying under 400 feet.
Number two, registration. Gathering contact information
about the UAS purchaser will not only allow authorities to
immediately identify the owner, but it will also drive home the
serious nature of operating these vehicles.
Number three, technology. If these UAS operate in the
airspace intended for airliners, or they could unintentionally
end up there, airline pilots need to be able to see them on
their cockpit displays, controllers need to be able to see them
on their radar scopes, and the UAS must be equipped with active
technologies to ensure it is capable of avoiding a collision
with manned aircraft. If regulations restrict the UAS from
operating in a particular location, the UAS must have
technology that cannot be overriden to limit its operations.
Penalties for those who deliberately bypass this technology
must be significant.
Number four, penalties and enforcement. UAS pilots must be
properly trained and understand the consequences of exceeding
the operating limitations and the possibility of malfunctions.
Anyone deliberately flying a UAS recklessly should be subject
to criminal prosecution. Anyone who is operating a UAS and
unintentionally deviates from rules and limits should be
subject to civil penalty. ALPA welcomes the FAA's recent
proposed civil penalty against a UAS operator for endangering
the safety of the airspace around New York City and Chicago.
With this four-part action plan, our country can capitalize
on the economic opportunities offered by these UAS while
maintaining safety. Given the safety risks highlighted by the
FAA's recent release of pilot reports, ALPA urges Congress to
direct the FAA to regulate UAS operated for recreation and
hobby. ALPA stands ready to help the FAA develop these
regulations as part of realizing our shared goal of ensuring
the safety of air transportation for all who depend on it.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Captain.
Mr. Hanson, you are recognized.
Mr. Hanson. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in
today's hearing. I am speaking on behalf of the Academy of
Model Aeronautics, the world's largest organization
representing more than 180,000 members who fly small, unmanned
aircraft systems, or model aircraft, as we call them, for
recreational and educational purposes.
For nearly 80 years, AMA has been dedicated to promoting
and preserving the hobby of flying model aircraft, while
ensuring our members adhere to a strict set of community-based
safety guidelines. Our National Model Aircraft Safety Code has
been recognized by Congress and State legislatures as a safe
and effective means of managing hobbyists. These guidelines
have evolved to accommodate new technologies, new modeling
disciplines, and, most recently, address the personal use of
small UAS. Our membership is a cross-section of America. It is
a diverse community of youth and adults that range from the
ages of 6 to 96.
As you know, there is an unprecedented growth in the
industry. According to the Consumer Electronics Association,
sales in the U.S. this year will reach 700,000 units. The
growth of the technology and the supporting industry is
exciting, and is beneficial to our economy and to our society.
But, as with any emerging technology, there are policy
considerations, such as balancing safety, sustaining industry
growth, and capturing the public benefits.
Before I touch on these points, I want to take a step back
and discuss the current landscape. We have been very concerned
about recent headlines that portray drones as clogging U.S.
airspace, snarling air traffic, and giving the FAA fits. That
is why the AMA [Academy of Model Aeronautics] closely analyzed
the 764 records of drone sightings released by the FAA this
summer. Our analysis reveals a more complex picture than
headlines would suggest.
Indisputably, there are some records of near misses that
represent actual safety concerns. And more needs to be done to
address those. But we found that the number of near misses
appears to be in the dozens, not in the hundreds, based on
explicit notations in the FAA records.
So, the most serious incidents include two actual crashes
involving Government-authorized military drones. There are also
sightings of public entities and commercial operators that may
be flying with or without authorization. And the most recent
sighting or incident where the FAA has assessed a fine to a
commercial operator indicates that the operations occurring in
our airspace go well beyond hobbyist activity. And others may
not even be drones, but rather, balloons, birds, model rockets,
and mini blimps.
There is some useful information in the FAA's data set, but
this data is only helpful if the FAA, the media, and others
take the time to analyze and accurately categorize it. AMA has
worked closely with the FAA for many years, and we are
committed to a continued partnership to promote model aircraft
and consumer drone safety. And while the FAA needs to do a
better job of presenting the data, AMA has several
recommendations to ensure the safety of our Nation's airspace.
One of the most immediate and helpful things the FAA can do
to increase safety is to finalize and implement the small UAS
rules. As they are currently written, the proposed rule will
enhance safety by requiring everyone who wants to fly to either
participate in the safety programming of a community-based
organization like AMA, or follow new FAA rules for operators
for commercial purposes. Once implemented, the new rules will
help provide oversight and education for the UAS operators.
At the same time, the FAA should step up enforcement as
they have currently demonstrated, and work more closely with
local law enforcement to pursue bad actors. There are existing
Federal prohibitions against careless and reckless operations,
and many jurisdictions have criminal laws in place.
In addition, promoting safety through education is another
important step we can all take. AMA members know where and
where not to fly, and do so safely and responsibly.
Unfortunately, many newcomers to UAS may not be aware of these
safety considerations.
That is why the AMA, in partnership with the Association
for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International and the FAA,
launched the Know Before You Fly campaign during the last
holiday season. Unmanned aircraft systems are going to be a
reality within our communities, and it is a community approach
that is going to best address that. This new campaign works to
put important safety information and flying tips in the hands
of the newcomers. Many organizations from the manned and
unmanned communities have joined the campaign, including the
Air Line Pilots Association that is here with us today.
Finally, it has been suggested that technology itself can
be the solution. And, to the industry's credit, many of the
leading companies that manufacture UAS for both commercial and
recreational purposes have developed and implemented
technologies that address some of the concerns. While
technology can be a useful tool for situational awareness, it
is no substitute for education.
In the aviation world, there is a longstanding tradition of
putting the responsibility for safety in the hands of the pilot
and the person operating the aircraft.
I thank you again for this opportunity to participate, and
I look forward to answering any questions you might have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Hanson.
Dr. Kochenderfer?
Dr. Kochenderfer. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen,
and members of the subcommittee, I am a professor in the
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Stanford
University, and I am a third-generation pilot. My research for
nearly 10 years has involved statistical estimation of risk and
the development of technology for enhancing aviation safety.
Personally, I find the rapid acceleration of unmanned
aircraft technology to be the most exciting recent development
in the field of aeronautics. The proliferation of unmanned
aircraft has made aviation accessible, and has inspired a
generation of eager university students in a way that we
haven't seen for a long time. The growing popularity of these
vehicles has also raised concern about safety.
So how do we go about measuring and analyzing these risks?
To answer this, we must understand that risk is determined by
both the likelihood and the severity of different hazards.
First, let us consider severity. A sufficiently large drone
can damage any part of an aircraft. But one of the most severe
hazards is engine ingestion. The US Airways flight in 2009 was
struck by multiple Canada geese. Of course, a flock of
sufficiently large drones could cause similar damage. However,
flocks of drones are rare, and most consumer drones, just like
the DJI Phantom, are less than one-third of the weight of a
Canada goose.
I am not aware of any engine ingestion testing of the
Phantom, but it is certainly conceivable that it would cause
some degree of damage to an engine, but probably not of the
severity that occurred with the US Airways flight.
What is the likelihood of a midair collision involving a
drone? In order for a collision to occur, the drone has to be
at the same altitude and the same geographic location as
another aircraft. An analysis of radar data indicates that
there are large areas of the country where the risk of
encountering another aircraft is negligible. However, there are
portions of the airspace where the likelihood of a collision is
orders of magnitude more significant.
There are several technologies that can help mitigate risk.
Altitude limits can be implemented fairly reliably, and only
require a barometric altimeter. Implementing geofencing is more
difficult, because it relies on an up-to-date database of
geofence locations and accurate GPS location. But the safety
risks can be significantly reduced with such technology.
I am not a policymaker, but I believe that it would be wise
to set altitude limits for drones capable of flying above 400
feet. The cost to add this safety feature, if it doesn't
already exist, is fairly negligible. Most drones capable of
flying above 400 feet already have an altimeter.
One of the first things a new user might do after opening
the box is to see how high the drone can go. This altitude
limit would not ensure safety or prevent interference with
firefighting on its own, but it will certainly help naive users
and discourage reckless users. Preventing a conscientious user
like a firefighter from overriding an altitude limit is
problematic. The exact approach for overriding limits is still
being thought through by industry, and I believe it is too
early to mandate a particular mechanism.
Altitude limitations in geofences are near-term risk
mitigation measures, but it is becoming clear that some kind of
infrastructure is needed to facilitate the integration of
commercial drones into the airspace. NASA Ames, in
collaboration with industry and academia, has been pursuing the
development of the UAS traffic management system. However,
there is still tremendous research to be done.
When flying in the same airspace as manned aircraft, a
sense-and-avoid system is likely to be necessary to help
prevent collision. The FAA has successfully flight-tested the
ACAS X system [Airborne Collision Avoidance System X] for large
drones, and some of the technology may extend to smaller
drones.
In conclusion, the growing popularity of commercially
available drones presents a risk that should not be ignored.
Education should play a major role in risk reduction. In
addition, there are technologies that can be easily implemented
by manufacturers to help prevent inadvertent airspace
violations. It is in the interest of the drone industry to
implement these safety measures. It is in the interest of our
Nation to support the research needed to ensure aviation safety
as our technology evolves.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Whitaker, in addressing illegal UAS flights, do you
feel there are any additional authorities that the FAA believes
Congress can or should provide to curtail or penalize wrongful
operation of UAS?
Mr. Whitaker. We are currently doing a review of our
authorities internally, with DOT, and also with other agencies.
But one of the challenges with this issue is actually locating
the UAS operators. It is less a question of authority or
magnitude of penalties as it is actually locating the
operators.
If you look at these pilot reports, they tell us where the
UAS is, but they don't tell us where the operator is. If you
contrast that with laser strikes, the pilot usually knows
exactly where that strike is coming from. So one of the biggest
challenges we are having is locating the operators in the first
place, which is why our emphasis has been on education and
beefing up that methodology.
Mr. LoBiondo. And also for you, Mr. Whitaker, according to
new reports, Government agencies and private companies have
acquired and deployed drone detection systems that utilize some
combination of radio frequency, thermal detection, video, and
audio technology that can immediately locate the UAS and its
operator.
Is the FAA considering similar detection technologies as
part of the agency's efforts to mitigate the risk of a midair
collision between a UAS and manned aircraft?
Mr. Whitaker. We announced today a new research partnership
that goes just to that issue, that deploys a technology at
airports that allows you to survey the area within 5 miles of
the airport and detect radio signals from UAS. So that
technology is going into testing, and it is one of a variety of
technologies that we are looking for to detect drones in the
airport environment.
Mr. LoBiondo. So you will assess the two testing programs
to determine how you proceed from there?
