[Senate Hearing 115-775]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-775
KEEPING PACE WITH INNOVATION_UPDATE
ON THE SAFE INTEGRATION OF UNMANNED
AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTO THE AIRSPACE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 8, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-952 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma GARY PETERS, Michigan
MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
TODD YOUNG, Indiana JON TESTER, Montana
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND SECURITY
ROY BLUNT, Missouri, Chairman MARIA CANTWELL, Washington,
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma GARY PETERS, Michigan
MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CORY GARDNER, Colorado MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
TODD YOUNG, Indiana JON TESTER, Montana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 8, 2018...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Blunt....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 2
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 24
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 26
Statement of Senator Moran....................................... 27
Statement of Senator Hassan...................................... 29
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 30
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 32
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 35
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 37
Statement of Senator Inhofe...................................... 38
Statement of Senator Lee......................................... 40
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 42
Witnesses
Earl Lawrence, Director, Office of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Integration, Federal Aviation Administration................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Brian Wynne, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association
for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International..................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Matthew S. Zuccaro, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Helicopter Association International........................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Todd Graetz, Director, Technology Services, BNSF Railway Company. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Earl Lawrence by:
Hon. Roy Blunt............................................... 45
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 46
Hon. Jim Inhofe.............................................. 48
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 49
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 49
Hon. Tammy Duckworth......................................... 50
Hon. Maggie Hassan........................................... 52
Response to written questions submitted to Brian Wynne by:
Hon. Roy Blunt............................................... 52
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 53
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 53
Hon. Maggie Hassan........................................... 53
Response to written questions submitted to Matthew S. Zuccaro by:
Hon. Roy Blunt............................................... 54
Hon. Jim Inhofe.............................................. 55
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 55
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 56
Hon. Margaret Hassan......................................... 56
Response to written question submitted to Todd Graetz by:
Hon. Jim Inhofe.............................................. 56
Hon. Richard Blumenthal...................................... 57
Hon. Tom Udall............................................... 57
Hon. Maggie Hassan........................................... 57
KEEPING PACE WITH INNOVATION--UPDATE ON THE SAFE INTEGRATION OF
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTO THE AIRSPACE
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Aviation Operations, Safety, and
Security,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Roy Blunt,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Blunt [presiding], Wicker, Fischer,
Moran, Sullivan, Heller, Inhofe, Lee, Capito, Gardner,
Cantwell, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Schatz, Markey, Udall, Hassan,
and Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator Blunt. This session of the Subcommittee on Aviation
of the Committee of Commerce will come to order.
Good morning. I am glad to have our witnesses here, as well
as my colleagues, to discuss unmanned aircraft systems, or what
most of us refer to as drones.
The Commerce Committee overall understands the importance
of technology. We have already learned through a number of
other hearings and meetings, and frankly watching the news, how
many varieties of sources we have for technology that play a
critical role in our society and particularly the rapid
development of this area.
While the benefits of drone technology are pretty clear, we
need to better understand whether we are keeping pace with the
technology and if there is a way we can encourage more rapid
advancement and at the same time ensure the safe use of
unmanned vehicles in the national airspace. We are working to
ensure that we have a balance that continues to encourage
innovation but public safety is at the forefront.
At one point, I think many thought of drones as either a
hobby or a highly sophisticated military technology. We know
that drone technologies are improving at a rapid pace, that big
tech companies are investing in future drone delivery services.
Drones are putting on light shows at events. Precision
agriculture is aided by drone use, and drones are putting eyes
in places difficult for people to get to and sometimes eyes in
places that people would rather those eyes were not.
Drones have multiple applications. I am confident we will
hear about that today.
The 2017 World Civil Unmanned Aerial Systems Market Profile
and Forecast says the value of drone activity rose from $40
million in 2012 to about $1 billion in 2017, and that by 2026,
the estimate is that both corporate and consumer applications
of commercial drones will have an annual impact of $31 billion
to $46 billion in our country.
Anticipating the needs for a skilled workforce related to
drones and drone technologies, a few schools like Southeast
Missouri State University have a Bachelor of Science degree in
unmanned air systems. I know my friend from Kansas, Senator
Moran, is very aware of the drone-related programs at Kansas
State Polytechnic University and Senator Cantwell of the drone-
related programs at Green River College in Washington. A number
of my colleagues on this subcommittee have institutions of
higher education that already have accredited drone programs,
drone research activities, and active student groups involved
in drones.
The new drone program at schools across the country--their
growth is really an indication of how rapidly this technology
is becoming part of our life and part of our economy.
While the industry and the technology and innovation
related to it is growing, it is not surprising that we are
grappling with the regulatory issues related to that growth.
Secretary of Transportation, Secretary Chao, at a drone
conference last year said, quote, ``The integration of drones
into our national airspace will be the biggest technological
challenge to aviation since the beginning of the jet age.'' She
went on to say, ``Our job is to prepare the way for new
technology so it can be safely deployed and usher in a new era
of aviation service, accessibility and ingenuity.''
For this reason, the members of this Subcommittee are here
to listen, to learn, to ask questions, and to try to figure out
how Congress can help the FAA safely advance in a way that
manned aircraft has been dealt with over the years.
So we are pleased that our witnesses are here. We have
significant attendance from our Subcommittee.
And I am pleased to turn to Senator Cantwell for her
opening remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
holding this important hearing.
And I would like to thank our panel of witnesses for
agreeing to testify on this important subject, the integration
of unmanned aircraft systems into our national airspace.
The diverse interests represented by our witnesses today
speaks to both the potential that UAVs hold and the challenges
that the system presents. I look forward to hearing from each
of you about what you are doing to help this rapidly developing
technology.
The integration of UAS requires a balanced system between
safety of the skies, which we cannot and will not compromise,
and the many possibilities of unmanned systems. Those
applications include fighting wildfires, infrastructure
inspection, and as we will hear from the panel today, aiding
farmers from everything from reforestation to monitoring our
borders, covering breaking news, delivering of small packages.
And we have all heard from constituents and local businesses
who have innovative solutions or, I should say, I do. I cannot
go home without hearing about innovation constantly,
constantly, constantly. So constantly innovation.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell. So we want to develop these new
opportunities for UAS systems.
As the FAA have moved forward to improve the way it
authorizes commercial UAS systems through the small UAS rule,
known as part 107 in section 333 process, we should continue to
work to make sure that the responsible users have the pathways
they need to conduct an increasingly wider range of safety
operations. Scalability is going to require us to continue to
make sure that we have these testing opportunities.
The issue of innovation being stalled is not a new one. I
know we first worked to pass legislation in 2006, which was
part of the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, to start a
pilot program to test the use of drones to patrol our northern
borders. Obviously with a very vast area outside our border
crossings, we need to use these systems to detect various
criminal activity which we were finding. So a great asset in
helping us with the northern border.
In my state, companies large and small are ready to
innovate a move forward with the technology that will aid our
farmers and foresters improve worker safety, reduce congestion.
And as we look to enable wider operations and the safety of our
airspace, people and property on the ground must remain a top
priority. We want an application like unmanned aerial vehicles
to help us on what is an ever-increasing fire season to give us
good data and information, but I will also tell you we had
incidents of when already authorized fire systems had to stand
down because of concern about drone hobbyists in the area. So
we want to use the technology for the good uses that can help
us, but we also need to have rules of the road so that other
parts of our air transportation system can work cost
effectively without worrying about incidents.
Importantly, UASs have also the potential to stabilize by
performing dangerous attacks across a huge range of industries
such as inspecting power lines or assessing damage after a fire
or natural disaster. According to the Department of Labor,
5,190 workers died on the job in 2016. Of these deaths, over
one-third were caused by falls. While not all of these deaths
would have been prevented by this kind of technology, it can
help us in protecting workers in high risk occupations by
giving good data and information. Many of these commercial UAS
operations that the FAA has already approved for use promote
worker safety. And so I am encouraged to see how much the Part
107 rule takes this into consideration.
I also look forward to hearing the panel's views on
privacy, including how the new UAS system will fit into our
existing privacy laws and what we can do to further protect our
citizens on these important privacy matters that are so
critical to all of us.
So I look forward to hearing the witnesses today.
And, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing.
Senator Blunt. Well, thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Our colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, is chairing a
classified briefing in the Senate Armed Services Committee.
This is an important hearing for him, and I think Senator
Cantwell and I are both inclined when he arrives to recognize
him so he can get back to that Armed Services hearing.
But we will have our testimony from our witnesses. We are
glad, again, that each of them are here: Earl Lawrence, the
Director of the FAA's Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration
Office; Brian Wynne, President and CEO of the Association for
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International; Matt Zuccaro, President
and CEO of the Helicopter Association International; and Todd
Graetz, the Director of Technology Services for BNSF Railway
Company. Your testimony will all be in the record, but you can
give as much of that or say whatever you would like to in the
time allocated. And, Mr. Lawrence, we are glad you are here and
go ahead and start.
STATEMENT OF EARL LAWRENCE, DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Lawrence. Good morning, Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member
Cantwell, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for this
opportunity to speak with you today.
In the past year, we have seen the operational envelope of
UAS pushed further and further. It has been 20 months since the
small UAS rule took effect. In that time, we have issued over
90,000 remote pilot certificates, over 20,000 airspace
authorizations, and over 1,500 operational waivers. UAS
registrations continue to climb. We now have over 1 million,
including over 175,000 commercial UAS registered.
There are currently a number of exciting operations being
conducted, including media filming over crowds, beyond line of
sight precision agriculture surveys, package delivery testing,
and long distance infrastructure inspection. I am sure Todd
Graetz will elaborate further on the advancements BNSF has made
in this area.
We continue to work closely with the UAS stakeholders to
facilitate more operations. When companies bring us
comprehensive safety cases for their operations, we are
defining the regulatory means to get them flying. The FAA is
open for business. This was a major theme at the recent FAA UAS
symposium, and a big thanks to Brian Wynne and AUVSI for
cosponsoring that event.
As part of the administration's continuing efforts to
support UAS integration, President Trump recently directed the
Secretary of Transportation to launch the UAS integration pilot
program. The program is intended to identify ways to balance
local and national interests, accelerate the approval of
advanced operations, and collect data to support routine
flights. Secretary Chao is expected to announce the
participants tomorrow, and we look forward to working with them
on advancing the program's objectives.
We have also been working with industry partners to develop
the low altitude authorization and notification capability, or
LAANC. This service combines FAA data with industry innovation
to provide near real-time authorizations for controlled
airspace. We launched phase one of the national beta test last
week. By September of this year, LAANC will be available at
nearly 300 FAA air traffic control facilities covering
approximately 500 airports.
LAANC is a critical component of UAS traffic management, or
UTM. A fully functional suite of UTM capabilities is a
prerequisite for high volume operations at low altitudes. NASA
has been leading UTM research for the past few years, and while
we have been supporting NASA's work, the FAA has already begun
fielding UTM capabilities with LAANC.
As the next step in deploying UTM, remote identification
has become one of the FAA's biggest priorities. The ability to
identify all UAS is essential for both safety and security
reasons. The UAS remote ID aviation rulemaking committee
concluded its work this fall, and you can read the report on
our website. I would like to thank Matt Zuccaro for leading
that effort from the industry side. The FAA is now working on a
proposed rule and is committed to establishing remote ID
requirements as soon as possible.
Congress recognized the security risks posed by UAS in the
2016 FAA extension, and we are using existing authority to
establish UAS specific airspace restrictions over sensitive
Federal sites nationwide. Setting up these airspace
restrictions have been highly informative, and we are using the
lessons learned to establish a process to protect critical
infrastructure. These restrictions are a fundamental component
of our plan for dynamic airspace management which, along with
remote ID, are foundational elements for the FAA's UTM
capabilities. These efforts also address our partners' security
concerns.
Additionally, we continue to work with the Department of
Defense and the Department of Energy to deploy their counter-
UAS technologies. The FAA supports the administration's
proposal to extend counter-UAS authority to the Department of
Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. In
coordinating the use of these technologies, the FAA will ensure
no adverse effect on normal airspace operations.
ID requirements will help separate the clueless from the
criminal, which will protect our country, facilitate education,
and enable this industry to realize its full potential.
We have much work to do, but we are making steady progress
toward the safe integration of UAS and maintaining our status
as the global leader in integration.
Thank you for your time. This concludes my statement. I am
happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence follows:]
Prepared Statement of Earl Lawrence, Director, Unmanned Aircraft
Systems Integration Office, Federal Aviation Administration
Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, Members of the
Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss
the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS) integration efforts. UAS--also referred to as drones--are at the
forefront of aviation. They are being used today to inspect
infrastructure, provide emergency response support, survey agriculture,
and to go places that are otherwise dangerous for people or other
vehicles. Entrepreneurs around the world are exploring innovative ways
to use drones in their commercial activities. As of mid-April 2018, we
have processed over 1 million UAS registrations, over 170,000 of which
are for unmanned aircraft that can be flown commercially. The need for
us to fully integrate this technology into the National Airspace System
(NAS) continues to be a national priority.
The Department of Transportation and FAA's vision for integration
goes beyond the accommodation practices in use today by most countries,
which largely rely on operational segregation to maintain systemic
safety. Our goal is ambitious. We intend to fully integrate UAS into
the most complex airspace system in the world, enabling UAS to operate
harmoniously with manned aircraft, occupying the same airspace and
using many of the same standards and procedures. With the support of
this Committee, and the continued engagement of our stakeholders, we
have made significant progress toward realizing this vision.
One year ago, we appeared before this Committee to discuss the
status of the safe integration of UAS into the NAS. Since then, we have
worked tirelessly to maintain the United States' position as the global
leader in UAS integration. Today, I would like to share with you some
of our accomplishments, our challenges, and our ongoing work toward our
goal of fully integrating drones and their operators into the NAS.
Enabling Increased UAS Operations
The FAA is open for business. Using existing authorities, we are
working with stakeholders to authorize increased UAS operations to the
extent they can be accommodated safely. The small UAS rule, waivers and
exemptions, and our traditional certification processes provide
different pathways for UAS operators to access the NAS.
The small UAS rule, 14 CFR part 107, sets the global standard for
small drone integration, enabling UAS operations with unmanned aircraft
weighing less than 55 pounds. Today, drone operators are using part 107
to inspect oil and gas infrastructure, survey land and crops, support
search and rescue, conduct disaster impact assessment, and capture
photographs and videos for real estate and other commercial marketing
purposes.
In keeping with our goal of a flexible regulatory framework to
accommodate the rapid growth of UAS technology, some provisions of part
107 can be waived to allow expanded operations. Applicants must
demonstrate that their proposed operation can be conducted safely
outside the provisions of part 107. To assist applicants, we have
published guidance on our website, including a step-by-step explanation
of the waiver process.
We are also taking steps to further streamline the waiver and
authorization process. Operators can now apply for waivers through the
FAA DroneZone, our online portal for all UAS information and resources.
To date, the FAA has issued almost 20,000 authorizations for operations
in controlled airspace, and over 1,500 operational waivers, most of
which enable night operations.
Consistent with our risk-based approach we are increasingly able to
grant waivers for more complex operations, including for operations
over people and beyond visual line-of-sight. Two of our original
Pathfinder Program partners, BNSF Railway and PrecisionHawk, have been
using these waivers to inspect infrastructure and conduct precision
agricultural operations and crop monitoring, respectively. CNN, another
Pathfinder partner, is using a waiver for operations over people to
enhance its newsgathering and reporting. And X's Project Wing has used
a waiver to test package delivery at an FAA-designated UAS test site in
Blacksburg, Virginia. We encourage operators and innovators to bring us
new ideas. If an operator provides the appropriate safety case to
justify a more complex UAS operation, we will issue the waiver.
We are also working with stakeholders to enable additional UAS
operations using more traditional certification pathways. Like manned
aircraft, drones are increasingly being used to spray pesticides and
fertilizers, and for other aerial applications needed for agriculture,
horticulture, and forestry. Using our existing certification process
under 14 CFR part 137 and our exemption authority, we have issued three
agricultural aircraft operator certificates to UAS operators, with
additional certifications in process. Other applicants are in the
process of demonstrating compliance with applicable aircraft, operator,
and airspace requirements for small cargo delivery beyond what is
currently authorized under Part 107. And we are working with several
manufacturers to certify larger UAS. In November 2017, we published the
first Federal Register notice seeking public comments on proposed
design standards needed for an unmanned aircraft weighing 55 pounds or
more--the FlightScan Corporation Camcopter S-100--to fly safely in the
NAS.
Supporting Emergency Response
UAS were invaluable in supporting response and recovery efforts
following the widespread devastation brought about by hurricanes in
2017. When winds and floodwaters destroyed homes, businesses, roadways,
and industries, many agencies and companies sought FAA authorization to
fly drones in the affected areas. We responded quickly, issuing a total
of 355 emergency airspace authorizations, many within an hour or two of
the request, to ensure that those drones could operate safely.
Drones played a critical role in performing search and rescue
missions, assessing damage to roads, bridges, and other critical
infrastructure, and helping insurance companies act more quickly on
claims from homeowners. In Puerto Rico, the FAA approved the first UAS
operation of its kind to provide essential communication services. We
granted AT&T approval to operate a 60-pound tethered drone to provide
temporary voice, data, and Internet service while construction crews
rebuilt a tower to restore permanent service on the island. Today,
drones are playing an important role in restoring power to many parts
of the island where the terrain makes it difficult and dangerous for
workers to make repairs. Drones are being used to find broken utility
poles and downed power lines, and to lift new transmission lines into
place, making it easier and safer for workers to do their jobs.
The FAA's ability to quickly authorize UAS operations after these
storms was especially critical because most local airports were either
closed or dedicated to emergency relief flights, and the fuel supply
was low. As former Administrator Michael Huerta said: ``Essentially,
every drone that flew meant that a traditional aircraft was not putting
an additional strain on an already fragile system. I don't think it's
an exaggeration to say that the hurricane response will be looked back
upon as a landmark in the evolution of drone usage in this country.''
UAS Airspace Authorizations and Traffic Management
Under part 107, drone operators must secure approval from the
agency to operate in any airspace where air traffic control is
providing separation services. To facilitate those approvals, we
deployed the prototype Low Altitude Authorization and Notification
Capability (LAANC) at several air traffic facilities last November to
evaluate the feasibility of a fully automated solution enabled by
public/private data sharing. Based on the prototype's success, we began
the first phase of a nationwide beta test of LAANC on April 30, 2018,
enabling LAANC services at about 80 airports in the South Central
United States. This rollout will continue incrementally to nearly 300
air traffic facilities covering approximately 500 airports. We expect
to complete nationwide deployment in September 2018.
