[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: ENABLING INNOVATION
IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE
=======================================================================
(115-8)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 4, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-242 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JERROLD NADLER, New York
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DUNCAN HUNTER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BOB GIBBS, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JEFF DENHAM, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JOHN GARAMENDI, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Georgia
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
ROB WOODALL, Georgia DINA TITUS, Nevada
TODD ROKITA, Indiana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JOHN KATKO, New York ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Vice Ranking Member
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
DOUG LaMALFA, California DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JOHN J. FASO, New York
A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota
(ii)
Subcommittee on Aviation
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SAM GRAVES, Missouri DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DUNCAN HUNTER, California ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida Columbia
JEFF DENHAM, California DINA TITUS, Nevada
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JULIA BROWNLEY, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ROB WOODALL, Georgia GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TODD ROKITA, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
DOUG LaMALFA, California Georgia
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan, Vice Chair PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota Officio)
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
WITNESSES
Shelley J. Yak, Director, William J. Hughes Technical Center,
Federal Aviation Administration, accompanied by Marke ``Hoot''
Gibson, Senior Advisor, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration,
Federal Aviation Administration:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Responses to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo of New Jersey, submitted on behalf
of Hon. Paul Mitchell of Michigan...................... 57
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon.......................... 63
Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington........................... 66
Gregory S. McNeal, J.D., Ph.D., Cofounder, AirMap:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Rick Larsen
of Washington.............................................. 82
Sean Cassidy, Director, Safety and Regulatory Affairs, Amazon
Prime Air:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Rick Larsen
of Washington.............................................. 92
Calvin Clifford ``Trey'' Fayard III, Founder and Chief Executive
Officer, FLYGLO LLC:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 93
Brian Whiteside, President, VDOS Global:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 98
Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Rick Larsen
of Washington.............................................. 102
Michael P. Moses, President, Virgin Galactic:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 103
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Statement of Air Line Pilots Association, International,
submitted by Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington.................... 108
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: ENABLING INNOVATION
IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning, everyone. The subcommittee will
come to order. I would like to thank you all for being here.
Today the Aviation Subcommittee is holding the fourth
hearing in preparation for the FAA reauthorization. This
hearing will examine our continuously changing aviation system,
which evolves with the introduction and growth of new
technologies, innovative business models, and nontraditional
users.
Before we begin, I want to encourage all stakeholders and
members of the public to send your ideas, thoughts, and/or
questions on innovation in the aviation industry and FAA
reauthorization to our dedicated email.
It is [email protected].
Transportfeedback@mail.
house.gov. We have had a number of people who have emailed in,
and it is helpful for us to know what is on your mind.
Since the turn of the millennium our aviation system has
rapidly changed with the invention of new aviation technologies
and new business ideas. For example, when Congress deregulated
the airline industry in the late 1970s, the now familiar
overnight delivery industry barely existed. The aviation
industry of today is vastly different from what we saw even in
the year 2000. Ten years from now, it will certainly look even
a lot more different.
The development of unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, has
been underway for more than a century, but only recently have
UAS become widely and inexpensively available, thanks to rapid
advances in technology. The sheer volume of UAS now operating
in the national airspace--more than 750,000 units are
registered, and they are just the ones that are registered--is
redefining how aircraft operate in low-altitude airspace.
Commercial space transportation has existed since 1989, but
only in the last few years has it begun to evolve from a niche
industry to a self-sustaining economic engine. Changes in the
airline industry have altered the ways in which the traveling
public gets from point A to point B. While many of these
changes have been for the better, some communities have seen
service decline or disappear altogether.
In the wake of these changes, new companies are beginning
to emerge to fill the void and restore connectivity between
regional communities. As many members of this subcommittee
represent small communities and rural areas, I am sure new
business models that can better connect their districts to the
air transportation system will be of particular interest. Such
new business models, which fill the gap, have the potential to
greatly affect the aviation system of the future.
Maintaining American leadership in aerospace is a top
priority for this subcommittee. Let me repeat that. Keeping
American leadership is a top priority. As we all know, we
cannot rest on our laurels. The benefits of technological
advancement and the cost of complacency are too great.
Cooperation between industry and Government is critical to
maintaining the rapid pace of innovation necessary in aviation,
and it is vital to building a 21st-century infrastructure to
support users, new technologies, and new innovations in how to
deliver air services and connectivity.
The witnesses on our panel today represent the hundreds of
thousands of talented Americans who push the boundaries of
aviation technology and innovation and make the system far
better for everyone.
I am extremely proud to represent thousands of individuals
who work at the FAA's Technical Center, the flagship for the
FAA, which plays a critical and important role in the
partnership between Government and industry. They are the
cutting edge on research and development, safety, and security
for the entire Nation. The Technical Center is a one-stop shop
for the best and brightest to research, develop, demonstrate,
and validate new aviation technologies and data sources.
Just down the road, groundbreaking will soon take place on
a new technology park on the grounds of the FAA that will allow
private companies to leverage Technical Center resources and
expertise, something we think will be a great advantage to all.
This exciting project will greatly benefit the mission of the
Technical Center and the Nation as a whole.
We all know that innovation and change involve challenges.
As the subcommittee is charged with ensuring the safety of
aviation, we must take care that the innovation in airspace is
achieved while ensuring the continued safety of that airspace.
I look forward to hearing from our panel today about how
Congress can enable continued innovation, ensure aviation
safety, and build a 21st-century aviation infrastructure
supporting both important goals.
Before recognizing Ranking Member Larsen for his remarks, I
would like to ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have
provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them
in writing and unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for additional comments and information submitted
by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would now like to yield to Mr. Larsen for any remarks he
may make.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing on enabling innovation in the national airspace.
This morning we are here to discuss the integration of new
users, aerospace technologies, and business operations into the
U.S. airspace. From modifying how business is conducted to
creating new and previously unthinkable technologies that are
changing how the airspace is used, innovation in aviation is
pressing forward at a pretty rapid rate.
Chairman LoBiondo and I have ensured that the topics we
will explore today, such as unmanned aircraft and commercial
space transportation, have been the focus of this
subcommittee's oversight work in recent years. I look forward
to hearing our witnesses' perspectives on how this panel can
address these and other innovation-related topics in a long-
term and comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill this year.
There is no denying the extensive public and commercial
benefits of unmanned aircraft. This industry is particularly
important to my home State of Washington, which is a thriving
hub of aviation R&D. And as drones proliferate, so too do their
applications. Drones are used to respond to natural disasters,
for search and rescue, and for wildfire mitigation. They also
complete safety-related work that manned aircraft cannot, such
as the BNSF Railway drone that I had a chance to witness last
year in Everett, Washington, which the company uses to inspect
seawall integrity and railways.
The drone industry has a massive potential to drive
economic growth and create jobs here in the U.S. Industry
groups estimate that by 2025, the industry may generate more
than 100,000 jobs and billions of dollars in direct and
indirect economic activity.
A few weeks ago, the FAA released its latest aerospace
forecast, projecting that the hobbyist drone fleet will triple
in size from 1.1 million to 3.5 million units in the next 5
years. Meanwhile, the commercial drone fleet is likely to
multiply tenfold.
Now, while the number of drones in the U.S. airspace grows
it is critical that both commercial and recreational users
operate these aircraft safely. Each month the FAA receives more
than 100 reports of drone sightings, and the risks of
collisions with manned aircraft, incursions with critical
infrastructure, and mishaps over populated areas remain serious
concerns. So I am pleased that last year's short-term FAA
extension included a number of provisions on drone safety.
Still, more must be done to match the pace of industry
growth, and this panel has an enormous opportunity to move that
ball down the field with the upcoming FAA reauthorization.
I also look forward to hearing more about the progress in
the area of commercial space transportation. This subcommittee
held a long overdue hearing last summer on FAA's oversight of
the burgeoning U.S. industry, which in 2015 was about $126
billion, according to the FAA. The commercial launch of
satellites is particularly important because of the range of
capabilities offered from television and radio broadcasts to
high-speed internet and weather forecasts. Additionally, space
tourism is on the horizon and is expected to become a billion-
dollar market in the coming years.
For American national security, among other reasons, it is
critical that U.S. leadership in space transportation and
exploration remain second to none. Now, if the pace of
commercial space transportation and tourism increases as
forecasted, the FAA will need adequate resources to oversee
safe integration of these new technologies into the national
airspace.
So in closing, I hope to hear today about what Congress and
the FAA can do to foster innovation in the use of the national
airspace and to support the good ideas, while ensuring the U.S.
airspace remains the safest and most efficient in the world.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
I would now like to turn to Chairman Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for holding this
hearing today.
The United States is the birthplace of aviation. We paved
the way in modern aviation. We have innovated. The whole world
follows our lead. And we need to ensure that we continue to
hold that leadership in the world.
New technologies have led to new airspace operations, such
as unmanned aircraft and commercial space transportation
operations, and these changes in the aviation industry pose
both opportunity and challenges for aviation infrastructure. We
must enable innovation and its integration while also
maintaining a credible aviation safety record.
Companies like Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, and Blue Origin are
ramping up operations to make commercial space a regular part
of our National Transportation System. SpaceX, in particular,
is targeting 70 launches through 2019, a cadence of one launch
every 2 or 3 weeks, and I have been told that somewhere into
the 2020s, they are looking at going to a launch every day. We
are quickly approaching what was once science fiction, which
was once a science experiment--Mr. Larsen--which was once a
science experiment.
Mr. Larsen. I will write the rest of your speech.
Mr. Shuster. Commercial space launches nearly every day, as
I said.
Currently, these launches and reentries take up massive
amounts of airspace. With new technology, we can narrow those
amounts that take up international airspace, and we must do
that. Our aviation system and infrastructure cannot support
these 21st-century innovations in commercial space and unmanned
aircraft that we see likely coming.
Amazon, for example, I have been told, and nobody will go
on the record, I read somewhere the estimates were that Amazon
was going to spend somewhere near $1 billion to help develop
drones and test packages being delivered. Instead of them doing
those tests here, they have gone to the U.K. because of our
inefficient and burdensome regulatory process.
And again, they won't give me an exact number, but I have
got to believe it is in the millions of dollars that they are
spending in the U.K., not in the U.S., because of the system we
have here, the burdensome regulatory process which makes it
very difficult, these research dollars and jobs that could have
been here in the United States. We have to make sure we don't
miss this opportunity going forward.
So I look forward to today's hearing and hearing from our
witnesses. We are now talking in Congress about building a
21st-century infrastructure system, and one of the key parts of
that is in aviation infrastructure that can support the
innovation that is coming to us faster than we ever thought
possible.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Shuster.
Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. This is an important
hearing, and I think it will help instruct the committee as we
move forward with the FAA reauthorization this year and provide
further direction to the FAA on some of these matters.
I am particularly pleased to have Mr. Brian Whiteside,
president of VDOS Global, headquartered in Corvallis, Oregon,
in my congressional district. He has a company that operates
drones in support of a number of areas, including wildlife,
monitoring emergency response. He also has put together a
company that has a program called Drone Complier, which helps
other commercial drone operators manage their fleets and comply
with the Code of Federal Regulations.
Mr. Whiteside, I look forward to your testimony. Thanks for
traveling all the way out here. I am doing the trip almost
weekly. I know it is not fun, so not easy to get to the Fourth
Congressional District.
We need to maintain America's lead in aviation and
aerospace, and that is going to require a much more nimble and
proactive FAA. It is going to require some specific direction
from Congress. And I am looking forward to hearing interesting
ideas here today on how we will do better and help keep our
lead by not ceding the development of these new industries to
our overseas competitors.
I am also concerned that the--you know, I asked the FAA
quite some time ago now, I said, ``What happens if you ingest a
quadcopter into a jet engine.'' And they said, ``Gee, that is a
good question. We don't know.'' So they went through a process.
They hired a consultant. We were going to have the report in
November. Now I hear maybe we will have it in April or June. It
is pretty critical we know what is going to happen.
I am very concerned about the abuse by some people. These
are generally very casual recreational users who are operating
outside the law. They have interfered with firefighting
operations. We have had to ground planes because it is
dangerous to be operating helicopters and small planes fighting
fires when some idiot is taking videos with their drone. And we
have had a number of reports from pilots.
There was a provision that I got in the short-term
authorization requiring the FAA to go forward with a pilot
project, I hope to hear about that, to intercept or otherwise
disable drones that are operating in controlled airspace. I
know the technology exists. I have met with a company who has
done it in a classified form for the military. We need to move
forward with that.
So, Mr. Chairman, thanks again for the hearing. I look
forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you Mr. DeFazio.
I know we have a unanimous consent request from Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent
that the written statement prepared by the Air Line Pilots
Association, International, be entered into the record.
Mr. LoBiondo. Without objection, so ordered.
[The statement is on pages 108-111.]
Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. I am very pleased today to welcome our
witnesses. We have Ms. Shelley Yak, who is the Director of the
FAA's Technical Center, which is in the Second Congressional
District of New Jersey, my district. Ms. Yak is accompanied by
Marke ``Hoot'' Gibson, senior advisor on unmanned aircraft
systems integration, who has extensive experience with both
military and domestic.
We are pleased to have you both here today.
Mr. Gregory McNeal, executive vice president and cofounder
of AirMap. Mr. Sean Cassidy, director of safety and regulatory
affairs for Amazon Prime Air. Mr. Calvin Clifford Fayard III,
chief executive officer of FLYGLO. Mr. Brian Whiteside,
president of VDOS Global. And Mr. Michael Moses, president of
Virgin Galactic.
I would like to remind all witnesses to do their best to
limit their opening remarks to 5 minutes.
Ms. Yak, you are recognized for your opening statement.