Mr. Whitaker. We will assess the results of that
technology, as well as geofencing and some other technologies,
to try to develop an approach, again, in conjunction with other
agencies that have a security issue involved here, as well.
Mr. LoBiondo. So the pilot programs that you announce
today, can you give us any timelines on these, of when they
will be operational at those locations?
Mr. Whitaker. The technology is an existing technology, so
we--there hasn't been an announcement of location or timeframe
yet, but that should be coming shortly.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Whitaker, in previous meetings I have had
within the office, private industry technology folks have
suggested to me to--that they require registration of the
product that individuals purchase, and then share that
information with the FAA as a way to track or have a database
where you can track use, in the event of a violation. Have you
heard that from private industry?
Mr. Whitaker. We have a number of initiatives that private
industry has put forth to help in this effort, including
informational paperwork in the packaging itself. The Secretary
himself has indicated that he thinks registration may be one of
the answers to part of this problem, and we are evaluating that
as an option for all UAS.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, in conjunction with private industry,
because most times, when you buy a piece of technology these
days--or if you buy a toaster--you register your product online
for warranty purposes, as a for instance, so people do this all
the time. But----
Mr. Whitaker. Yes.
Mr. Larsen [continuing]. The concept that you would then
share that--that would be shared, though, with an agency might
cause some caution. But this is an idea that has come out of
private industry.
Mr. Whitaker. And I think we would have to work closely
with industry to decide the best way forward for that. We would
not be set up to take this level of registration data, and we
would want to make sure----
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Whitaker [continuing]. It is accessible, if we do that,
and also that it can be used for law enforcement purposes.
Mr. Larsen. Right, right. Can you talk a little more about
coordination between agencies, maybe with USFS [U.S. Forest
Service]?
Or an example that happened in my district, we have orca
pods in the Puget Sound and near the San Juan Islands. They are
a big driver of tourism, of the tourism economy up there. But
people have to comply with the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife fined an aerial photographer for
violating the MMPA--that is, getting too close to the orca
pods, which then--he put this aerial photography and video up
on his Web site to advertise himself, basically showing
everyone how he violated MMPA, and then was fined for that.
Is that something that runs across your desk at FAA, or can
you talk a little bit about how you coordinate with agencies?
Mr. Whitaker. We have a large number of ways that we
coordinate. Under the DOD [Department of Defense]
authorization, there is an EXCOM [executive committee] that
meets on UAS that includes DHS [Department of Homeland
Security], DOD, FAA, and NASA. We have an interagency group
that meets quarterly that includes those agencies plus Commerce
[Department of Commerce] and others to talk about NextGen, as
well as UAS. We have a facility that we run at headquarters
that is a 24/7 monitoring of events in the NAS [National
Airspace System], and we coordinate with law enforcement
agencies through that. And DHS has taken the lead on security
issues focused on the Capital, but also airport environments.
And they run that, and we participate in that. So there are
really a huge number of fora that we participate in to have
that interagency coordination.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, good.
Mr. Hanson, I have had a chance to meet a couple of your
members. Your district XI vice president is Chuck Bower and
then Ken Woblick is the president of the Whidbey Island Radio
Control Society there, and they have attended a few town halls.
So I want to commend you on your grassroots organizing on this
issue.
Mr. Hanson. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen. But on that perspective, from a local
perspective, how would your members look at or--look at
registration of UAS purchases, and using that as a database for
enforcement, in the event of an incursion, a potential
violation?
Mr. Hanson. Well, I believe our members understand that
registration at some level certainly makes sense. And I think
it needs to be understood that there is a broad spectrum of
platforms that are being called drones.
Mr. Larsen. Right.
Mr. Hanson. And the vast majority--I am going to guess
somewhere around two-thirds--of the numbers that we have been
hearing today are really what we would put in the toy category.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Hanson. They have a very short lifespan, and they have
limited ability to accommodate the type of technology that we
are talking about. So, as long as we are identifying the proper
threshold where registration starts to make sense, I think they
would be very acceptant of that.
It is also important to know that they are used to a
similar type of process within our community. Every member is
required to put their AMA number or their name and address
within their aircraft. That is for a number of reasons.
Hopefully, if it gets lost, we are hoping somebody will return
it to us. But, beyond that, it also helps identify the owner-
operator for accountability purposes.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I will just--and on that point, I was
noting yesterday with staff that the crabbing industry is big
in Washington State, as well, and you have got to put your name
and address and a contact number on your crab pot buoy, in case
it gets loose, or in case someone steals it. But you have to do
this, because you need to be held accountable. And so it is the
same kind of deal?
Yes, Mr. LoBiondo, did you have a question for me?
[Laughter.]
Mr. LoBiondo. You could have drones monitor the crab pots.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Larsen. That is next.
Mr. LoBiondo. That is next. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Young?
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member,
for holding this hearing. You know, the University of Alaska in
Fairbanks is named one of the designated area test sites for
the UAS. But the frustration they have is the certification of
authority process, Mr. Whitaker.
Is the FAA doing anything to shorten this process? They
have been granted, but it takes a long, long time. Why does it
take that long? Are you improving that time factor?
Mr. Whitaker. We are, sir. We have taken several steps.
With respect to the test sites, we initially issued a
blanket certificate of authorization for operations up to 200
feet. We recently, last month, increased that to 400 feet. So
that really streamlines the paperwork process pretty
dramatically. There may still be some exemption requirements,
but they should be much fewer now. And the exemption process
itself we have streamlined, but we do a safety analysis on each
of the applications, so that does take some time. But it should
be much more streamlined now.
Mr. Young. Well, they are very complimentary to your
efforts, but they just want to expedite the process. Now it is
taking 1 year, 2 years sometimes. And we need to solve that
problem. That is number one.
Mr. Whitaker. Yes, most of the applications have been
eliminated now for the test sites. But when they do come, they
should be measured in days, certainly, not months or years.
Mr. Young. Captain, what kind of equipment do you have on
your aircraft for collision avoidance? You say you can't--you
know, if you have to look for this drone, don't you have
equipment in the airplane that can identify an object in front
of you quicker than just by eyesight?
Mr. Canoll. So, as demonstrated by the video, visual
acquisition is very, very difficult in any aircraft.
Mr. Young. Even with the radar system, the collision
avoidance----
Mr. Canoll. Well, we do have terminal collision avoidance
systems in the aircraft, commonly referred to as TCAS. But they
are equipped to operate to highlight other aircraft who are
similarly equipped. So if the unmanned aerial system does not
have a transponder on it, S-coded transponder, or isn't ADS-B
[Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast] equipped, it will
not show up on our displays in the cockpit at all.
Mr. Young. Mr. Hanson, how did you get in such a good
position, as far as model airplanes? I mean, for a while, you
were under attack, because I remember that when I was chairman
of this committee. And now, how did you achieve that? What can
they do in this unmanned aircraft to make that same strides
forward?
Mr. Hanson. I think the significant differentiation between
our community and this newer community of users is the approach
that we take to the hobby. I mean people get into this hobby,
at least traditionally, because of their interest in aviation
and their interest in learning how to build, fly, and operate
their aircraft.
The newer communities are attracted more by the technology
and the functionality of the aircraft, something it can do,
such as taking pictures. In some cases it is not different from
the smart phone. I mean they look at it as just an extension of
your camera.
So we have a different mindset within this community, but,
in our opinion, it does all boil down to an educational process
that, as long as they understand the means by which they can
operate safely and responsibly, we believe that the American
citizen will do that. Not to say there aren't those individuals
out there that would deliberately act irresponsibly, but until
we can assuredly say that the consumer has that information in
hand, it is a little hard to assess the mentality and the
deliberate acts of the others.
Mr. Young. Doctor, technology. You are an expert in that
arena, a pilot. What would happen if we required the
manufacturers to put a kill button in the unmanned aircraft if
they got within a certain many feet of an airport? That is
really what we are here for, the danger to the airplane that is
flying, and the pilot who is flying. Could there be technology
that way?
Because it is--most of these are battery-operated, correct?
Very few of them are run by fossil fuels.
Dr. Kochenderfer. Yes, I would say the majority of the
700,000 or so that will be coming out are battery powered.
Mr. Young. Sort of like electric fences--I drive my golf
cart the other day, and you can't go close to the green because
they have this communication that stops the golf cart. So why
couldn't the technology be applied to any of these hobby drones
where the thing dies?
Dr. Kochenderfer. I think that is what they are aiming at
with geofencing. But you probably don't want it to die
completely, because then it will fall out of the air and maybe
hurt someone.
Mr. Young. Well, you lose your drone, you won't do it
again, I guarantee it.
Dr. Kochenderfer. Yes.
Mr. Young. But I am just looking--the technology.
And, Mr. Chairman, if I may say, you at this table help us
write this legislation. Because when we write legislation, 99
percent of the time it is screwed up. They don't really
understand the problem unless we get input from those people
directly--the airline, the FAA, the Government agencies, and
those that have knowledge on how it works. So we have to use
your input, Mr. Chairman. And I say this from experience of 44
years, that most of this legislation we have written doesn't
work. And then, when the regulations come in, then we are all
screwed up.
So I am just suggesting we use this expertise. Either solve
this problem--a danger. That is really what we are here for.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was pleased to read
that the FAA is going ahead with CACI [Conditions AMEs Can
Issue]. I met with them earlier, and they were going to test
their technology in Virginia this summer. It has been used in
military applications. As they explained it to me, they can
pinpoint the operator. That is good. They can do numerous
things. They can force the drone to land, they can force it to
go back to the operator. Or, in the case of hostiles, they
deliver something to the operator.
So, the question, you know, would be, you know, how quickly
are we going to move ahead with this? I am very disturbed at
the 24 incursions on fires. How many of those people were
prosecuted, or were even identified?
Mr. Whitaker. I don't have statistics on how many. But, as
I said before, it is very, very difficult to track them down,
just by the nature of the UAS operation.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. So--and what about registration? You
have heard that mentioned. You said you couldn't handle the
volume. I mean were you just talking about an online database
or something? What is the barrier to requiring registration?
Mr. Whitaker. Well, there is interagency discussion going
on about how that would be used, and what the logistics of it
would be, what would be the best tool for that, whether it is
at point of sale, how you verify ID, things of that nature. So
there is some digging into the technicalities of that that is
going on now.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I would hope that doesn't take too long.
I mean I already identified that one case in my hometown, where
the police would really like to know who the person--the
Peeping Tom was operating that drone, but we will never know.
So--and Mr. Young mentioned the idea that just--I mean you
wouldn't want to necessarily disable them and have them drop
out of the sky, but they can also direct them to another place.
And if we have designated safe sites around airports or
critical airspace, and we use this technology, we could direct
the drones there and say, ``Oh, come get your drone. We will be
waiting.''