LAANC uses airspace data based on the FAA's UAS facility maps,
which show the maximum altitudes in one square mile areas around
airports where UAS may operate safely under part 107. LAANC gives drone
operators the ability to request and receive real-time authorization
from the FAA, which allows operators to quickly plan and execute their
flights. Air traffic controllers are also made aware of the locations
where planned drone operations will take place.
LAANC is an important step toward implementing UAS Traffic
Management (UTM). NASA's UTM research efforts are exploring concepts of
operation, data exchange requirements, and a supporting framework to
enable multiple beyond visual line-of-sight UAS operations at low
altitudes in airspace where FAA air traffic services are not provided.
NASA is coordinating with the FAA's seven UAS test sites around the
country, as well as a variety of industry partners, to perform phased
testing. Phase one testing was completed in 2016, and phase two testing
concluded in June 2017. While we're supporting NASA in completing the
final stages of their testing this spring, the FAA is already
implementing foundational UTM capabilities like LAANC, and also
beginning work to establish remote identification requirements. The UAS
Identification and Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)
delivered their recommendations last October, and we have initiated a
rulemaking process as directed by Section 2202 of the FAA 2016
Reauthorization (FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act).
UAS Integration Pilot Program
On October 25, 2017, President Trump directed the Secretary of
Transportation to launch an initiative to safely test and validate
advanced operations of drones in partnership with state, tribal, and
local governments in select jurisdictions--the UAS Integration Pilot
Program. The pilot program is a crucial step in accelerating the
Department of Transportation's and FAA's UAS integration efforts. The
goals of the program are to identify ways to balance local and national
interests, improve communications with local, state, and tribal
jurisdictions, address security and privacy risks, accelerate the
approval of operations that currently require special authorizations,
and collect data to support the regulatory development steps needed to
allow more complex, routine low-altitude operations. The results of
this program will be used to help ensure the United States remains the
global leader in UAS integration and fully realizes the economic and
societal benefits of this technology.
As stated in the Federal Register notice announcing the pilot
program, the deadline for Lead Applicants--state, local, or tribal
governments--to submit their completed proposals was January 4, 2018.
The response to the program has been enthusiastic--149 lead applicants
submitted proposals for consideration. After evaluating the
applications, the Secretary of Transportation will invite a minimum of
10 government/private sector partnerships to participate in the pilot
program. We are in the final stages of the selection process and
anticipate an announcement soon.
Additionally, in the course of reviewing the applications for the
UAS Integration Pilot Program, we realized some good news: a large
number of the projects and activities proposed by applicants could go
forward under the FAA's existing rules, including with waivers where
appropriate. Accordingly, once the ten selections for the Pilot Program
are announced, the FAA will be reaching out to other applicants, as
well as interested state and local authorities, to provide additional
information on how to operationalize their proposed projects.
Challenges Ahead
The FAA's commitment to the safe, secure, and efficient integration
of UAS and the expansion of routine UAS operations requires resolving
several key challenges to enable this emerging technology to achieve
its full potential. Congress recognized a number of these challenges in
the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016. Technical issues
to ensure that a drone maintains a safe distance from other aircraft
and that the pilot retains control of the drone must be addressed
before UAS operations beyond visual line-of-sight can become routine.
And there are additional policy questions raised by UAS use, including
security, privacy, and enforcement.
The 2016 FAA Extension clearly articulates Congress's concerns that
the security challenges presented by the malicious or errant use of UAS
technology require a layered and integrated government response. We are
using our existing authority to address concerns about unauthorized
drone operations over certain sensitive Federal facilities. To date, we
have restricted drone flights over military facilities, sensitive
energy facilities, and iconic landmarks like the Statue of Liberty,
Hoover Dam, and Mount Rushmore in the interest of national security.
Using this authority, we are considering additional Federal agency
requests for restrictions as they are received. To ensure the public is
aware of these restricted locations, we created an interactive map
available on the FAA website, and we updated our B4UFLY mobile app to
include a warning to users in close proximity of these sites. This work
is also helping us determine the most efficient and effective way to
implement section 2209 of the 2016 FAA Extension, which will offer non-
federal critical infrastructure owners to petition the FAA for flight
restrictions over their facilities.
We also continue to work with our interagency Federal partners to
develop policies and procedures that will support protection of
critical facilities and assets from UAS-based threats, while preserving
airspace access and the safety and efficiency of operations in the NAS.
Congress has provided the Department of Defense and the Department of
Energy authorities to respond to UAS that pose a threat to designated
facilities and assets. We also support the Administration's proposal to
enable the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS) to
protect certain facilities, assets, and operations critical to national
security against threats from UAS. Under this proposal, DOJ and DHS
will work closely with FAA to ensure that detection and mitigation
technologies are developed, tested, and deployed in a manner that
minimizes adverse impacts on airspace access, as well as air navigation
services, avionics, and other systems that ensure safe and efficient
operations in the NAS. By enabling Federal security and law enforcement
agencies to detect and mitigate UAS threats and risks posed by errant
or malicious UAS operations, the United States will continue to lead
the way in UAS innovation and offer the safest and most efficient
aviation system in the world.
Another ongoing challenge to UAS integration is the potential for
conflict between manned and unmanned aircraft. Last year, we saw a
significant increase in the number of reported drone-sightings from
pilots of manned aircraft. Although we cannot verify these reports, as
the Federal agency responsible for the safety of the flying community,
we are greatly concerned with the increasing number of these reports,
along with events in New York, South Carolina, and Las Vegas.
Our Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team (UAST) made recommendations to
further reduce the likelihood of serious incidents and provide more
accurate information about UAS sightings. First, public education and
outreach are key to reducing these incidents. Efforts such as the
``Know Before You Fly'' information campaign and the small UAS
registration process serve as opportunities to ensure UAS operators
understand the rules and responsibilities for flying an aircraft in the
NAS. The UAST also recommended continued work on remote identification
of UAS to provide more accurate and critical data that will allow us to
contact a UAS operator, educate the operator, or, when necessary, take
enforcement action to address a violation of Federal regulations. We,
along with our security and law enforcement partners, need to be able
to quickly identify unmanned aircraft and their operators in order to
discern between the clueless, the careless, and the criminal--including
serious threats to national security--and to ensure that all operators
conduct compliant operations or face the consequences of introducing a
safety or security risk into the NAS.
Remote Identification
As Congress has recognized, remote identification of UAS is a
critical step on the path to full integration of UAS technology. In
order to ensure that our airspace remains the safest in the world, and
to enable our law enforcement and national security partners to
identify and respond to security risks, we need to know who is
operating in the airspace. Effective integration and threat
discrimination will continue to be a challenge until all aircraft in
the NAS--manned and unmanned--are able to be identified. Anonymous
operations are inconsistent with safe and secure integration.
We recently published the report and recommendations prepared by
the summer 2017 UAS Identification and Tracking ARC. The ARC's 74
members represented a diverse array of stakeholders that included the
aviation community and industry member organizations, law enforcement
agencies and public safety organizations, manufacturers, researchers,
and standards entities involved with UAS. The ARC's recommendations
cover issues related to existing and emerging technologies, law
enforcement and national security, and how to implement remote
identification and tracking. Although some recommendations were not
unanimous, the group reached general agreement on most issues. The FAA
is reviewing the technical data and recommendations in the ARC report
to support the development of the FAA's remote ID requirements, which
we are committed to implementing as quickly as possible.
We are also making headway with an ARC to address UAS in controlled
airspace, which will provide recommendations on UAS integration in, and
transit to, high altitude airspace. It will develop scenarios that will
encompass the most desired operations, identify gaps in research and
development needed to successfully integrate larger UAS into controlled
airspace, and recommend up to five prioritized changes to policies and
procedures that will spur integration and economic growth. The ARC held
its fourth meeting at the end of March 2018 and plans to have its fifth
meeting at the end of this month, where the ARC will draft and
prioritize a working list of recommendations. The ARC will continue to
meet through the expiration of the ARC's charter in June 2019.
Conclusion
Throughout our history, the FAA has adapted to changes in
technology and has successfully integrated new operators and equipment
into the NAS. Our progress in accommodating new technologies and
operations demonstrates that the agency is well positioned to maintain
its status as the global leader in UAS integration. We are committed to
working with Congress and all of our stakeholders to find solutions to
our common challenges. Working together, we are confident we can
balance safety and security with innovation. With the support of this
Committee and the robust engagement of our stakeholders, we will
continue to safely, securely, and efficiently integrate UAS into the
NAS and solidify America's role as the global leader in aviation.
This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer your
questions at this time.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.
Mr. Wynne.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN WYNNE, PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION
FOR UNMANNED VEHICLE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member
Cantwell, and members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today for your hearing.
I am speaking on behalf of the Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International, the world's largest nonprofit
organization devoted exclusively to serving and advancing the
unmanned systems and robotics community.
My comments today will focus on the current landscape for
UAS in the United States and what needs to be done to fully
integrate UAS into the national airspace system.
As President and CEO of AUVSI, I have witnessed firsthand
the massive growth and technological advancement of the UAS
industry. In August 2016, after years of collaboration between
government and industry, the FAA implemented its small UAS
rule, also known as Part 107. Since then, demand for commercial
UAS has skyrocketed. As of March 2018, more than 150,000
platforms have been registered for commercial use. The FAA
reauthorization bill, recently passed by the House of
Representatives, lays the groundwork for even more widespread
and expanded uses of this technology.
Generally speaking, operators currently need to fly under
400 feet within visual line of sight and only during daytime
hours. However, recognizing the need for the rule to be
flexible in order to foster innovation, the FAA created a
waiver process under Part 107 that allows for expanded types of
operations such as nighttime or beyond line of sight with the
approval of the agency. To date, more than 1,700 operators
across the U.S. have received these waivers.
Industry is not alone in adopting this technology. States
and municipalities are increasingly utilizing UAS technology to
enhance public safety and respond to natural disasters. For
example, in Missouri, the Conway Volunteer Fire Department
recently used UAS to survey the scene of a traffic accident and
help guide their response. Firefighters in the Pacific
Northwest use UAS to identify hotspots and direct water drops
during wildfires. Colorado authorities successfully used a
drone last summer to find two missing hikers and their dog. And
the Stearns County Sheriff's Office in Minnesota used UAS
equipment with thermal cameras to find and apprehend a fleeing
domestic assault suspect.
States and municipalities are not just utilizing UAS, they
are also seeking to regulate their use. While the FAA must
maintain ultimate authority over our skies, last year the White
House announced a UAS integration pilot program that will
provide an opportunity for State and local governments to
collaborate with the UAS industry and the FAA to further
develop a Federal policy framework for UAS integration.
The continued adoption of this technology will require an
expanded regulatory framework that includes beyond visual line
of sight operations, nighttime operations, and flight over
people. We were expecting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for
flight over people more than a year ago, but this next
regulatory step has been indefinitely delayed over security
concerns. In trying to get this Rulemaking back on track,
industry stepped up and offered solutions for remote
identification of UAS platforms. To the extent more needs to be
done, we need broader engagement from our government partners,
notably those responsible for national security, to understand
their specific concerns and work collaboratively to address
them.
The FAA reauthorization bill, recently passed by the House
of Representatives, is another positive step in furthering the
regulatory framework. The bill calls for UAS initiatives that
build upon existing industry-government collaboration and
expand commercial operations such as rulemaking around a UAS
traffic management system, which will help ensure the safe and
efficient use of the national airspace. We encourage the Senate
to support these provisions when it considers FAA
reauthorization.
The UAS industry is primed for incredible growth, thanks to
industry representatives and government regulators nurturing
innovation that helps businesses be competitive in the
marketplace. We hope that these efforts can be sustained, that
a long-term FAA bill can be passed by the Senate and signed
into law, and that together we continue to pave the way for
regular and widespread UAS use.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this
morning. I look forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wynne follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian Wynne, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell and members of the
subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in
today's hearing. I am speaking on behalf of the Association for
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the world's largest non-profit
organization devoted exclusively to advancing the unmanned systems and
robotics community. AUVSI has been the voice of unmanned systems for
more than 40 years. We represent corporations and professionals from
more than 60 countries involved in business, government and education.
AUVSI members work in the defense, civil and commercial markets.
Our members are exploring new and expanded ways that unmanned
aircraft systems (UAS) of all shapes and sizes can help American
businesses realize the benefits of this technology. My comments today
will focus on the current UAS landscape in the United States and what
needs to be done to fully integrate UAS into the National Airspace
System.
As the president and CEO of AUVSI since 2015, I have witnessed
firsthand the massive growth and the impressive technological
advancements of the UAS industry. From examining pipelines and
newsgathering to inspecting critical infrastructure and surveying
damage after natural disasters such as last year's devastating
hurricanes and wildfires, UAS help save time, money, and most
importantly, lives.
For years, AUVSI urged the FAA to use all available means to
establish a regulatory framework for UAS. And now, we have initial
regulations governing civil and commercial UAS operations. The FAA's
small UAS rule, also known as Part 107, was implemented in August 2016,
following years of collaboration between government and industry. The
rule established a flexible, risk-based approach to regulating UAS and
reduced many barriers to low-risk civil and commercial UAS operations.
This allowed businesses and innovators to begin to unlock the many
economic and societal benefits of UAS.
Since then, demand for commercial UAS has exploded. Thousands of
businesses, large and small, across the country, are embracing this
technology and integrating UAS into their operations. As of March 2018,
more than 150,000 platforms have been registered for commercial use.
The FAA expects more than 450,000 UAS to be flying for commercial
purposes over the next five years, three times as many as today. The
FAA reauthorization bill recently passed by the House of
Representatives lays the groundwork for even more widespread and
expanded uses of this technology.
Currently, anyone who follows the rules can fly under Part 107.
Generally speaking, operators need to fly under 400 feet, within visual
line of sight and only during daylight hours. However, recognizing the
need for the rule to be flexible in order to foster innovation, the FAA
created a waiver process under Part 107 that allows for expanded types
of operations, such as nighttime or beyond line of sight operations,
with the approval of the agency.
To date, more than 1,700 operators across the U.S. have received
waivers for expanded operations under Part 107. An AUVSI analysis of
the first 1,000 found that companies in 47 states are already taking
advantage of the process to operate at night, as well as to operate in
certain airspace, beyond line of sight and over people. More than 90
percent of these are small businesses with fewer than 10 employees. The
FAA has granted about 74 percent of the waivers to operators who had
not previously flown UAS under the Section 333 exemption process,
demonstrating how having regulations and rules in place has helped
increase the adoption of this emerging technology. For example, CNN has
a waiver to operate its UAS over crowds of people to capture new
perspectives on breaking news, and Intel dazzles Disney World visitors
with a light show that features 300 unmanned aircraft at one time.
Part 107 and its waiver process were just the first steps in
creating a regulatory framework for UAS integration into the airspace.
There is still a high and, as yet, unmet demand for expanded UAS
operations that will pave the way for these future innovations. An
economic analysis by AUVSI projects that the expansion of UAS
technology will create more than 100,000 jobs and generate more than
$82 billion to the economy in the first decade following integration
into the national airspace. After witnessing the growth of the industry
over the last few years and now with Part 107 in place, these figures
could be even higher under the right conditions.
Industry is not alone in adopting this technology. States and
municipalities are increasingly utilizing UAS technology the enhance
public safety and respond to natural disasters. For example:
In Missouri, the Conway Volunteer Fire Department recently
used UAS to survey the scene of a traffic accident and help
guide their response.
Firefighters in the Pacific Northwest have used UAS to
provide situational awareness during wildfires. The infrared
cameras on the UAS allow them to not just find the perimeter of
the wildfire but identify hotspots and help determine where to
direct water drops from manned aircraft.
Douglas County Search and Rescue successfully used a drone
last summer to find two missing hikers and their dog in
Colorado's Pike National Forest.
And the Stearns County Sheriff's Office in Minnesota used
UAS equipped with thermal cameras to apprehend a fleeing
domestic assault suspect who was hiding from authorities.
States and municipalities are not just utilizing UAS, they are also
seeking to regulate their use. However, Federal control of the airspace
is a bedrock principle of aviation law that dates back well over 50
years, and is one of the reasons that the United States maintains an
aviation safety record that is the envy of the rest of the world. While
the FAA must maintain ultimate authority over our skies, last year, the
White House announced a UAS Integration Pilot Program that will provide
an opportunity for state and local governments to collaborate with the
UAS industry and the FAA to further develop a Federal policy framework
for integrating UAS into the skies above communities across the Nation.
The pilot program will offer a data-driven approach to allow for
expanded UAS operations, including beyond line of sight, and UAS
traffic management concepts. Importantly, it will also provide a
mechanism for state, local and tribal officials to contribute their
views to a national UAS policy framework, without infringing on the
U.S. government's jurisdiction over the national airspace.
The continued adoption of this technology will require an expanded
regulatory framework that includes beyond visual line of sight
operations, nighttime operations and flights over people. We were
expecting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for flights over people more
than a year ago, but this next regulatory step has been indefinitely
delayed over security concerns. In trying to get this rulemaking back
on track, industry stepped up and offered solutions for remote
identification of UAS platforms. AUVSI participated in the Aviation
Rulemaking Committee to provide recommendations for remotely
identifying and tracking operators and owners of UAS, working towards
implementing a remote ID system that identifies any UAS flying in the
airspace--in real-time. We hope this technology goes a long way toward
alleviating the concerns of the security community. To the extent more
needs to be done, we need broader engagement from our government
partners, notably those responsible for national security, to
understand their specific concerns and work collaboratively to address
them.
In the interim, industry stepped up and offered solutions for
remote identification of UAS platforms. AUVSI collected papers on
remote identification solutions from industry stakeholders to help the
FAA meet its congressional directive under the 2016 FAA reauthorization
extension to develop consensus for such standards. The FAA's Drone
Advisory Committee (DAC), of which I am a member, provides another key
forum for the FAA and industry to work together to provide consensus-
based recommendations to the FAA regarding safe and efficient
integration of UAS into the airspace.