TESTIMONY OF SHELLEY J. YAK, DIRECTOR, WILLIAM J. HUGHES
TECHNICAL CENTER, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED
BY MARKE ``HOOT'' GIBSON, SENIOR ADVISOR, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SYSTEMS INTEGRATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; GREGORY
S. MCNEAL, J.D., PH.D., COFOUNDER, AIRMAP; SEAN CASSIDY,
DIRECTOR, SAFETY AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, AMAZON PRIME AIR;
CALVIN CLIFFORD ``TREY'' FAYARD III, FOUNDER AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FLYGLO LLC; BRIAN WHITESIDE, PRESIDENT, VDOS
GLOBAL; AND MICHAEL P. MOSES, PRESIDENT, VIRGIN GALACTIC
Ms. Yak. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman LoBiondo,
Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
the work of the FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Center and
the work of our 3,000 employees and contractors who facilitate
new entrants, new users, and new technologies into the National
Airspace System.
The Technical Center is located in Atlantic City, New
Jersey, and is the home of FAA's premier air transportation
system Federal laboratory. My name is Shelley Yak. I am the
Director of the Technical Center, and I also serve as FAA's
Director of Research. Accompanying me today is Marke ``Hoot''
Gibson, FAA's senior advisor for UAS integration.
Aviation is a vital resource for the United States. Civil
aviation accounts for $1.6 trillion in total economic activity
and supports 10.6 million jobs. To maximize the opportunities
that the aviation industry provides while running the safest
and most efficient airspace in the world, the FAA must not only
maintain but continually improve the National Airspace System,
or the NAS.
In delivery of NextGen's operational capabilities and the
sustainment of the NAS, the Technical Center's highly technical
workforce conducts research, system development, and test
solutions, and performs integration of FAA's spectrum of
aviation systems. In other words, we keep the national airspace
running while also building our future.
The Technical Center is committed to ensuring that the
United States continues to lead the world in embracing,
implementing, and integrating new technology into the NAS
safely and efficiently. We do this by engaging a workforce made
up of world-class scientists, researchers, engineers, and
computer scientists, and through collaboration and partnership
with industry, academia, and other Government agencies.
The work conducted at the Technical Center contributes to
making aviation safer both at home and abroad. In addition to
making aviation safer, we also make aviation more efficient.
Key programs, such as traffic flow management, Automatic
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, and Data Communications, have
all been developed, tested, or have begun their nationwide
deployment at the Technical Center.
Collectively, these programs are already producing
operational efficiencies in the NAS. For example, DataComm has
changed the way that air traffic controllers and pilots
communicate. It supplements voice communications between air
traffic controllers and pilots with digital text-based
messages. DataComm is now operational in 55 air traffic control
towers nationwide and is installed in 31 different types of
aircraft.
Greater efficiency also reduces the environmental impact of
aviation. Aviation gas, or avgas, is the only remaining lead-
containing transportation fuel. To help get the lead out, the
FAA is supporting the research of alternate fuels at the
Technical Center. Testing of these fuels will culminate at the
end of 2018 after flight testing is performed utilizing these
fuels under a full range of atmospheric conditions.
Aviation is constantly evolving, and today it is an
especially exciting time with so many new applications being
imagined and realized. This shows us that there will always be
a need for applied research to respond to these changing needs.
That is why we are conducting robust research around new
entrants in the airspace, such as unmanned aircraft systems, or
UAS, and more frequent commercial space operations.
The FAA is working closely with its partners in Government
and industry to evaluate UAS detection technologies. As
directed in the 2016 FAA extension, the FAA has established a
pilot program to evaluate some of these technologies, which has
been tested in airport environments such as New York, Atlantic
City, Denver, and we plan future testing in the Dallas Fort
Worth Airport later this year.
As we add new technologies into the NAS, we know that we
must also be vigilant about cybersecurity. The FAA's
Cybersecurity Test Facility at the Technical Center serves as a
research and development lab for finding new ways to protect
the NAS and the Nation's critical infrastructure from cyber
risks and threats, and we are working with our national
security partners, researching the protection of aircraft from
these threats.
As I mentioned earlier, it is through our collaboration
with industry, academia, and other Government agencies that
future aviation concepts are explored, and that is why I will
conclude my remarks with an invitation to you to come visit us
at the Technical Center. On May 15th and 16th we will be
hosting a symposium in partnership with the Air Traffic Control
Association and NASA. Our laboratory capabilities will be on
display demonstrating the work that we do for NextGen, UAS, and
commercial space.
This is a great opportunity for you to see our technology,
the work that we do, and to meet our employees, and see
firsthand their commitment to ensuring the United States
continues to lead the world in the development and
implementation of aviation technology while operating the
safest and most efficient aviation system in the world.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer your questions at this
time.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Shelley.
And let me just emphasize the invitation. The FAA Tech
Center is unique in all the world. It is a national asset and a
jewel of our aviation industry because of the laboratories and
facilities that are there, but most importantly, because of the
men and women who have unmatched dedication and skills that
they put to keeping our aviation system the best in the world.
So I would encourage all of you to see it firsthand.
Mr. McNeal, you are recognized.
Mr. McNeal. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen,
members of the committee, it is a pleasure to speak with you
about the future of innovation in our National Airspace System.
I am the cofounder of an aviation startup called AirMap that
has grown from 2 employees in 2015 to 55 employees today.
AirMap has offices in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. We are
focused on developing technology solutions to today's most
pressing issues facing the integration of drones in the
national airspace.
We provide airspace information and geofencing solutions to
manufacturers, safety solutions for over 125 airports, and UTM
[unmanned traffic management] solutions for ANSPs [air
navigation service providers], and we are just getting started.
I am very optimistic about the tremendous opportunity this
committee has to foster innovation. It can do so by making
clear what it expects from the FAA, when it expects it, and
then providing the resources and support to allow the FAA to
figure out how to achieve those goals.
Each time Congress has done this, success has followed.
Consider the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which
many of you participated in drafting. There, congressional
action, with clear direction and mandatory deadlines, ensured
that our infrastructure and agencies kept pace with innovation.
It required an exemption process and ultimately set the stage
for part 107.
More recently, in the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security
Act of 2016, Congress directed industry and the FAA to work
together to create remote identification standards and a UTM
pilot program, and we have seen work already begun on those
initiatives.
The trend line is clear. When Congress acts and directs
outcomes with dates certain for their delivery, innovation
takes flight. I am confident this policy approach works because
I have witnessed firsthand how change agents within the FAA are
making innovation happen. Specifically, the UAS Integration
Office, under the leadership of Earl Lawrence, has a defined
and understandable roadmap and has shown a willingness to
collaborate with industry.
The Air Traffic Organization PMO [Project Management
Organization] is rolling up their sleeves in working to move
the LAANC [Low Altitude Authorization and Notification
Capability] program forward. NASA and the FAA's Research
Transition Team are enormously collaborative and are providing
a construct for the future, and General ``Hoot'' Gibson has
been a true leader and facilitator of constructive dialogue.
So what can Congress do to ensure innovation continues to
support these change agents at the FAA?
First, Congress must make clear that issues of innovation
and safety are intertwined. We will oftentimes hear officials
speak about how other nations can move faster because their
airspace is not as complex as America's, but other nations are
moving faster in the area of automation, and automation is the
answer to complexity. Without automation, the existing system
cannot handle the present volume of users, let alone the
projections for the future.
Second, sustained attention from Congress is necessary
because Government, both on the Hill and in agencies, is not
good at predicting the future. Recognizing this reality will
lead this body to regularly adjust and sometimes accelerate
agency timelines.
Third, we must recognize that rapid change will be a
regular feature of the next 100 years of transportation policy.
That reality will require rapid adjustments from Congress and
sustained direction in oversight of agencies. What was correct
2 years ago may no longer be correct today.
In light of this reality, what are some concrete steps for
Congress to take?
First, Congress must expand on section 2208 of the FAA
extension to ensure that the FAA operationalize a multivendor
UTM system by 2020.
Second, Congress should take a federalism approach to low-
risk operations in the very low-altitude airspace. This will
encourage competition and innovation amongst the States.
Third, Congress should continue to direct the agency to
work with industry standards bodies rather than through
rulemaking. Industry standards are fast, flexible, and take
account of the most recent advances in technology.
Fourth, Congress should make clear an altitude below which
States can assist in the regulation of low-altitude operations
with reasonable time, manner, and place conditions in the same
way we regulate constitutionally protected speech, with
operations above that line being the exclusive domain of the
FAA.
Similarly, Congress should declare training and aircraft
certification falls within the exclusive domain of the FAA. A
failure to clarify this dividing line will result in a
patchwork of judicial decisions that will doom the industry and
State and local governments to decades of litigation.
Only congressional action with clear direction, deadlines,
and resources has ensured that our infrastructure and agencies
keep pace with technology. To that end, Congress must make
clear that issues of innovation, automation, and safety are
intertwined. Congressional action can ensure that America's
infrastructure keeps pace with advances in industry and the
globally competitive marketplace.
We look forward to continuing to support your work and the
work of the FAA. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. McNeal.
Mr. Cassidy, you are recognized.
Mr. Cassidy. Good morning, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member
DeFazio, Chairman LoBiondo, and Ranking Member Larsen, and the
subcommittee members. Thank you very much for the opportunity
to testify today. My name is Sean Cassidy, and I am the
director of safety and regulatory affairs at Amazon Prime Air,
which is our drone delivery service.
As a commercial pilot for nearly 20 years and a former
first vice president and national security coordinator for the
Air Line Pilots Association, I am very familiar with the
complexity of the National Airspace System and the
responsibility all stakeholders have when it comes to safely
integrating unmanned aircraft systems, otherwise known as UAS
or drones.
UAS has the potential to revolutionize the way businesses
operate across a broad range of industries, including package
delivery. We appreciate this committee's commitment to ensuring
the United States realizes the tremendous benefits of this
technology in a safe, secure, and expeditious manner.
Amazon Prime Air is a service designed to safely and
efficiently deliver packages to customers in 30 minutes or less
using drones. Flying below 400 feet and generally above 200
feet, except for takeoff and landing, our electrically powered
drones are environmentally friendly, and most importantly, they
are safe. They utilize sophisticated equipment, including
automated onboard sense-and-avoid technologies to ensure safe
operations at distances well beyond the visual line of sight of
the operators, or to use your term, Mr. Larsen, we take the
unthinkable and we make it thinkable and we make it safe.
We have test and development centers in multiple countries,
and we began private customer trials in the U.K. last year
where we conducted our first drone delivery in December of
2016. And with the assistance of the FAA, I am proud to
announce that in March 2017, we conducted our first Amazon
Prime Air delivery demonstration in the United States.
We have also committed to join NASA, the FAA, and the
Nevada Institute for Autonomous Systems in the upcoming
unmanned traffic management demonstration in Reno later this
spring.
The United States is a leader in UAS technology, and if we
want to remain at the forefront, there are three actions that
we recommend Congress and the committee and the FAA take.
First, expedite the building blocks necessary to address
the safety and security concerns that are delaying rulemaking.
Second, introduce the means by which commercial operations
can be conducted beyond line of sight to include package
deliveries.
And third, to create an expedited performance-based
airworthiness and certification pathway for commercial UAS.
Let me briefly touch on these recommendations.
To start off, the safety and security of the airspace and
people on the ground is paramount, which is why Amazon is
working with NASA, the FAA, and industry to create a highly
automated unmanned traffic management, or UTM system.
While the FAA retains safety and policy oversight, industry
can help build and manage the system at minimal cost to the
Government. In the near term, there is an urgent need to
quickly implement Remote ID and tracking technologies to
address the security concerns that have stalled FAA's UAS
rulemaking. Amazon supports these efforts, and we look forward
to helping the FAA identify inexpensive and readily available
solutions, such as WiFi and cellular communications. They can
be quickly and effectively implemented.
It is also important that Congress and the FAA advance
regulations that provide national uniformity. Hundreds of drone
bills have been introduced around the United States, and many
conflict with the FAA's ability to regulate aviation safety.
Secondly, although the FAA's part 107 rules were an
important first step in enabling commercial UAS operations,
they also came with significant restrictions. In fact, the rule
specifically prohibits beyond-line-of-sight package delivery in
air carrier operations. We are eager to work with Congress and
the FAA to enable beyond-line-of-sight commercial operations in
the U.S. similar to the customer trials we have in the United
Kingdom. This will help us demonstrate they be conducted safely
and inform future regulatory activities.
This brings to me to my final points. Given the dramatic
growth of this new commercial sector of aviation, the drone
industry needs a regulatory pathway specific to UAS commercial
operations and airworthiness certification. Therefore, we would
like the committee to once again include language in the FAA
reauthorization bill calling for a drone air carrier
certification process for commercial beyond-line-of-sight
operations.
In conclusion, we applaud Administrator Huerta for
recognizing that when it comes to this exciting new industry we
need regulation at the pace of innovation. We look forward to
following through with that commitment. We look forward to
working with Congress and the FAA and all stakeholders to
address these important issues.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Cassidy.
Mr. Fayard, you are recognized.
Mr. Fayard. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio,
Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the
Aviation Subcommittee, my name is Trey Fayard, and I am the
founder and CEO of FLYGLO LLC, based in New Orleans, Louisiana.
On behalf of myself and my company, thank you for the
opportunity to come before you today and testify.
I come before you today to present what we believe is an
innovative model of air service for the consumer and business
traveler that is meant to complement current existing air
carrier operations.
GLO launched In November 2015 as an indirect air carrier to
provide air transportation services to inadequately served
cities in the gulf and Midsouth region. Currently, GLO flies
regularly scheduled nonstop service to Shreveport, Louisiana;
Memphis, Tennessee; Huntsville, Alabama; Little Rock, Arkansas;
and Fort Walton Beach, Florida.
As the members of the committee likely may know, in the
late 1990s legacy airlines largely shifted from flying from
smaller cities to major hub cities and formed partnerships with
regional carriers for short-haul operations. Though profitable,
this left a gap in nonstop services between mid-market cities.
Granted, there are small airlines that currently operate to
small communities; however, they are often subsidized via the
EAS program as an example.
GLO, however, is different. First, unlike other commercial
air programs, our model does not rely on Government subsidies.
We are 100 percent free-market driven, and revenue is 100
percent based on passenger demand.
Second, we have been able to create very good paying jobs
in communities that often struggle to do so. We currently
support approximately 70 employees with an average salary of
$43,000 a year, with some, like our more skilled mechanics,
making almost six figures.