So, I mean, this is a very, very--you know, I have been
through almost 29 years in this committee, and we used to talk
about the tombstone mentality at the FAA. And you know, I am
very concerned about what this means to the safe operation of
civil aviation in this country.
And beyond that, I am particularly concerned that it will
also bring to a halt the legitimate commercial development of
drones. I mean we take down one plane with one of these toys
that someone is operating irresponsibly, or a terrorist uses,
we are going to--this industry is going to grind to a halt
altogether. We need to get a handle on this quickly.
Captain, do you have anything you want to add? Because, I
mean, it was--Mr. Hanson, I--you know, I am sympathetic to the
model folks. I used to build those things out of balsa wood
with the little piston engines that didn't work very well, and
all that stuff. So I know that whole area. But we are talking
about a whole new generation of people, the same people for
whom the words ``cell phone'' and ``etiquette'' don't go
together are now getting their hands on these drones, and I am
worried about responsible operation. Captain?
Mr. Canoll. No, I agree. And to differentiate, I thought it
was an important point Mr. Hanson made about his members, who I
generally believe are responsible operators, and those who are
not part of his community who are operating these vehicles.
They do have batteries in them, and these are dense, heavy
metal pieces that will wreak havoc on aircraft.
When it hits a transport category aircraft, when it hits
one, there is going to be a significant event. A significant
event. Whether it hits the windscreen, some piece of the flight
control system, or is ingested in the engine, this is going to
be a significant event. And for the flightcrew, it is going to
be a very challenging event to save the aircraft.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Anybody want to comment on that?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Canoll. It is not my intent to scare anybody here
today----
Mr. DeFazio. No----
Mr. Canoll [continuing]. But it is a significant event. OK,
so an accident is never the result of a single episode. You
can't point to any particular accident and say, ``That was the
sole cause of that accident,'' and I believe this is the same
thing.
When we look at all the risks that we deal with in
commercial aviation on a day-to-day basis, and we have to
assign risks to each element of it--weather, traffic,
communications, security within the cockpit, cybersecurity--we
look for mitigations on every single element of that risk. This
is another element to the risk chain.
And should it happen at a time when something else is going
wrong, we are already dealing with a possible flight control
malfunction, or a challenging communications or weather
situation, and then we hit the drone, in some sort of--and
always in a critical phase of flight, down below 10,000 feet,
which is the highest likelihood of contact, that is when we
have the highest risk of an actual accident.
And, you know, I think if you can't point to a single
solution to this problem, it has to be a layered effect.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Peter.
Mr. Mica?
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing.
Mr. Whitaker, what is today's date?
Mr. Whitaker. Sir, it is the 7th of October.
Mr. Mica. What year?
Mr. Whitaker. 2015.
Mr. Mica. And the legislation that we passed in 2012, the
FAA Modernization Reform Act, had a directive to FAA. And what
deadline did it set for you to finish the work that was
assigned in the law on drones?
Mr. Whitaker. September 2015, sir.
Mr. Mica. So we are behind schedule, obviously. If you
review the record, when we passed this in 2012--and I believe
that was February. Was it, staff? Yes. By the next year, 2013,
you had completed the plan that is also required under the law,
which was a good step.
You didn't propose the rule until January 20th of this
year, right?
Mr. Whitaker. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Mica. And you have had--the rule came out in February,
so you have had February, March, April, May, June, July,
August, September. We are just into October, so you have had 8
months to finalize that rule, and now you are saying that--and
the rule--does the real rule just deal with the small aircraft?
Mr. Whitaker. Small UAS under 55 pounds.
Mr. Mica. Under 55 pounds. Because I think we allowed a
differentiation between small and large.
And you--at least the testimony I have heard is some time
in 2016. Can you be more specific with ``some time''?
Mr. Whitaker. So the comment period was open until April of
this year. We have had over 4,500 comments.
Mr. Mica. But the ``some time'' in 2016----
Mr. Whitaker. And we are adjudicating those comments, and
our internal objective is to get the rule out of FAA by the end
of this year, and it will go through the review process at DOT
and OMB [Office of Management and Budget]. And last time you
and I discussed this----
Mr. Mica. February, March, April?
Mr. Whitaker. Last time you and I discussed the point, we
agreed on the date of June 17th, and I think that is still a
solid date, and we should be able to beat that.
Mr. Mica. So not until next June?
Mr. Whitaker. It should be in the first half of next year.
Mr. Mica. What about large?
Mr. Whitaker. So the development of large UAS integration
is going to depend, in large part, on commercial demand, and
also, in large part, on technology. So that will develop as the
technology develops and the demand develops.
Mr. Mica. Well, again, I am disappointed. What will
probably propel this--maybe actually propel your schedule--is
going to be a very serious accident, an incident. I can almost
predict there will be one. There are just so many of these now
flying, that it is almost inevitable that we have a drone hit
an aircraft, and there will be, probably, injuries and
hopefully not fatalities.
And this--these drones are up to 55 pounds. I remember
going to a testing center when they would throw, like, a 40-
pound frozen bird or something into an aircraft engine, and I
saw what that did. These can do as much damage. And, you know,
I don't need another test to show what would happen. But it
probably will happen. Maybe that will speed things up.
You have had how many incidents? You said aircraft with
drones that were somewhat serious, is it 200, 400? Captain
Canoll, do you know?
Mr. Canoll. So we don't keep the records that the airline--
--
Mr. Mica. OK. FAA, do you know how many have you had
reported?
Mr. Whitaker. We are at a rate of about 100 a month of
pilot-reported----
Mr. Mica. One hundred a month? That is 1,200 a year. And so
far you have sighted about--there has been about 20 enforcement
actions. Did I hear that?
Mr. Whitaker. That involve civil penalties, yes.
Mr. Mica. That seems very low.
The other thing, too, is in your plan--and I haven't
reviewed the pending rule--do you have a provision for
requiring--and maybe you can't do this, maybe we have to do it
by law, but hundreds of thousands of these are being sold. A
simple warning that says that you can't fly this within so
close to an airport at such a height, that is not on the--
required now on the sale of the unit. Is it in your proposal?
And can you do that, and--or should we do that by law?
Because I think just letting people know when they purchase one
of these what their obligations are is important.
Mr. Whitaker. We have been working with manufacturers to
have information put in the package----
Mr. Mica. Is it in your rule, proposed rule?
Mr. Whitaker. The proposed rule deals with commercial
operations.
Mr. Mica. Yes.
Mr. Whitaker. And the issue is, really, the amateur
operators. So we have been working with manufacturers to have
the information voluntarily included, and an increasing number
are doing that now. But we would have to have a rule to mandate
it, which, A, we are not authorized to do, and, B, would take
too long. So our focus----
Mr. Mica. So possibly----
Mr. Whitaker [continuing]. Is the voluntary----
Mr. Mica [continuing]. A law. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mrs. Kirkpatrick?
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first
question is for Mr. Hanson.
In your statement you disagree with the FAA regarding the
number of UAS near-miss reports with the FAA, that are received
by the FAA. Does AMA have a data collection and analysis
program underway to collect near-miss reports from UAS users or
airline pilots? And how does AMA substantiate your statement,
that the number of reports are actually much lower?
Mr. Hanson. No, ma'am. AMA does not collect that data. We
use FAA's list of pilot-reported and individually reported
sightings of unmanned aircraft. And I think it is important to
note that they didn't classify all of those as being what is
termed ``near misses,'' or ``near midair collision.'' They were
termed a very subjective term, as being ``close calls.'' And,
again, that is subjective and undefined. And, to my knowledge,
the FAA currently does not have a defined definition or a
definitive definition of a near miss of a manned aircraft with
an unmanned aircraft.
So what we did in our analysis was to go strictly to the
language in the sighting itself, and only pull out those ones,
or looked at those ones where the person reporting the
sighting, in their determination, called it either a near miss
or indicated they had to take some type of evasive action.
Quite honestly, there is a large number of the sightings in
there that couldn't even be termed a ``near encounter'' of any
kind, because it wasn't even identified clearly as being an
aircraft.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Do you have a suggestion for a definition
of ``near miss,'' then, that should be standardized?
Mr. Hanson. Well, if we are talking about a near miss
between an unmanned aircraft and a manned aircraft, I believe
that, before you create that definition, you will need to do
some analysis of the environment that they operate in, and the
types of vehicles that we are talking about.
As the captain cited, we are talking about very slow
moving, very small objects, that, when seen from the cockpit,
it is very difficult to give it any type of relative value, in
terms of size, speed, and even its intentions, in terms of
where it is going to fly. So I think there needs to be some
study done in terms of what actually would constitute a near
miss, and that is probably more from the perspective of the
pilot, in terms of when and where and how he would be able to
identify that object and to appropriately take action to make
sure there is not any type of airspace conflict.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I would agree with you. If we are going
to develop some commonsense policy out of this committee, we
need to have good data upon which to do that. So thank you for
your suggestion.
My next question is for Mr. Hubbard. Mr. Hubbard, I
represent one of the most forested districts in the country,
although it is in Arizona. People don't think of Arizona as
having that much forest.
I am sure you are very familiar with the horrific wildfires
we have, and we are really trying to do something with
prevention. And so my question is a little bit different from
just suppression. You know, how--what is the opportunity to use
drones in fire prevention, and in healthy forests?
Mr. Hubbard. They are very useful, in terms of collecting
the information and what we are dealing with on the land. So
that kind of overflight to give us a good assessment of what is
out there, without taking all the time and expense to go find
out on the ground, is very helpful to us.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. And then, specifically, back to
suppression, how do you intend to use UAS in fire suppression
efforts?
Mr. Hubbard. Well, primarily, the situational awareness,
keeping track of what is going on, where our crews are on the
ground, how the fire is behaving, and making sure that nobody
is in harm's way unnecessarily, and that we can have the right
kind of communications with those crews, in case they need to
move, and move quickly. It gives us a lot of advance warning.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. You know, we had a tragic situation with
the Yarnell fire, where our firefighting crew did not know the
direction of that fire, and it changed dramatically from what
was being expected. Would UAS have been helpful to prevent that
tragedy?
Mr. Hubbard. That is a difficult one to say. I would have
liked to have had it available.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Farenthold?
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much.
Mr. Canoll, you were talking about the need to register
drones and enforcement and all. Would that be all drones, or
are you just--is there some size limit, or some cutoff point at
which you ought to be able to have a toy drone without having
to turn your identity over to the Federal Government?
Mr. Canoll. So it is an interesting question. And the way
we approach it is more or less analyzing the capabilities of
the vehicle, vis-a-vis altitude, range, speed, to see if they
could actually end up in airspace shared with airliners.