Much has been accomplished so far because government and industry
have banded together to advance UAS. The collaborative process in which
we have engaged, and the goals we share of supporting innovation and
ensuring the safety of the national airspace, have made for a working
relationship that is defined by both productivity and mutual respect.
This has led to a more flexible and nimble approach to regulating UAS,
as well as to more businesses adopting the technology. The United
States was once falling behind the rest of the world in embracing UAS;
now our country is leading the way.
The FAA reauthorization bill recently passed by the House of
Representatives is another positive step in furthering the regulatory
framework. The bill calls for UAS initiatives that build upon existing
industry-government collaboration and expand commercial operations. In
particular, the bill calls for rulemaking around a UAS Traffic
Management (UTM) system, which will help ensure the safe and efficient
use of the national airspace. It also calls for rulemaking concerning
carriage of property, a necessary step for allowing UAS package
deliveries. The bill's extension of the FAA UAS test site program will
also further research on sense-and-avoid technologies and beyond-line-
of-sight operations, spurring greater innovation to find solutions to
make UAS fly higher and farther, more safely and efficiently. We
encourage the Senate to support these provisions when it considers FAA
reauthorization in a few weeks.
The UAS industry is primed for incredible growth, thanks to
industry representatives and government regulators nurturing innovation
that helps businesses be competitive in the marketplace. We hope that
these efforts can be sustained, that a long-term FAA bill can be passed
by the Senate and signed into law by the President this year, and that
together we continue to reach new historic milestones in integrating
this technology into the national airspace and pave the way for regular
and widespread UAS use.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak today. I look
forward to answering any questions that the committee may have.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Wynne.
Mr. Zuccaro.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW S. ZUCCARO,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
HELICOPTER ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Zuccaro. Good morning, Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member
Cantwell, and members of the Subcommittee. I want to thank you
for holding this critical hearing and the opportunity to
provide the testimony.
I have been involved in aviation for over 50 years, and I
do not remember a more exciting watershed moment than this one.
The potential benefits of unmanned aircraft are only limited by
our imagination. But along with that excitement and optimism,
we must also take on the responsibility of making this
integration safe, which requires all the stakeholders working
together in order to ensure success.
The helicopter industry has been an early supporter of UAS
technology, and we see it as a new business opportunity. Our
members have been and will remain heavily engaged in unmanned
operations in the coming years.
The concept of aircraft integration is not new. We have
safely integrated numerous aircraft categories into the
airspace since aviation began. We do not need to reinvent the
wheel.
One important element of safety comes from standardization
of aviation regulations by designating the FAA as the sole
regulatory authority. This has created an operating environment
that provides a national standard which is managed by
professional subject-matter experts, creating a safe,
efficient, and economically viable environment. Degrading and
fracturing the FAA's authority creates an uncertain environment
with reduced safety margins. A routine helicopter power line
inspection mission might take the aircraft through dozens of
local municipalities during the flight. If each municipality
were to have singular authority over aviation activities within
its boundaries, the resulting situation would be conflicting
and uncertain.
It is understood that a successful integration strategy
must be inclusive and provide a place at the table for all
appropriate stakeholders, including local, State,
municipalities. However, the ultimate regulatory authority and
oversight must remain with the FAA.
FAA regulations and governance need to apply to all
categories of aircraft operating in the NAS. However, in
Section 336 of the FAA Modernization Reform Act of 2012,
Congress put in restrictions that limited the FAA's ability to
fully regulate recreational and private use UAS operators. For
the safe integration of UAS, the FAA must be able to regulate
the aircraft in the NAS. All of them. HAI advocates that
Congress approve legislation relating to section 336 that gives
the FAA full and singular regulatory authority over all
unmanned operations.
Some believe the easiest and quickest way to integrate UAS
into the national airspace system is by excluding manned
aircraft from certain segments of existing airspace. HAI
believes that integration of aircraft, not the segregation of
airspace, is the correct path forward. The NAS is a natural
resource and one that should be open to all. Current airspace
users should never be excluded from airspace that they
currently have access to.
The next step in advancing UAS operational capabilities is
the ability to safely operate the UAS beyond the visual line of
sight. This requires an effective and certificated see, sense,
and avoid technology. Developing this technology needs to be
prioritized so that we can achieve safe beyond visual line of
sight operations.
All aircraft, whether manned or unmanned, should have
similar protocols for identification and surveillance, as
appropriate to the mission involved, the aircraft capabilities,
and the perceived security threat. As part of this effort,
consideration should also be given to the right of privacy for
the pilot operators using ``need to know'' philosophy that
balances individual rights and our national interests.
Operating any aircraft, manned or unmanned, comes with a
degree of responsibility and accountability to ensure safe
operation. As such, effective training and certification
programs for those associated with all aircraft is a must. HAI
advocates for training that delivers a basic level of
understanding for anyone operating an aircraft in the NAS. How
can we expect anyone to comply with a regulation that they have
never been trained on?
Because of the close integration of aircraft manufacturing
and certification of the aircraft and safety, the certification
is critical. The FAA must have an effective, yet flexible
certification system that not only ensures safety of flight but
also enables the swift recognition and adoption of new
technologies. This is an important issue when considering the
possible effect of UAS operations on persons and property.
In closing, I would like to note my belief that when people
of like mind and shared vision come together and work towards a
common goal for the greater good, they can achieve anything. I
am confident that we will find a way to work through the issues
that have been outlined and that UAS will join manned aircraft
in the airspace safely, efficiently, and effectively to the
advantage of us all.
I thank the Committee again for the opportunity to provide
the perspective of the helicopter industry and look forward to
continuing our work together on these important issues. I
welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zuccaro follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew S. Zuccaro, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Helicopter Association International
Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the
Committee, I want to thank you for holding this hearing on the critical
issue of integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into the
National Airspace System (NAS). I also want to express my sincere
appreciation for the opportunity to provide testimony today.
I have been involved in aviation for more than 50 years, both
helicopter and fixed-wing, military and civilian. During my entire
career, I have not experienced a more exciting watershed moment than
this one: the integration of unmanned operations and technology into
the NAS. The potential benefits are only limited by our imagination.
But along with such excitement and optimism, we must also take on the
responsibility of making this integration safe, which requires all
stakeholders to work together to ensure success.
As a representative of Helicopter Association International (HAI),
I currently serve as a member of the FAA Drone Advisory Committee and
the FAA Airspace Integration Aviation Rulemaking Committee. I have
previously served as co-chair of the FAA UAS Identification and
Tracking Aviation Rulemaking Committee and a member of the FAA UAS
Registration Aviation Rulemaking Committee.
HAI's focus has been--and remains--on creating a culture in our
industry that makes ``Safety the First Priority.'' Our vision is to
have ``Zero Accidents.'' Over my many years in the industry, I have
seen tremendous growth and change, and today's focus on and commitment
to safety is the highest I have ever seen in the helicopter community.
HAI's 4,100 members safely and professionally operate approximately
5,500 helicopters, flying an estimated 3 million flight hours a year.
Our member companies and individuals span the industry, from manned and
unmanned operators, to pilots, mechanics, manufacturers, and suppliers
of goods and services.
Today's topic of UAS integration is about introducing a new
category of aircraft safely into the NAS. From the beginning, HAI has
been fully engaged in promoting this.
We have been early supporters of UAS technology and see it as a new
business opportunity for the helicopter industry. Our members have been
and will remain heavily engaged in unmanned operations in the coming
years. Many have already established UAS business lines within their
organizations.
This integration is occurring as we speak, but the concept of
integration is not new. We've been integrating numerous aircraft
categories into the airspace since aviation began. At one point, jets
were new. Helicopters were new. Yet these aircraft were safety
integrated into the NAS. We do not need to reinvent the wheel.
Today I want to touch on five important topics relating to the safe
integration of UAS:
The importance of the FAA preemption authority
Ensuring safe access to the NAS for all aircraft
The criticality of ensuring the safety of operations that
occur beyond the visual line of sight of the pilot or operator
The necessity of establishing training and certification
standards for UAS operations
The need for a nimble certification system for UAS.
FAA Preemption Authority
One important element of safety in the NAS comes from
standardization of aviation regulations--and therefore operational
processes and procedures--through Federal preemption of aviation
regulation, designating the FAA as the sole regulatory authority over
U.S. aviation. This clearly defined FAA authority has created an
operating environment for U.S. aviation that provides a system of
safety for all operators of all categories of aircraft.
Our industry's first and foremost concern is for safety, which is
as it should be. The principle of Federal airspace preemption allows
for one national regulatory authority, staffed by professional subject
matter experts, to oversee the NAS with a common set of rules and laws
understood by all operators, either manned or unmanned.
FAA airspace preemption ensures that all operators know the rules
of the road--because there is one regulatory authority that oversees
all of U.S. aviation. Manufacturers build to FAA regulations, operators
train to FAA regulations, and companies structure their operating
procedures based on this common set of regulations. This long-
established structure is an integral component of aviation safety,
efficiency, and economic viability.
Safety at all levels is enhanced by standardization of rules and
procedures, a stable knowledge base, and clearly defined lines of
authority. Degrading and fracturing FAA airspace preemption to allow
other entities to introduce regulations for either manned or unmanned
aircraft creates an uncertain operating environment with reduced safety
margins.
Introducing multiple variables of potential operational behavior
just because you have crossed imaginary political boundaries adds risk
to the operator and the public. At worst, these multiple variables may
produce conflicting procedures or incentives, leading to a significant
breach of safety. A routine aerial powerline inspection mission might
take an aircraft through dozens of local municipalities during the
mission. If each municipality were to have singular authority over
aviation activities within its boundaries, the result could be a
regulatory environment that is uncertain, in conflict, and counter to
safety initiatives.
A successful integration strategy must be inclusive and provide a
place at the table for all appropriate stakeholders, including local
and state municipalities. However, ultimate regulatory authority and
oversight must remain with the FAA.
FAA regulations and governance need to apply to all categories of
aircraft operating in the NAS. However, in Section 336 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Congress put in place
restrictions that limited the FAA's ability to fully regulate the more
than 1 million recreational and private-use UAS operators. Over the
next five years, the FAA predicts the number of hobbyist drones will
more than double to 2.4 million units.
For the safe integration of UAS into the NAS, the FAA must be able
to regulate all aircraft in the NAS. HAI advocates that Congress
approve legislation relating to Section 336 that gives the FAA full and
singular regulatory authority over all unmanned operations.
Airspace Access
Some believe the easiest and quickest way to integrate UAS into the
NAS is by excluding manned aircraft from certain segments of existing
airspace. HAI believes that describes segregation, not integration. The
integration of aircraft, not segregation of airspace, is the correct
path forward.
Today all types of aircraft safely traverse the skies, from the
humble Piper Cub to the most advanced airliner or military fighter. The
NAS is a national resource and one that should be open to all who
operate in compliance with FAA regulations. Current airspace users
should never be excluded from airspace that they currently have access
to. Segregation of the airspace with associated restrictions and
prohibitions being placed discriminatorily on certain aircraft
categories runs counter to our safety priorities and is an initiative
HAI and its members do not support.
The UAS is simply the newest entrant on a list of many into the
NAS. Older, established categories of aircraft should not be required
to surrender their airspace access to accommodate this new technology.
Instead, all aircraft and operators must work together to promote the
safety of the NAS and to ensure that all airspace is safely accessible
to all aircraft.
Safety is paramount, especially when considering airspace access.
We have concerns when we hear about measuring risk over congested areas
while considering noncongested areas as low risk. Our members' flight
profiles and the missions they fly place them all over the Nation in
varied environments at various altitudes. From corporate helicopters
flying out of high-density urban metroplexes to remote heli-logging
operations, utility repair work, or firefighting missions, our
helicopters are performing operations in a variety of situations and
locations.
Just because the airspace is not defined as congested does not mean
that there won't be manned aircraft operating in that section of the
NAS. Safety requires that we all understand that risks aren't confined
to just congested areas.
Beyond-Visual-Line-of-Sight Operations
The next step in advancing UAS operational capabilities and truly
breaking open their commercial potential is the ability to safely
operate UAS beyond visual line of sight. From our perspective, beyond-
visual line-sight operations for UAS will only be safe once effective
and certificated ``see, sense, and avoid'' technology is fielded. UAS
must be able to avoid other aircraft, both manned and unmanned, while
facilitating the ability of those aircraft to see, sense, and avoid the
UAS. We already have experienced incidents where drones have collided
with helicopters or have created a near-miss situation.
It is generally acknowledged that the technology for true ``see,
sense, and avoid'' capability is not yet ready to deploy. Our members
also want the ability to operate their UAS beyond visual line of sight,
but the technology is simply not ready to provide the desired level of
safety for conducting these types of operations. Developing mature
technology that can withstand the FAA certification process needs to be
prioritized so we can achieve safe beyond-visual-line-of sight
operations--and then we will truly reap the benefits of a mature UAS
industry.
As co-chair of the FAA UAS Identification and Tracking Aviation
Rulemaking Committee, I have worked extensively on the need for drones
to be identified and tracked in real time. This relates to both
security concerns as well as the safe and efficient use of the NAS. All
aircraft, whether manned or unmanned, operating in the NAS should have
similar protocols of identification and surveillance as appropriate to
address the mission involved, aircraft capabilities, and perceived
security threat. As part of this effort, consideration should be given
to the right to privacy for the pilot/operators, using a need-to-know
philosophy that balances individual rights and our national interests.
Training and Certification Associated with Unmanned Aircraft Operations
Operating any aircraft (manned or unmanned) should be considered a
privilege, not a right. With that privilege comes a degree of
responsibility and accountability to ensure safe operation. As such,
effective training and certification programs for those associated with
aircraft operations is a must.
Aviation training and certification requirements are necessary for
a safe, efficient, standardized, and economically viable aviation
operating environment. Appropriate training and certification protocols
should be applied to UAS integration using the existing manned aircraft
common-sense approach that considers the mission, aircraft
capabilities, and potential security threat. HAI advocates for training
that delivers a basic level of understanding for anyone operating an
aircraft in the NAS. How can we expect anyone to comply with
regulations that they have never been trained in?
Aircraft Certification
Because of the close integration of aircraft manufacturing
standards with aircraft safety, the certification of any aircraft is a
critical issue. UAS are becoming more complex and capable by the day.
The FAA must have an effective yet flexible certification system that
not only ensures safety of flight but also enables the swift
recognition and adoption of new technologies while facilitating a user-
friendly process that is economically viable.
HAI supports a certification program for the UAS category of
aircraft. This will provide for standardized manufacturing processes
and a common level of quality. This is an important issue when
considering the possible effect of UAS operations on persons and
property.
We all acknowledge that UAS technology is constantly improving and
changing at breathtaking speeds. The FAA needs to have a certification
process that can efficiently respond to the fast-paced changes in the
industry. A nimble regulatory approach is essential so that industry is
not held up waiting for government oversight to catch up to new
technologies. A flexible certification system will ensure that safety
is preserved while allowing manufacturers to certify and deploy their
latest technologies to the field.
Conclusion
In closing, I would note my belief that when people of like minds
and shared vision come together and work toward a common goal for the
greater good, they can achieve anything. I am confident that we will
find a way to work through the issues that I have outlined and that UAS
will join manned aircraft in our airspace, safely, efficiently, and
effectively, to the advantage of us all.
I thank the Committee again for the opportunity to provide the
perspective of the helicopter industry and look forward to continuing
our work together on these important issues. I welcome any questions.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Zuccaro.
Mr. Graetz.
STATEMENT OF TODD GRAETZ, DIRECTOR,
TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
Mr. Graetz. Thank you, Chairman Blunt and Ranking Member
Cantwell and members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity
for BNSF to testify before the Subcommittee today.
BNSF became involved in the FAA's Pathfinder program
because it is aware that technology is one of the key levers
for continuous improvement in safety and efficient operations.
BNSF has previously testified before the Surface
Transportation Subcommittee about how an evolving suite of
technologies fits within our risk-based safety program.
Equipment inspection technologies provide a real-time and
ongoing view of our assets under load, and drones provide an
additional overlay of these inspections. BNSF deploys these
technologies based on conditions, risk, and the opportunity to
reduce employee exposure. Together, these technologies allow
BNSF not only the ability to continually monitor track and
equipment health to improve safety, but they also throw off
large amounts of data which, of course, when analyzed properly,
allow us to undertake predictive maintenance. Operationally
this means fewer asset outages, less down time, and more
efficient network planning.
BNSF has been using drone flights since 2014 for
supplemental visual track and bridge inspections in a variety
of conditions. We have exponentially extended the utility of
drones in our network over time, given increasingly high
resolution cameras and agile drone systems. We use both short-
range and long-range aircraft to provide supplemental
information on bridge and structure inspections, track
integrity analysis, weather event recovery, service
interruptions, and yard measurement capability. And we also use
these drones to support the security of our critical
infrastructure.
We saw the Pathfinder program as an opportunity to learn
more about how to best manage our increased use of drones over
and near our facilities, which are critical assets. It would
make little sense to deploy a safety technology like drones and
actually impose risk on the network with airspace conflict and
potential railroad asset damage.
The Pathfinder program was a win-win opportunity. With
BNSF, the FAA developed a layered platform for safely flying
beyond visual line of sight. These operations then combined our
right-of-way, our technology, and our procedures and analytics.
We overlaid the use of dedicated spectrum, air traffic control
sensors, and air traffic displays with existing FAA flight
procedures and used our analytical capabilities to create a
baseline risk assessment of UAS flights along the right-of-way.
This should be helpful to the FAA as it addresses the ongoing
challenges of a wider beyond visual line of sight drone use
such as air traffic control infrastructure constraints and
limitations on detect and avoid capabilities.
Pathfinder allow BNSF to further explore safe drone
utilization on our right-of-way. We were able to use multiple
safety mitigations to protect manned aircraft from our drone
operations and also considered options for improved technology
in the areas with higher traffic levels.
Pathfinder also allowed BNSF to participate in an important
safety technology demonstration with a Federal agency, the FAA.