Third, the demand is there. Not only do we believe the gap
in service to these mid-markets has huge potential, we know
that it fosters economic development in the regions that we
serve.
Importantly, our small but growing route network will carry
almost 4,000 passengers this month alone. By way of comparison,
I would ask the committee to please keep in mind we started
with zero.
You may be wondering why aren't there more GLOs or GLO-type
service providers in the United States, or how can my community
attract GLO or its own GLO type of service. Like all
industries, barriers to entry exist, but in the aviation
services industry, as you likely well know, those barriers are
extremely high.
To that end, in this age of consolidation of legacy
carriers, we would ask the committee to consider the hurdles
and challenges of gaining entry into the world of commercial
aviation and air travel and how easing these barriers of entry
can not only make new service providers like GLO more
complementary to existing operations, but also serve the
American public.
First, access to capital is critical and venture capital is
expensive. Aviation is a complex business, including tremendous
working capital requirements, unique payment terms, and
constant battle to right-size cost structures and fare
offerings to appropriately match the demand.
GLO currently occupies a sort of hybrid model between mega
charter broker and direct air carrier. We are technically a
public charter operator. Our flights are regularly scheduled,
and our fleet is dedicated to our exclusive use.
Currently, GLO is in the process of seeking our own part
135 certification to operate as a direct air carrier. However,
despite our unique and proven model, regulatory structures are
not favorable to new entrants.
GLO is a very small entrepreneurial startup. Accordingly,
in our first year of operations, GLO's early investors and
GLO's team have invested substantial cash and sweat equity into
proving the founding concept and preparing GLO for future
growth. We do not have the backing of a parent company and thus
we are exposed to tremendous financial risk as we move towards
certification.
We would ask the committee to consider streamlining the
certification process if we are to continue promoting
investment in aviation, such as keeping fees and taxes low. Any
increase in tax or fees, such as the passenger security fee,
necessarily increases the total cost of tickets. These changes
disproportionately affect smaller carriers like GLO. This is
something we wish to avoid so as to encourage air travel versus
other means of transportation in these underserved areas.
In conclusion, we would ask the committee to consider these
challenges and create legislation that will encourage new
entrants like GLO to the aviation services industry, thereby
creating high-quality, good-paying jobs, bring innovation to
the sector, and promoting free market and choice for the
consumer.
We need your help. We are very honored to have been able to
be here today to provide you with some of our thoughts in your
mission to bring safe, affordable, quality air service to the
American public. I am happy to take any questions on how you
all can support efforts to remove barriers to entry, increase
access to capital, along with streamlining the certification
process, and also, as well, keeping the fees and taxes low for
the consumer.
On behalf of my entire company, thank you again for your
time. It has been an honor to testify.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Fayard.
Mr. Whiteside, you are recognized.
Mr. Whiteside. Good morning. Thank you. Mr. Chairman,
members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify
before you today. My name is Brian Whiteside. I am the COO of
Complier Enterprise and the president of VDOS Global.
The goal of my testimony today is maybe to bring a little
perspective to what a drone operator actually looks like. We
have heard a lot about companies and corporations, but I would
like to share with you a little bit more about the details of
what it means to be an actual operator using drones and this
technology in today's environment. And I would also like to
bring to you maybe a little perspective on where we are today
and why this technology is so important to us and the community
and to our future as a Nation.
First, our company. We provide basically three tiers to the
stool of what we operate. We have software, which is our drone
complier and safety compliance management system; we have our
services; and we have our training.
As a company, we have 23 employees, we are based in Oregon,
and we are split between the United States and Australia. We
have trained over 1,000 pilots and certified them through the
CASA certification program in Australia, and our software was
just selected as the official compliance app for the sub 2-
kilogram class of UAV operators in Australia.
As an operating company, we work mostly in the energy and
environment sectors. We work with energy producers, such as
Shell Oil, Exxon. And then on the environmental side, we
support operations in wildlife monitoring for entities such as
World Wildlife Fund and other companies that are pursuing
interesting operations such as wildlife tracking and against
animal poaching. One of the most interesting programs that we
worked was actually testing a payload that has helped defeat
elephant poachers in Africa.
Use of our software includes numerous universities and
corporations who are standing up their operations and don't
quite understand the complicated Federal aviation regulations
and how do they need to comply with and be ensured that they
are not going to be in violation of the law.
The world that we live in today is changing dramatically. I
know that we have all talked about the technical side, but
there is a human side to this as well. And I have brought with
us four images that I would like to share with you about what
actual drones do and what they can supply. So if we can bring
the images up.
So that first image there, that is Seth Johnson. He is our
chief pilot, and that is a drone operator. He is a former
Horizon Airline pilot. He has got his ATP. He is also our chief
instructor. He is holding in his hand a drone that is called
the Aeryon SkyRanger. The Aeryon SkyRanger is built in Canada.
Unfortunately, we don't have any U.S. systems that can meet our
demand.
Next slide.
That is a flare stack. That is an image of what drones do
when we are out there doing flare stack inspections offshore in
the Gulf of Mexico. Our company was the first company to be
legally authorized to fly commercially in the U.S. to do flare
stack inspections and actually to do refinery inspections.
The drone itself allows us to get close to that flare stack
and take the images and do the inspections on corrosion and
other material deformities that may occur when you do those
inspections.
To give you an example of the value that brings, when you
do a flare stack inspection, a production platform has to shut
down for about 3 days to let that stack cool if you are going
to do an inspection by a human. That is a loss of $16 million
to $18 million a day in production revenue when they have to
shut down that flare.
With a drone we can do it, obviously, live while the flare
is burning. So it is a significant value to that company as we
are doing those inspections.
Next slide.
That is up in the Arctic. Our first actual commercial work
began up in the Arctic Ocean where we were doing some cetacean
research in trying to detect whales and could drones be used in
that environment to help do the research necessary to build new
offshore oil production in the Arctic.
And the last slide.
And that is a bowhead whale. Bowhead whales are a species
up in the Arctic that are very dependent upon--or actually the
climate is significantly affected and impacted by what is going
on in the world today. The bowhead whale is a significant
source of resources and food for the Arctic native cultures,
and this is an area where we are doing a lot of research and
support, and the drone provides a great technology to actually
go out and study these animals.
But more important to the point now as we conclude is why
is this important. The children of today are looking at
technology in ways that are radically different than anybody in
this room can understand. We are closer now to the year 2030
than we are to 9/11, and if you think of in terms of what does
that mean from a technological advance or change standpoint, we
are going to go through radical revolutions in the next 10 to
15 years.
I have an 8-year-old and a 10-year-old. By the time they
are 16, driverless cars will be a reality, and they are going
to look at technology radically different than any one of us in
the room can appreciate. They will trust technology and look to
technology as a safety enhancement more so than they will look
at their own skills and capabilities.
That radical mind shift is something that all of us in this
room really don't appreciate, and that is only about 3 to 4
years away. We have to make sure that the laws that we create
today understand the radical change that is coming and how we
as a culture and a society are going to depend upon technology
going forward, and that technology and that shift will happen
in this next generation.
Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Whiteside.
Mr. Moses, you are recognized.
Mr. Moses. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen,
Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today
and provide some information on our company's activities,
particularly our particular use of the national airspace, and
as you consider this very important topic of enabling
innovation and revolutionizing the airspace and the
infrastructure supporting it.
I am the president of Virgin Galactic, and our company will
operate a suborbital spacecraft for the purpose of space
tourism and research to be based at Spaceport America in New
Mexico. But I also am here representing our two sister
companies. The spaceship company is based in Mojave,
California, and is our manufacturing arm, building and testing
this suborbital space transportation system; and Virgin Orbit,
based in Long Beach, California, is developing and
manufacturing a dedicated launch platform to place satellites
into orbit.
We have over 700 employees, but all 3 of our companies
share a common vision: to open space to change the world for
good.
Next slide.
So our system consists of two vehicles. The WhiteKnightTwo
is our mother ship. It is a four-engine dual-fuselage jet
aircraft capable of very high attitude, very heavy lift
missions. And our suborbital space plane is called
SpaceShipTwo, designed to safely and routinely transport people
and payloads to space and back. SpaceShipTwo will carry two
pilots and as many as six space flight participants to space
altitudes where they can float about the cabin in zero gravity
and see the Earth from space. In its research configuration,
SpaceShipTwo can carry about 1,000 pounds of science and
technology payloads.
Next slide.
Our vehicles form what is called a hybrid launch system
involving both an aircraft and a rocket-powered vehicle. Virgin
Galactic was pleased to receive its operator's license for this
system from the FAA's Office of Commercial Space
Transportation, AST, last year. This award was the culmination
of years of interaction with the FAA and required indepth
reviews of vehicle safety, design, flight trajectories, and
operations plans. The leadership and commitment of AST was very
vital to our success and our continued future in this space.
Virgin Galactic coordinated heavily with ATO, the Air
Traffic Organization, and local air traffic control centers to
receive letters of agreement in order to define our operations
in the airspace. That coordination will continue prior to every
flight to ensure minimal disruptions.
Specifically, WhiteKnightTwo will climb to a release
altitude of near 50,000 feet in under 50 minutes, following
preplanned routes and under the direction of local air traffic
control.
Next slide.
At that altitude, SpaceShipTwo is then released--next
slide--lights the rocket motor, and turns straight up,
accelerating to Mach 3 on the way to space. This flight
trajectory of SpaceShipTwo occurs completely within the
restricted airspace, both Mojave and at Spaceport America, and
takes about 20 minutes from release back to landing--next
slide--landing back at the same airfield we took off from
earlier.
In addition to the human space flight program, Virgin
Galactic's sister company, Virgin Orbit, is aiming to provide
dedicated, responsive, affordable launch services for small
satellites.
Next slide.
The small satellite market is experiencing remarkable
growth around the world, and to help this revolution, Virgin
Orbit is developing the LauncherOne platform dedicated to
lowering the cost and increasing the frequency of launch for
payloads under 1,100 pounds.
Next slide.
Similar to the spaceship program, this system is air
launched, carried aloft under the wing of a modified 747-400
aircraft, and will also operate under an AST license using
similar protocols with ATO and ATC on the way to the launch
point.
Next slide.
As you all know, the commercial space industry is not a
future market. It is a present and thriving industry and will
only continue to grow, as your opening remarks so elegantly
stated. While this hearing is about new entrants into the
airspace, and our air-launched space vehicles do indeed
represent a very new approach to launch, I am reminded that the
space industry has been sharing airspace with the commercial
aviation industry for over 50 years without incident and
ideally with very little impact.
The number of commercial launches will continue to grow as
the industry does, and this drives the need for very efficient
and very well-defined processes, as well as the advancement of
tools and technologies to help streamline the integration of
commercial space with other users.
One example is the current process used to get a letter of
agreement, a LOA, through the FAA. With multiple launch points,
that process for us can become exceedingly lengthy, sometimes
involving multiple conversations with multiple elements of
multiple FAA centers. A streamlined process with a simplified
one-stop-shop interaction would be a very great improvement.
An example of technology development can be highlighted by
the collaboration of Virgin Galactic, the FAA, AST, and Embry-
Riddle Aeronautical University to test the ADS-B transmitters
on our ShaceShipTwo, to demonstrate the applicability of this
technology for tracking commercial spacecraft returning from
space to help seamlessly integrate with air traffic control and
the tracking tools already under existence.
So in closing, I think we encourage the FAA to continue to
develop the NextGen tools with an eye towards the future that
helps minimize airspace impact and access as routine space
access expands. So I look forward to working with the committee
and the FAA, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you. Look forward to your questions.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
I don't know, Mr. Larsen, if I am allowed to say this, but
you have one of the first seats reserved on Virgin Galactic
space mission.
Mr. Larsen. Is that right?
Mr. LoBiondo. Representing the committee.
Mr. Shuster. I can't wait till he goes.
Mr. LoBiondo. Whoa.
With that, Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Larsen. I object.
Mr. Shuster. Well, you know, you are the only other guy
from the town of Everett in Congress, so we have got to bond.
I thank all of you for being here. I appreciate hearing
your testimony, although it is a bit dismaying to hear all the
problems that you face and the FAA is not able--the Federal
Government and the agencies are slowing what you are doing,
what you are trying to develop down.
Mr. Fayard, my question is to you. I represent a rural
district, and I have one airport, the Altoona-Blair County
Airport. It is a town of about 56,000 people and it probably
services about 200,000 people. So I am always concerned about--
we have, I think, three flights a day in and out of there. It
is an EAS operation. And I have been talking to another company
similar to yours, OneJet.
Mr. Fayard. Sure.
Mr. Shuster. It is operating out of Pittsburgh. And their
business model sounds very similar to yours.
So you talked about it in your testimony about what
Congress can do. You talked about access to capital. Can you
talk a little bit about that? And can you talk about the other
things specifically that we in Congress can do to help people,
companies like yours and OneJet, to be able to service those
communities that have seen diminished air service over the past
decade?
Mr. Fayard. Sure. Again, thanks for the questions.
You know, access to capital, I think, is not unique just to
the airline business. Any startup business is going to have
that issue to try to bridge that gap.
Local buy-in, local participation from the communities is
very, very important, for example, in your district. We look at
some rural markets like Little Rock. They have completely
bought into our service. Not only do they use it and support
it, but they are very supportive of that service. And of
course, at the end of the day, if people don't show up, the
service will go away if it is not sometimes subsidized.
So from our perspective, the more GLO-type operations there
are, the better. I do know the folks at OneJet very well, and
they are providing a similar but yet a little bit different
model than ours. As the legacies have consolidated, they are
creating a very large underbrush of opportunity, and what we
believe for our model is it is perfect.
We would like, as you mentioned about receiving our own
certification, let me just be clear that the FAA and the DOT
are really good folks, they are good friends, they are good
partners. They really do try to help us.
They are hamstrung lots of time by resources not being
available. They are hamstrung by lack of personnel to help us
complete the processes which we have to go through. And I am
not suggesting that it is their fault. It is not. They need to
be properly funded so they actually execute what they need to
do in order to help a company like GLO.