Mr. Farenthold. Like I can go on Amazon, and this is the
best selling UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle], I guess, they have.
It is $45.90. I can have it by Friday, because I am an Amazon
Prime member, for free shipping. But the shipping weight is 1.1
pound.
Mr. Canoll. Right.
Mr. Farenthold. And it has a range of 50 meters. I mean
that is 165 feet. You are surely not saying that needs to be
registered.
Mr. Canoll. If it can fly to 1,500, 2,000 feet, yes, sir.
Mr. Farenthold. But if it only has a range of 50 meters, it
is only going to get, what, 165 feet. So you are only----
Mr. Canoll. I am not sure if that range is being expressed
as a lateral range, or if that is the transmitter range or the
actual physical capability. Following lost link at full
throttle, would it just continue to climb to 2,000, 3,000 feet?
Mr. Farenthold. OK, and let's go over to the FAA.
Mr. Whitaker, I have spoken to some folks in the UAV
industry who have actually expressed an interest in working
with you all on geofencing. Is there any way right now a UAV
manufacturer can get a list of restricted airspace in a
machine-readable format that they could integrate into their
system?
Mr. Whitaker. All of the information about airport airspace
and restricted airspace is publicly available, and it is pushed
out as part of the data that comes from FAA. And some of the
manufacturers have already started to include geofencing
technology in their products.
Mr. Farenthold. So is there--so you are saying there is a
standardized database that is updated regularly? I guess it is
your Notice to Airmen?
Mr. Whitaker. Yes, the charts are updated about every 2
months, sort of in a formal structure, and then, in the
interim, there are NOTAMs [Notices to Airmen] that are put out
to give interim updates.
Mr. Farenthold. And do you have any idea--so you all are
able to get that computerized, yet you are talking about the
inability to keep a database of registered owners. I mean that
seems pretty simple: name, address, manufacturer, model, and
serial number. I mean I could probably code that, you know,
before we finish lunch.
Mr. Whitaker. Yes, sir. And then we need to verify that the
person's name is the person who is actually registering it,
which creates some of the complication.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. And let's talk a little bit
about--is there a way to integrate these affordably into the
air traffic control system by putting some transponder or
something on there where the air traffic controllers or the
ADS-B and moving aircraft can see them?
Again, as this technology moves, it seems like you ought to
be able to get that, basically, on a chip.
Mr. Whitaker. So, with respect to amateur use, we really
want to keep them out of the controlled airspace, if you will.
So we want to keep them away from airports and under 400 feet,
or, with the case of the small UAS rule, under 500 feet. I
think there still is a question whether they shouldn't also be
equipped with something that has a radio signal that allows us
to track them otherwise.
When you get to the larger UAS, anything that operates in
the controlled airspace would have to be equipped with ADS-B,
the same as an aircraft would after 2020. But certainly that is
going to be necessary to have any kind of integration in the
larger UAS.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. So, finally, let's talk for just
one second about the difference between recreational users and
commercial users. A lot of the recreational users like to stick
a GoPro or some sort of camera on their drone. You then upload
that to YouTube, and YouTube sells ads on them. And where do
you cross the line into commercial use and private use?
Mr. Whitaker. Well, I don't think the example you raised
indicates commercial use. I think that is a pretty common use
of recreational drones. Commercial use is if you are being paid
to operate, or if it is being operated as part of your business
model.
Mr. Farenthold. I can just see there being, you know, being
some potential gray areas there, you know. My----
Mr. Whitaker. Always are, yes.
Mr. Farenthold. My kids put a lemonade stand up and they
post a video, a shot with the UAV of them selling lemonade at
their lemonade stand, you potentially cross that line.
So I would just--my point is--and I would urge a light
touch there for recreational users who really aren't being
reckless. And, obviously, a lot of details there, and hopefully
that is what some of your test centers that you are partnering
with--universities, and the rulemaking processes are--but we
have got to find the right balance between moving quickly, but
not overregulating and killing a future industry.
I see my time has expired. Thank you.
Mr. Whitaker. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Ms. Brownley?
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Whitaker, in my
congressional district, in Ventura County in California, the
sheriff's department is the only public agency that currently
uses UAS, aside from the Navy--we have a big naval base there,
and future home of the Triton on the west coast. But the
sheriff's department has received a certificate of
authorization to operate the device. They use it primarily for
search and rescue. We have mountains in the district, so it is
very helpful, from that perspective.
But every time the sheriff's office operates, they notify
the nearby FAA air traffic control towers, and they also file a
Notice to Airmen. And, as I understand it, that it not
required, but they do it, they take the step out of an
abundance of caution. Is that something that you, the FAA,
might consider in their rule, in terms of a requirement that
people who are operating UAS would have to do--on a commercial
basis, obviously?
Mr. Whitaker. Yes, the public-use UAS are really quite
mature, and operated in several ways that the small UAS won't
be able to initially operate. The NOTAM system, I think, is an
interim step to getting us to a more real-time ability to
notify other users of the system. But that is, I think, the
appropriate procedures at this time.
Ms. Brownley. So, I wanted to ask a little bit more on the
COAs [Certificates of Waiver or Authorization]. I think I read
in the documents that there is close to 1,700 or so COAs that
have been given. So what is the sort of--what is your backlog
right now? What is the current demand?
Mr. Whitaker. I am not sure what the actual backlog is. I
can get that information for you. We have increased our
throughput fairly dramatically, so that we are doing over 100 a
week now. So we have cleared a lot of the backlog, but they are
also coming in at a pretty good clip. So we can get those
numbers to you.
Ms. Brownley. So do you have any idea of how many UAS are
being operated without a COA? Again, commercial applications.
Mr. Whitaker. We don't have a way of knowing that, exactly.
The indications that we are getting from pilot reports gives us
some glimpse into what is happening without authorization. But
the numbers are too big for us to track, and we don't have
those resources.
Ms. Brownley. And you said that there--you have now--for
UAS over 400 feet, or I guess over 400 feet or under 400 feet--
--
Mr. Whitaker. So for the----
Ms. Brownley. It is a standard contract?
Mr. Whitaker. For the model it is 400 feet, and under the
small rule it will be 500 feet and below.
Ms. Brownley. And so, can you give me a sense of how many
of these COAs that you are involved in negotiating a special
contract for specific use?
Mr. Whitaker. So we try to group these COAs as much as
possible, to expedite the processing. There have been 1,800 so
far on the commercial side, and, literally, thousands on the
public-use side. So these vehicles are actually in pretty
widespread use now.
Ms. Brownley. And you said only 20 or so civil penalties
have been----
Mr. Whitaker. We have had several hundred investigations.
Under our compliance policy, our first preference is to get
people operating in accordance with the rules. And if we don't
have to use enforcement, we don't use enforcement.
There have been over 20 cases now that have required us to
issue civil----
Ms. Brownley. And what do those civil penalties look like?
I mean what--can you describe what it----
Mr. Whitaker. So the baseline is up to $25,000 per
incident. In the case of the penalty that went out yesterday,
it was $1.9 million. It involved dozens and dozens of flights
over a heavily populated area.
Ms. Brownley. So, in terms of wildfire suppression and the
use of UAS, does the FAA have any specific legislative
recommendations to improve the FAA enforcement authority, or to
increase criminal or civil penalties for interference with
wildfires?
Mr. Whitaker. We are evaluating with other agencies the
level of the penalties involved. Right now it is $25,000 on the
civil side, up to $250,000 and 20 years in prison on the
criminal side. That level is being evaluated, interagency.
The biggest challenge we have, we think the most bang for
the buck comes from education, because a lot of the operations
are inadvertent. And on the enforcement side, the real
challenge is how we locate the operators of the vehicle.
Ms. Brownley. And on the education piece, in terms of Know
Before You Fly, the educational program, materials, is there
any legal barrier that prevents the FAA from requiring
manufacturers to include this safety information in packaging?
Mr. Whitaker. We are prohibited from regulating for
recreational-use drones. It is possible that we could do a
rulemaking around that, but the timeframe of rulemakings is
such it is not a particularly viable tool for us. So we are
very much focused on voluntary compliance at this point.
Ms. Brownley. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Hanna?
Mr. Hanna. Thank you. As a pilot and someone who represents
Griffiss Air Force Base, one of the six sites selected, I would
suggest that there is more unanimity amongst you today than I
have heard in a long time.
One of the problems is that we are probably a severe
accident away from a public cry over why haven't we done
something. Whereas, as Mr. Mica kind of implied, or said
directly, Mr. Whitaker is off schedule, to be polite. And I
would suggest there is urgency to this, as you know.
Mr. Canoll, you would have to agree that we are one
accident away, I imagine, from something that people can't
imagine that would create havoc, and be a rush to judgment
about a whole lot of things that would affect Mr. Hanson's
people. I have an 8-year-old son who owns three of these. If I
bought him four more tomorrow, they would be wrecked by
tomorrow night. They don't survive well, they are small.
But--and I don't see--I would say the Notice to Airmen is
really--give the assumption that people have perfect
information, that people call, investigate, do their homework.
And I know, as a pilot, people do not.
I just--I wanted to ask you, Mr. Canoll, it is my kind of
unconsidered opinion that these things do not belong near
airports. And to that end, Mr. Hanson and Mr. Canoll, what kind
of--and you have talked a lot about this in your statement, Mr.
Canoll--is what kind of training do you think is appropriate
that would--for the people that are flying these larger ones,
or any one, if you will, that you would like to see?
Mr. Canoll. Well, if the vehicle is intended to be operated
in shared airspace, then I think the standard is very close to
established, if not already established. And it exists for us,
as a pilot, to complete our training, recurrent training, and
maintain all our qualifications.
If the vehicle isn't intended to operate in the airspace,
then it is a matter of putting proper mitigations to keep it
out of the airspace, be it from lost links, so the vehicle just
doesn't fly off, or from unintentional blunders into the
airspace. And that is the importance of the educational
campaign that we all agree on up here.
One element of the educational campaign is we should
consider testing, where someone goes online, reads the
materials, and takes a little test. That satisfies the parents
that the child knows how to operate the vehicle.
Mr. Hanna. What do you think about that, Mr. Hanson? I mean
would you rather just stay out of airspace, pick a distance for
different A, B, C, or whatever--you are not going to be in A
airspace, but C or B airspace--do you accept what Mr. Canoll
said, that you don't have--you should be in--you should have
commercial training, or training as if a pilot, to fly in
airspace that may have low ground levels near an airport?
Mr. Hanson. I think we take a little different approach to
it. I mean we consider all airspace shared airspace. I mean the
FAA claims their authority down to within 1 inch of the ground.