The agency implemented a robust, risk-based, data-supported
oversight system which has enabled the FAA to best target its
priorities and resources and permitted BNSF the necessary
flexibility to safely make the first long-range BVLOS drone
operations a reality and allowed BNSF to determine the best
application of promising new technology very quickly. This is a
prototype for demonstration of railroad technologies through
flexible application of existing regulatory requirements.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our experience
with the Pathfinder program, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Graetz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Todd Graetz, Director, Technology Services,
BNSF Railway Company
Introduction
Thank you Chairman Blunt, Ranking Member Cantwell and Members of
the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony and appear
before the Subcommittee on the subject of ``Keeping Pace with
Innovation--Update on the Safe Integration of UAS into the Airspace.''
It is my privilege to testify before the Subcommittee today and discuss
with you BNSF's experience with the use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS). I hope to give you some insight into the practical implications
of this technology in the railroad operating environment, and BNSF's
experience as a participant in the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA) Pathfinder program.
BNSF recognizes the essential role technology plays in driving the
dramatic improvements we have achieved towards safer rail operations,
particularly over the last decade. For the past several years, our
experimentation with UAS--or drones--has provided an additional overlay
of inspections and an additional tool for our comprehensive risk based
safety program. BNSF's drone program and participation in the
Pathfinder program has provided valuable learning about airspace
deconfliction procedures and techniques.
Drones are part of a suite of inspection and detection technologies
for track, rail and equipment. Our other technologies provide a real-
time and ongoing view of our assets ``under load'' in operations, and
offer BNSF the ability to continually monitor track and equipment
health. They provide for high resolution inspection and associated data
analytics that is far superior to visual inspections, and detect safety
standard deviations in real time so that we can respond before
something happens and preventatively maintain assets. Drones are
utilized for certain inspections and are providing additional
visibility into our assets and operations. Together, these technologies
are improving safety and reducing risk exposure for our employees.
As one of three companies selected by the FAA to participate in the
Pathfinder program, BNSF's experience with the FAA's administration of
the program was excellent. BNSF appreciates its partnership with the
FAA. The agency implemented a robust risk-based, data-supported
oversight system which has enabled the FAA to best target its
priorities and resources, and permitted BNSF the necessary flexibility
to safely make the first long-range ``beyond visual line-of-sight''
(BVLOS) UAS operations a reality. The Pathfinder program allowed us the
flexibility to begin this program and determine the best application of
promising new technology quickly.
Safe integration of drones into our operating environment is
extremely important, given the nature of our network as critical
infrastructure and the need to ensure against the risk of operational
disruption or infrastructure damage. With the FAA's guidance, we
conducted testing, developed a safety platform, established best
practices, and initiated BVLOS drone flights along our railroad right-
of-way. BNSF's work with the FAA demonstrated our ability to control
the land and airspace utilized by our UAS flights across managed flight
corridors over BNSF's property. As the FAA continues its effort to
build the foundation for broader commercial use of UAS and BVLOS
flights in the U.S., BNSF believes that it has contributed to the
agency's better understanding of BVLOS drone operations. Going forward,
BNSF will continue to use UAS in its operations, as one of several
tools to continue fundamental improvements in our network safety and
efficiency.
Review of the Use of UAS in Railroad Operations
Since 2014, BNSF has been using UAS flights for supplemental visual
track and bridge inspections in a variety of conditions. From the
start, our interest in this effort was aimed at focusing on community
and employee safety. Increasingly high resolution cameras and agile
drone systems offered us the prospect of enhancing visual inspections
while reducing the risk presented by track occupancy for our workers
and providing additional support to diminish the risk of derailment on
our network.
In May 2015, the FAA announced creation of its Pathfinder program
and partnered with three U.S. companies to perform research aimed at
helping the agency determine how to safely expand UAS operations in the
United States. As part of this program, BNSF was tasked with exploring
the challenges of using BVLOS drones in remote areas to inspect rail
infrastructure. We have since expanded the use of both short-range and
long-range aircraft as well as computer vision and data analytics to
provide supplemental information to our engineering staff with bridge
and structure inspections, track integrity analysis and yard
measurement capability.
Through Pathfinder, the FAA and BNSF had the inherent understanding
that we were both focused on risk elimination while the Federal
Government pursued the safe integration of UAS into the National
Airspace System (NAS). With BVLOS flights as the FAA's stated direction
for BNSF to pursue, our leadership made a commitment to this planned
three-year partnership and using existing rail infrastructure to
support air traffic control (ATC) capabilities. This process required
us to work collaboratively on design standards, analytics development,
and adequate exemptions to position our team to deliver an effective
``proof of concept'' that would allow the FAA to continue moving
towards expanded use of commercial drones in U.S. airspace.
In October 2015, BNSF began initial BVLOS drone flights on our
Clovis Subdivision in New Mexico. Since that initial test, over the
past three years, BNSF has conducted more than 4,500 hours of UAS
flights. We have developed a drone operations prototype that can expand
across our network to supplement inspecting infrastructure, monitor
system security and survey service interruptions. For example, we
conduct concrete tie and key train route evaluations, assess track
integrity, establish switch position confirmation, organize flash flood
patrols, and initiate significant applications for resource protection.
By using drones that are equipped with the proper multispectral imaging
and computer functions, BNSF has been able to produce asset condition
reports of all varieties that contain location, detailed imagery and
even identify potential items of concern.
Our work under Pathfinder also encouraged BNSF to establish a
process for conducting supplemental structure inspections with
continuing, focused rotations using ``line of sight'' operations. This
allows us to provide additional inspections for some of our challenging
bridges on a recurring basis. Some of these bridges rise 200-300 feet
above the ground and the reduced human exposure while gaining more
repetitive views and angles on these massive structures will help to
further the safety of our workforce while giving us an enhanced view of
the structural integrity of vital aspects of our network.
Our drone experience showed that the application of HD camera
technology has great promise as a tool to help better evaluate the
condition of track and structures. BNSF continues to determine the best
host for the use of the camera technology, whether on a drone or the
front of locomotives or other locations. We already use a variety of
other technologies to fuse information gathered from specialized
railcars, right-of-way sensors, and now drones, through data analytics
to achieve ongoing predictive maintenance of railroad assets. Together,
these technologies enable BNSF to reduce exposures to risk for the
thousands of employees who inspect lines, locomotives and cars, permit
more efficient use of maintenance resources and make the railroad
safer.
Review of Pathfinder BVLOS UAS Operations on BNSF
While BNSF's Pathfinder partnership with FAA ended in 2018, it has
produced a number of significant successes that FAA, the transportation
industry, and potential commercial users can build upon. More than 680
of the 4,500 drone flight hours conducted during BNSF's participation
in the Pathfinder program have been BVLOS and have led to more than
2.8TB of flight and safety data collection for us and the FAA to
review. This information will help the FAA safely integrate commercial
UAS flights into the NAS.
BNSF also worked with FAA to produce airspace risk assessments to
better understand the behavior, frequency and density of air traffic in
the surrounding areas. This knowledge allowed us to use multiple safety
mitigations to protect manned aircraft from our drone operations and to
consider options for improved technology in those areas with higher air
traffic levels.
A major accomplishment of the Pathfinder experience was the
approach we developed with the FAA to establish a layered platform for
safely flying BVLOS drones that combined our right-of-way, technology,
procedures and analytics. We overlaid the use of dedicated spectrum,
ATC sensors and air traffic displays with existing FAA flight
procedures (standard communication plans and navigational charts), and
used our analytical capabilities to create a baseline risk assessment
of UAS flights along the BNSF right-of-way. All three components of
this platform contribute to enhanced safety of these operations and
improved the overall effectiveness of the system. This should be
helpful to the agency as it addresses the ongoing challenges of wider
BVLOS drone use, such as ATC infrastructure constraints and limitations
on detect-and-avoid capabilities.
Conclusion
We have found after several years of the use of drone technology
that their best application is for the evaluation of bridge structures
and during service outages and incidents. Going forward, BNSF will
continue to leverage the safety and operational benefits of drones on
our network. We are grateful for the opportunity to have worked closely
with the FAA through the Pathfinder program. One of the most
significant benefits for BNSF was the insight we gained into the
process of partnership with a safety regulatory agency to demonstrate
new technologies, and transition quickly and safely into ongoing
operations. This is a prototype for other railroad technologies that
BNSF uses on our network. We seek to fully and efficiently utilize them
in our operations by demonstrating them through flexible application of
existing Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulatory requirements,
and then implement them across the network after showing that they meet
expectations for safety outcomes. BNSF believes that the kind of
partnership that it achieved with the FAA can be achieved with the FRA
to obtain ``pathfinder'' railroad safety and regulatory results.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Graetz.
So we already have 15 members in line to ask questions. Let
us stay as close as we can to the 5-minute limit, and if
anybody wants to stay around for the other 14 to ask questions,
there will be a second round. Starting with me, we will stay as
close as we can to that.
Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Lawrence, I keep hearing about the importance of the
remote ID requirement. Can you explain why that is important
and what you are doing to address that? And if you all will
keep your answers as short as you can too, that will allow us
to ask the questions we would like to ask in the 5 minutes we
have to do that. So what are you doing about remote ID?
Mr. Lawrence. All right. Thank you, Senator.
Remote ID is basically our ability to connect a drone with
its operator. So first and foremost, it is to be able to know
what is flying out there and connect them to their operation.
The other thing that remote ID allows us to do is help advance
beyond line of sight operations by enabling other aircraft
machine-to-machine detection. So it really does two things. It
helps the first responders and people on the ground understand
what is operating in their environment, and two, it allows
other aircraft to avoid them and help advance beyond line of
sight operations.
Senator Blunt. Do you think it should be a requirement for
beyond line of sight operation?
Mr. Lawrence. It is a requirement for beyond line of sight
operations. To have some form of ID, we would like that
standardized across the entire airspace network so that we can
use it to detect and avoid, in addition to just identify.
Senator Blunt. Mr. Wynne, you mentioned the wide adoption
of drone technology with your members and others. For the
Committee to think about, how do we get people comfortable with
the idea of thousands, maybe millions of unmanned aircraft that
are out there in the future that are not out there right now?
Mr. Wynne. I think education is going to be key, Mr.
Chairman. And needless to say, we are not going to jump from
here to millions. We are going to gradually introduce this
technology. And I think increasingly people are beginning to
realize this is about public safety in addition to commerce,
and it is going to benefit society in many, many different
ways. So educating people about the good uses of this
technology and how it can reduce congestion on roads and all
kinds of things for a future transportation system is going to
be really important.
Senator Blunt. And with unmanned delivery, has anybody done
that yet? Have any of your members actually delivered unmanned
delivery packages to someone's door?
Mr. Wynne. They have done it under controlled
circumstances. Yes, sir.
Senator Blunt. And how did people react when they saw that
drone coming down the street?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wynne. I cannot say exactly. As I say, it was a
controlled circumstance. But I think generally speaking, people
right now are pretty wild about the technology.
Senator Blunt. Mr. Zuccaro, a lot of what now we are
thinking might be done with the drones particularly in the
public safety area, the inspection area previously has been
done, if it was done at all, by helicopters. Is there
resistance in the helicopter industry to this new technology,
and if not, why not?
Mr. Zuccaro. I think we are being honest about the
technology. We have embraced it. We accept it. As I said, from
an aviation standpoint, this is the most exciting thing that
has ever happened in aviation. If you take a look at it
realistically, we are the aviation segment that is most
symbiotic and going to be affected by unmanned aircraft. A lot
of our day is spent 500 feet or less over the ground. We are
doing utility missions. We are serving the greater good of the
public. By far, the majority of missions performed by
helicopters directly benefit the safety and public and quality
of life. So we look at this as who better than us. We are 500
feet or less. We operate in the vertical mode and have hover
capability, and we are doing the missions that the drones are
now doing. We want to embrace it. We want to become a large
purveyor of this operation.
Senator Blunt. And, Mr. Graetz, your company has embraced
this technology a little quicker than most. What do you see as
the big advantage over this versus what you have been doing?
Mr. Graetz. So this is supplemental right now. As a
company, we are always on the lookout for additional safety
technology. So this had some promise. We are currently in a
proof of performance to see what and if this technology can
play a role in the long term. But as it stands now, it is
interesting. It is powerful, but it is just part of a larger
suite of systems that we utilize to inspect and maintain our
infrastructure.
Senator Blunt. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lawrence, tomorrow Secretary Chao is set to announce
the first selections for the integrated pilot program which
would provide important opportunities to demonstrate a wide
range of different commercial uses, including package delivery.
Does the FAA have the authorities it needs to authorize
delivery operations under the pilot?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, we do have the authorities that we need
to authorize package delivery. And we have been already working
with several package delivery companies and certifying both
their aircraft and their operation.
Senator Cantwell. So how quickly could you see the kind of
operations beginning?
Mr. Lawrence. So the speed at which the operations will
begin is really up to the manufacturers and the producers
because there are two key things. The aircraft has to meet the
certification standard, and their operations, just like any
other aircraft operator, has to show how they have control over
their operation. Those are both actively underway by several
entities, and it could be as soon as a year or it could be
multiple years. Again, it goes back to how fast those companies
will apply and conform to the requirements.
Senator Cantwell. It could be 2018, or you would think it
would probably be 2019?
Mr. Lawrence. Well, the testing is being conducted right
now. There are several package delivery entities who are doing
testing right now. So, again, it will be up to them. I would
not think it is going to be months because it will take them
time to fully certify their systems, but they are well on their
way and I think it is closer than a lot of us think.
Senator Cantwell. I definitely have seen demonstrations. So
I definitely think it is closer than a lot of people think.
But I think the thing that is most interesting about this
is that most package deliveries they estimate are under 5
pounds. So that is what makes this such a great application is
delivering those kinds of small packages to people.
Particularly if we are talking about medicine or something that
is urgently needed, I think there are really interesting
applications.
And, Mr. Wynne, you mentioned--one of the things that I am
very impressed by is--unfortunately, we had a very horrific
accident involving a commuter train on I-5 that basically ended
up shutting down I-5. Anytime you are shutting down I-5, you
are having a big economic impact in the millions of dollars.
So one of the things that DOT and entities worked on was
using that drone technology to do a modeling of the incident. I
think you referred to this maybe or maybe you were referring to
others. Using that technology working with the State Patrol,
they were able to reopen a lane of I-5 faster than they ever
would have been able to do.
So is this technology--every fatality on a highway takes
hours and hours because you have to get that right. But is this
drone technology going to help us in this getting better data
and information about accidents so that we can get faster
response to reopening?
Mr. Wynne. Absolutely, Senator. The numbers are really
staggering how quickly we can get an accident investigation
wrapped up, get the first responders and anyone on the road out
of the scene, get the road opened up again, reduce congestion,
reduce frustration, and do it accurately, very, very
accurately. So, once again, whether it is a large-scale event
or it is just a simple accident that is causing closing several
lanes of road, it is an extremely valuable technology to
deploy.
Senator Cantwell. I am thinking in the millions of dollars.
I wish there was some way we could categorize this and think
about this particular application as it relates to law
enforcement. We train so much in the Northwest for what people
call the ``big one.'' So we had so many people ready to respond
to this incident from Fort Lewis to our State Patrol, but
everybody just extols the virtues of what was able to be done
on this modeling that then helped everybody move forward, which
could have been days and days and days of I-5 closure. So I
hope that we will continue to prioritize this as an
application.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blunt. Senator Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Mr. Lawrence, there is a center of
excellence comprised of 22 of the world's leading research
institutions called ASSURE, the Alliance for System Safety of
UAS Through Research Excellence. And this center of excellence
is led by Mississippi State University I am pleased to say. It
focuses on research, education, and training.
How will the FAA utilize the product and the research of
ASSURE? And does our FAA reauthorization bill adequately
address this issue?
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the
opportunity to address that.
The center of excellence and ASSURE is really key to our
applied research for the FAA, and it has been extremely
supportive.
One of the things that we have done internally is we have
built an integration research plan, which we have coordinated
with NASA and other agencies, as well as all the offices within
the FAA. And ASSURE helps us directly support the needed
research. That research plan links directly to every policy and
rulemaking activity that we need to do to fully integrate UAS.
So all the activities of the center of excellence are tied to
supporting that research----
Senator Wicker. Are they in response to requests by FAA?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir.
Senator Wicker. And other entities or only FAA?
Mr. Lawrence. No, other entities as well. The COE is
supporting industry as well, which is also a very important
step, as we have mentioned. A lot of the research that is
needed, things like UTM, in support of both the industry and
the U.S. Government needs.
Senator Wicker. We have a proposed reauthorization bill. Is
it adequate in that respect? I have been dealing with this
center of excellence.
Mr. Lawrence. It is adequate for the FAA needs, yes, sir.
Senator Wicker. Now, Mr. Wynne--I will direct this question
to Mr. Lawrence first, then to Mr. Wynne. Mr. Wynne mentioned
the concerns of the security community and that that had
somewhat slowed down recommendations for remotely identifying
and tracking operators of UAS. What do you say to that? Do you
remember that part of the testimony?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. I believe the context is that it
has slowed down some of our advance operations, not so much our
ID. ID is key to moving forward. We have worked very closely
with our security partners. They have pointed out some security
needs that we have for our country, and we have worked with
them over the last year to reorganize our advanced operations
rules for conducting operations over people, flight at night,
and additional activities. We think remote ID and the work we
have done with our security partners will enable us to move
forward----
Senator Wicker. The regulatory step has been indefinitely
delayed over security concerns. Is that true?
Mr. Lawrence. Certainly we have spent the last year working
with our security partners to understand their needs, and we
have an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that will address
security concerns that we are looking forward to putting out
this year. And also we believe the remote pilot ID rule will
also address the security concerns.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Wynne, how indefinitely is this delay?
Mr. Wynne. Well, we hope it is not indefinite. We hope that
we will have the remote ID soon. The purpose of my putting that
into my testimony was to highlight the fact that the FAA's
province is safety. Security is--there are other government
partners that are more interested in that.
I think in that instance when it came to remote ID, what we
discovered was that we have to get things in the right
sequence. We all know that we have to remotely identify, put
license plates, if you will, on our platforms if we are going
to fly beyond visual line of sight. What we learned from the
security community was they wanted those license plates for
flight over people, which was much earlier on the continuum.
And industry responded to that. We worked with the FAA. The FAA
responded to that. Now we need to know is that enough to
proceed with flight over people and then moving on to more
extended operations from there.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Graetz, is this really going to relieve
congestion in our highways?
Mr. Graetz. I could not comment on highways. I can tell you
where this technology can come into play is that it allows
someone to inspect a linear piece of infrastructure with a
higher rate of frequency and not essentially be on the track or
the roadway. What it can do long-term--it is very early to
tell.