We look at the smaller markets as really, as I mentioned, a
really good opportunity for growth for us because the average
gauge of an aircraft has gone to almost 100 seats now, and we
fly 30-seat aircraft.
Mr. Shuster. You fly 100-seat aircraft?
Mr. Fayard. We fly 30-seat aircraft.
Mr. Shuster. I am sorry?
Mr. Fayard. Thirty, 3-0. The average gauge of a commercial
aircraft is approaching 100 seats. So when you look at markets
that couldn't support, say, a 50-seat regional jet 3 or 4 times
a day to a hub, as those jets get larger and larger, you can
see how the air service is going to get worse and worse in our
estimation. I should say more opportunity for us because those
markets are all going to increase. We think there are about 400
markets out there right now that could support a GLO-type of
service.
Mr. Shuster. What size of market would that be? What
service area, population-wise, would be something you would
look as a sweet spot for you?
Mr. Fayard. Forget the actual confines of the metro--of the
city. If you look at a metro area of 200,000--150,000, 200,000
people, that is sort of where you start looking at where a
regional model service starts to make some sense. That being
said, we are in smaller markets than that sometimes. I mean,
Huntsville, if you look at the actual city, Huntsville,
Alabama, is a couple of hundred thousand folks, but the actual
city is quite small.
Mr. Shuster. Let me ask you this specifically, as my time
is running out. So when you fly--give me, do you fly from
Little Rock to----
Mr. Fayard. New Orleans and Fort Walton Beach.
Mr. Shuster. So if somebody wants to connect to American or
whoever services New Orleans, is that easy, is that an easy
transition to connect from you to get on an American flight if
they want to go to L.A.?
Mr. Fayard. Yeah, absolutely. In fact, we have several
customers that self-connect, make their own connections,
frankly. There is a flier in Shreveport I met the other day
that flies down every week to New Orleans and hops onto
Southwest to Tampa. That is where she works.
So we do do some of that. At the moment we do not have
codeshare agreements in place with other air carriers. But it
is quite simple. If you were to, you know, wish to come to New
Orleans, which has fairly decent air service, as opposed to
Shreveport, Little Rock, which does not, yes, those
opportunities exist. In fact, we just got another customer
self-connected themselves to our new London Heathrow from
British Airways. They flew in from Little Rock, hopped on the
BA to London. So that is occurring.
Mr. Shuster. And final question to you. Is your business
model--I know OneJet, they want to franchise to different
cities. Is that your model or do you want to----
Mr. Fayard. I think it is similar. You know, if you look at
New Orleans as our current home base, if you will, there are
only so many opportunities that exist with the gauge limitation
of the aircraft, because all aircraft have limitations, right?
Mr. Shuster. Sure.
Mr. Fayard. And so as you kind of build out New Orleans,
yes, the next logical step is to march this model--I call it
the starburst pattern of service--to Little Rock, or is it
Birmingham or is it Charleston, is it Huntsville, you know,
those types of markets that really have the need for that
service.
Mr. Shuster. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Fayard. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Yak, thanks for coming today to testify. And I want to
echo my colleague's comments about the people he represents and
just say how thankful we are that the Technical Center is there
and they are doing great work, and please extend that onto them
on my behalf as well.
So either for you or Mr. Gibson, if you can help me out a
little bit and explain how the FAA's current lines of business
coordinate together in our quest to integrate drones safely
into the airspace. How does that currently work?
Mr. Gibson. Thank you, Congressman. If I understood your
question, across lines of business within the FAA?
Mr. Larsen. Right, within the FAA, yeah.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir. I think it works well. We can always
improve things. But when I first arrived in September of 2015,
at that time the Deputy Administrator, Mr. Whitaker, and myself
sat down after I had observed for a couple of months and I
thought there could be better balance within the headquarters
as far as moving the technology forward. We had been focused on
the vehicle and the designs, and we needed to bring the
operators and folks on board to include training and awareness.
So we have since established what we call a UAS board,
which is attended by all the lines of business and the senior
folks and conducted by the Deputy Administrator, sometimes the
Administrator himself, to tee up key issues and focus just on
UAS. So I think we made a lot of progress over the last 12
months.
Mr. Larsen. So what would be the next step then?
Mr. Gibson. Well, I think we continue that process of
awareness and integration across the headquarters. I think the
other piece that we are doing--really two--one is Federal
integration. So I actually chair an activity called the UAS
EXCOM. It was established in 2009 language. And it is quite
robust now. We have added a number of memberships, to include
the National Security Council, Office of Science and Technology
Policy, but also the industry. And we have pushed out, as you
may or may not know, the DAC, the Drone Advisory Committee, to
engage with that portion.
So that gives us a pretty good balance both within the
building, if you will, the headquarters, across our Federal
partnerships, and then engaged heavily with industry--not just
industry, but private sector.
Mr. Larsen. So what would be, in that sense then, what have
been the products of that work? In other words, if you were to
ask folks here at the other end of the table, what would they
point to as the product of that work?
Mr. Gibson. Well, the product within the building, of
course, has been part 107, and the work that we have begun with
Ops Over People, originally known as the micro rule, many of
the waivers, exemptions. So we have stepped across boundaries
within the headquarters.
I think on the Federal side, I am also heading up the
counter-UAS, or the 2206 effort, and there have been countless
efforts made there with DHS and DOD. And I know I have multiple
meetings again next week. Our next meeting is June 9th on that.
So there has been a clear engagement on that.
And then the DAC is now past its first two initial meetings
and the subcommittee has been established and we have three
working groups that are working on many of the issues that no
doubt interest the committee.
Mr. Larsen. So, Ms. Yak, I understand that the Technical
Center has been involved in testing for two--probably several--
but two key NextGen programs, DataComm and ADS-B. Can you share
what this testing has revealed?
Ms. Yak. Thank you for the question.
NextGen--you had talked about ADS-B and DataComm, were the
two?
Mr. Larsen. That is right.
Ms. Yak. We are very proud of being involved in both of
those programs. DataComm, we do have a laboratory. We have been
responsible for developing the testing procedures on DataComm,
which is in what we would call an end-to-end process. DataComm
interfaces with many, many different systems, including the
aircraft itself, as well as ERAM, for example.
So the laboratory integrates at the Technical Center with
these systems, and we were able to, using antennas on our roof,
simulate the end-to-end testing with DataComm. So that is
exciting. The rollout has been going out wonderful.
ADS-B we started many, many years ago, about 2014 or so. We
were involved in the research as well as the testing. Our own
aircraft tested the capability. And we were part of the
rollout, and that has been a very successful rollout and is
operational for quite a while now.
Mr. Larsen. Good. Thank you.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. So for Ms. Yak and Mr. Gibson, can you please
describe the work that is being done at the Tech Center to
support and validate the unmanned efforts by your fellow
panelists? And to the other panelists, could you give us some
comments on what your experience is in working with the Tech
Center with UAS experts and how that is all integrating into
what you are doing?
Ms. Yak. OK. I will go first and then I will hand it off to
Mr. Gibson.
So the work at the Technical Center for UAS integration has
been on both small and large vehicles. And it includes
operational concepts, developing system requirements,
integration and field testing, as well as establishing
laboratory capabilities.
For instance, the Tech Center has a UAS laboratory, and we
have it linked with our DOD and our NASA labs, and this is
where we conduct human-in-the-loop simulation.
Mr. LoBiondo. Excuse me. Did you say DOD and NASA?
Ms. Yak. NASA.
Mr. LoBiondo. NASA. OK.
Ms. Yak. That is correct.
And we have done human-in-the-loop simulations that have
integrated UAS data in with our NAS systems. We are also very
much involved in the UTM research. We have members on our
Research Transition Team for UTM--it is UAS traffic
management--and they are involved in concept development as
well as data exchange and information architecture,
communication and navigation, as well as sense and avoid.
Our research performers are also working on UAS detection
at the airport. We will probably talk about that a little bit
more. And we are developing the test suite for the final
certifications of new systems in regards to command and control
and data link. So those are a lot of the technical sides of
what we are doing.
And, Mr. Gibson, if you can take it from there.
Mr. Gibson. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am involved, as I
mentioned, in a lot of the counter-UAS work that has been
underway. We started through the Tech Center at Atlantic City
and expanded on that. They have been the program managers for
me and they have been deeply involved in all the planning,
setup, and soon to be all the data deconstruction so that we
can come out with some minimum performance standards. So that
includes--Denver has been in that. We worked with the FBI at
JFK. And our next test will be at DFW towards the end of the
month. That will be our last large test of those systems, the
airport protection systems. And they have been wonderful to
work with in that and provided a lot of the engineering
background.
Mr. LoBiondo. Any of our other panelists, have you had
experience in working with the Tech Center and could you talk a
little bit about that?
Mr. Cassidy. Yes, sir. Thanks for the question.
I am glad you mentioned the RTT [Research Transition Team],
because that is one of those fundamental building blocks that
we have been working with, in partnership with the FAA, on
especially programs such as data exchange, which allow for the
exchange of information between aircraft, which then can be a
form of managing safe airspace access and also being aware of,
you know, where the other vehicles are in the same kind of
volume of airspace. So it is a great activity that is hosted by
the FAA.
Mr. LoBiondo. Anyone else?
Mr. Moses. No.
Mr. LoBiondo. So timing-wise, I don't have enough time for
my next question on cybersecurity, but we will come back to it.
So now, Mr. DeFazio, are you ready?
Mr. DeFazio. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Whiteside, I am particularly interested in your
description of the length of time it took to get certified to
monitor the platforms in the gulf. As you say here, well
offshore, no population, no VFR, and obviously, you know, a
critical mission, it saves a tremendous amount of money and it
is also, you know, for public safety.
So you are saying that there is still a question whether
you can do this under part 107 or under the waiver authority
with the 333? Why is there still a question?
Mr. Whiteside. That is correct. The challenge that we face
in a lot of these regulations is that there is no clear defined
answer. When you talk to the FAA, you often get an
interpretation of a rule and you don't get a hard set
requirement or a defined answer.
So with regards specifically to offshore, we are operating
outside the ADIZ, which is the Air Defense Identification Zone.
And there are some differences, depending upon who you speak
with within the FAA, about who has the controlling authority in
that airspace and whether or not the rule that you are
operating under is the standard Federal rules or under the new
exemption.
And that is the problem that we face oftentimes within the
space that we are operating. It is not that the people that we
are dealing with within the FAA aren't knowledgeable or they
are not caring. You know, they are pretty attentive when you
ask a question. But much of what we do relies on
interpretation. And that is where the delays often come in, in
the rulemaking or in trying to get the approvals, is that you
are dealing with a construct that happens oftentimes behind
closed doors within the lawyers and the legal realms of the
FAA, and there is not a defined process by which answers can be
driven.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Then, Mr. Gibson, can you address, how can
we make that process work better? I mean, it shouldn't take
that long.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir. We endeavor to improve on things. I
think he touched on a key point here, and I am not familiar
with the specifics of that case, but we are breaking new
ground. I call this the most fundamental change in aviation in
our lifetimes, and so many of these don't map directly to what
preexisted with our traditional aviation.
So some of them take quite a bit of thought to make sure,
even though you are out over the ocean, of course, you have
helo traffic out there, you have the safety of the platform
itself. But I can take that for an additional question if need
be, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. It just seems to me that we ought to be able
to categorically establish some of these things. Like, OK, if
we have got certified one platform now, it should be a much
more routine process in the future for either his company or
another certified operator to do these sorts of things.
I mean, we need to have some standardization here. I mean,
I know it is an issue of first impression, but once you have
dealt with it once, then it is no longer an issue of first
impression, and we ought to be able to move more quickly. And
if you need direction from Congress or you think you lack
authority, then tell us, because we would like to fix that.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. I would like to go to Mr. Fayard, because,
obviously, you are dealing with an issue that is becoming more
and more critical to many communities. And I am curious about
this 18 months to get one aircraft onto a certificate. Why
would it take that long?
Mr. Fayard. Well, that is more of a kind of what you have
to plan for, if you will. And, you know, the certification
process itself is relatively straightforwardly laid out,
saying, these are the steps you need to do.
The problem that we have, and it ties back into the access
to capital and funds, is the uncertainty. There are gates to
walk through, but that doesn't mean it is going to happen in 18
months. And so when you go to an investor group and say,
listen, we are starting this aviation business, we are going to
get our own certification, you can't tell them reliably to say,
well, it could be a year, it could be 2 years, it could be 3
years, because there is no--even if we do all the correct
things on our side, and I am not saying that is always the
case, but if you go forth in that endeavor, there is no way to
be able to tell or plan that you will be able to receive a
certification to operate in a sum period of time. It is all
best guess.
And that is very difficult, obviously, on the financing
side. That is very difficult on the operational side. It is
very frustrating to our cities and partners, saying, well, we
can get there when we can get there. It is very difficult to
kind of forecast your business as well. So if you have an
enterprising group that says, we are going to start another
GLO, they could not reliably tell you--if they are, they are
lying--that yes, we are going to have our own certification in
18 months and we will be flying 18 months plus a day. It is not
possible.
Mr. DeFazio. But the steps in this case, you know, things
weren't really defined that Mr. Whiteside is dealing with, but
this is a routine process----
Mr. Fayard. Yes, sir.
Mr. DeFazio [continuing]. Obviously. So, I mean, you know
what the steps are. They are defined, known. But why does it
take that long? I mean, is it because they are not--I mean,
they are sequential, but you have to finish one? I don't quite
understand.
Mr. Fayard. Well, I mean, without going too deep into it,
you know, you submit your manuals, et cetera, to the FAA, and
they have a review period where they go through them. So the
steps themselves are relatively straightforward, you know, 1 to
10 let's just call it. But you get into, you know, what they
refer to as a lack of resources in certain FAA offices of which
you have to deal with. And, again, they are being very helpful.
I mean, we have a really good relationship with the FAA. We
have had a really good relationship with the DOT. But they are,
frankly, hamstrung with resources to get a warm body in there
and to be able to review and do these things.