So we instruct our pilots, and our educational program is based
upon the fact that you--there is always the possibility of
encountering a manned aircraft in that airspace. And we are to
take every step necessary to not interfere with manned----
Mr. Hanna. But you have to admit that there is a lot more
likelihood if you are on an airport than if you are not.
Mr. Hanson. Sure. And as we talk about flying in closer
proximity to an airport, then we have other procedures that we
put in place. But the primary safety tenets is to not interfere
and to see and avoid at all times, and we have a very
instructional document that talks about how a model aircraft
operator should see and avoid.
And to the credit to the model aircraft community, there
have not been significant airspace conflicts between true model
aircraft and----
Mr. Hanna. Let me ask you this, though. Why is it important
that you operate in the same airspace that would be an airport?
Why does that--what drives you to think that? I am not saying
you don't have a right to that, I am just curious why that is
important.
Mr. Hanson. Well, I think it goes to the point that not all
airports are created equal. We have a lot of very rural
airports that have low traffic counts that are in communities
where they are welcome to operate. We actually have clubs that
are collocated on airports.
Mr. Hanna. I have seen many of them, yes.
Mr. Hanson. And they have--coordinating procedures allowing
them to operate----
Mr. Hanna. So then, implying from that, you might--that
would suggest to me that there are places where you would say
you shouldn't be--maybe C and B space to the ground--and places
where you could, where it is just general space in a grass
strip in the middle of Cooperstown, New York, where I happen to
fly out of once in a while.
Mr. Hanson. Well, there is no doubt there are locations
where these types of devices shouldn't be flown.
Mr. Hanna. Yes, yes.
Mr. Hanson. It is not as easy an answer to say that you
can't fly C, B----
Mr. Hanna. I guess what I am suggesting is that you have a
lot in common here. And, rather than fight for something that
is not reasonable, you may want to think about what is really
important to the people who operate these things for
agriculture and recreation at the types of airports that you
just described.
Thank you, my time has expired.
Mr. LoBiondo. The gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
thank you for the hearing, a very, very important one.
Mr. Larsen, you opened the issue of registration, and Mr.
Farenthold picked it up, and I am--he mentioned picking up his
smart phone at Amazon. It is registered. And most everything
you buy today is registered, at least back to the manufacturer,
in some way or another. It seems to me we don't need a
Government registration program, but we need the Government to
be able to access the registration program that the
manufacturers probably already have.
It would be very simple to do that. Of course, we could
spend several years trying to write a regulation to accomplish
that, which is probably what we will do, because that is our
specialty. Why don't we just simply say, ``All of these UAS
must be registered, held by the manufacturer or the seller of
that, and the Government has the ability to access that under
circumstances relating to an accident or some other incident''?
Fairly simple, but probably far too simple for our normal
workaround here.
The question was just raised about airspace at an airport.
You know, we can go back and forth with trying to find what
geofencing is, and wait 20 years for some sort of technology to
actually work, or we can simply say, ``Hey, if you are flying
this UAS near a significant airport, a hub airport or a sub-hub
airport, you are violating the law, and you are subject to a
fine or even jail time. And, by the way, if you are flying near
an active fire, you are subject to a fine and jail time.'' Now,
that would immediately educate everybody involved in this sport
or commercial activity.
Now, the other way around is study, study, study, which is
the specialty of the Government, or those who don't want any
interference by anybody.
So, anyway, I propose legislation introduced now, today--
actually, yesterday--that simply says if you are flying a UAS
within 2 miles of a significant airport, you are breaking the
law, and you are subject to 1 year in jail and a significant
fine. And if you are flying near an active fire, you are
breaking the law and you are subject to 1 year in jail. Now,
that is a pretty clear message.
So, Mr. Hubbard, what do you think of that, since you tend
to fight fires?
Mr. Hubbard. I think we need some help of some kind,
because when we are fighting fire, we are at very low
altitudes, and in very complex situations with a lot of
distractions, not the least of which is smoke. So it is--the
sense-and-avoid is very difficult. And if the technology isn't
there for the sense-and-avoid, then we have to turn to the
education or to the regulation.
Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Canoll, Captain?
Mr. Canoll. Yes, sir. I would love to see--I can't wait to
read it, because I think it is a step in the right direction.
One concern would be with the limitation of 2 miles,
assuming the reference point is in the middle of the airport,
the threshold is 1 mile from that point, the vehicles could be
well above me on approach to that airport at that point. Two
miles, I am approximately 900 feet off the ground from the end
of the runway. So I think it should be a little larger than
that, especially at some of our larger airports. If you look at
Class B airspace around Atlanta and in Miami, it drops all the
way down to the surface as far as 6, 7 miles from the airport.
We don't want anyone operating off the surface at all inside
Class B airspace, unless they are talking to air traffic
control and being controlled by air traffic control.
Mr. Garamendi. How about our little hobbyist?
Mr. Hanson. Well, it has been a long time since I have been
called little, but the devil, I think, is always in the
details.
Mr. Garamendi. Referring to the machines.
Mr. Hanson. I think the devil is always in the details.
And, as the captain pointed out, at some airports 2 miles
certainly might not be far enough. Other airports, it may be
adequate or may be even too far.
I mean, if you were a homeowner within that distance, and
you want to buy your--in my case--grandson one of these toys
that can be flown in the backyard, I would hate to see him
subject to a 1-year-in-jail penalty for flying it in his
backyard. So I, like the captain, would be very interested in
seeing the language of the proposed bill, and having an
opportunity to comment on it.
Mr. Garamendi. Well, I will see that you have it in a few
moments.
You know, we get really tied up in details here. And, in
the meantime, as one or two of my colleagues have said, a time
is going to pass, and the accident is going to happen. I will
say the incident is going to happen; not sure it is an
accident. But the incident is going to happen. We know that, in
California, we have had numerous fires. We have also known in
California that we are now facing a situation where those fires
have expanded, as a result of drones shutting down the aerial
operations. And we also had more than enough incidents in the
airspace around airports, as was testified to.
So, I think it is time for us simply to lay down a marker
here, and say, ``If you are operating a UAS in these spaces,
you are violating the law, and you are subject to a severe
penalty.'' Now, that is the kind of education program that
somebody might pay attention to. And if your grandchildren
happen to be near that runway, and they are flying their little
UAS that you kindly bought them that is somehow interfering
with the approach of the captain into Atlanta airport, I am
sorry, but the kid is breaking the law. And, as the responsible
adult, you should also be held accountable, because we are
talking about serious, very serious potential problems.
Yield back my time, and I will deliver a copy of the
legislation to you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Rokita?
Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Chairman. Good morning, everyone. I
appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Whitaker, it seems to me that folks in general aviation
could work closely with drone operators and owners to help
educate and train on these rules that are forthcoming, and
different best practices for operations. Have you, as the FAA,
reached out to any GA [general aviation] organizations or
associations?
Mr. Whitaker. I don't have specific examples of that. I
agree, that that is an important aspect to this.
I think one of the things that we are looking at is this
question of airspace, and how it is defined. Because right now
the law----
Mr. Rokita. That is not my question.
Mr. Whitaker. I am sorry.
Mr. Rokita. So you think it is a good idea. So will you--
you will commit to reach out?
Mr. Whitaker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rokita. OK. To who?
Mr. Whitaker. To general aviation community----
Mr. Rokita. Like who?
Mr. Whitaker. Well, we usually work through AOPA [Aircraft
Owners and Pilots Association] and small airport associations.
Mr. Rokita. Would it--it is in your authority to reach out
to them?
Mr. Whitaker. Absolutely.
Mr. Rokita. OK. So we will do that by what date, do you
think? It doesn't necessarily have to be AOPA, but you say it
is a good idea, I just want to get you on record when we can
start moving to build partnerships where they make most sense.
When can you do that by?
Mr. Whitaker. If you would like, I can report back to you
within 30 days on what--our plan to do that.
Mr. Rokita. No, I--just tell us now when--you know, when
you can make a phone call, when you can write a letter. When
can you get these guys involved?
Mr. Whitaker. Yes, in the next 4 weeks.
Mr. Rokita. Great, thank you very much. Depending on the
time of year, farmers may be out in the fields, wanting to use
these machines. And I have--in Indiana there is farm operations
24/7, probably starting right now. And I think the proposed
rule, 107.29, only allows day operations. Are you considering
modifying that at all, or are you going to be strict on the day
operations?
Mr. Whitaker. The rule----
Mr. Rokita. Because I could see, in a farm field, where it
could be--these machines can be used all around the clock.
Mr. Whitaker. So night operations is one of the areas that
is being researched, and it could be allowed by exemption. But
as soon as we can find ways to do that safely, that is
something we would like to allow.
Mr. Rokita. OK. I appreciate that.
Captain, thanks for your testimony, as well. How do your
members know--when you talk about these near-miss sightings,
and these reports of UAS, how do you know it is what they saw
versus, you know, a balloon that a kid let go a while ago,
which I see in my aircraft from time to time--try to do a
circle around it--safely, of course. Or even a UFO
[unidentified flying object]. You can go on cable at night,
anywhere from 11 o'clock to 3 o'clock in the morning, and hear
all these pilots' stories about UFOs. How do we know we saw a
UAS, and what specifically does ALPA do to verify the
sightings?
Mr. Canoll. So there is a redundant set of eyes in the
cockpit. And, hopefully, both pilots can lay their eyes on
the----
Mr. Rokita. So all these reports are double sightings?
Mr. Canoll. Not always, especially if the aircraft was only
down one side of the aircraft for----
Mr. Rokita. Right.
Mr. Canoll. You may only get the captain or the first
officer's----
Mr. Rokita. Right.
Mr. Canoll. And they are small vehicles, and they are
moving quickly, we are moving quickly, they----
Mr. Rokita. As your video depicts, it is hard to see these
things. So how are we so sure--I mean, Mr. Whitaker, you were
picked on by my good friend, John Mica, for only having 20
civil penalty cases. But, in all fairness, couldn't it be that
you couldn't verify that these were even UAS to begin with?
Mr. Canoll. You have to rely on the pilot's opinion of what
he saw. We do see a lot of balloons.
Mr. Rokita. But pilots aren't God.
Mr. Canoll. No, sir. No one is asserting----
Mr. Rokita. Right, so we shouldn't even necessarily on this
panel or in America accept the premise that all these sightings
or near-miss UAS sightings are really, in fact, UAS to begin
with, should we?
Mr. Canoll. No, sir, not all of them.
Mr. Rokita. Right.
Mr. Canoll. But many of them are in the----
Mr. Rokita. How do you know how many, though? That is my--
--
Mr. Canoll. I don't know how many, sir.
Mr. Rokita. So we don't even know how many.