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
Senator Schatz.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
having this hearing. I appreciate all the testimony.
I will start with Mr. Wynne. Mr. Wynne, can you paint me a
picture? I am particularly interested in disaster relief and
response. It seems to me that we have only just begun to tap
the potential in terms of managing disasters, not just to
assess what is going on but actually to deliver supplies, to
deliver possibly electricity. And my concern is that frankly
there is so much private sector opportunity here that
delivering stuff that you get paid for is being prioritized.
But the real opportunities in terms of improving people's lives
may be on the disaster response and management at the side.
So I want you to paint a picture for what is possible, say,
30 years from now if we are working with USAID or the
Department of Defense is helping folks overseas or we are
dealing with an earthquake or a tsunami or a hurricane. What is
the potential that you see for drones, and what do we need to
do to get there?
Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Senator.
I think you are exactly right. And we actually celebrated
some of those humanitarian efforts last week at our large trade
show in Denver where folks that had been providing medicine and
so forth beyond visual line of sight operations in Africa are
collecting tremendous data. And I would agree with you that we
have only begun to scratch the surface here.
But the good news is that we will learn in parallel what
needs to be done with everyday operations, extended operations
that will benefit us in a major event. If we learned anything
during 9/11, it was the things that our first responders need
in a major event, they have to be everyday tools. So what we
are trying to work with--and AUVSI has a very robust
partnership with public safety--is what do they need on an
everyday basis that would then translate into their ability to
serve the public and to recover in a major event.
Senator Schatz. Mr. Lawrence, I know you only represent one
agency in one department of the Federal Government. But I guess
my basic question for you is, is there a point agency on trying
to maximize the impact of drones in terms of disaster response
and recovery? Is that you? Is that FEMA? Do we need to
designate a lead agency? Are we sure that there is enough
interagency thinking around this? And do you need any
additional authorities?
Mr. Lawrence. So, Senator, thank you for highlighting that
issue.
I think that is an area where there is a lot of interagency
discussions. We have what is called our EXCOM. That was a
congressional mandate where we do coordinate among all of us.
That includes Department of Commerce, Department of Energy,
Department of the Interior, DOD, the Department of Homeland
Security where we do share our experiences and look how we can
better use this particularly during emergency responses.
In that process, one of the things that I am proud of is we
are authorizing in emergency situations in less than an hour in
all cases the airspace necessary to conduct operations by not
just our Federal partners but also local, State, and in some
cases even civil authorities that are in support of emergency
responses.
Senator Schatz. And that is great. But it seems to me that
the money behind innovation is understandably behind trying to
figure out how to sell something. And what you are doing is
trying to overlay your authority under the statute and try to
be as flexible as possible. What I am trying to figure out is,
how do we put some money behind research, how do we put some
resources behind research and then application of this in a
disaster context? And it is not at all clear to me that Amazon
or anyone else is going to have the incentive to do the thing
that I think is clearly the government's job.
Mr. Lawrence. So I would not want to highlight our FAA test
sites. Again, there are the seven test sites. They have done
some tremendous work, some of them very much focused on
emergency response and how they can respond to that. In the
hurricanes in Texas this last year, the Texas test site was
instrumental in helping that disaster relief and providing data
and standards. They are developing more and more standards for
fire departments, police departments, and insisting in those
types of technologies that are focused on first response, not
on the commercial package delivery.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
Senator Blunt. Senator Moran, followed by Senator Hassan.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Moran. Chairman Blunt, thank you very much.
Mr. Lawrence, let me ask you a couple of questions. First
of all, let me brag about my state. Kansas has been a leader in
the development of innovative aviation technology for a long
time. We are proud that Kansas created the first unmanned
traffic management network in the United States. That system
was enhanced last week by LAANC, low altitude authorization and
notification capability program. Thank you. We are excited to
make drone innovation happen. And I believe Kansas has
submitted a very competitive proposal for the DOT's integration
pilot program. We await tomorrow's announcement.
But with all this that is happening in the UAV space, what
is the FAA doing to align the outcomes of drone integration
programs to leverage those activities to enable safe
integration? Where do we go now?
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you. That is always a good question,
what do we do now?
It is about aligning about all of our different activities,
and what we have been working in the integration office is to
have one integration plan for the agency. We have developed
that internal plan where we align all of our activities,
including our research activities, to go step by step into the
full integration of UAS systems.
But we also do not let that limit us. As you have
highlighted in your state, we need to see operations now. I
would say that is one of the things that we have evolved to
over the years. It is not just about getting regulations first.
It is also about getting operations first so we can learn from
those. And I think the IPP program, as you have highlighted, is
one of those things that will educate us and help align and
speed up our rulemaking activities because we will better
understand how those operations work in the real world and how
we can alter our existing rules and alter our existing systems
to support them better.
Senator Moran. Thank you.
Let me ask you an additional question. This deals with
universities across the country. They offer courses to students
that use UASs as part of their coursework. Engineering
aerospace students might be building a model aircraft or
demonstrate the physics and aerodynamics of an unmanned
aircraft. The universities are able to conduct these activities
because of a 2016 FAA memorandum that indicates that UAS
coursework counts as hobby or recreational under Section 336.
That is a significantly less burdensome process than Part 107.
And, I wanted to get your take on is if that is appropriately
being used? Is it something we can count on continuing? Do we
need to worry about any increased burden on those educational
activities? That was only a memorandum, and I am trying to make
certain that there is some certainty in this arena.
Mr. Lawrence. Well, thank you for highlighting that.
In all our rulemaking activities and all our approaches,
the FAA takes an incremental approach to UAS operations. So we
want to have the lightest touch as necessary depending on the
risk posed by that particular operation. Many of these research
activities do not impose a significant risk to the national
airspace system, and therefore, they do not need a significant
touch and we can take advantage of model operations.
Other operations, as we are seeing the industry develop,
may be a full-scale agricultural sprayer at a Kansas
university. Now we are talking a several thousand-pound
aircraft doing aerial spraying unmanned. That transitions into
something that we would have some additional regulatory
oversight over.
So I would just like to highlight. We look to have the
appropriate oversight for the risk of that particular
operation, and we are always going to--it is best for our
resources and for advancing innovation to have the least amount
of oversight resources necessary for those operations.
Senator Moran. Would you have any suggestions for tweaks or
changes to Part 107 that we need to pursue in this arena?
Mr. Lawrence. I think the one thing that we continually
look at of how can we use Part 107 better--and it is really the
visual line of sight rule--has some very basic airspace
training requirements. We think those airspace training
requirements and that understanding of that airspace system
should apply to all operators in the NAS. Right now, it is
looked at as it is just for commercial operators. We think that
is good information, even if you are a university class, that
you understand the airspace that you are operating in, and we
would encourage that to be more universally accepted as the
basic amount of knowledge necessary to be operating a UAS.
Senator Moran. Mr. Lawrence, thank you very much for your
leadership, and thank each of you for your testimony.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Moran.
Senator Hassan.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to
you and Ranking Member Senator Cantwell for having this
hearing.
Good morning to our panelists. Thank you for being here and
for your work.
I am pleased to hear that things are still moving forward
with regard to the UAS integration in our airspace, which will
bring new efficiencies, jobs, and economic growth to our
economy. Industry estimates indicate that between 2015 and
2025, UAS will bring 100,000 jobs to the United States and
generate $82 billion in economic activity. Additionally, I see
this as an opportunity to highlight U.S. leadership and
innovation and to continue to lead the world in cutting-edge
technology.
So to Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Wynne, from a regulatory
perspective, what more is needed to ensure that the United
States continues to be a world leader in the safe use of this
technology? I am really thinking about--we have talked a lot
about the importance of integration regulations, but what do we
need to do make sure that we are leading here globally?
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you very much for that question. As I
have reiterated several times throughout my testimony, the next
key thing for us is ID. Without ID in the system--everything
hinges on that, our UTM abilities, our ability to operate
beyond line of sight. And to maintain that leadership in the
world, we have to have a universal acceptance of an ID network
and that all the users of the airspace have to follow the same
airspace rules. It is very difficult to allow additional
operations like package delivery when other aircraft in that
same airspace do not have to identify themselves.
Senator Hassan. Thank you.
And, Mr. Wynne, anything to add?
Mr. Wynne. Well, just simply that we need to maintain the
collaborative posture that we have had. And it has always been
my view that it is incumbent upon industry to bring solutions
to the government. We have a marvelous community that is able
to do that. Mr. Lawrence mentioned remote identification. He
asked us to request White Papers from the community. I think we
had 45 or 43 inside of 2 weeks, a high level, but nonetheless,
that became the basis of the ARC, the aviation rulemaking
committee, that Mr. Zuccaro chaired. So all of us here are not
only collaborators, but we are friends and we work together
across the aviation community and bring in industries that have
not heretofore really been in the flying business.
Senator Hassan. That is great. Thank you so much for that.
Mr. Lawrence, I also wanted to follow up on another topic
that has already been touched on. It is my understanding that
UAS will bring great benefits to rural farmers and precision
agriculture. You mentioned just in your answer to Senator Moran
about spraying in the agriculture field.
In recent years, it has really been fascinating to see how
farmers are using new technology to boost their businesses and
find new efficiencies. Can you describe for the Committee what
the FAA is seeing through the Pathfinder program and other
initiatives in terms of how drones will help farmers?
Mr. Lawrence. Well, thank you.
The Pathfinder program has been instrumental in those types
of operations. One of the first expansions that we saw of what
would be a beyond line of sight operation was what we call
extended line of sight, and that was with Precision Hawk and
their operation of agriculture. They managed to increase the
acreage covered by over 3,000 percent by--when we say extended
visual line of sight, which means we do not have detect and
avoid equipment on the aircraft, but we are using still the
human on the ground to detect incoming aircraft and manage
those operations.
I do not see that as the future, though. That helps a lot
and is immediate and allows us to use the tools that are
available today. In the future and in growth in agriculture, we
are seeing larger aircraft and aircraft up in the tens and 20
thousands of feet. And we are working very closely with those
communities right now, with their detect and avoid systems. And
we see them in the coming years taking the place of many of the
smaller aircraft when it comes to agriculture operations.
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you for that.
It also seems to me that in order for this to be as
effective as it can for rural Americans, we are going to need
to make broadband connectivity a top priority. You are nodding
your head. For the record, yes?
Mr. Lawrence. It is certainly one of the favored means to
support our traffic management systems and our communications
systems. So it is definitely a tool that is helping us greatly
in expanding the reach of unmanned systems.
Senator Hassan. Thank you.
And because I have very little time left, I am just going
to let you all know I am going to submit for the record a
question about how we can continue with this technology while
developing it to also respect the privacy concerns that many of
my constituents have been raising with me. So I will submit
that question for the record. And I greatly appreciate your
testimony today.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I want to thank you all for being here today. I
appreciate you coming in. I apologize for having to leave.
Look, military, hurricanes, wildfires, ag, rails,
Department of Homeland Security--this can be as big as your
imagination. And this may be the only time you will ever be
compared to Facebook, but that is the same thing. It is a
platform that was all positive until somebody got a hold of it
that wanted to do bad things with it. The same thing could
happen here.
And so I want to touch from a couple different angles.
Number one, what is the timeline for remote ID?
Mr. Lawrence. So, Senator, we are working as fast as we can
to put together a rule for remote ID. And as you know,
rulemaking is a very deliberative process.
Senator Tester. I got you. Do you have a timeline that you
anticipate you are going to have real ID done by? Because one
thing that I have found, if there is never a date certain, it
could go on forever.
Mr. Lawrence. We have not established it into the
rulemaking plan yet, but I will say this. As we were mentioning
with LAANC, we are not waiting just for the rule. It is part
ID. It is also a network thing. It is part of our UTM system.
So we are testing it now, and we are starting on the
development of actually building the computer systems for that
network ID.
Senator Tester. I would agree that it is critically
important.
The next question I have as far as real ID is, does
everybody in the world know what is going on or is it within a
mile or is it within 100 miles or is it Washington, D.C. or who
knows?
Mr. Lawrence. So we envision two basic areas for ID. There
is the networked ID. So that is something that is tied into the
UTM system so the users of the UTM system can see all the other
users. That does not necessarily mean they know their name,
their address, and their phone number. They just know there is
an operator.
Senator Tester. So let me give you an example. There was
the Lolo fire last summer in Montana. You probably know all
about this. They were fighting fires like crazy, keeping homes
from burning down. And they shut down the whole fleet. Why?
Because there was a drone flying along and these helicopters
were flying at treetop levels. If there would have been remote
ID, would you have known who was flying that? Because it may
have been somebody as a hobby. It may have been somebody that
was doing a--a working professional to do some kind of video.
Would you know?
Mr. Lawrence. In the system we are envisioning now----
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Lawrence.--that makes it through the rulemaking
process, yes, we would know those people. We would have known
the----
Senator Tester. And how quickly could you shut them down if
you noticed that they were in the air in the wrong area?
Mr. Lawrence. As quickly as we could get somebody to the
location of the operator. We would know the location of the
operator.
Senator Tester. Are there rules right now for--you know,
you have got three different categories. But are there real
rules now for altitude and all that stuff? And I am talking
about for general aviation's sake. I would assume the person
who is doing precision ag on agriculture that is running a
plane that can carry thousands of pounds of chemical, you are
going to know when they are up there and you are going to be
able to at least visually see them.
What about the small ones? What about the more hobby ones?
Are there any rules around these folks? Can they go as high as
they want? Tell me if there are any rules.
Mr. Lawrence. So I think as you know, the----
Senator Tester. I really do not.
Mr. Lawrence [continuing]. Under 336, there is a set of
community-based rules of a national organization. And so they
establish what those rules are for those----
Senator Tester. So you are saying the rules exist but on a
community basis and not on a national basis?
Mr. Lawrence. I believe the legislation--and I know I am
probably not quoting it correctly--is a nationally based
community organization.
Senator Tester. Well, that is interesting.
So let me ask you this. So I am a property owner that lives
in rural America, and one of these damn drones is flying over
my house. The same thing could be said for one that was flying
over the White House here a few years back. What tools do I
have if I do not know who the hell's drone it is and they land?
Can I shoot them out of the air? Is that legal?
Mr. Lawrence. It is not legal, sir. We hope that we do not
resort to shooting aircraft down.
Senator Tester. So what tools do I have for somebody that
may be wanting to do something bad to me? I mean, if an
airplane is circling above my house, I call you. You deal with
it. You do not have a remote ID for these guys. What can be
done?
Mr. Lawrence. Well, you have highlighted our key struggle
and why we are asking for a remote ID and working so hard on
that because we cannot follow up and find out whether they are
just clueless or criminal.
Senator Tester. My very last question, Mr. Chair.
Does your budget allow for you to be able to get this--do
you have the dollars to be able to get this real ID developed
within your budget that is being proposed this year?
Mr. Lawrence. As far as the ID system, depending on the
rulemaking effort, we are trying to work within our existing
resources now.
Senator Tester. I think this is just really critical, and I
appreciate your work. And I think we really need to put our
foot on the gas pedal.
Last question. Are you related to Rick Graetz?
Mr. Graetz. Yes.
Senator Tester. Well, if you are half as smart as him, you
are smart.
Mr. Graetz. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that.
Senator Blunt. Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to all of you.
Northwest Minnesota has become, along with North Dakota, a
national leader in education around construction, operation,
and maintenance of UAS. The Northland Community and Technical
College in Thief River Falls has a state-of-the-art campus and
offers the first unmanned aerial systems maintenance training
program in the country. These courses prepare students for well
paying, in-demand jobs.
Mr. Wynne, do you anticipate a need for new employees
specifically trained in UAS technology to prevent a skills gap
in the industry?
Mr. Wynne. Indeed, I do, Senator. It is delightful to hear
about that program, and we have an entire foundation--
RoboNation it is called now, the AUVSI Foundation--that is
dedicated to literally kindergarten to workforce to make
certain that we are able to--that we are bringing up a skilled
workforce in order to fill, no doubt, the high paying jobs that
I think one of the Senators mentioned. So, yes, ma'am.
Senator Klobuchar. Were you going to add something, Mr.
Lawrence? No? You just looked interested in my profound
question. All right. I will go on.
Senator Wicker and I introduced the Precision Agriculture
Connectivity Act just recently to identify gaps in coverage,
encourage broadband deployments in farms and ranchland. It was
recently reported by the Commerce Committee, and we are going
to push for action on the floor.
What role do drones play in precision agriculture, Mr.
Wynne?
Mr. Wynne. It is an enormous market for drones. It is a
wonderful application for the most part. Of course, farms are
out of urban areas and in areas where there is less flying
going on. At the same time, drones need to be diligent of
aerial applicators who, as we have already indicated, fly at
low altitudes. So it is a very interesting test case for us. I
think initially we anticipate that there will be a large market
for agriculture. How rapidly that market develops is a function
of the margins of agriculture.
Senator Klobuchar. Just so people who maybe are not from
rural areas see this, I mean, there is limited water right now.
We are having water shortages, and drones can actually look at
the land and be able to better see where we need to deploy
limited water supplies as opposed to just going all over the
whole land. And it is going to make a big difference on that
and some other deployment of chemicals and other things if we
are more able to limit them if we can see what you cannot
really see unless you look at every little inch of land.
Mr. Wynne. That is exactly right. They are flying sensors
and can be utilized that way.
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Lawrence, while UAS sightings near
airports have been relatively limited, each sighting represents
a potential disaster, of course. Take one example. September
10, 2016, an Air Force C-17 was on final approach to
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The pilot reported
they were in final descent when a UAS passed just under their
nose slightly to the right of the aircraft.
This incident highlights that the Department of Defense is
an important user of the national airspace. As you work to
integrate UAS into the national defense system, how are you
working with the Department of Defense to ensure military
operations are not impeded, as well as, obviously, commercial
airlines?
Mr. Lawrence. Well, thank you for highlighting that
incident. It is something that is very near and dear to the
FAA, and that is safety around the airports and the airport
environment. And that is why the Department of Defense has to
follow the same operational rules as all other airspace users.
And that is one of the things that we are really looking to
highlight today. We think all users should have to follow the
same airspace restrictions and rules of the road, so to speak,
and also be ID'ed. We think that would avoid those types of
circumstances.