And just one example, when we launched this business, we
were slap in the middle of sequester. And whether that was used
improperly by some of the agencies we had to deal with,
everyone throws their hands up and says, we are under
sequester, we don't have the money and the resources to--we
will get to you when we can. And, you know, I have got a lot of
respect for the other gentlemen and ladies at the table with
this new frontier, no pun intended, with space and drones, et
cetera. And you are right, that is an issue of first
impression. But airline certification, whether it be part 135
or part 121, is not, and it should be relatively--I don't want
to see you go to the store and pull one off the shelf, but it
should be a little more streamlined.
Mr. DeFazio. All right. My time is expired. I am sorry the
chairman left. But I would point out one of the deficiencies.
You are talking again about certification, which we have heard
from manufacturers, now we are hearing from you is one of the
most critical things that needs, you know, streamlining,
reform, and it also needs adequate personnel.
And in the chairman's version of privatization of air
traffic control, certification stays over there with the
Government; the new corporation doesn't have that authority.
And, of course, it is subject to sequestration. You could
create a Government corporation where you wouldn't have that
problem, cleaving the agency in half, but that is for another
day.
Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to explore a little bit about the drone technology.
You know, we talk about beyond line of sight and line of sight.
It seems to me agricultural applications, maybe real estate
applications, checking utility lines, you know, if you get out
of line of sight, your skills aren't in the parameters of their
scope of where they are operating, say it is, you know, 100
feet, 200 feet, wherever.
Then I look at Amazon. Mr. Cassidy, it seems to me that for
that to work right, you are going to have to--I don't know what
the technology is. Let me back up for a second.
I think I saw on ``60 Minutes'' a couple of months ago they
dropped drones out of an airplane--it must be a DOD deal--
hundreds of them. And they could interact in milliseconds. They
didn't collide. So that tells me the technology must be pretty
sophisticated.
So for like an Amazon, is it possible, is technology there
where you could punch in my address and deliver that package
that is coming to me today by drone and it would work like, you
know, autonomously? Can you, you know, expound on what the
technology is? Because it seems to me like there are two
different things going on here. You got the technology where
somebody is controlling it like, for example, one person used
looking at the well site. OK. Obviously, that person is
probably controlling that drone more manually. But is the
technology there to where the drones can actually be what I
would call smart drones?
Mr. Cassidy. That is a great question. Thank you very much
for that. So let me just start out by saying that it is
Amazon's commitment that we are not going to launch Prime Air
until we are absolutely convinced that we can do so safely.
And the way that we do that is a couple ways. One is that
we invest in technologies that we talked about before, such as
sense and avoid, where you equip your machines with very smart
kind of mechanisms that help establish the awareness of other
vehicles, both unmanned and manned, within the airspace.
And the other thing, in terms of technology, is we invest
in this system of operations that we are calling the unmanned
traffic management system. And so what we are moving towards
is--and we talked about that a little bit in our opening
comments--is that if we are allowed to understand what required
levels of safety are with regard to performance standards and
design standards, the technology can actually be fleeted up to
meet those marks. And then we can take the next step and start
demonstrating safe innovative operations that not only benefit
Amazon but benefit everybody, because we all benefit from this
technology.
So, yes, I think that we can certainly get there, based
upon some of the stuff that is already available right now, in
terms of cellular and WiFi-enabled tools to establish the
presence of each other, and also some of the other things that
we are heavily investing in in terms of sense-and-avoid
technologies.
Mr. Gibbs. So the challenge for us policymakers is to try
to keep up, which we never will, but that is the challenge,
because I think the technology is coming.
And so it is safe to say that there are really kind of two
things happening here. You have got the drone technology for
like farmers might use versus what you use for long distance
for delivering packages. That is true to say that? It is really
two things happening here in the drone technology?
Mr. Cassidy. Yes, sir. I think there are different
applications, but there are different applications sometimes of
similar technologies. And so I think that--you know, my
background is in manned aviation. I was an airline pilot for a
number of years. And different planes and different pilots have
access to different types of airspace and airports, depending
on the level of equipage. And so I think that when you think
about technology, it is not kind of an either/or situation. I
think there could be derivatives of the technology that we are
talking about and developing that can be applied in fairly
modest cases very locally, but then can also be applied very
safely and innovatively across, you know, longer distances,
like beyond-line-of-sight delivery operations.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Mr. Moses, I am really intrigued at the discussion in your
presentation on going up in outer space with returnable
vehicles. Kind of like the space shuttle, I guess. I guess it
is always good. If the private sector can do it, the public
sector shouldn't be doing it. You got permits, but you haven't
really started that, or what is the status of that?
Mr. Moses. So we operate under a dual licensing technology.
We were doing flights, because we are a hybrid system using an
aircraft. If we don't intend to fire the rocket motor, we
operate under part 91 experimental rules under the FAA. And so
we are permitted to do those activities right now. Those tests
are underway currently.
This summer, we will start rocket-powered flights. And when
we fire the rocket motor, we operate under part 400 of the
commercial space flight rules. And those rules regulate us, and
we do have that license awarded to us for test flights. The
final step of that is basically to gather the data of how the
systems perform for the people on board, provide that data back
to the FAA, and then they will remove that last restriction on
us, which opens us up for commercial.
Mr. Gibbs. Just a quick followup. On the permits you got,
were you satisfied in a timely fashion, or was there any, you
know, frustration, or how did it go?
Mr. Moses. No. I think, in general, they went fairly well.
Obviously, a lot of things that can be improved. We were one of
the first ones through to get a human-rated version of this
license. I think we have found a few things that will help
streamline it in the future. But in general, a pretty
straightforward approach.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman. Out of time.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Yak and Mr. Gibson, I represent New Jersey, portions of
Essex, Hudson, and Union Counties, and these areas are part of
some of the busiest airspace in the country. As the FAA created
rules regarding drones, was your rulemaking one size fits all
for the country or did you give consideration to unique
airspaces surrounding major cities?
Mr. Gibson. Thank you for the question, sir. The part 107
rule was built really around class G airspace, which is
uncontrolled, with the ability then, with exception, to
authorize flight into controlled air as well.
So in those dense airspaces, I assume most of the cases
that you are referring to are class B or better as far as
control and how the equipage is to enter there. But there are
avenues, through approval with the FAA, for them to be able to
operate.
Mr. Payne. So there are different rules for the densely
populated areas as opposed to rural?
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Payne. OK. Thank you. And, you know, I understand a big
concern of citizens and regulators at the FAA is the use of
drones by bad actors invading the privacy of others. However,
what consideration has the FAA given to drones used by
terrorists? Should Congress and the American people be
concerned about this other type of bad actor as well?
Mr. Gibson. Again, thanks for the question. Clearly, we are
concerned and we are involved with our Federal partners. I
think if one thinks of a continuum from one end, which is
aviation safety, which is what we deal with routinely within
the FAA, though; but as we cross that continuum, we begin to
drift into security concerns, specifically counterterrorism.
And so our other Federal partners--DHS, FBI, DOD--we are
heavily involved with them in regards to those concerns.
Mr. Payne. OK. Homeland, I would assume as well.
Mr. Gibson. Indeed.
Mr. Payne. OK. And the FAA's regulations have set
limitations on the age of drone operators, the size of drones,
and how far an operator of a drone--how far an operator of a
drone may be operated. However, the FAA permits waivers of
these requirements. Can you describe the considerations that go
into granting or denying of waivers?
Mr. Gibson. Sir, as you mentioned, the part 107 rule, when
it was established, had some particular areas that were
waiverable. And when we go to the waiverable process, it is
looked at by our flight standards folks and mitigations that
the operator proposes that they would take to achieve an
equivalent level of safety in operations in a different
environment.
So it is usually relatively straightforward. I think
already we have issued over 700 waivers for nighttime and a
couple for beyond visual line of sight. We have also considered
a lot of airspace authorizations, your earlier subject as well.
But each one right now gets an individual look.
Mr. Payne. OK.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this
committee meeting. I think it is a very important one.
What a mass of information we are getting on all kinds of
areas. It is hard to put a lasso around it. I would like to
focus in, though, Ms. Shelley, on the cybersecurity issue. I
heard in another committee that even Barbie dolls have IP
addresses. I just think it is like this flood, not just for
certain, as I say, military operations or business operations
or whatever. It is just it is so big and it is flying at us.
Is there anything that you are doing through your technical
operations to monitor that or keep up with that, or is there
anything that there needs to be done legislatively to help you
do that?
Ms. Yak. Thank you for the question. There are a number of
things that we are doing. From the agency's perspective, we do
have a committee, a cybersecurity committee in place, and they
set policy and standards for all our systems and domain areas.
Our domain areas are the National Airspace Systems or the
air traffic management systems, our mission support systems,
which are our IT systems, and our R&D domain area, which is
where we do our test and evaluation of research.
We have the cybersecurity test facility at the Technical
Center, and this is where we start looking for the tools to
help us monitor the health and security of these systems. So we
will look at tools, procedures, policies. We will assess for
vulnerabilities. We will validate what risks are out there. And
then we will look for mitigation solutions using this
laboratory.
We also have continuous monitoring capabilities in place
for these domain areas. And another portion of what we use the
cyber test facility for is to conduct simulations or what I
would call, you know, evaluations of our procedures. And what
we do is we set up an environment that uses the exact tools
that our incident responders are using. And we will start then
pretty much attacking the system in a very safe way, so that
they can use their procedures, see how the tools work, make
decisions in realtime. So it is a very good exercise for trying
out our security posture.
Mr. Webster. So I could see how a drone could be used for
some sort of mischief in all kinds of ways. But is there also
the possibility of drone hijacking, where you use someone
else's drone to do injury, harm, or create some sort of chaos
in our country?
Ms. Yak. So from a research perspective, we are looking at
the command and control link for drones as well as our detect
and avoid. So we are doing the research on the technology.
And, Mr. Gibson, do you want to talk a little bit about how
we are applying that?
Mr. Gibson. Well, sir, I think you are limited by your
creativity on some of the scenarios that you can walk through
on this. Clearly, the bigger vehicles, all UAS are controlled
via link, which is vulnerable, could be vulnerable. As we get
into the smaller aircraft, I am not sure that cyber would be
the first choice, because they are relatively inexpensive and
currently can mask some of the capabilities or the
identification.
So we are all very concerned about that. There are a number
of measures. I would offer that the Remote ID Aviation
Rulemaking Committee that we are standing up very soon with
industry and our stakeholders is going to go a long way towards
clearing up some of the anonymity that is involved in the
smalls.
Mr. Webster. I only ask you, because of traceability of
some sort, that it is a different owner, it wasn't the person
that actually did the damage. Yeah.
Mr. McNeal. Congressman, just piggyback on the point that
General Gibson made. In Appendix H of my testimony, I provide a
little bit of information about remote identification and
security measures for securing this uplink. And I believe
committee staff has a lengthier paper from us on this.
One simple already deployed technology mechanism that could
be used are SSL/TLS certificates, which are used to secure
Internet of Things devices as well as securing the web pages
that we visit on the internet, and that is one way of ensuring
that the communication is encrypted, because if a person were
to hijack a drone, we might face a circumstance where some day
a CNN drone is flying over a crowd and a person takes control
of that and brings it down into the crowd, and the first blame
becomes blame of CNN instead of actually that malicious actor.
So securing that uplink I think is a really important
initiative that we need to focus on and one that I believe we
plan to talk about on the remote iDR.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. LoBiondo. Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Chairman
LoBiondo and Ranking Member Larsen, for having this fourth
hearing in a series of meetings to discuss the state of
transportation in America.
As ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee, I really understand the importance of innovative
approaches to problems. As with any innovative approach,
however, new challenges and obstacles await. As Congress
considers making sweeping reforms to air transportation and
upcoming FAA reorganization, safety, of course, must remain a
major consideration. Our panel is dominated this morning by
individuals from the unmanned aerial vehicle industry, and
there is no doubt that drones are already integrating into our
airspace at a rapid pace.
So, Mr. McNeal, in your testimony, you spoke of some of the
institutional challenges in Government the aviation industry is
facing when it comes to safe implementation of innovative
technologies such as drones. Can you elaborate on the
structural, financial, and regulatory and any other obstacles
that are preventing agencies such as FAA from rapidly adopting
new rules that are conducive to this innovative approach with
this technology?
Mr. McNeal. Yes, Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
I think the structural challenges--and General Gibson alluded
to this--are that we have witnessed a rapid change in aviation.
It is an entirely new type of industry than previously existed.
And so we have an agency filled with tens of thousands of
hardworking people who are accustomed to working in a certain
way, and now we are asking them to do things in a different way
at a much more rapid pace.
And so I think there are a few ways to empower those
individuals. And so what we find are some of the folks that I
mentioned in my testimony are agents of change within the
agency. But they run up on some of the things that Mr.
Whiteside and others spoke about, which are existing old forms
of regulation and rules that now have to be interpreted for new
circumstances.
So I think one key thing that Congress can do to help
ameliorate this structural challenge is to set dates certain by
which certain outcomes have to occur. The best example of this
most recently was the date certain that was set in the
extension last year, both for implementing a NASA UTM program
as well as the remote identification process. Clear direction
from Congress, this is a priority to work on, and it must be
delivered by a certain date. And that allows those change
agents within the agency to say, listen, there is no
negotiating on timelines here. We must implement this in a
given period of time because Congress has told us we must do
that.
And oftentimes then, if Congress follows on on the approps
side with the resources to make it happen, it really helps
those change agents be able to act and understand what the
priorities are. Otherwise, what we have are, you know, the
entire forest is on fire and the question is, which bush do we
put out first or which tree do we put out first? This
prioritization from this body, I think, is extremely helpful to
the agency in knowing what the direction is and what the
expectations of this committee are.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much.
Mr. Moses, the idea of commercial space flight also has a
really kind of exciting and thrilling type of spirit toward it.
Can you speak more to the balance that FAA's Office of
Commercial Space Transportation has achieved when regulating
your industry for ensuring safety while also allowing room for
innovation?