Mr. Canoll. Quite a few more, and with the proliferation of
the expansion to 1 million more of these, potentially, next
year, even if a small percentage of them were UAS, I think we
have a problem.
Mr. Rokita. Well, that may be, but we don't know what we
are talking about, because we can't even quantify it. There's
millions of birds, too. Right?
Mr. Canoll. I agree, that the fidelity----
Mr. Rokita. That reminds me, Dr. Kochenderfer, you talk
about Canadian geese being so much heavier. And the assumption
in your testimony--at least something I took--is that birds are
still certainly, or at least potentially, more dangerous. Yet
the captain says, ``Well, you know, there's metal batteries in
these things, and they are dangerous, too.'' Can you elaborate
on your testimony?
Dr. Kochenderfer. Yes, definitely. It depends entirely on
the platform. I mean there are some drones that--there is one
drone that came out last week that can fit on your fingertips,
and weighs the same as three pennies. There are others, like
the Phantom, that is one-third the weight of a Canada goose.
There are others that have, like, a 10-foot wing span and weigh
30 pounds. So it really depends.
Mr. Rokita. Yes, so you can't quantify it.
Dr. Kochenderfer. That is right.
Mr. Rokita. And in the time I have remaining, I want to go
into the commercial licensing structure, Captain Canoll. Your
organization is recommending a commercial pilot's license, yet
the flight characteristics of these drones, the stall
characteristics, are completely different.
I have a commercial license, and it is basically a VFR
ticket that is met with higher specifications. I don't
understand why we need a commercial license. I am not getting
that, and I am wanting to assume it is simply because you are
worried about job protection, you are worried about the one day
that these operators might--or these unmanned vehicles might
take away a pilot's job.
Mr. Canoll. No, sir, that is not the concern with the
commercial operations. Operations for remuneration on all modes
of transportation, be it a taxicab, an airplane, a sea-going
vessel, all require commercial operations----
Mr. Rokita. Right.
Mr. Canoll [continuing]. And that is the basis of----
Mr. Rokita. Because it is revenue-generating.
Mr. Canoll. Correct.
Mr. Rokita. So, in fact, you are worried about the revenue-
generating impact of this, not necessarily the safety impact of
this----
Mr. Canoll. There is a higher expectation of safety when
you pay for a service. Yes, sir. There is a safety element, as
well.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Capuano?
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen.
I am not going to say anything you don't already know, so you
can go to sleep, it doesn't much matter.
But to be perfectly honest, I just got off a plane. If a
drone pulls down a plane that I am on, I guarantee you
everybody you represent is going to get sued. And if you put me
on a jury on a case like that, you are all going to lose.
Because we can do something. Maybe it is not perfect yet. I am
sure it is not, because this is a new and evolving technology.
But doing nothing in the face of a clear danger is not an
excuse, to be perfectly honest. Getting it right over time,
fine. But we should be doing stuff. Putting an educational
packet--look, I own two drones. Not really big ones. I haven't
got a clue what the heck I am doing with them, either. I really
stink at it, which, of course, is a danger.
Now, I don't know about the 2-mile limit on the airport, I
live within 2 miles of an airport, and probably a lot of my
constituents live a lot closer than that. I don't know. I
wouldn't intentionally try to bring down a plane, but Christmas
presents, Christmas Day, some kid doing something on a drone
you can get out of Brookstone, nothing special. This is crazy.
We can do it on automobiles, we can do it on my phone. If I
drop this phone today, right now, some very smart 15-year-old
technology kid could figure out where I bought it, who it
belongs to, where I was yesterday, who I called, et cetera, et
cetera. Yet, if it happens to a drone, nobody knows. ``Well, I
saw something, I don't know what it was.'' Come on. You can put
VIN numbers on it, you can put all kinds of wonderful, tiny
little technology on it, even in something as small as your
finger. And if you can't do it, I can--not me--I can find
people who can do it, to be able to track it down.
Never mind the regulations. Now, I am all for those
thoughtful regulations, thoughtful licensing. Not a problem. I
am not trying to shut down the technology at all. I think this
technology is opening up a wonderful new frontier, both for
hobbyists and for professionals at all kinds of levels. But it
also presents a danger, and that danger shouldn't be accepted.
And just because it is difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't do
something.
So, I don't really have any questions, because I know you
can do it. I just see a reluctance to do it, especially from
the FAA. And I don't understand it. I don't understand it at
all. Do something before somebody loses their life on this. I
don't want to be here, yelling at you for having done nothing.
That is no fun. And I certainly don't want to be yelling at you
if it is somebody I know, and somebody I love, or somebody you
know and somebody you love, or somebody in your profession.
This is crazy. Just get it done.
Now, again, I understand it won't be the last item. I know
that this is an evolving thing. I know that coming up with
smaller things and bigger uses--and I am not so sure about the
2-mile radius, because there are some parts of a 2-mile radius
that there's no planes at all. But I also know that there are
some places beyond 2 miles that it does. So I am not sure what
the answer is.
You guys know it. You already know it. I am not trying to
involve myself, or trying to prohibit any hobbyist from doing
anything that is reasonable and thoughtful. And I think that 99
percent of the people who are using these things are well
intended, and just might make accidents. But accidents didn't
stop us from putting VIN numbers on automobiles, on 15
different places on automobiles. Accidents happen.
But there are also some people that are bad people. And if
there are bad people out there doing bad things, we haven't
done anything that I know of to be able to allow us to find
them. If somebody intentionally goes out to Logan International
Airport tomorrow and sits in East Boston and flies a drone
intentionally into a plane to kill somebody, we have allowed
the technology to not exist. And it exists easily to be able to
find that perpetrator. So you can have all the criminal
prosecutions in the world. If you can't find them, it is not
going to help. You can find my phone, you can find my
automobile. Heck, for all I know, you can probably find my
underwear. I don't know. But we can't find drone owners,
because we haven't required a simple item to be installed. If
you want to do size, do size.
By the way, at Logan we have a lot of geese. You can't
control geese. But we chase them around. We get dogs to chase
them around. They have a great time. We do something. Maybe
there are better ways to do it, but we do something. Something
is always better than nothing in the face of a known danger.
Like I said, I wasn't going to say anything you didn't
already know, but thank you for listening.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Meadows?
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. K--I will call you Dr. K. Let me go to you.
Dr. Kochenderfer. That is what my students call me.
Mr. Meadows. Let me go to you. In your opening testimony
you talked about midair collisions, and how the magnitude would
be more significant in certain areas, and negligible in others.
Can you elaborate a little bit more on that?
Coming from the rural area of western North Carolina, where
you would assume most of it would be safe, but there's a number
of small airstrips, grass strips, et cetera. So illuminate, if
you would.
Dr. Kochenderfer. Yes. So when I was at Lincoln Laboratory,
we got a stream of radar data from all of the FAA and DOD
radars, and we estimated the density across the United States
at different altitude layers, and so forth. And there are a lot
of areas where we just didn't see anything in 9 months.
Mr. Meadows. So could we put forth certain counties where
we have drone-free zones, or drone-permissible--are there
certain counties across the country where there is relatively
little if no chance of having interaction with an aircraft?
Dr. Kochenderfer. I guess that could be a----
Mr. Meadows. That is a loaded question, so go ahead.
Dr. Kochenderfer. It depends so much upon the altitude,
right?
Mr. Meadows. Yes.
Dr. Kochenderfer. So that has to be part of the figure.
I mean I wouldn't--even over rural North Dakota or
whatever, you shouldn't be at 20,000 feet.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me go further, then. How
would you classify ``near miss''? What is your definition?
Dr. Kochenderfer. So I did a lot of collision risk
estimation for TCAS. TCAS was mentioned earlier. It is a
collision avoidance system for manned aircraft, and the FAA is
working on a version for unmanned aircraft. And as part of that
analysis, we used a definition of 500 feet laterally, and 100
feet vertically. So that is for manned aircraft.
And there is nothing magical about this definition, it is
just what----
Mr. Meadows. So, Captain, would you agree with that
definition of ``near miss''? Is that satisfactory?
Mr. Canoll. Currently there exists a criteria for a near-
miss report.
Mr. Meadows. Yes, I am talking about his definition. Would
that be satisfactory to the airline pilots?
Mr. Canoll. I don't believe so, sir, because it doesn't
provide any--near what we would need to avoid the collision.
Mr. Meadows. Can you get to the chairman of this committee
what you would estimate a near miss would be, and----
Mr. Canoll. I am not sure we are equipped to do that
analysis, sir. But we can----
Mr. Meadows. Well, can you query your pilots and ask them
to opine on it? How about that?
Mr. Canoll. Yes, sir. We can ask----
Mr. Meadows. OK.
Mr. Canoll [continuing]. And gather as much information as
possible.
Mr. Meadows. Let me go real quickly and finish up.
Mr. Whitaker, some have suggested that your rulemaking has
not been expeditious. And I believe, in your earlier testimony
here, when you were talking about doing a rulemaking for
commercial drones, when--I guess you said the commercial
viability and economic viability increases. Did I hear you
correctly on that?
Mr. Whitaker. I think the question was around large UAS.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Whitaker. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. And that you would--so there is a certain
mentality that says if you build it they will come. And your
testimony here today is if they build it we will regulate it?
Mr. Whitaker. No. We are trying to move in step with both
the commercial demand and the technology.
Mr. Meadows. But, Mr. Whitaker, let me suggest that you are
more forward-thinking in terms of regulations. The ambiguity of
FAA doing nothing creates the kind of dynamics that we have
here today, both on the commercial and on the hobby side of
things. And the more finite you can be, the better that
commercial activity will be, in terms of meeting your
expectation. If we wait until--to draw the regulations until we
have problems, as we are trying to do today, it creates much
uncertainty in the market. Wouldn't you agree with that?
Mr. Whitaker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. So how do we best move your rulemaking faster,
as it relates to the near misses that we are talking about
here, and allow us to compete in drones? Because if not, if--we
are going to lose out to the drone technology in Europe. We
have had other testimony sitting at that very table that would
suggest that. So how do we make sure that you are nimble and do
that effectively?
And I am out of time, so I will yield back, and----
Mr. Whitaker. Thank you.
Mr. Woodall [presiding]. The gentleman yields back. The
Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that FAA has
a definition of ``near miss'' that is already in regulation
that is a lot larger than what the professor mentioned. But,
anyway, we can check that out.
I would like to direct my comments to the Administrator.
But if any of the rest of you want to weigh in, I would
appreciate that.
You know, I represent Las Vegas. And I was a strong
proponent of Nevada being named one of the original test
centers for this kind of technology. And you mentioned that
they are there for collaboration and research. But what seems
to have happened is that these test sites have kind of fizzled
out. There is not a lot of attention there, they kind of don't
know what their goal is, what they should be doing. I would
like to get you to comment on that.