And then specifically working with the Department of
Defense, I mentioned it earlier. We have our EXCOM work. We
work with them on a regular basis on how we can integrate their
operations. And our EXCOM is focused on integrating operations
and supporting their efforts to have access to the airspace,
particularly at the higher altitudes.
Senator Klobuchar. And last, you stated in your testimony
that one of the key challenges to full UAS integration into the
national airspace is a threat of malicious use. We know that
drones have been used in criminal activity. They can be used to
collect personal data some of my colleagues have pointed out.
In addition to the oversight, do you expect additional
enforcement from other agencies may be necessary to protect
government and the public from the threat of malicious or
invasive drone activity?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes. That is one of the things that we are
looking forward on the integration pilot program to learning
more about how we work with the local law enforcement and first
responders in responding to these various activities. It is
obviously going to be somebody on the ground in that local area
who will first be responding to an operation of concern in
somebody's backyard, neighborhood, a stadium event, or anything
like that. So we are looking at the IPP program to help us with
understanding how we can better coordinate and what systems we
need to support them.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Wynne, for
using the example from Minnesota. I appreciated that. And I
will put in writing, Mr. Chairman, some follow-up questions
with the NextGen 9-1-1 Caucus that I chair along with Senator
Burr. Thank you very much.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
While Senator Sullivan settles in, Mr. Graetz, I know that
BNSF worked closely with FAA in what was called the Pathfinder
program try to get out there and determine what would work. I
appreciate your willingness as a company and your personal
involvement in that.
One of the things that I think was determined there was the
ability in discrete and understood airspace to be significantly
remote in terms of operation and the space you were covering.
Do you want to talk about that just a little bit, what you
learned from that, the level of personal security and company
security you feel like you achieved by looking at that part of
what can happen in the future?
Mr. Graetz. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It was a very educational
process, and certainly we provided a lot of that information to
our regulatory partner. It was a foundational set of research.
If you focused the flights in the known flight corridors, areas
that are highly mapped--we were very of what is around, over,
and happening--it was that first fundamental safety layer that
allowed our research partner, the FAA, to grant us the ability
to do this.
And to the other Senator's point earlier related to the
telecommunications and need for broadband, the fact that we had
existing infrastructure that would service that right-of-way
and help us operate our rail network, it was naturally inclined
to support long-range aircraft operations.
And so we ultimately learned that if you can combine all of
these systems together, there is a way to fly safely long-range
flights, whether it is for precision agriculture, whether it is
for any kind of linear asset inspection, if you have that
operating capability. And I think the FAA will continue to
leverage our data as we continue to fly to better refine that
going forward.
Senator Blunt. So for what you were doing there, was
broadband access essential for that to work or just made it
safer to work?
Mr. Graetz. No. It is connectivity, communications
connectivity. Secure communications connectivity was a critical
element of our success. If we did not have that natural
infrastructure that we utilize for all of our safety critical
systems, it would have made it far more difficult and quite
costly for us to bring that to bear.
Senator Blunt. And this was generally infrastructure that
you had put in place based on----
Mr. Graetz. That is correct.
Senator Blunt.--that Federal requirement?
Mr. Graetz. No. Some of this is just the natural systems
that we have in place to remotely operate our rail network from
our central facility in Fort Worth. So whether it is dispatch
radios or special signaling systems, that was there for the
primary network. Certainly the positive train control
investments helped as well. It was a good operating foundation
for us to build upon.
Senator Blunt. Right.
Senator Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, gentlemen, thank you for your testimony here.
Mr. Lawrence, I wanted to focus on the FAA's implementation
of a provision that is actually quite important to my state. In
the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, Congress directed
the FAA to designate permanent areas for research and
commercial small UAS use, including kind of 24-hour ops or
potential over the Arctic and the Arctic Ocean without regard
as to whether the UAS is a public, civil, or model aircraft and
to establish coastal launch sites and corridors to facilitate
ingress and egress from those areas.
You know, I know there has been a lot of discussion here on
rural communities. We are probably the most extreme rural
community in the Alaska. And yet, these are really important
areas that are hard to reach. So UAS systems are particularly
relevant and have enormous potential and future in my state.
What has the FAA done to meet this statute, which was
passed 6 years ago?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, Senator. So thank you for highlighting
that one.
It has been a long time since that was put in place, and we
reacted almost immediately. In that very year, we had the
initial authorizations in the Arctic going. And there have been
successes almost every single year of operations in the Arctic,
as you described, since the 2012 Act. They continue still
today. We have now charted areas where you can have regular UAS
operations. They are actually showing on some of our charts.
I think one of the things you have highlighted is that the
actual instructions on how you conduct those operations are
contained in individual certificates of operations for the
individual application. So maybe it is not as widely known or
available.
I would love to follow up with some additional information.
We have several of the lists from 2013, 2014, and 2015 on our
website where it lists the operations that have been ongoing.
And maybe it is due for a refresher so we can let everybody
know that those are still available and how you can take
advantage of operations in the Arctic.
Senator Sullivan. Yes. Actually I would very interested in
following up because kind of reviewing it before this hearing,
I got the sense that there was a lot of things that were not
implemented or designated, and the statute actually required
that to happen within a year of the entry of force. So it would
be actually very useful for you and my office to sit down and
run through exactly what you are talking about. For example,
the ingress and egress corridors. I am not familiar with
whether those have been permanently established.
Why do we not do this as opposed to spending time in this
hearing? If we can get with you after this hearing to go
through in minute detail what has actually happened in response
to that 2012 law, that would be very helpful.
Mr. Lawrence. We would appreciate that.
Senator Sullivan. OK.
Let me just ask another one related. Facilitating the test
sites' efforts to develop the methods and data the FAA needs to
safely integrate the UAS system into the national airspace. How
are you doing that, and how is that going? And are there
particular areas of the country where that has made more
progress or less that you are focused on?
Mr. Lawrence. The test sites have evolved over the years.
One of the things that we found with the establishment of the
test sites were that a lot of the individual companies who we
thought might take advantage of the test sites chose to do
their own research in their own areas. And so the test sites
have evolved to doing a lot more academic and general research,
and we have been supporting them through--particularly, NASA
has been using every single one of them in the UTM research.
And as I mentioned earlier, we are seeing a lot more
activity in developing standards and equipment that is outside
of the FAA needs. You know, FAA sets the standards for a pilot
or the minimum operation, but now you go into a police
department or a fire department saying, what kind of equipment
do I need and what kind of standards do I need for inspecting a
building that is on fire? How do I respond to searching for a
lost child or what are those procedures? What is the right
equipment for that? And the test sites have really stepped up
to providing that information and helped develop those
standards. And the international standard bodies have been
working with them very closely.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lawrence, we have one of those unmanned aircraft system
test sites in New Mexico at New Mexico State University. We are
very proud of it. And I was just wondering if you could talk
about what are the future roles does the FAA see for the seven
unmanned aircraft systems test sites?
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you, Senator.
As I mentioned in the previous discussion, we are really
focused on using the test sites to support industry needs at
this point. More and more, they are taking on these additional
uses for UASs that are beyond the basic regulatory needs of the
FAA but very much needed for the full integration and the full
safe use of UASs. So we see those expanding more and more
particularly in the area of UTM systems and, as I said, in
helping first responders and just really what are the testing
standards for this equipment and how best to use it, kind of
like the Consumer Reports approaches.
Senator Udall. Thank you for that answer.
Mr. Graetz, I am happy that Clovis, New Mexico is the
testbed of some of your beyond visual line of sight flights.
Can you speak to the advantages of this location over others?
Mr. Graetz. Sure. A great question, Senator. And we are
very proud of our efforts in your state as well.
The line that runs between Belen, New Mexico and Clovis,
New Mexico--many people even do not know where those are at--of
course, very rural, and it is also a critical part of our
transcontinental freight network. So it gave us an opportunity
to generate significant amounts of data that would help us
research a safety case. But in addition to that, it is also a
very difficult area to fly. So we had to prove that our systems
could operate in the extreme temperature swings of that state
and also the winds that you are all too familiar with. And then
also near Clovis, New Mexico, the proximity of the Air Force
base there and the different types of airspace also were
advantageous for both BNSF and FAA to research in. So combining
all those factors together, it was a natural place to test this
type of operation, which of course they are in the air today.
Senator Udall. Great. Thank you. And those winds, by the
way, are up pretty heavy right now, as you can imagine, in the
whole area.
To Mr. Graetz also and Mr. Lawrence, in light of BNSF's
extensive and unique infrastructure to support beyond the
visual line of sight flights, do you envision proponents
outside of these communication technology corridors conducting
flights? Mr. Lawrence, maybe you start on that one.
Mr. Lawrence. Yes. We envision that this will continue
greatly. There are two key things that BNSF is helping us with,
and that is understanding the needed communication network as
was highlighted and also the detect and avoid needs, what
equipment needs to be on the aircraft and what can be managed
from systems on the ground.
As we better define these--and I think we are getting very
good at defining what the actual needs are--we are going to see
an explosion of operations beyond line of sight.
Mr. Graetz. And I can echo those sentiments.
I think what we developed is a series of building blocks,
an ecosystem of technology, if you will, that can be adapted to
other linear corridors, but also the fundamentals of that can
be adapted to other operations as well.
Senator Udall. And, Mr. Graetz, are you able and willing to
provide support for other industries seeking to expand their
beyond visual line of sight flights?
Mr. Graetz. All the results of our efforts are ultimately
in the public record. So if somebody wanted to duplicate our
success working with the FAA, they would be able to essentially
gather that data from the FAA.
Senator Udall. Yes, that is good. That is good.
And to all the witnesses, what are your three greatest
impediments to accomplishing your goals, programs, and
objectives in the national airspace system with unmanned
aircraft systems?
Senator Blunt. This is one that all the witnesses can
answer in the next 30 seconds.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. Quick answers here, as the Chairman has
said.
Mr. Wynne. Education, as I mentioned earlier in my
testimony. Speed. Speed to market is very, very important. We
have tremendous opportunities. And diversity. We have a very
diverse community. And making sure that we are cloud ready.
Senator Blunt. If anybody wants to respond for the record,
you can.
Senator Inhofe, followed by Senator Lee. Thank you,
Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Lawrence, nice to see you again.
For the benefit of our Chairman and other members of the
Committee, we have spent some time, quality time, in Oshkosh.
This year will be my 41st consecutive year to be at Oshkosh.
You have not been there quite that long, but nonetheless, I
could never have done without your assistance.
I would kind of like to know. Several of us who came in
late were over there at this big thing that we had on Niger in
the Armed Services Committee. And so I am kind of walking into
this thing not knowing what you have covered and what you have
not.
I understand that tomorrow is the day that an announcement
is going to be made. Explain to me what the announcement is
going to be, not necessarily who is going to be announced, but
what it is all about because we were very interested in
following this real close from a GA perspective.
Mr. Lawrence. Well, thank you, Senator. And it is only
going to be my thirty-eighth year. So hopefully I will catch up
with you here.
Senator Inhofe. I hope you do not.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lawrence. The integration pilot program--we are very
much looking forward to that announcement tomorrow and getting
actively working in that program. And we see it as key to
working with the local communities. That is one of the things
we are really looking forward because operations--just studying
the operations from a research standpoint is one thing, but how
they interact with the local community is key to us. And we are
really looking forward to getting those operations going in the
local communities and learning from them what is the local
citizens' response to those operations.
Senator Inhofe. Give an example of what type of a----
Mr. Lawrence. So let us take package delivery. It was
brought up earlier. So if we have package delivery and they are
being delivered in people's neighborhoods, in their backyards
and their front yards, how does that community respond to that?
Do they want them at all hours of the night? Do they want them
flying over the schools? Do you want them delivering at the
park? Should it be in the front yard? Should it be all hours of
the day? These are all the things that we are going to find out
on how these systems interact with the local community and
whether they want those services.
Senator Inhofe. So they are going to be actually making
those determinations just trial and error out there with pilot
programs. And how would you envision that the FAA and the DOT
using these pilot programs to obtain the needed data to enable
more informed drone rulemaking?
You know, we have had some experience already in this. I
was involved in a concern about the pipelines, obviously being
able to accomplish some things much more economically and more
thoroughly and all that. But do you think it will help both the
DOT and the FAA in their rulemaking?
Mr. Lawrence. Yes, Senator. One of the things that I am
really proud of that is different in this project that I have
not seen previously with the FAA pilot projects is that we have
assigned subject-matter experts specifically to work on each
one of these teams, and their sole job is to take the lessons
learned and normalize it into our policies, our procedures, and
our rules. So this is unique that we are having a full-time
data group, not just about how many hours something flies, but
actually accumulating that information and looking across all
our policies and procedures and other agencies and what
Congress may want to know and gather that information, write it
up, and make it available to others. And those dedicated
resources to this program I think is what makes it very much
unique.
Senator Inhofe. Well, that is good.
Mr. Zuccaro, you and I have visited before, and you have
highlighted the need for FAA to maintain preemptive authority
and regulate the Nation's airspace and not allow a patchwork of
rules by multiple authorities to try to put these things
together. How does the Federal management of our nation's
airspace provide greater safety for manned and unmanned
aircraft, especially aircraft that operate in lower altitudes?
Mr. Zuccaro. That was a great question and an important one
to us.
Safety is the number one priority for everybody. And the
bottom line is without standardization with a patchwork with
different levels of expertise applying the rules and
regulations and the inability really to coordinate thousands of
potential rules and regulations, nobody really knows what they
are flying into. And the standards are different for different
people. And that really just creates a disconnected operating
environment that just kind of pleads for a safe operating
environment because you are not producing one in that manner.
As I mentioned in my testimony, if an average aircraft--and
I can use the helicopter as an example because our members are
now transitioning their missions over to UAS. So today we might
do a pipeline patrol that will run across 30 municipalities and
3 states. Tomorrow we might be doing that with a UAS. And how
do we know with any level of certainty that the standardization
is the same? It is not going to be. Everybody is going to apply
different standards. They are going to have different wishes,
desires to their particular municipal boundaries. And that to
us, it does not make any sense when we have the safest airspace
system in the world right now under a singular regulatory
authority that has created the standards that keep us all out
of trouble.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, well, that makes sense.
Mr. Chairman, I just regret that none of my Committee was
able to be here during this, and I am going to follow through
to try to become an expert. So I look forward to tomorrow and
see what happens. Thank you.
Senator Blunt. Well, thank you, Senator. And there will be
time for questions for the record as well. We have had great
Committee participation today.
Senator Lee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to all of you for being here.
Mr. Lawrence, does the FAA continue to recognize the
inherent authority of States and local governments to impose
reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions as it
implements its UAS integration pilot program and future drone
regulations?
Mr. Lawrence. So the integration pilot program, Senator, is
structured to learn about time, place, and manner restrictions
and how they may be best applied. One thing that I can
certainly acknowledge that--you know, we have been through this
on airports for many, many years. The airport on the ground
is--the zoning authority is up to that local jurisdiction,
whether that be the State or the county or the city. We have
acknowledged that and we have lived with that for many years. I
think we are just redefining, now that we have more and more
operations at lower altitudes, how is that interaction going to
work and how do existing rules apply to these new operations.
So, yes, we think the integration pilot program will assist us
in learning how the existing rules and structures apply to
these new operations.
Senator Lee. So it sounds like what you are saying is FAA
continues to recognize the inherent authority of states and
local governments to do this, but it might turn on the word
``reasonable,'' what is reasonable. There are certainly
circumstances, are there not, where state and local regulation
is appropriate?
Mr. Lawrence. We believe that it is the FAA's
responsibility to manage the national airspace system as a
whole and, as has been mentioned by this panel, to ensure that
that is done in a safe way. We have always accommodated needs
as necessary for local communities. I think a good example of
that is emergency response. A sheriff today has the ability of
contacting the FAA and saying they need to close off operations
in a particular area because of an accident or whatever it may
be, and we take that action in order to create that safe aerial
environment for that sheriff to respond to their needs. We see
those types of interactions continuing, and we expect the IPP
program to help us learn how those interactions should continue
in the future.
Senator Lee. So in a sense you are saying there is not
inherent authority on the part of State and local governments
to impose these. If that is what you are saying, how do you
reconcile that with the idea that states and local governments
generally do have power, consistent with their police power
generally, to protect the health, safety, and welfare of local
populations on things that are occurring locally?
Mr. Lawrence. So, Senator, as an aviation expert, I am
going to defer some of this to our Department of Justice and
our attorneys who know more about the laws and how they
specifically apply.
I look at it from a practical standpoint with the
integration pilot program. It is our job to manage that
airspace. It is our job to understand how these operations will
interact in those communities, provide that information, work
with those local communities, and then make that information
available to the legal experts that then understand what is the
right framework to develop and who has the specific authorities
over any particular given operation in time, place, or manner.
Senator Lee. OK. And to the degree that you are not
recognizing this inherent authority, do you have the human
resources necessary to deal with all the requests that are
coming in and that will continue to come in, I assume at an
even more rapid pace, with a growing number of requests for the
imposition of temporary flight restrictions?
Mr. Lawrence. Thank you for highlighting that issue. It is
a stress now. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have
imposed hundreds of restricted areas today already to protect
critical national infrastructure as has been designated by our
security partners. That is a significant resource draw, and we
are looking at how we can automate those systems and build it
into a UTM-like system. As I mentioned, ID is the next thing
for our UTM systems, and then we look at dynamic airspace
management. We feel that is critical. And that ability to build
into an information system where we can adjust the airspace
needs, as appropriate, in as automated of a fashion as
possible.
Senator Lee. Finally, what is the FAA doing to facilitate
competitive markets in the drone space and to reduce regulatory
barriers to entry?
Mr. Lawrence. Again, we believe we always work to create a
regulatory environment that is appropriate, that balances the
needs and expectations of the public for safety of aerial
operations. So we apply our safety continuum and apply just the
amount of rigor of oversight as necessary to ensure the safety
of those operations.
Senator Lee. Thank you. I see my time has expired.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Lee.
Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
There is a Dickensian quality to drones. They are the best
of technologies and the worst of technologies simultaneously.
They can enable. They can ennoble. They can degrade. They can
debase. They just await human beings animating them with the
values that we want to use them. Right? So that is always our
challenge because these eyes in the sky could become spies in
the sky, gathering data about all American families. And what
we have to do then is decide what are the values that we are
going to apply to that as these unknown drone operators now
have used this technology to assemble profiles perhaps of
families in their backyards, et cetera.