Mr. Moses. Yeah, that is a fantastic question. And I think,
you know, I would wholeheartedly agree the innovation of space
and the dream of it is the reason why we are doing this, right,
is to allow that opportunity to others to experience that.
In terms of how the AST office has worked through licensing
technology--or licensing process, sorry, you know, it is like
my colleagues here at the table, right, it comes down to a
matter of interpretation. And the rules are written, at least
part 400 is fairly new, so it is written for this industry, but
it was very much written for an expendable launch vehicle type
rocket stacked on a pad, launching from the coast, flying out
over the ocean. And so an approach like ours where we are
launching rockets from an airplane or companies that are
launching rockets from balloons or using just balloons
themselves, those rules don't directly apply.
So I think the language in the AST's mandate to help the
industry allow them to kind of look for those solutions that
allow you to kind of right-size an equivalent level of safety.
An example for us might be in smoke detection systems, right. A
rule that is written for a system that has a manned vehicle
mated to the space station for months at a time needs an
automated system. We are in space for 10 minutes, and an
automated system is probably not applicable. So having that
flexibility in the regulations is extremely helpful to innovate
our approach.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much.
My time has expired.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Yak or Mr. Gibson, the short-term extension directed
the FAA to establish a pilot program for the UTM. And I am just
wondering, I think it is supposed to begin this month. Is it on
schedule to begin this month?
Ms. Yak. There has been quite a bit of work on this program
and we do have a plan in place.
And, Mr. Gibson.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir. We work closely with NASA and have
for a number of years now. They just recently completed phase 2
of a 4-phase effort, but also, about I guess almost 6 months
ago, got together with our NextGen organization and established
a research transfer team, a process that has enabled a lot of
the NextGen technology to come forward over tests. So yes, it
is on track. And----
Mr. Perry. So it will start this month, right?
Ms. Yak. So in April, what is due--and I didn't want to
steal Mr. Gibson's thunder here, but what is due is the plan
for the pilot. And yes, we are.
Mr. Perry. The plan. The plan is due in April.
Ms. Yak. Yes.
Mr. Perry. OK. So when----
Ms. Yak. The program will be defined this month, yes.
Mr. Perry. OK. So when will actual testing, so to speak,
where you are actually flying vehicles, based on the technology
that you are considering and--you know, when will a pilot where
most people would view--pardon the pun because of the subject--
when will that be happening? When can we expect to see
something?
Mr. Gibson. Sir, we have already done two of those major
tests with NASA. The first one was out in California, and most
recently, a few months ago at Reno. And it both includes live
flying, virtual flying, and constructive flying, via a
simulation. So they are continuing to load up the system.
Mr. Perry. OK. So just to inform me, because I don't know,
is this based on GPS technology, or what is the basis of the
technology that they are using for the UTM? Do you know?
Mr. Gibson. Yes. For the location; but in many ways, it is
IT-based, as far as the vehicles, being able to track where
they are at and predict their locations.
Mr. Perry. And the reason I am asking some of the questions
is, is that people, because they know I am on the committee,
they come into the office and they have a lot of ideas, right?
And I see some of these things. And they blow your head apart,
right? But, you know, I don't know the technical specifics of
it. Those are the people that come in that they do.
But I am wondering, how are those things integrated? How
are they considered in any pilot? How do those people get their
ideas vetted? How are they considered? Are they ever
incorporated or is this--you know, per my notes, it was in
conjunction with industry. So how does industry, including a
guy that is really smart who has got an idea that came up with
it out in his garage, how does he get involved? Is he involved?
Mr. Gibson. Sir, we have kind of an open door policy on the
technology for folks. I have companies coming to me constantly.
Our integration office I know entertains things. I am sure the
Tech Center does as well. So there are a number of avenues open
to those folks.
Mr. Perry. Are you the name--who is the name at the Tech
Center where people--because they ask me, like how do we--how
do we get into this field? Like, how are our ideas vetted? Who
is the person? Is there a name associated with this?
Ms. Yak. So to answer first, I am the person to contact, or
any of my staff.
Mr. Perry. OK. Great.
Ms. Yak. And Mr. Gibson is correct. We have the Drone
Advisory Committee that can be used as a point of entry. We
have a grants program for research. We have CRADAs, Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements, that we can partner with
industry and overlapping----
Mr. Perry. I just want to make sure that the FAA is
considering all the ideas, because technology is changing very
quickly. And some of the things I see--and I lived in a GPS-
based world or less, you know, a map and a finger-based world.
And I just hate to see us hamstring ourselves. I am concerned
that the Government is standing in the way in many respects of
this industry and that overseas operations and competitors are
ahead of us because of our regulatory environment.
Let me ask Mr. Whiteside, because you haven't been involved
in the conversation a whole lot, what is the number one thing
Congress can do, in your opinion, to enable innovation in this
industry that you are involved in? What is the number one thing
we can do? Or in helping the FAA or directing the FAA?
Mr. Whiteside. Direct the FAA to understand not only the
safety case but the business case behind the rules that they
are making. And I say that because when rules are enacted or
when you submit for a waiver request, there is only the safety
case considered as to whether or not that should be approved.
And like you just mentioned, with the loss of jobs in
America going overseas, there is no consideration of the impact
of those rules and how that is going to impact the applicant or
the business that is trying to get that waiver. And the end
result is small businesses often can't survive that timeline,
and then the larger companies with the resources and the
capital can make that happen.
So there is a real disconnect between implementation or
requests for an approval and the business who is submitting it
and what the implications are to that business. And if that
could be connected somehow, that would be pretty valuable.
Mr. Perry. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fascinating hearing.
Ms. Yak, I was interested in--actually, I have two
questions which come from your written testimony. One had to do
with a pilot project involving what you call critical
infrastructure. Because I represent the District of Columbia,
where you can't fly these drones yet, not only here but parts
of Maryland and Virginia, which are part of the National
Capital region, as far as I know, and because a drone a couple
years ago flew into the White House grounds, I am interested in
hearing more about your pilot project on critical
infrastructure and what it means, whether or not the Nation's
Capital would be like every other place when it came to--when
it came to flying drones.
Ms. Yak. Thank you very much for the question. We are doing
a lot of research in that area, but Mr. Gibson keeps poking me,
saying, I want to take this one. So I am going to turn it over
to Mr. Gibson and then I will follow up.
Mr. Gibson. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. We
do have that section of language and we have begun, actually, a
good bit of that research.
Specifically, the first part, we were able to use existing
regulation, I think as a fallout of 9/11, to aid our Federal
partners. We are currently standing up airspace protection
measures for over 130 sites with DOD. We have another 10 coming
in from the Department of the Interior and we have 8 with the
Department of Energy. So we continue to work very closely with
the partners.
The other part that you are probably also alluding to then,
especially with the nature of this aircraft now, that we have
to consider a lot of private sites, private utilities,
refineries, ballparks.
Ms. Norton. Airports, yes.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, ma'am. 2206 is focused on the airports,
and we have a whole separate effort ongoing there. But
currently, the 2209 really gets down to the airspace. Of
course, the vehicles can penetrate that airspace if they so
choose, but we will have the word out that will enable those
trying to protect it.
It is not just active measures, though. Manufacturing has
worked very closely with us. They put in geofencing and things
of that nature. So, to your point, unless somebody really works
hard flying in and around the Capitol or the White House, the
vehicle won't even start now with geofencing.
Ms. Norton. Yeah. It is going to be difficult, but I am
sure you can do it.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Yak, here's one for you. On page 7 of your
testimony, you talk about aviation gas, and you are very candid
about it. You say it is the only remaining lead-containing
transportation fuel. Very controversial. You speak about in
your testimony how toxic it is when it is inhaled. But what
gave me some optimism is that you go on to describe some
progress with the research and even with flight test
activities, even saying the year 2018.
I guess my question is, when will nonlead aviation gas be
ready for wide use in commercial aviation?
Ms. Yak. Thank you for the question. And that was a great
summary. We have been working very closely with aircraft and
engine manufacturers, as well as fuel producers, so that we can
do this evaluation. And just as you summarized, we just
finished phase 1 in March of last year, 2016, where we now have
two sample fuels that we are testing. And we will be testing
them in 19 different engine setups and performing at least 10
tests with aircraft.
The results of our research will be done in the 2018
timeframe. That is when the assessment of the research results
will begin. And then we will start the process for
certification and validating of the use of fuels and the output
there. So it will be in the 2018 timeframe.
Ms. Norton. But will it be required?
Ms. Yak. Will it be required?
Ms. Norton. To use nonlead--I mean, we got lead out of
everything else, paints and----
Ms. Yak. It is definitely desired, but we have to find out
what the research says and where we can go from there.
Ms. Norton. Is it going to be more expensive, do you
believe?
Ms. Yak. It is way too soon to know any of that
information. Sorry.
Ms. Norton. I hope you are evaluating that so there is no
excuse once we have it. It looks like the science is almost
there. The question is, given the toxic nature of aviation gas,
which surrounds us--I can't imagine what harm it is doing--we
need to understand when it is going to be ready and whether it
will be required or whether it will be one of those innovations
that we are very pleased to see. But then the excuse--and not
always invalid--is that it costs too much and the public will
have to pay too much. So I hope that we are working on both
those measures at the same time.
Ms. Yak. Thank you for your input.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Although I don't have a question for Mr. Cassidy, thank
you, Amazon, for investing in Edwardsville, Illinois, in my
district. We would love to see you grow even more, so please
think about that, especially since I didn't ask you a tough
question today. So remember that next time you are thinking
about expansions.
Ms. Yak and Mr. Gibson, I have got three questions. The
first two, please answer quickly or I will have to cut you off,
because the third one I got to get to. First off, I want to ask
you about the implementation of the part 107 final rule, and
specifically about the implementation process to request
waivers for operations under that rule. As of yesterday, April
3, the last issuance of a waiver was on January 23, 2017. Is
there a reason we haven't had a waiver in nearly 2 months?
Mr. Gibson. Sir, I haven't heard that number. Every time I
check with them, it is increasing constantly, but I will have
to take that one for the record.
Mr. Davis. Please get back to my office on that.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
It seems to me the vast majority of waivers issued by the
FAA have been to allow nighttime operation, which leads me to
believe that the FAA has a relatively streamlined process
considering waiver requests of that nature.
Are you guys at the FAA working to develop a streamlined
litmus test to consider greater numbers of waivers for other
operational restrictions under part 107, such as the
operational line of sight?
Mr. Gibson. Sir, not to simplify the problem, but I think
the large number of waivers at night was most enabling and we
probably got the most requests in that area. Beyond visual line
of sight is much more complex. It is open for waiver and we
have done a few. But the mitigations are significant. Where
they are going to operate and those kind of things are
considered each time.
Where we can, we pass those lessons learned back to the
community. In other words, these are the ones that were
approved. Here are the things we look at. We are trying to
continue to inform as we work through the process.
Mr. Davis. Great, great. I mean, keep in mind, as we look
at technology and we look at disaster relief, obviously, these
are things that need to be taken into consideration on that
rule.
One concern raised to me by a constituent actually relates
to the operation of UAS in controlled airspace. Under part 107,
that permission was to come from the air traffic control tower.
According from the rule summary, as published in the Federal
Register on June 28 of 2016, in considering whether to grant
permission to a small UAS to fly in controlled airspace, ATC
will consider the specific nature of the small UAS operation
and the risk the operation poses to other air traffic in that
controlled airspace. ATC facilities have the authority to
approve or deny aircraft operations, based on traffic density,
controller workload, communications issues, or any other type
of operation that would potentially impact the safe and
expeditious flow of air traffic.
However, on October 23 of this past year, a new FAA order,
JO 7200.23, was issued, instructing local ATC personnel how to
handle UAS calls to their facilities, including both hobbyists
and commercial operators. And what this states is, in the event
a part 107 operator contacts an ATC facility directly for
authorization, the facility must not issue authorization. The
facility must direct the operator to the FAA UAS website,
faa.gov/uas.
Now, Ms. Yak and Mr. Gibson, this order seems to contradict
what the initial intent under part 107 was, as it relates to
requests for operators of UAS to operate in controlled
airspace, and has discouraged many operators. Can you explain
why this step was taken and why the FAA doesn't believe local
personnel are prepared to make this determination on a case-by-
case basis when it was clearly our intent to do that?
Mr. Gibson. Sir, I probably should be more informed on that
wording, but I have not heard it before this, so I have to take
that one for the record as well.
I will comment that we are in the process of gridding out
all the airspace around our airports, working with Mr. McNeal
here and his peers to automate many, if not all, of those
approvals over time. We hope to have an initial capability by
the end of the year.
So the operator comes up and uses an app, basically, that
is near realtime, and can then text the local authority and get
approval within seconds, hopefully.
Mr. Davis. And I appreciate your comments, Mr. Gibson, but
you can understand our frustrations as policymakers. When we
have an intent to allow for operators, especially in rural
areas--I represent many regional airports. And there is usually
a pretty easy way to contact the ATC tower. And why can't, on a
case-by-case basis, these things be offered as approved?
I mean, people are trying to do the right thing to
implement this technology, be it a hobbyist or be it for
commercial reasons. And at some point, we got to get Government
off their backs, and this rule specifically seems to be
contradicting what we needed. So, please, I do want a specific
answer as to why this has happened and why this rule is
contradictory and what the FAA is going to do to fix it. So I
appreciate your time.
Thank you, everybody, for being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. LoBiondo. Excuse me, Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Lawrence.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whiteside, can you tell the subcommittee how drones are
producing jobs around the country? I had someone at a forum
tell me that a growing industry is going to be drone operators.
I don't know if that is a reality or not. How do you see the
unmanned aircraft sector expanding in the future, and what kind
of jobs should we expect from it?
Mr. Whiteside. Sure. Thank you for the question. I think
the official forecast is 1.3 million new operators by 2020. And
if you look at what is happening now, I think we are well on
the way to that sort of a forecast.
The drone of the future or the operator of the future is
probably not going to be a specialty service company like VDOS.