What can these test sites be doing, what is the FAA doing
to encourage and support them? Seems like the FAA has now got
all its attention on granting these section 333 exceptions, as
opposed to working with the test sites. What is the point of
them now? If you would, address that.
And I would also ask you that when they grant these
exceptions, do you continue to get information from these
facilities that now can fly? And how do you use that
information to inform this process of regulation development?
Or is that just once they get the exception they are out there,
and we don't know what is going on?
Mr. Whitaker. Yes, ma'am. The test sites, the six test
sites, are designed to provide an infrastructure for testing,
so that the private sector can use them, and other researchers
can use them for flight tests and other testing. We have tried
to streamline the approval process to a large degree, which I
think we have done.
But at the same time, they are also designed to be a
marketplace. So they have to compete for that work. And some
test sites have been more successful than others in that. We
have been meeting with all the test sites over the last 2
months to try to help jump-start and facilitate some of that
work.
To your second point, the tech center has a role in
accumulating the data from the test site operations and
collating that data and using it for supporting our research
efforts.
Ms. Titus. Anybody else care to comment on whether these
test sites are working like they should, or we are getting
enough information from them, or they don't make much
difference?
Mr. Canoll. Well, I think industry, ma'am, as they start to
see the value of the test site--because, while I am not a
technician, I am not a designer, but the company that comes up
with a small, lightweight, universally powered active collision
avoidance system that is priced at a point that can be placed
on almost any aerial system, that company is going to make a
lot of money. And their best place to test these are the
existing test sites. So I think it is a good program, moving
forward.
Ms. Titus. I would like to go back to the Administrator.
Part of my question was about granting all the section 333
exemptions. That seems to be where most of your energy and
effort is concentrated now, instead of supporting technology
and testing and data collection. Is that accurate, or----
Mr. Whitaker. Well, I would say those are different
functions. And the section 333 has certainly gotten a lot of
attention, but it is a different group, if you will, within FAA
that does that. We have research going on with MITRE
Corporation, with--in conjunction with NASA, DOD, at the tech
center, and at the Center of Excellence. So we are focused on
all of those things, and they are all part of the puzzle, going
forward.
Ms. Titus. So do you get information back after you have
granted an exemption to one of these companies, or----
Mr. Whitaker. Not necessarily for commercial exemptions,
although we do have some commercial partnerships, where we are
taking that data and analyzing it.
Ms. Titus. Wouldn't that be helpful for making up these
regulations?
Mr. Whitaker. Well, it is not a restriction. We have issued
1,800 333 exemptions. It is not a restriction that we feel is
appropriate for commercial operators to mandate that type of
work.
Ms. Titus. So you don't think it would be helpful to find
out what these----
Mr. Whitaker. It might be helpful in some that are willing
to do that that we have partnered with.
Ms. Titus. So it is voluntary?
Mr. Whitaker. That is correct.
Ms. Titus. And if you look at the way the agency is set up,
is there more priority, more effort, more energy put in to
granting these exceptions than in the testing and the
technology and the test centers?
Mr. Whitaker. No, I would say they are not linked. And as
the small rule gets finalized, that 333 process will be
dramatically reduced.
Ms. Titus. Well, if the--but they are--shouldn't they be
linked? You are the one who used the term ``collaboration''
about the test sites. Shouldn't----
Mr. Whitaker. Well, they are linked as far as exchange of
information. But the 333 approval process is a different
workforce than the research coordination.
Ms. Titus. Right. But isn't that where the priority is now,
instead of on the testing and getting the information to make
these regulations?
Mr. Whitaker. The priority would be on both of those.
Ms. Titus. How do you measure that?
Mr. Whitaker. Well, we measure the 333s by throughput. And
on the test sites and the research, it is not amenable to
immediate sort of metric measurements. But there is a lot of
research, a lot of effort going into that.
Ms. Titus. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Woodall. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Sanford.
Mr. Sanford. Thank you, Chairman. It strikes me, I guess,
three things hit me: one, the unmanned is the--if it is not the
future of flight, it is certainly the next frontier of flight;
two, that there has been a long-time fascination with flight,
going back to the days of da Vinci, and moving forward to the
Wright Brothers; and three, that we want to encourage
innovation on that front. And, in general, Government
regulation control and other inhibits that innovation that I
think is vital, ultimately, to American competitiveness.
So, we want to have, you know, kids out there, fiddling
with something. You say, ``Well, if you tie these three rocks
onto it, will it fly as well?'' I mean, you know, at the base
level, kids in the basement of a garage working with some of
this stuff may well lead to innovations and new developments
with regard to unmanned flight that, I think, could have
commercial applications, and certainly competitive
applications.
And so, you know, what has hit me in sort of listening to
testimony today is, you know, how do we get to a place that is
minimally invasive, with regard to unmanned, and how do we get
to a place that keeps Government out of involvement as much as
possible, so that we maximize individual freedom without in any
way interrupting commercial flight or noncommercial flight.
And so, I was intrigued by what my colleague from
California had gotten at, and my colleague from North Carolina.
How do we come up with something that is really simple, whether
that is the kind of legislation you talked about, so that you
don't end up with a bunch of, you know, things being tacked on
to this equipment that raises the price, that keeps, frankly,
many consumers out of the marketplace? How do you keep up with
some massive database? And then we got to hire more bureaucrats
to cover the database, watch the 90 percent of folks who
wouldn't be a problem. How do we do something quite simple,
whether that is the Garamendi language, or something else?
And I guess I would begin with you. Any ideas from your
end, Doctor, on something that you may have seen in a different
country as a best practice, or something that you may have
heard about in talking with other colleagues that would,
indeed, be minimally invasive?
Dr. Kochenderfer. Yes. So I think an altitude limit is
minimally invasive. Very easy to implement. That is something
that we can do now.
Mr. Sanford. But if I understand it right, it wouldn't
solve the problem of, you know, you go to 400 feet, but if you
are 400 feet off final, then you got a problem.
Dr. Kochenderfer. Yes. So, I mean, trying to solve the
whole problem is very complicated, and will take time. Four
hundred feet is something that----
Mr. Sanford. OK, that would be your vote.
Dr. Kochenderfer. Yes.
Mr. Sanford. Let's just--we will keep it moving. Mr.
Hanson, your thought? Quick thought. Most simple remedy would
be what?
Mr. Hanson. I believe that the community-based approach has
proven, for decades, to be an effective way of handling at
least the model aircraft/hobby environment, and I would look to
that to continue keeping this operation----
Mr. Sanford. Community-based model. Captain Canoll?
Mr. Canoll. So outside of the community base, those who are
operating outside of that, the altitude restriction would help.
But also, if there was a way to restrict the enabling of the
vehicle when you purchase it until a code is put in--you need
to get that code, you have to go online and pass a test, and
now you know, ``Oh, that is right, I can't go to the airport,
because I couldn't get my code without passing the test.''
Mr. Sanford. Code. Mr. Hubbard?
Mr. Hubbard. Until technology catches up, public awareness.
Mr. Sanford. Mr. Whitaker?
Mr. Whitaker. I would say the most efficient way to get
there is an industry-based standard, so we don't have to go
down the regulatory path. And that involves stakeholder
engagement, which we are also focused on.
Mr. Sanford. I very much like that idea of industry
standard versus Government edict.
One quick question, because I see I am down to 52 seconds.
And I guess this would be directed to you, Mr. Hanson. Going
back to that idea of industry standard, how would you describe
the way in which AMA develops and educates its members and the
general public about certain modeling guidelines and safety at
large?
You know, you talk about community standard, you talk about
sort of industry standard. How do you all do that, presently?
Mr. Hanson. Well, currently, within our membership we--a
lot, if not the majority, of our education is done at the local
club level, with the club--the local people come together and
gather in a club and share information.
In terms of the broader membership, we do that through our
mainstay magazine, through our online presence. And then, in
terms of the uneducated consumer, we are doing that through the
Know Before You Fly campaign.
Mr. Sanford. I see I have 1 second left, Mr. Chairman.
Well, down to zero.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you for yielding back that second, Mr.
Sanford. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington,
Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Deputy Chief Hubbard, in your testimony you said the Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior are developing a
summary of the 2015 field season, and you will make
recommendations. When could we expect to see that summary?
Mr. Hubbard. The summary of the incursions?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Hubbard. Yes, we have that available now.
Mr. Larsen. Oh, OK, all right. It is available now. Are you
making recommendations from that summary?
Mr. Hubbard. No, that is just capturing what we have
encountered. And we turn to FAA and others for recommendations.
Mr. Larsen. So one of the instances in California you
reported that five aircraft were delayed for 20 minutes. Is
that right?
Mr. Hubbard. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. What impact can a 20-minute delay have on
your ability to contain or suppress a fire? What happens in 20
minutes?
Mr. Hubbard. In back-country fires, not a lot. It gets
bigger. In interface fires, where you have life and property at
risk, it, of course, depends on the situation. But it could be
dramatic.
Mr. Larsen. Define dramatic.
Mr. Hubbard. Loss of property, for sure. And sometimes
putting lives at risk.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, yes. So, after we get a chance to review
the summary, I may do some followup with you on--just to
understand better what steps we might take.
So then, FAA and you all have worked on it. Do you have an
MOU [memorandum of understanding]? Is that right, or an MOA
[memorandum of agreement]?
Mr. Hubbard. MOA, yes.
Mr. Larsen. An MOA. And what is in that MOA?
Mr. Hubbard. How we would want to proceed together to try
to resolve these kinds of issues, because we know we are an
outlier, in terms of our statistics and our operating
altitudes. And it is going to be a little more complicated. So
we need some help.
Mr. Larsen. How many millions of acres did you say were on
fire in the West this year?
Mr. Hubbard. We burned 9 million acres.
Mr. Larsen. Nine million? What was the other number that
you had? I mean how many individual fires were there?
Mr. Hubbard. 47,000 fires.
Mr. Larsen. Is that an outlier?
Mr. Hubbard. No.
Mr. Larsen. So I don't think you are an outlier. I don't
think so.
Mr. Whitaker, how do you confirm that there have been
situations where drones have come inappropriately close to
aircraft? There's been some questions about confirming these,
whether they are or they aren't. How does the FAA come around
and confirm these?
Mr. Whitaker. Well, I think, as others have discussed, they
are difficult to confirm. We don't have numbers on these things
that we can see, we don't have an ability to locate them the
way we would with a laser, for example. And that is just the
nature of the data. So it is very raw data.