So what are the standards for the retention of that
information? There is sensitive information collected through
facial recognition devices, infrared cameras, heat sensors,
GPS, and automated license plate readers. Drones could use
facial recognition to identify everyone walking on main street
and selling that geo-location information to advertisers. It
could use plate readers to know everyone who visits a health
clinic and selling that sensitive information to insurance
companies. And in the wake of the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica
scandal, the American public wants robust privacy protections,
not voluntary guidelines.
Mr. Lawrence, last year you testified that there are no
Federal rules in place requiring commercial and government
drone operators to abide by baseline Federal privacy
protections, including the collection, retention, and sale of
personal information. Instead, the FAA was working closely with
the Drone Advisory Committee and the NTIA on voluntary best
practices.
So voluntary best practices are the same hands-off approach
applied to companies like Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. We
just rely upon their good faith. But we really know what
voluntary practices really mean. Consumers cannot say no,
cannot stop, cannot say delete, change, or protect any of the
most sensitive information. They are absolutely powerless under
voluntary standards.
Congress gave the FAA the obligation to integrate drones
into the national airspace, and while safety is the FAA's
primary mission, privacy cannot be an afterthought.
So, Mr. Lawrence, is it the FAA's position that voluntary
best practices will give the American public reasonable control
over their sensitive information, where they shop, where they
live, where they travel?
Mr. Lawrence. Senator, I appreciate the subject being
highlighted again, as we do believe that privacy is a very
serious subject.
Senator Markey. Will voluntary standards work in your
opinion?
Mr. Lawrence. It is not the FAA's mission or our direction
to determine what data privacy issues need to be regulated. We
are in that support role, as you highlighted, to the Department
of Commerce and NTIA and through some of our programs like our
integration pilot program----
Senator Markey. Well, here is the problem, Mr. Lawrence.
The Congress gave the FAA the directive to integrate drones
into the national airspace, and privacy has to be a factor.
Consider that the Department of Education has to protect
student privacy. The Department of Health and Human Services
has to protect health records. The Department of the Treasury
has to protect financial information. And despite each of these
agencies having primary missions separate from privacy, they
have to walk and chew gum at the same time.
So would the FAA support legislation which provided you
with the authority you say you lack in order to protect the
privacy of Americans?
Mr. Lawrence. The FAA looks at it as our primary position
is to maintain the safety of the airspace.
Senator Markey. And I appreciate that. As I said, the same
thing is true in education, health care, Treasury cases. They
all have primary missions, but they also protect privacy.
Mr. Lawrence. And we have several programs, and I wanted to
highlight our working with local communities and our
integration pilot program----
Senator Markey. Is it all voluntary? Is any of it
mandatory?
Mr. Lawrence. We believe that data will inform this body
and others on how best--what laws and regulations----
Senator Markey. Is it the FAA's position that voluntary
best practices will prevent commercial entities from selling or
sharing sensitive information they collect about individuals?
Mr. Lawrence. As I highlighted, it is not the FAA's
position to state what the effectiveness of those may be
because our expertise is in the safety arena.
Senator Markey. Yes. And last year, you testified that the
FAA does not have an easily searchable website detailing when,
where in the United States, and for what purposes each
commercial and government drone is operating. Is it the FAA's
view that such a website would not provide the American public
with reasonable information about who is flying over their
homes, schools, shopping centers, and what information is being
gathered?
Mr. Lawrence. That is one of the reasons why we believe ID
is key to moving forward for both the safety and security
reasons. We think remote identification will help address some
of your concerns, and it certainly will address our safety
concerns. That is a good example of a dual role of activities.
Senator Markey. I think in safety, perhaps. But in terms of
privacy, no, not at all.
And so I just think your hands-off approach on privacy has
to end. It is why I have introduced the Drone Aircraft Privacy
and Transparency Act. There are going to be 7 million drones,
commercial drones, sold in the United States by 2020. Just the
privacy of Americans is at stake. We need to come together. We
need to put together a policy or else we just keep repeating
Facebook, we just keep replaying Cambridge Analytica. We
pretend that bad things are not going to happen, and we know
they are because in the hands of bad people, these technologies
wind up compromising the privacy of individuals.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Senator Markey.
I will say that I share some of Senator Markey's concerns
about privacy here, whether it is the EPA flying over people's
farmland or a drone flying over people's back yards. This is an
area where Senator Markey and I both have concern.
And I appreciate, Mr. Lawrence, your view that you are
trying to assemble right now municipal concerns and other
concerns and to see where that takes us. But I do think
somebody--if not the FAA, somebody--is going to need to be
concerned about the privacy aspects of drone activity. And,
Senator Markey, this may be something you and I can work on
together.
Senator Markey. I think this is where the left and right
come together.
Senator Blunt. This would be an example of exactly that.
After all these years, finding that spot where we might be able
to have a joint purpose, this may be it.
It was a great hearing. I hope you all appreciate how well
attended it was and the diversity of the questions. I think we
have a sense that this is a rapidly changing environment. How
to pay for it, how to regulate it, all of those things are
going to require more of our time and more of your answers. But
it was a great panel today.
The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During
that time, Senators are asked to submit their questions for the
record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to submit
their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible.
Thanks again to the witnesses.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
Earl Lawrence
Question 1. Do you believe the current UPP timeline and the work on
the UTM are ambitious enough to meet the goals of safe integration of
drones in our national airspace?
Answer. The FAA is confident the UTM Pilot Program (UPP), one of
the many industry and government initiatives that play a role in the
safe integration of drones into our national airspace, will make
significant strides towards the operational implementation of initial
UTM capabilities. The UPP will highlight the initial integrated UTM
ecosystem and UTM operational concepts and services. Such services
include the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability
(LAANC), remote identification, dynamic airspace management
capabilities, and the collaborative sharing of intent and flight
information between UAS operators, the FAA, and other UTM stakeholders.
Question 2. Can you remind the Committee of the current status of
the UTM and what additional UTM capabilities we will see this year and
into next year?
Answer. The FAA continues to participate in NASA's UTM research.
This work is developing a suite of products, not all of which directly
support the FAA's management of the airspace, but meet the needs of
drone operators to conduct their operations. The FAA is currently
deploying the technologies needed for its role in the UTM, including
the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC),
remote identification, and dynamic airspace management capabilities.
Over the next year, the FAA will continue to develop a proposed rule
for remote identification requirements for UAS. This proposed rule is
essential to enable the safe integration of drones into our national
airspace. In addition, the FAA will continue to work with NASA and
industry representatives to address the UAS Service Supplier network
requirements and to establish an interoperable system that is the core
of the UTM concept.
Question 3. Mr. Lawrence, the FAA has been directed by Congress and
the White House to proceed fairly swiftly on integrating drones into
the National Airspace System. From my understanding, the FAA is
responsible for three programs enabling drone integration and advanced
operations: the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Program
called LAANC, the UAS Integration Pilot Program often called IPP, and
the UAS Traffic Management Pilot Program often called UPP.
As the lead person overseeing these activities, how are you
ensuring efforts from the three programs are coordinated and leveraged?
Answer. As the Executive Director of the UAS Integration Office, I
meet regularly with other senior FAA executives to provide updates on
our integration activities and ensure the appropriate attention and
support is in place to accomplish our mission. As part of our UAS
integration efforts, the FAA has conducted extensive internal planning
activities to ensure that all of its UAS integration activities and
programs are coordinated Agency-wide and support the milestones needed
for our phased integration approach. In addition, our office
coordinates with our interagency partners regularly through Research
Transition Teams and the congressionally mandated UAS Executive
Committee. Such coordination ensures results are leveraged both between
programs and across the Federal Government.
Question 4. I have been reading about several different counter-UAS
technologies that could be deployed affordably and effectively around
airports, but that some statutory provisions might be a barrier to use.
Mr. Lawrence, can you shed some light on this?
Answer. Numerous provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code,
as well as the Pen/Trap Statute, the Wiretap Act, and the Aircraft
Sabotage Act, limit the Federal Government's ability to evaluate, test,
or deploy certain UAS detection and mitigation capabilities. Many of
these were enacted long before advanced UAS technology became readily
available. These legal constraints extend to most governmental
entities--federal, state, local, tribal--and all private sector
entities. The Federal Communications Act further limits the actions
that may be taken by non-federal entities.
Question 5. Does the FAA need some change in statute in order to
use these technologies to mitigate the threat of UAS around airports?
Answer. Based on the evaluations the FAA conducted in airport
environments at Congress's direction, the FAA does not consider
counter-UAS technology to be the best way to mitigate UAS around an
airport from either a cost or performance measure. Since more than 50
percent of incidents happen more than 5 miles from an airport, we
believe registration and remote ID requirements for all UAS operators
will be enable more effective detection and mitigation capabilities.
Question 6. Mr. Lawrence, I have had some educational institutions
outreach to my office regarding the May 2016 interpretation of
educational use of drones. Apparently, shortly after the FAA issued its
interpretation of educational use, Part 107 rules were released. I have
been told that the May 2016 interpretation and guidance for educational
use now has a ``red box'' on it indicating it is being updated.
Can you share what is the FAA's position on educational use of UAS/
drones post the issuing of Part 107?
Answer. The FAA strongly supports the educational use of drones.
However, Section 336 of PL 112-95, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act
of 2012, restricts the FAA's ability to provide more regulatory
flexibility to facilitate recreational use of UAS. Currently, 14 CFR
part 107 is the foundational regulation for flying a small UAS in the
National Airspace System, including for educational use. Part 107
created a UAS-specific Remote Pilot Certificate, the privileges of
which include the ability for the remote pilot to supervise a non-
licensed operator flying a drone, as long as the remote pilot can
retake operational control of the drone if needed for public safety.
This allows educators with a part 107 Remote Pilot Certificate to teach
and supervise students flying UAS. The FAA considers this provision the
most appropriate to adequately support educators' ability to conduct
drone education in schools.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Earl Lawrence
Question 1. In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
(pertinent section copied on next page), Congress directed the FAA to
designate permanent areas for research and commercial small UAS use
over the Arctic Ocean without regard as to whether the UAS is a public,
civil, or model aircraft and to establish coastal launch sites and
corridors to facilitate ingress and egress from those areas. What has
the FAA done to meet this statute?
Answer. On November 1, 2012, the FAA released its Arctic
Implementation Plan, signed by the Secretary of Transportation, to
inform interested parties, operators, Federal agencies, and
international communities of its plan to establish permanent
operational areas and corridor routes in the Arctic for the operation
of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Since then, the FAA has used
existing processes to approve the use of UAS in designated areas of the
Arctic. The FAA established 10 Coastal Launch Site along the coastline
of Alaska from Kaktovik, near the Canadian border, to the Aleutians,
all of which are published in the Supplement Alaska. A symbol for UAS
activity has been charted for Oliktok Point. Procedures have been
established for these locations, and a number of operations have been
approved to inspect oil pipelines, roads, and equipment, monitor marine
life, conduct ice surveys, and perform oil spill and search and rescue
exercises.
Question 2. How does the FAA intended to follow through on their
legislative compliance and what is the time line the FAA plans to use?
Answer. Establishing permanent ingress and egress routes from these
sites to permanent areas for UAS operations amounts to restricting
airspace, which would have a significant impact across a geographic
area that relies heavily on general aviation for a variety of purposes.
Segregating airspace in this manner would require a rulemaking effort,
and also runs counter to the FAA's congressionally mandated direction
to integrate UAS into the National Airspace System. In lieu of such
steps, the FAA has established air traffic processes for authorizing
Arctic operations, regardless of the type of operations being
conducted.
Question 3. What has been the delay on implementing these routes?
Answer. Establishing permanent ingress and egress routes from these
sites to permanent areas for UAS operations amounts to restricting
airspace, which would have a significant impact across a geographic
area that relies heavily on general aviation for a variety of purposes.
Segregating airspace in this manner would require a rulemaking effort,
and also runs counter to the FAA's congressionally mandated direction
to integrate UAS into the National Airspace System. In lieu of such
steps, the FAA has established air traffic processes for authorizing
Arctic operations, regardless of the type of operations being
conducted.
Question 4 . How are you facilitating the Test Sites' efforts to
develop the methods and data the FAA needs to safely integrate UAS in
the National Airspace System?
Answer. The Test Sites provide a vital resource for industry to
innovate by offering services to conduct more advanced UAS flight-
testing, such as testing UAS detection technologies in airport
environments, supporting NASA's UAS Traffic Management research, and
using UAS in emergency response situations. Two of the Test Sites are
part of the FAA's UAS Center of Excellence (COE) team, and are used by
the COE to conduct flight-testing in support of its research. To help
facilitate the Test Sites' efforts, the FAA has issued each Test Site
nationwide blanket airspace approvals, and several have broad area
approvals to conduct UAS operations and testing in large areas of
airspace.
Question 5. How do you ensure the safety of the National Airspace
System while allowing the U.S.'s UAS industry to develop and invest in
the U.S. through testing and operating in the National Airspace System
instead of overseas where the regulations are more lax?
Answer. The safety of the National Airspace System (NAS) is the
FAA's top priority. To ensure the safety of the NAS, the FAA is taking
an incremental approach to the integration of UAS into the NAS. As part
of this integrated approach, the FAA uses existing regulatory
flexibility, such as waivers and exemptions, to provide regulatory
relief to facilitate advanced UAS operations when operators can
demonstrate that their operation will not adversely affect the safety
of the NAS.
Question 6. How does the FAA plan to keep up with rapidly changing
technologies in a time-frame that will satisfy the immediate industry
needs?
Answer. The FAA must develop a performance-based regulatory
framework, which sets minimum safety requirements but does not dictate
technology solutions, in order to keep up with this rapidly innovating
industry. Part 107, which includes a performance-based waiver process
to provide regulatory flexibility for more advanced operations, was the
first step in this framework. Additionally, the FAA must automate its
processes and procedures to the greatest extent possible in order to
meet the volume demand for operations and aircraft. Some examples of
necessary automation include UAS registration and the Low Altitude
Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC), which can issue near
real-time authorizations to fly near airports at safe altitudes.
Question 7. What components of UAS Traffic Management (UTM) are
missing for a safe and effective system?
Answer. NASA's UTM research is developing capabilities for not only
the FAA, but also UTM operators and service providers. The FAA needs
three main elements to support its airspace management role in a UTM
environment: automated authorization capability (LAANC), real-time
identification of aircraft in flight (remote identification), and the
ability to manage time, place, and manner airspace restrictions
dynamically. All three components are being deployed or developed
already. Additional UTM components under development between NASA and
industry, such as UAS Service Supplier network requirements, will also
be needed, but do not support the FAA's UTM role.
Question 8. Is the FAA considering specific technologies that they
feel enable UTM or do they remain open to technologies that appear to
work but are not yet part of the existing network of avionics &
tracking?
Answer. As technology development occurs so quickly, the FAA takes
a performance-based approach to regulating UAS, rather than prescribing
specific technologies that may become outdated and limit future
innovation and safety advancements.
Question 9. What Airspace Management and UTM technologies will law
enforcement authorities have access to in order to ensure overall
public safety?
Answer. Remote identification requirements and an interoperable
network are crucial components of UTM that will facilitate law
enforcement authorities' ability to distinguish between authorized and
unauthorized operators. Last summer, the FAA convened an industry
committee, which included members of local and state law enforcement,
to identify the needs of local law enforcement officials for a remote
ID system and to provide recommendations on such a system. The FAA is
currently working on proposed regulations based on this committee's
report, which is available here: https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/
?newsId=89404
Question 10. How can private industry best work with government to
assist in the creation of a lasting framework?
Answer. The FAA's mission is maintaining the safest, most efficient
aerospace system in the world. We continue to encourage private
industry to bring us applications for operations that focus on safety
and include operational risk assessments and mitigation strategies. In
addition, approving increasingly complex operations and working with
industry partners who are actively involved in hazard identification
and risk mitigation provides foundational input the FAA needs to
develop flexible, performance-based regulations that support long-term
innovation.
Question 11. Is there a practical ``best'' government-run program
for private industry to become a part of which a company could quickly
apply that would aid in the progress of UTM?
Answer. NASA is using an active partnership model in its UTM
research and is always looking for additional industry partners to
support its UTM work. We recommend contacting NASA's UTM team to get
involved.
Question 12. Has the FAA yet considered how private citizens can
best work with authorities to report unlawful UAS activity that
directly infringe upon their privacy?
Answer. Local law enforcement, which has the authority to enforce
local privacy laws, is typically in the best position to respond to
unlawful UAS activity. There are no FAA regulations regarding drone use
and personal privacy because these laws usually exist at the local or
state level. The FAA is working with local law enforcement agencies
across the country on how to identify unlawful or unsafe UAS activity.
Question 13. Is the FAA planning on designing a framework of
regulatory statutes that will educate and ultimately enable local law
enforcement to Cite and/or Prosecute unlawful UAS operations?
Answer. Local law enforcement has the authority today to prosecute
UAS operations that violate local, state, or Federal statutes,
including those regarding trespassing, privacy/peeping Toms, property
damage, and reckless endangerment. The FAA relies on local law
enforcement to report unlawful UAS activity through our Law Enforcement
Assistance Program in order for the FAA to take additional civil action
for Federal aviation violations. We are actively educating local law
enforcement officials on their authorities and how to identify and
report unlawful or unsafe UAS activity.
Question 14. Is the FAA considering a position of education over
enforcement regarding unauthorized UAS?
Answer. Safety is always the FAA's top priority. We conduct safety
oversight and enforcement based on our compliance philosophy, which is
used to determine the appropriate response to regulatory violations
based on the specific circumstances of the incident and the risk posed
to the flying public.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jim Inhofe to
Earl Lawrence
Question 1. Aviation stakeholders across the United States have
been captivated by the innovation of unmanned aircraft technology and
the role that it will play for the American economy. In response to
local and national interest in unmanned aircraft technology the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has been proactive in finding
opportunities to conduct research and find proper deployment
environments for unmanned aircraft systems and technology.
Today the FAA has the ability to accelerate the integration of
unmanned aircraft systems through programs such as the Unmanned
Aircraft System (UAS) Integration Pilot Program (IPP). The UAS pilot
program will provide local and national interest from the UAS community
the ability to provide information to the Department of Transportation
and the Federal Aviation Administration as they develop ways to
integrate unmanned aircraft systems into the National Airspace System.