It is probably going to become more of a routine tool that the
operators are going to use. So the insurance adjuster of today
is going to go to his site with a ladder and a drone, and the
first thing he will do is fly the roof when he is doing a roof
inspection to look to see if he needs to get on the ladder to
get on the roof. Roofing contractors will do inspections. We
know that farming and agriculture will expand the use of
technology.
So right now, we are at the beginning stages of this, and
the specialization is really important, but as the technology
improves, as it becomes more reliable, as the legal issues
become solved, we will see the expansion quite rapidly into
more and more routine daily operations with less and less
specialization.
Mrs. Lawrence. That is interesting. Mr. Whiteside, in your
written testimony, you mentioned your company's work in
Australia. And you note that Australia has permitted drone
operations beyond the operator's visual line of sight for a few
years now. How would you compare the regulatory framework in
the United States with that of Australia?
Mr. Whiteside. Australia is a great example of how
certification compliance can work. The industry is several
years ahead of the U.S. in terms of how the technology is being
used and what the laws allow. There is a pretty straightforward
certification process that somebody has to go through to become
licensed, and that goes all the way through to beyond-line-of-
sight operations.
We are stuck right now in the U.S. with a lot of
interpretation of the rules, whereas in Australia we have got
the benefit of actually having a path to get certified. And if
that key or that element were to be enacted here, that would
dramatically change this industry and how the technology is
going to be used.
Mrs. Lawrence. Ms. Yak, can you comment on that too?
Ms. Yak. The FAA is looking at everything that is involved
with integrating drones safely into our airspace and working
hard with the rulings that we have just put out that Mr. Gibson
has talked about and working with industry to develop the
concept and the operations for integrating it. So it is ongoing
work, and it is through our partners that are at this table
that we are actually going to be successful. So we appreciate
that.
Mrs. Lawrence. Any other comments from the panel?
Mr. Gibson. Ma'am, I would just recommend that we remind
folks that our airspace challenge is the most dense, most
complex in the world. We already fly some beyond visual line of
sight. Alaska, with science and research up there, is beyond,
BNSF Rail. We are doing it where we can and we continue to grow
that. And, as we mentioned, the Drone Advisory Committee, we
are working with industry. And our stakeholders Task Group 2
under the DAC and the subcommittee are working specifically on
access to airspace, which are the things you just spoke about.
Mrs. Lawrence. I want to say that young people, when I meet
with them, drones are probably the most exciting thing to them.
And it is in that meeting with young people, like they see
being a drone operator as a cool job to have. I want to say
that we, as we move this industry forward or as the industry
moves us forward, having a committed set of rules and
regulations is extremely important.
And my last question is, we talked about drones as it
relates to travel into the galaxies. I don't understand how a
drone is related to us getting to the moon. So can someone
drill down on that for me? Mr. Moses?
Mr. Moses. Yes, sure. So it is an interesting question,
right. So, effectively, if you look at the unmanned, you know,
uncrewed space program, the robotic probes, those are
effectively drone technologies, right. It is a remote probe
operated from----
Mrs. Lawrence. So we are using it now.
Mr. Moses. Yeah. And then as you go further and further
away, that link signal becomes longer and longer. To the moon,
it is about a minute delay. To Mars, it would be a 6- to 10-
minute delay. And so you need an autonomous system at that
point as well so that it operates by itself. So it is a natural
progression.
Mrs. Lawrence. OK. You are the exciting group before us.
Thank you so much for being here.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Before we turn to Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Fayard, before I forget,
if you ever think of moving into the Northeast, Atlantic City
is a great market for you.
Mr. Fayard. We will get right on it, absolutely. Yes, sir.
Mr. LoBiondo. We would be just right for you.
Mrs. Lawrence. I just want to say Detroit, we know how to
build things.
Mr. Fayard. I like Detroit as well.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Northern California has lots of nice open
space too, since we are doing that.
Thank you, panelists, for being here today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will just get right to it on this for Director Yak and
Mr. Gibson as well. My question is on the advisory committees
on the drone situation, and maybe this was touched on in a
different way. But the advisory committees, by and large, my
understanding, are made up more of manufacturers of drones and
have not as much representation by end users, maybe. You know,
my primary focus in our area is resources with agriculture,
timber, things of that nature. So drone technology is a very
burgeoning, you know, great new tool that will be available for
us.
And so for those that would be on those advisory
committees, is there really any cross-representation of end
users or buyers of this technology, of this equipment here?
Because, again, it can be very, very useful in agriculture, in
forestry, in whatever, you know, utilities, where they fly the
power lines near my home all the time with big helicopters and
such. So what was the makeup or what is the intention of the
makeup of those advisory committees to have a broad input on
that?
Mr. Gibson. Sir, thank you for the question. When we began
putting the DAC together, I think there were over 400
applicants all at the C suite level, very strong in the
industry, but also in many cases outside, as you alluded to.
End users communities. Mayor Lee from San Francisco sits on the
committee. We tried to balance academia and the various aspects
of UAS all the way down to the communities that might be
affected.
Mr. LaMalfa. Not much farming in San Francisco.
Mr. Gibson. Pardon?
Mr. LaMalfa. Not much farming in San Francisco.
Mr. Gibson. Oh, yes, sir. To your point, PrecisionHawk I
know is involved in that industry heavily. There will be a--I
will get you the specifics of the current DAC. And then we have
membership below that, at the subcommittee and all the way down
to the working groups. And we will address the agriculture and
forestry concerns. I know I just met with another company that
has begun work in the forestry industry. So we do stay open to
that, but I will get you the specifics.
Mr. LaMalfa. I appreciate that. But there really is no
requirement or direct intent to have those representatives
directly on those advisory committees then. Is that pretty fair
then?
Mr. Gibson. Sir, we tried to balance as best we could. It
wasn't that we omitted anybody. We just did the best with what
we had at the time.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, talk a little more about the balance.
What are--you know, how many are on--how many members on that
and what have you been looking for so far to provide this
balance?
Mr. Gibson. Well, again, sir, you know, I probably can
provide the answer better in detail, but there are
manufacturers, there are operators, there are communities,
there is academia. And we took 400 down to about 35
representatives on the DAC itself. The subcommittee is much
larger and probably balanced maybe a little bit differently,
but we opened it up. Essentially, there are over 70 members of
the subcommittee that do a lot of the work. And then there are
now three task groups organized: Rules and responsibilities,
access to airspace, and the last one is funding.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Well, I understand how if subcommittees or
committees get too large, it is hard to have a lot of input
here. But I look forward to that information from you on that,
on the criteria for the makeup as well as the makeup of the
committees and subcommittees.
One more question too. We would want to see the
possibility, what would it take for beyond-line-of-sight
applications? Again, where we are talking about in these very
rural areas with agriculture and timber, especially timber
management. So you are talking mountainous areas here, and we
have other issues going on with being able to have them fire
safe, where we need to do cleanup work around utility lines,
have the, you know, buffer zone between trees and other
foliage. So that would be a very important and very usable
technology for maintaining those transmission lines, as well as
other agriculture, ranching, remote areas.
So what do you see on being able to improve that situation,
not have it just be visual line of sight in operating the drone
equipment?
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir. Well, we are continuing to lean
forward in that area. I know, as I mentioned, I won't advertise
a company name necessarily, but they are with a number of the
forestry companies now and are out there for blight inspection
initially and then application of herbicides, insecticides. So
there are companies that are beginning to penetrate that
market, if you will, with us, and I am sure we will see more in
the future.
Mr. LaMalfa. I mean regulatorily, though, there are
restrictions on things being more than line of sight.
And I need to go here, Mr. Chairman.
But if you could get--do you have like just 5 seconds on
that? Because line of sight is a restriction.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir. Certainly, rural is less risk for
considerations, but any time it leaves your line of sight, you
need to have other mitigation factors, like we said, sense and
avoid and those kind of things. It gets a little bit more
complex.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just following up on that point. We hear a lot about the
need to do regulation for flying beyond line of sight too. I
hear it from the power company wanting to look at power lines,
for delivery, for firefighting. So I would encourage you to
keep us posted and let us know how we can move forward more
expeditiously with that as well.
I would like to ask Ms. Yak and Mr. Gibson too some more
about the test sites. We fought very hard for Nevada to be one
of the test sites, and I know a lot of the work there with NASA
is going on. But what I am curious to know is how much you are
using data that is gathered by what is happening at the test
site to inform the regulatory or decisionmaking process at the
Federal level. Are we really taking advantage of that data that
is being generated or is it just going on a shelf somewhere?
Ms. Yak. Thank you for that question.
At the Technical Center we manage the agreements with the
test sites, and there are a number of things that we have in
place.
For instance, on a quarterly basis and annually, they
provide us the research, the research results that they have
accomplished in that quarter and for the year. Twice a year we
also have technical interchange meetings where they come and
present what they have done.
We too are using the test sites for a lot of our work, such
as the UAS detection at airports work, and what the test sites
are doing are collecting the flight data information as well as
the research data and providing that information to the
Technical Center. We pull it together. Like, for instance,
there have been 8,000 flights since we started collecting that
data, which was in 2015.
So the areas of research have been from noise to detect-
and-avoid and quite a few critical infrastructure inspections,
we talked about that. What we are doing with the research
results is that we are pulling them together and making them
available, particularly for the other test sites to be able to
use it as a point of reference as they start doing their
research.
Ms. Titus. Mr. Gibson.
Mr. Gibson. I concur with what Shelley stated. We continue,
I think, to firm up our work with the test sites. And as she
mentioned, I know in the counter-UAS piece that I have been
working on, they have done all the support for that.
Ms. Titus. Great. So I am glad to hear that.
My other question that would just go to the panel generally
is that the current administration seems to have the position
that regulation is hurting innovation. They have this new
policy that sounds like a happy hour special in my district of
Las Vegas, two for one, you know, for every one new one, you
have got to get rid of two of the old ones.
So I am wondering if that is really a good policy when it
comes to the kind of things that you all are working on as we
try to move this industry forward. It is an arbitrary rule.
Does that really make any sense? Can anybody comment on that?
Mr. Cassidy. Ma'am, that is a very good question. And I
think that is when we look at what the net result of these
regulations and for beyond visual line of sight that we were
just talking about and other things, it is safe integration.
And so I am not really so much focused on two in, one out or
anything else. I am more focused on what are smart and sound
enabling regulations that can be implemented right now and how
do we get there.
And I think that the way we do is what we were talking
about before, is let's take the things that are most pressing
immediate needs, such as dealing with the safety and security
issues, beyond line of sight--I am sorry, drone identification
and tracking--and let's kind of solve for that, and that will
take care of us unlocking the next regulation, which is
overflight over people. And then once we get that done, then we
can start moving a little bit forward on future regulations.
So I don't really see this as kind of an arithmetic formula
as much as us staying kind of tight and connected and focusing
on the most effective near-term enabling regulations.
Ms. Titus. Anybody else want to comment?
OK. Well, that is so much for the two for one then. Let's
see if we can do it in a more rational way.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for the panel today, for the interesting
information that you have shared.
I probably have a little different view of unmanned
aircraft systems. I see them more as a delivery mechanism for
remote sensing equipment. I come from an engineering and
forestry background, and I have seen the evolution of remote
sensing over time. I saw us going from having to have field
crews on the ground to do topographic surveys to being able to
do flyovers with airplanes and take aerial surveys to do
topographic mapping. I have seen us use satellite imagery to
pick up on information in forestry stands. And really, as the
remote sensing has improved, UAS has become a vehicle to
deliver that remote sensing technology.
And I also understand there are other commercial uses for
it, like with Amazon with deliveries. But still remote sensing
plays a critical role in that because you have got to determine
the geolocation of the vehicle and also you have got to avoid
things as you are flying to deliver packages.
So in rural areas and in parts of industry there is just a
huge upper limit of where these things can be used. But, Mr.
Cassidy, in your testimony, you mentioned the need for Federal
and State and local governments to work together and ensuring
that UAS are not overregulated to create a patchwork. Can you
explain how that would be detrimental to your business and also
to some of these other businesses that are located in more
rural areas?
Mr. Cassidy. Certainly. And thank you for that question.
I think it really just comes down to one word, and that is
uniformity. And if we were to have to conduct operations,
whether block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, the
access rules changed, you can imagine how complicated that
would be.
And so that is why, as part of the statement, we basically
pointed towards the FAA and said the FAA manages the airspace
and operations and aircraft in a very uniform manner right now
in manned aviation. There should be that equivalent kind of
level of management and oversight for unmanned aviation. And
that is something that will not only actually help safety, but
it is also something that will keep from blocking the absolute
potential massive growth for this industry.
And that applies for everybody here. It is not just about
drones. It is about commercial space. It is about all kinds of
different applications. We need one consistent application of
the way that airspace is managed.
Mr. Westerman. Let me follow up with Mr. Cassidy. You
advocated for no-fly zones over sensitive fixed-site
facilities, which I totally understand that. There are a lot of
places, even in rural areas, where you would want no-fly zones.
But how do you suggest that you have no-fly zones yet you don't
create this patchwork of regulations that you discussed? Is it
possible to do that with technology where you just block out
the vehicles from certain areas?
Mr. Cassidy. Thank you for the follow-on question.
I think the answer to that is yes. And a little bit of it
is kind of rooted in what we just talked about before, and that
is working with the airspace authority, the FAA, who has the
responsibility over navigable airspace. But the other part is
about performance-based standards and safety regulations that
dictate, look, if you have a very complex operation and you are
going to be working around a city and that city has certain
sensitive places, you have to have a demonstrated level of
system performance that can assure that you won't stray too far
from where you are telling people that you are going to be.
So I think part of it is kind of regulatory authority, but
also certainly part of it is technology and defining clear
standards that tell us what level of accuracy, what level of
precision do we have to have to conduct safe operations,
especially around those sensitive areas.
Mr. Westerman. Mr. Whiteside, did you have a comment?
Mr. Whiteside. Yes, thank you.