I think what we can say is that the trend in the data is
pretty obvious. So the number reports on a monthly basis now is
over 100, and that is a fivefold increase from a year ago. So
you can argue around the margins, but I don't think there is
any question that there is a significant trend.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, yes. And Captain Canoll, how do you
confirm? How does ALPA confirm these numbers?
Mr. Canoll. Well, it is--the information we get is on an
anecdotal basis, and then we point our members to the Web site,
which helps them refresh their memory on the criteria for a
near midair collision report.
Mr. Larsen. Oh.
Mr. Canoll. And then, if, in their mind--which is the
determinative factor in this instance--they believe they had
one, we point them to the various links at the FAA, so they can
fill the form out and submit the report. That is beyond the
report that happens real time, where the pilot says, ``Hey,
there's one of those X-wing drones,'' presses the button on his
transponder, and calls the tower or the approach control, and
says, ``I just observed this,'' and then the controller can
say, ``OK, that is a data point for us.''
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Canoll. And can warn the aircraft behind them. That is
very important.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, right.
And, Dr. K, you are the technology guy. How would you
suggest we clean that up? How to confirm these----
Dr. Kochenderfer. Yes, it is really tough if you just rely
upon pilot reports. And I don't want to diminish the severity
of this, but there have been, well, at least one case where the
pilot thought they hit a drone, and it turned out later to be a
bird. So it is very tricky.
So what you would have to rely upon is some kind of
surveillance system, perhaps something near an airport that
could actually capture these things.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, yes. And can you talk a little bit, as
well, about--and this will be my final question, I just want to
understand, without getting into the deep, gory details, but
the difference between an engine taking in a bird, and an
engine taking in either a composite material drone, or a drone
that is metal-based.
Dr. Kochenderfer. Yes. So, I should clarify that engine
ingestion is not my area of expertise, but I have talked with
some people, and we don't really know. And I was very happy to
hear that the FAA is pursuing that. But, I mean, it is not
rocket science. It has probably something to do with the size
of the drone, the components it is made out of, and so forth.
Mr. Larsen. Sure. So we will think about that. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Woodall. The gentleman yields back. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. It is always tough to follow my colleague
talking about engine digestion or ingestion or indigestion. So
great question, Mr. Larsen.
Hey, thank you for being here. I apologize. Multiple
hearings today, so if I am redundant with any of my questions,
please forgive me. But I have a concern. I represent central
Illinois, home to some of the manufacturers of our newer types
of hobby aircraft in UAV technology, and also home to many
possible users of this technology for commercial use.
And I know a lot of discussion was on the exemption program
that is currently being implemented and run through the FAA.
And part of my concerns have to do with some previous hearings
like this, where we talked about the exemption process moving
very slowly to offer commercial exemptions to those who have
applied. And now, since they have sped up, what we have seen is
some of the older requests being limited versus some of the
newer requests in what can be done with the technology for
which they have applied for the exemption.
And Mr. Whitaker, I appreciate that your process has
evolved at the FAA, but I think there is--there might be a
concern where older applicants and older exemptions that were
issued may need to have some of the newer flexibility that some
of the newer exemptions that are being issued currently enjoy.
So, can you tell me? Is there a process in place at the FAA
right now to look at some of the older applications to see if
they need that same type of flexibility? And, if so, are you
going to do that unilaterally, or is that something that the
previous applicants have to do?
Mr. Whitaker. So this is not a concern that I have heard
expressed before, but it sounds like a concern that the newer
exemptions have more flexibility. That would normally be
triggered by the current holders coming back for some
adjustment to their 333 application. But I----
Mr. Davis. So they would have to come back personally to
change the operational conditions that they----
Mr. Whitaker. As opposed to us changing the conditions for
them. But I will look into that and respond to your office----
Mr. Davis. Well, please do. It is a concern of those in my
district----
Mr. Whitaker. Yes.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. Who have been possibly granted
exemptions that may now be outdated.
Mr. Whitaker. Yes.
Mr. Davis. And I do believe--and I hope that you take this
back--that we need to have some flexibility in that process,
because the technology has changed, even over the time that
this program, this exemption program, was implemented.
Mr. Whitaker. Absolutely.
Mr. Davis. And the technology that is being produced in my
district is going to continue to evolve unless we, the Federal
Government, stop its ability to evolve and to continue to grow
into what I think should be commercial usage, and a much more
flexible commercial usage for UAV technology, and to do it in a
safe way. But I don't think--I think that can happen.
And while I have time left, I will not butcher your name
like--my colleague, Mr. Larsen, didn't either, since I wasn't
here to get the correct pronunciation. I will call you Dr. K
again, too.
Dr. Kochenderfer. That is just fine.
Mr. Davis. Can you give me an idea of how maybe transponder
technology could be helpful in avoiding some of the collisions,
some of the issues that I think the FAA is facing right now,
and we are, too, as policymakers?
Dr. Kochenderfer. Yes. So if unmanned aircraft are going to
be flying at the level of transport aircraft, or even up with
general aviation aircraft, in order to be seen by TCAS and so
forth, they need to have some kind of transponder.
Mr. Davis. Doesn't that transponder technology work at
lower level flights, like life flights?
Dr. Kochenderfer. It could work, as well. I am not sure how
many life flight helicopters have TCAS installed. But it is a
possibility.
The problem, though, is that the cost of these
transponders, including ADS-B Out, is pretty expensive. And
they consume power and they are heavy. So for a lot of these
larger aircraft, it makes sense, and should be absolutely
required. But for smaller drones, maybe a couple pounds----
Mr. Davis. So the technology for lightweight transponder
technology does not currently exist for the newer versions of
UAV. Right?
Dr. Kochenderfer. There is a lot of interest in actually
developing this, and this is an activity of Google, in fact.
Mr. Davis. An entrepreneur's dream, or an entrepreneurial
dream.
Dr. Kochenderfer. Yes.
Mr. Davis. And how do you pronounce your last name, since I
don't have any more time?
Dr. Kochenderfer. It is Kochenderfer.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Woodall. The gentleman yields back. I recognize myself
for just a few moments.
Mr. Whitaker, you talked about the difference between going
after folks with serious penalties when they did not learn
their lesson, versus trying to train folks up. I am thinking
about the number of incursions on restricted airspace by
licensed pilots, by trained pilots, by pilots flying planes
with transponders. I see those incursions in restricted
airspace listed in the thousands. Do you happen to know how
many of those folks have faced serious penalties, versus just
trying to be trained up?
Mr. Whitaker. So you are talking about incursion between
manned aircraft?
Mr. Woodall. That is right.
Mr. Whitaker. Yes, I don't have statistics on that. Our
compliance philosophy would largely be the same, that we would
be focused on remediating the problem and making sure there is
compliance as a first step, before moving to enforcement.
Mr. Woodall. I am told the maximum financial penalty for
one of those restricted airspace incursions is $1,100. I think
Mr. Mica from Florida has legislation to increase that to
$100,000. But I just want to contrast that for a moment with
what we are talking about with unmanned vehicles today.
Captain, you are one of my bosses, so I take you at your
word when you tell me how we can solve problems. But I have
heard a lot about adding technology to these $55 drones to keep
them out of restricted airspace, yet no one is making that same
suggestion for $50,000, $100,000, $150,000 manned aircraft.
Is the importance of keeping folks out of restricted
airspace such that, before we start talking about adding
technology to $55 drones we should be adding it to $55,000
aircraft?
Mr. Canoll. So I think it is a multilayered problem. And it
is not only the financial penalties for manned aircraft.
Straying into restricted airspace will ultimately result in you
losing your license to operate the aircraft.
And tracking who is the operator of the unmanned aerial
system is difficult. So that is where part of the conflict is.
I think we have to look at it--both.
And, you know, I don't know the numbers, either. But I do
know we have programs in the manned aircraft community, such as
ASAP [Aviation Safety Action Program], where if you make a
mistake in an aircraft--we are human, and we do make mistakes--
you have a way of reporting it. And that report is gathered
into a very large database. And we can do analysis on it. That,
to my knowledge, doesn't exist for the commercial operation of
unmanned systems. Yet I think it would be a good idea for us to
look at it.
Mr. Woodall. Having that reporting database might be the
more powerful, as a dictator of behavior, than having some of
these technological restrictions across the board.
Mr. Canoll. I think they are both important. But to have
the database of someone who could voluntarily report, ``Hey, I
lost command of my vehicle for this amount of time, and I think
it was because of this,'' then we can look towards mitigations
for the problems that they experienced in the future.
Mr. Woodall. Doctor, you suggested that--in response to one
of my colleague's questions--that one of the easy answers would
be an altitude restriction. My guess is we are either going to
have to change the strength of the transmitter, or put an
altimeter in every unmanned aircraft to make that effective.
Is that what you had in mind, a technology solution to
create an altitude restriction, not just a rule that then would
be left up to individuals about whether they abided by it or
not?
Dr. Kochenderfer. Yes, I think that something should be
enabled by default. Because, like I said, when you pull it out
from underneath the Christmas tree, a lot of people just try to
see how high they can go. And we really want to prevent things
like that.
But it should be allowed to be overriden, because a lot of
these consumer drones are used by legitimate operators, like
law enforcement and so forth.
Mr. Woodall. Well, that was, in fact, the very first line
of the captain's written testimony, is this is obviously an
industry that has great benefit potential for America, for
quality of life, for safety of pilots, and how can we come
together on that.
I will close with this, then. I would ask each one of you.
In the context of terrorism, I can tell you there are an
unlimited number of folks who want to do us harm. I am sorry,
an unlimited number of ways to do us harm, but a limited number
of folks who want to do it. In this area that we are talking
about today, unlimited number of ways that accidents can happen
by untrained personnel, a limited number of folks who really
are out there, day in and day out, to violate the rules, as the
FAA has indicated just this week.
Is that the challenge, Doctor, not to find a one-size-fits-
all aircraft solution, but to go after those folks who would
intentionally violate the--whether it be industry standards or
Federal regulatory standards?
Dr. Kochenderfer. In my written statement I categorize the
different kinds of users. So I worry a lot about the naive
users and the reckless users. I think bad actors are a separate
category, and I would have to say that there is relatively
little we can do about that right now.
Mr. Woodall. Mr. Hanson, should we be focused on the naive
users or the bad actors?
Mr. Hanson. Well, I think intentional acts need to be dealt
with, and I think there are existing laws and sanctions that
could be put in place to do that.
The naive, or the uneducated community is one that we
really need to focus on, because we firmly believe--and our
experience shows us--that the users, if good-natured and
conscientious individuals, they just need the proper
information.
Mr. Woodall. I thank you. If there are no further
questions, then I thank all of the witnesses for their
testimony and their indulgence today, and the committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]