One item that we really haven't talked to today is along
these lines of standardization. Right now in the United States,
I think when I tracked the laws, we are tracking something like
315 laws throughout the United States that have some sort of
potential State-level implication on drone regulations. And we
get into real issues when I speak to constituents in Oregon
about: What am I going to do with a drone over my backyard?
Where does my privacy or where does my airspace begin?
So we really have to deal with the idea and the concept of
Federal preemption and get that very clearly defined for the
State legislatures and the communities that are out there that
are wondering what is this all going to mean too from a
standardization and implementation standpoint, which is real in
the eyes of the people that are around this country.
Mr. Westerman. And just a few seconds left.
Mr. Fayard, thank you for being in Little Rock. I would
like to be able to see you get into even some smaller cities.
Maybe I can follow up with you later on that.
And, Ms. Yak, just a quick question. Can you describe where
the Tech Center's role begins and ends in research and
development and at what point technology or programs are handed
over to the FAA's operation? You may have to answer that off
the record and submit it. My time has expired.
Mr. LoBiondo. Go ahead.
Ms. Yak. OK, because it is my favorite topic.
Our research begins at the ground, looking at pavement. It
moves into the air, through air traffic management, new
entrants, like UAS, commercial space. It works on the aircraft
from flier safety to the structural. It affects weather
forecasting. We do weather. We do icing. We do human factors
research.
So we do research across the whole gamut of the air
industry, and our goal is to understand it better and get it
out there working as quickly as we can.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thanks.
Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I was very
interested in all the testimony.
To the witnesses, I have a district that includes the San
Gabriel Mountains in L.A. County. We have had tremendous issues
with drought, and we had a very heavy forest fire threatened
homes and evacuated thousands of people.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department was forced to stop
aerial firefighting due to presence of private air drones. What
can you say about that? What is being done or can be done to
prevent or stop the drones from emergency sites where they
cause interference?
Mr. Gibson. Well, ma'am, if you were talking specifically
firefighting, we work very closely with the Department of the
Interior. Mr. Mark Bathrick is a good friend of mine. He runs
their aviation section. And in fact we are working on a
challenge that they have now. But we work with them. I know
AirMap also has worked with them to put out airspace warnings
much more quickly than it has been done in the past to tell
everybody to stay clear.
And then also, if you are even alluding to law enforcement
and first responders and those kind of things, we are also
pursuing ways of getting notification out through air traffic.
Mrs. Napolitano. It would be nice in California. We have
the public access television channels, all cities have them,
that you might be able to send a message about how it should be
operating under circumstances that might threaten other folks.
Then I recognize the use of unmanned systems by first
responders provides an effective opportunity to help them, the
firefighters, police, and emergency personnel. Has the Federal
Government helped or hindered the ability of local and State
agencies to use unmanned systems?
Mr. Gibson. I am sorry, ma'am, what was the question?
Mrs. Napolitano. Has the Federal Government helped or
hindered the ability of local and State agencies to use
unmanned systems?
Mr. Gibson. Ma'am, I think we have continued to work to
improve the ability of first responders to use the vehicles as
a necessary tool. We know the value involved. Behind me is Andy
Nahle, who is one of my new detailees. Besides FAA, he is a
Reserve police officer, and I have asked him over the next year
of his detail to me to improve our ability to support them.
Mrs. Napolitano. Every State has their own laws, so are you
finding it helpful to work with the States?
Mr. Gibson. Oh, yes, ma'am, clearly. We have extended
information through our counsel's office on some of the
preemption issues that were mentioned, and we are working
additionally some of those issues, I think, through our
stakeholder engagement, like the DAC.
Mrs. Napolitano. One of the questions that I usually ask
is, what is your budget? And do you have an adequate budget to
be able to look at the technology coming in and all the things
that you are tasked to do?
Mr. Gibson. Ma'am, thanks for that question.
I can't imagine any organization that says they have enough
resources. But to our discussion today, we have the safest
aviation operation probably in the world, again, the density,
we have been doing that for decades.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, but this is a growing industry.
Mr. Gibson. Exactly. But we have had to take the same
resources we had for traditional aviation, no one has relieved
us of those duties and obligations, and yet now we have a whole
new----
Mrs. Napolitano. Precisely. Do you have enough budget?
Mr. Gibson. It is not just money. I think we need help in
IT because everything is going to digital. We do need
assistance in that area. But I am not prepared to walk through
the dollars and cents or manpower at this time, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes. In the industry, I assume the
industry gives you information as to what their findings have
been so you can have more information on them.
Mr. Gibson. Yes, ma'am. Yes. We work closely. I think it is
an interesting balance, public-private partnerships. There is a
lot of money that is coming with this in the sense of private
equity and venture. But we still have to partner with them, so
we need to move along quickly as well.
Mrs. Napolitano. And to the rest of the witnesses, do you
have any training programs so people know if they are
interested in joining the industry? Classes? Schooling?
Mr. Cassidy. Yes. Go ahead, Brian.
Mr. Whiteside. Yes. We have a program that we have stood up
in the U.S. We have already trained over 1,000 pilots in
Australia. And then we are working with universities, high
schools, insurance providers, et cetera, in training people on
how to do drone operations safely and comply.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, ma'am.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Chairman.
I am intrigued by a couple of things I have heard and read
here. First of all, Dr. McNeal, with the idea of Federal
preemption and letting municipalities play a larger or lead
role in UTM, we get into all sorts of issues here. We get into
interstate commerce clause issues and where the Federal
Government nexus is. You can go back to Lopez or Rapanos, pick
your favorite Supreme Court precedent. And if you live in a
community like I do, Minneapolis-St. Paul, where you are right
next to another State, you are going to have cross-border
jurisdiction.
You know, in your testimony you mentioned the explosive
growth of the unmanned aerial aircraft systems, and it is true
in my community as everyplace else.
Is your point that the local governments could do a better
job or is it a legal point, I guess?
Mr. McNeal. Thank you, Congressman. And it sounds like you
are a lawyer, all the references there.
Mr. Lewis. No, but I played around on the radio for a
number of years.
Mr. McNeal. You do a great job, Congressman.
So the point is a very simple one. I think that as unmanned
aircraft continue to proliferate, the FAA will be unable to
know the constantly changing conditions in local environments.
And so we need a mechanism to draw from the resources of State
and local officials who know best what is going on in their
communities. But then I also share Mr. Cassidy's concern that
we need a way to make sure that is uniform and understandable.
So I start from the premise that the future that we will
look at will be one of UTM and that State and local officials
should have the ability to make reasonable time, manner, and
place restrictions that they input into that system.
The reason for that is very simple. We take Congresswoman
Napolitano's point about local fires. When we think in our
local communities, we go to Minneapolis-St. Paul, the
Minneapolis-St. Paul police departments know about that vehicle
fire, they know about the fact that the local county fair has
come to town. The Federal Government does not know about that.
In fact, there are 70,000 wildfires a year of which the FAA
only puts up 7,000 TFRs. They know nothing about local first
responder activity. They know nothing about county fairs and
amusement parks and whatnot.
Mr. Lewis. So your view, to use a crude analogy, is if, for
one reason or another, States actually build interstates, they
probably would get them to meet at the border.
Mr. McNeal. I think the easier analogy, Congressman, I like
that one, though, is that if we expected the Federal Department
of Transportation to make rules about which street corners got
stop signs and which ones got yield signs, we would move
nowhere.
Mr. Lewis. OK. Yeah. I have got to move on. I am certain
Mr. Cassidy wants some sort of uniformity there as well.
But I also am intrigued with Mr. Fayard's service to these
underserved markets without some direct EAS funding in some
cases. I am intrigued by this, and it certainly sounds like a
wonderful business plan. The first question that pops into my
mind, though, is why haven't the legacy carriers done this? Why
leave it to FLYGLO?
Mr. Fayard. Well, I think, if you look at the legacy
carriers, like a decade ago the legacy carriers decided to
focus on making money and not so much market share. So when you
look at the communities and the way the model legacy carrier
operators with the very large aircraft that are--you know,
there is some labor relation situations thrown in there as
well.
But if you look at--again, I made this point earlier--the
gauge of aircraft is consistently going up. So you are
approaching 100 seats as the average gauge of an airplane.
These markets that we are in, we fly 30-seat aircraft, so these
markets were not necessarily able to operate under a 50-seat
aircraft, they are certainly not capable of a 100-seat
aircraft, of making that a profit.
Mr. Lewis. So you are saying it wasn't a case of market
failure, but as long as there was no great market discipline
for the legacy carriers to field smaller aircraft if they
were----
Mr. Fayard. That is correct. And there is a market, and I
will give you as one example quickly, before we started our
flight from Shreveport to New Orleans, the average O&D per day
on that market was something like 1.2 people. Our first flight,
we had 13 people. So statistics can only take you so far, and
in this business, until you put the aircraft into the market,
it is hard to say how big that market really is.
And if you want to look at--I can tell you, you can look
and say, well, New York to L.A., we know what that is because
they have O&D, et cetera. Most of our routes have been unserved
for, in some cases, over a decade. So we are going back into a
behavioral changing pattern where people say, well, shoot, it
is that drive, 7 hours, I guess I am just going to make or I
just won't go. And obviously, MSP, where you are, it is a very
large operation, a very large hub, your options are almost
endless.
Mr. Lewis. Yeah. But there is a number of rural airports in
mid-market and very small airports in the Midwest that might
have an interest in this.
Thank you so much. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
I know you have been here almost 2\1/2\ hours. Thank you
for your testimony. I will try to make this pretty quick.
Mrs. Napolitano talked about issues and problems that UAS
could cause in disasters, but they can also be very helpful
when there is a disaster. But in order to make UAS a viable
technology to fill these roles of being helpful, being that
aerial coverage to see what is going on, there are some
situations where operators need to quickly obtain temporary
waivers from certain restrictions for flight rules.
So in the Extension Act, section 2207 directed FAA to
publish guidance and procedures for processing of exemptions to
allow both public and civil operators to operate UAS in
response to emergencies. The FAA had 180 days to develop this
guidance, but it has not yet been issued.
So, Ms. Yak, can you give us a timeline for producing the
process and guidance to operators?
Ms. Yak. I am sorry. That is not an area that I am
responsible for. I do the research.
Mr. Gibson, do you have any information on that?
Mr. Gibson. Sir, I would probably prefer to take it for the
record. But we have worked on that. I think we were better
placed than we were before. But in reference to the report, I
will have to get back to you, sir.
Mr. Lipinski. Well, I certainly appreciate it. This is not
the first time I have raised this. And as I said, it is
overdue, and I think it is something we really need to--FAA
really needs to get moving on, so----
Mr. Gibson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lipinski. The other question I had, Mr. LaMalfa brought
this up, others have brought it up, the issue of somehow
fencing off certain areas from where UAS can go. And I know
AirMap has your geofencing. I want to throw another possibility
out there and see what the possibilities are.
A fixed counter-drone technology, something ground-based,
maybe a radio frequency that could disrupt the communication,
is that a possibility? Is that something that can work along
with geofencing? Where does that fit into fencing off certain
areas from UAS?
Mr. Gibson. Sir, that falls in line, to some extent, with a
number of the security issues that we are taking, 2209 with the
airspace, 2206 in and around airports. And, yes, we have seen a
number of technologies, a number of folks who have come to us.
It is, in my mind, not going to be one silver bullet. It is
going to be a layered approach. The more opportunities you
have, the safer we will be.
But our report will be done probably early fall, late
summer on some of those standards, but we have looked at radar,
RF, EO as well, geofencing, and the other manufacturing
technologies to help keep folks out. We have seen everything
from jamming to WiFi interception of the signal.
So there are a number of technologies, and that is why we
are working closely with DOD, which has had this problem for
some time, and DHS, as far as making sure we are talking across
each front in our exercises that we are doing.
Mr. Lipinski. So you are looking at all those and you
will----
Mr. Gibson. We already have in many cases, yes, sir, and I
know DHS even has another large exercise or test, if you will,
coming up, partnered with the Army in New Orleans mid-month.
Mr. Lipinski. And when do you expect----
Mr. Gibson. Well, our report, we are going to conclude
Dallas at the end of the month. Then we have a lot of
composition and review that we have to do on the data. We are
hoping by early fall that that will be ready for submission. I
think our timeline for 2206 is the end of December, but I think
we will be a few months ahead of that.
Mr. Lipinski. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Coming back to the Tech Center, Ms. Yak, we talked about
cybersecurity a little bit today, and it certainly has become a
growing risk affecting businesses and consumers. We receive
daily reports of cyber attacks being carried out by both
individuals and state actors.
Very fortunately, up to this point in time, the aviation
industry has yet to experience a cyber catastrophe. In this
unclassified setting, could you tell us anything about how the
FAA and the work being performed at the Tech Center is
addressing cybersecurity threats in the National Airspace
System, and what do you think is required to stay ahead of the
problem of hostile actors?
Ms. Yak. Thank you, Chairman, for the question.
I would divide that question into two parts in how we are
addressing it. Earlier I mentioned the cybersecurity test
facility and some of the work that we do in support of our
information-monitoring capabilities as well as evaluating the
tools and procedures for vulnerability assessments on our
National Airspace System and our information systems, our
mission support system.
So we have a process in place that, utilizing those labs,
we will check for vulnerabilities, we will assess risk against
those vulnerabilities, and then we will start testing what the
mitigation solutions are from a system perspective, and then we
will test that out in the laboratories.
Now, if we move over to the aircraft itself, we are looking
at the aircraft because that is becoming more and more IP-based
also, and we are looking to put the same type of structure in
place for the aircraft system. Again, assessing
vulnerabilities, looking at the risk, and doing mitigation for
protection.
We have partnered up with the Department of Homeland
Security on their cybersecurity initiative on the aircraft, and
we are sharing resources, tools. And DHS has actually gotten us
a Boeing 757, which is located on our ramp and is now a test
article for that type of testing. So we look at it from an
aircraft perspective and we also look at it from a system
perspective.
Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
We got everybody? Mr. Webster, you OK? OK.
So this was extremely informative and helpful, I believe.
To all of our witnesses, thank you for being here. Thank you
for your expertise and what you bring to help solve the
problems.
And the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]