How do you envision the Department of Transportation and the
Federal Aviation Administration using these pilot programs to obtain
the needed data to enable more informed drone rulemaking?
Answer. As outlined in the Presidential Memorandum, the UAS IPP is
designed to enable state, local, and tribal UAS activities that will
facilitate and accelerate UAS integration into the National Airspace
System. A key element of this program is the collection of technical,
operational, and other data (such as community feedback) for developing
new or amended rules and related standards. Each of the selected
participants will work with the FAA to develop a Concept of Operations
(ConOps) for their proposed operations, which will include data
collection requirements identified by the FAA as necessary to support
UAS regulatory development. The Memorandum requires the Secretary to
submit an annual report to the President with interim findings and
conclusions and to submit a final report with findings and conclusions
within 90 days of the Program's termination.
Question 2. The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) vision for
fully integrating Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National
Airspace System (NAS) will require harmonizing UAS movements with
manned aircraft occupying the same airspace. In order to harmonize the
use of unmanned and manned aircraft systems experts from industry,
government, and academia must come together.
We have seen the benefit of industry collaboration through
agreements such as the Pathfinder Initiative which has allowed the FAA
to gather vast amounts of data on issues such as the operations of
drones beyond the visual line of sight. The collection of this data and
operation experience will be very useful as UAS operations continue to
expand.
What is the next step for FAA moving forward with a Part 107--like
rule to enable widespread drone operations beyond the visual line of
sight?
Answer. Part 107 has enabled routine visual line-of-sight UAS
operations in low-risk environments on the basis that UAS being flown
in these circumstances present a low public safety risk. More complex
operations will require updates to the existing regulatory structure
governing the National Airspace System to reflect a new category of
aircraft. As an example, the existing framework assumes an on-board
pilot, who can see and avoid other aircraft in flight. An update is
needed to make such requirements performance-based, which will enable
other methods, such as detect and avoid technology, to meet these
safety standards.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Earl Lawrence
The lack of any mandatory black box on drones to help with
investigations. Should there be an accident that causes injury or loss
of life due to a collision between a drone and another aircraft,
authorities will investigate, but they may turn up little information.
There is no ``black box'' or flight recorder on board a drone that
could give us valuable evidence of its operation, control, or flight
path. There might be some ways of tracking activity, but little that is
very robust.
Question. Should Congress require that black box-like technology be
installed on drones and UAS?
Answer. The vast majority of non-toy drones, especially those with
cameras, already incorporate the technology needed to identify and
track the drone in flight. This data is typically either uploaded to a
cloud-based server or maintained by on-board hardware. In the only
verified collision between a manned aircraft and UAS (Sept 21, 2017),
the NTSB was able to recover relevant data from the UAS, including its
flight path, altitude, and time parameters (see here). The full NTSB
report is available here. Additionally, the FAA is working on remote
identification rules to facilitate this type of networked data
collection in the future.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Earl Lawrence
Question 1. I appreciate the work of the FAA on unmanned aircraft--
particularly partnerships with New Mexico State University in Las
Cruces. However, I am concerned that hobbyists do not know about the
resources available to determine if areas are safe to fly their drones.
Last week, fire suppression efforts by the Santa Clara Pueblo were put
on hold during a forest fire in New Mexico because a drone had entered
the airspace. I am aware that the FAA has created a B4UFLY App that
includes sensitive and critical infrastructure in the data and that you
are working to include ``non-federal'' entities in the data set.
However, what is the ability for tribal entities to restrict access
over culturally sensitive areas? Has there been tribal consultation and
engagement on this matter?
Answer. The Federal Government retains the ability to restrict
aircraft from flying in certain airspace. However, local government
entities have traditionally retained the ability, through zoning laws
or policies, to determine where aircraft can take off and land. The UAS
Integration Pilot Program is designed to facilitate engagement between
the Federal Government and tribal entities on these types of issues,
and we look forward to working with the Choctaw Tribal Nation as part
of the program.
Question 2. Would the FAA consider granting blanket waivers to the
UAS Test Sites for expanded ``Beyond the Visual Line of Sight Flight''
testing, swarm testing, and the like if appropriate safety measures are
employed?
Answer. The UAS Test Sites have several regulatory options to test
UAS, including flying public aircraft operations or experimental
flights under 14 CFR part 91 or flying civil operations under 14 CFR
part 107. The FAA issues beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) approvals
on a case-by-case basis, depending on the Test Sites' chosen regulatory
framework. BVLOS approvals are currently being issued regularly to
operators who can demonstrate the necessary risk mitigation
capabilities. However, issuing blanket approvals for BVLOS operations
would require segregating large volumes of airspace for these
operations, necessarily keeping other aircraft away from these areas
and contradicting the FAA's objective to integrate UAS. Additionally,
blanket approvals would require the FAA to limit the operational scope
of the approval in order to address the highest risk aspects across all
scenarios. By approving operations based on specific operational
circumstances, the FAA can issue approvals with the greatest
operational flexibility while maintaining the availability of navigable
airspace for all NAS users.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tammy Duckworth to
Earl Lawrence
Question 1. What requirements is the FAA considering with respect
to detect and avoid technology for small drones, especially in non-rule
airspace, so as to avoid manned aircraft which in some cases will not
be equipped with ADS-B?
Answer. FAA regulations apply to the entire National Airspace
System, including airspace where no air traffic services are provided
(uncontrolled airspace). There is no ``unregulated airspace'', even in
areas where there are no ID equipage requirements. Since all small
drones flying under our current regulatory structure must fly within
visual line-of-sight, detect and avoid technology is regulated in the
same manner for unmanned aircraft as it is for manned--the pilot in
command is responsible for avoiding other aircraft. To be approved for
beyond visual line-of-sight UAS operations, an applicant must be able
to demonstrate how they will maintain separation from other aircraft.
The range of technologies they use depends on their application.
There is continued concern about operators who are not in
compliance with regulations, which is why the FAA continues to advocate
for the ability to regulate all aircraft, and to impose remote ID
requirements for all NAS users. The specific requirements the FAA
imposes will be included in its proposed rule for remote
identification--see RIN 2120-AL31.
Question 2. What role is FAA playing to support the development and
certification of technology that would enable small drones to detect
aircraft without a transponder or an ADS-B out transceiver?
Answer. The FAA is facilitating testing of detect and avoid
equipment and systems through research agreements and the issuance of
waivers and exemptions. For example, the FAA recently issued approval
to NASA to fly an Ihkana UAS BVLOS through controlled airspace without
a chase plane, the first such operation using the detect and avoid
minimum performance standards developed by RTCA Special Committee 228.
For more information, see NASA's press release.
Question 3. Can you assure the Committee that the FAA will be
transparent in its data collection with respect to the UAS Integration
Pilot Program (UAS IPP) and that the proposed rules and requirements
that will ultimately allow operations, such as package delivery and
infrastructure inspections, will go through an open and transparent
process?
Answer. As outlined in the Presidential Memorandum, the UAS IPP is
designed to enable state, local, and tribal UAS activities that will
facilitate and accelerate UAS integration into the National Airspace
System. A key element of this program is the collection of technical,
operational, and other data (such as community feedback) for developing
new or amended rules and related standards. Additionally, the
Memorandum requires the Secretary to submit an annual report to the
President with interim findings and conclusions, and to submit a final
report with findings and conclusions within 90 days of the Program's
termination. The FAA's UAS IPP Team intends to share data publicly to
the extent possible, with appropriate legal exceptions for intellectual
property, privacy, or other protected data.
Additionally, any rulemaking that results from the IPP will be
conducted in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations in an
open and transparent process that includes public notice and
opportunities for comment.
Question 4. What is the timeline for evaluating the results of the
IPP? Will the FAA wait until the IPP is completed or will interim
results be used to inform the broader FAA policies on drones? Is it the
FAA's position to first complete the UAS IPP study before making
recommendations to Congress on what laws need to be changed or
implemented?
Answer. The FAA will evaluate data and results from the IPP on an
ongoing basis. The results of testing will help support a phased
approach to expand operations throughout the program. Safety analyses
for expanded authority will be based on results from previous testing,
and data will be used to approve waivers and exemptions. The FAA will
draw upon the results of the program to inform any technical assistance
requests from Congress and to inform broader FAA policies on UAS
operations.
Question 5. What is your data showing with respect to enforcement
efforts and compliance by remote pilots flying drones under Part 107
requirements? How is the FAA currently conducting this oversight and
what are your plans going forward to ensure compliance?
Answer. The FAA proactively manages risk through agency safety
management practices and in response to real world risk in the National
Airspace System (NAS). Hazards and controls are monitored against risk
acceptance criteria via monitoring of accidents reported in accordance
with part 107
To date, we have taken 379 compliance actions with 14 CFR part 107
operators, most of which were in the form of counseling or on-the-spot
corrections. Six out of 1,877 remedial training compliance
recommendations were for part 107 operators. In addition, over the last
six quarters we have recorded a total of 277 UAS violations, covering
both part 107 and non-107 UAS operators. FAA aviation safety inspectors
are required to conduct compliance oversight activities for unmanned
aircraft as they do for manned aircraft. Oversight activities are
prioritized according to risk assessment evaluations.
Question 6. The FAA has approved a number of waivers under Part 107
for beyond visual line of sight drone operations. What has the agency
learned from these operations to date? Is the FAA planning to issue new
rules or guidance related to beyond visual line of sight operations?
Answer. We have learned that there is currently no technology that
can provide a detect and avoid capability with a high degree of
confidence. Mitigations of risk are provided by procedures, which can
differ depending on the particular operation. Currently, very few
potential operators have the ability to meet the minimum safety
requirements to conduct BVLOS operations. The key areas that industry
is still working on are: (1) detect and avoid procedures and
capabilities; (2) the ability to track their aircraft on its flight
path and know its location at all times; and (3) developing the
required equipment/procedures to avoid obstacles, mitigate non-
participating aircraft, and respond to changing weather conditions. The
FAA has issued several BVLOS waivers to operators who have demonstrated
they are able to meet these safety thresholds. A remote identification
network and standards will facilitate waiver issuance in the future. In
the meantime, the FAA is continuing to educate the UAS operator
community regarding the safety information applicants must provide to
get BVLOS approval.
Question 7. The FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016
(Public Law No: 114-190) directed USDOT and the FAA to implement a
mechanism for critical infrastructure owners and operators to obtain
UAS flight restrictions in close proximity to their facilities (Section
2209). This is an important solution to concerns raised not only by
Federal agencies, but also state and local governments. The deadline
for implementation was January 2017, but this important framework in
not yet in place. Can you update the Committee on where things stand
regarding this policy directive?
Answer. In the short-term, in order to meet the intent of section
2209, we used existing authority (14 CFR Sec. 99.7) to put airspace
restrictions over security sensitive sites identified by Federal
security agencies (DOD, DOE, DOI). We have issued hundreds of these
flight restrictions through a manual process that is labor-intensive.
Due to the sheer volume of these requests, we must take a risk-based,
efficient approach to assessing and responding to requests. In the
long-term, the DOT and the FAA are working to propose a rule
implementing section 2209.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maggie Hassan to
Earl Lawrence
Privacy. While the benefits of integrating UAS into our airspace
cannot be understated, it is clear that some issues remain with regard
to safety and privacy.
People in my state and across the country have legitimate concerns-
which I share-about how commercial and recreational use of drones might
impact and impede their privacy.
Question. What more can be done to ensure the voices of our
constituents and state and local governments are heard at the Federal
level when it comes to generating and implementing drone policies with
regard to safety and privacy?
Answer. The recently announced UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP)
is intended to foster a meaningful dialogue on the balance between
local and national interests related to UAS integration. The IPP
ensures that citizens and local authorities across the country have a
voice at the table as we work towards integrating UAS into the National
Airspace System (NAS).
With respect to privacy concerns, the FAA has pre-emptive authority
to manage the NAS safely and efficiently, but states and cities have
the authority to exercise traditional police powers when it comes to
privacy, security, and trespass concerns. The FAA is working with local
law enforcement agencies on how to identify unlawful or unsafe UAS
activity.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
Brian Wynne
Question 1. Mr. Wynne, in Mr. Lawrence's testimony about the Low
Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) program he
referenced that the FAA's partnership with industry in standing up
LAANC and the initial stages of the UTM have been successful so far. I
have been pleased to hear that. Mr. Wynne, what feedback have your
members provided to you on their work with the FAA on LAANC and in
general on working with the FAA on issues like a Part 107 waiver?
Answer. The feedback from our members has been positive regarding
the FAA's willingness to collaborate directly with the industry on
LAANC and several other issues such as Part 107 waiver requests. Our
members are proud to participate in initiatives such as the Drone
Advisory Committee and the remote identification Aviation Rulemaking
Committee to provide input to the FAA as we work to integrate UAS into
the national airspace. At the same time, our members have expressed
concerns with the FAA's Part 107 waiver application process, which can
take up to 90 days for a decision. LAANC will address some of these
delays, as it automates the application and approval process for
requests to fly in controlled airspace up to 400 feet. However, there
are some limitations to LAANC. Operational waiver requests--such as
requests to fly at night or beyond visual line of sight--are still
being processed manually. Meanwhile, the FAA advises operators to first
seek an operational waiver before seeking an airspace authorization
when both are needed.
We understand the FAA shares these concerns and wants to fully
automate all UAS processes, but the agency needs resources to properly
update its IT infrastructure and enable greater automation. We have
long advocated for the FAA to be appropriately funded, including having
the necessary resources to modernize its IT systems.
Question 2. As with all issues, how to pay for things becomes
important. The Drone Advisory Committee met on March 9th to issue its
final report titled ``Drone Integration Funding.'' In my quick review,
this report makes recommendations about funding sources for the next
three to five years, considers what activities should be prioritized,
and who should be responsible for funding UAS integration activities.
While the Drone Advisory Committee report referenced that government
funding should play a role by using funding out of the Aviation Trust
Fund, I am not certain this a long-term sustainable model given the
predictions for explosive drone growth and the already constrained FAA
budget. Mr. Wynne, the Report made several suggestions for sources of
funding. Have the members of your association discussed how you think
drone management and regulatory oversight should be funded?
Answer. Yes, we have discussed how drone management and regulatory
oversight should be funded. We believe the FAA needs to be
appropriately funded through congressional appropriations to address
costs associated with management and oversight of UAS in the national
airspace. For its part, the UAS industry is ready to discuss how it can
support an Unmanned Traffic Management System (UTM) for expanded UAS
operations as the infrastructure needs come into greater focus and
operators are permitted to fly beyond visual line of sight.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Brian Wynne
The lack of any mandatory black box on drones to help with
investigations. Should there be an accident that causes injury or loss
of life due to a collision between a drone and another aircraft,
authorities will investigate, but they may turn up little information.
There is no ``black box'' or flight recorder on board a drone that
could give us valuable evidence of its operation, control, or flight
path. There might be some ways of tracking activity, but little that is
very robust.
Question. Should Congress require that black box-like technology be
installed on drones and UAS?
Answer. The UAS industry is already actively engaged with the FAA
to establish remote identification and tracking standards that will
help increase the visibility into UAS operations, control and flight
paths. A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that will likely include
remote identification requirements is expected in the coming months.
AUVSI believes that all UAS operators--those flying for civil,
commercial or recreational purposes--should comply with remote ID and
tracking requirements. Establishing remote ID standards for all UAS
operators and requiring they register with the FAA helps to enhance the
safety and security of the national airspace. These important security
measures will help pave the way for expanded UAS operations, including
flights over people and beyond-line-of-sight operations.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Brian Wynne
Question. Are small Unmanned Aircraft Systems--Class 1 and Tier 1
and 2--FAA's greatest interest? Are there other sizes relevant to
congressional attention?
Answer. Given the rapid interest in and increase of small UAS in
the airspace by both businesses and hobbyists, Class 1 and Tier 1 and 2
UAS have been the primary focus of industry and the FAA.
Small UAS have been a priority of the FAA since Congress passed the
2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, which directed the agency to
develop a national framework for the integration of UAS into the
National Airspace System. On August 29, 2016, the FAA partially
fulfilled that mandate with the implementation of the small UAS rule
(Part 107). Part 107 applies to platforms weighing less than 55 pounds,
and, generally speaking, operators need to fly under 400 feet, within
visual line of sight and only during daylight hours.
However, recognizing the need for a more flexible, risk-based
approach to regulating UAS, the FAA also instituted a waiver process
for UAS operations that go beyond Part 107, provided an appropriate
safety case can be made. The waiver process allows for expanded
operations, such as nighttime or beyond line of sight, with the
approval of the agency. This waiver process is only applicable to UAS
that weigh less than 55 pounds. If operators want to fly UAS that weigh
55 pounds or more, they need to use the Section 333 exemption process,
though the operating rules and aircraft requirements will be the same
or similar to operators flying under Part 107.
The industry's vision for full UAS integration includes UAS above
55 pounds, and we urge the FAA to continue to move forward with
rulemakings that can build upon existing regulations to safely
integrate UAS--of all sizes, weights and capabilities--into the
national airspace. By permitting operations of larger UAS that have
capabilities to fly at higher altitudes and beyond visual line of
sight, we can tap into the tremendous economic benefits that UAS will
provide our country.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maggie Hassan to
Brian Wynne
Privacy. While the benefits of integrating UAS into our airspace
cannot be understated, it is clear that some issues remain with regard
to safety and privacy.
People in my state and across the country have legitimate
concerns--which I share--about how commercial and recreational use of
drones might impact and impede their privacy.
Question. What more can be done to ensure the voices of our
constituents and state and local governments are heard at the Federal
level when it comes to generating and implementing drone policies with
regard to safety and privacy?
Answer. While the Federal Government must maintain ultimate
authority over the national airspace, it must also embrace the concerns
of communities around the country and provide a pathway for state,
municipal and tribal governments to collaborate with the FAA to address
their unique concerns.
On October 25, 2017, the Trump administration created the UAS
Integration Pilot Program to provide state, municipal and tribal
governments with an opportunity to shape a national policy framework
for UAS without infringing on the U.S. government's jurisdiction over
the airspace.
Ten participants were selected in May 2018, ranging from a mosquito
control division in Florida to the University of Alaska to the Choctaw
Nation of Oklahoma. Each participant will provide critical research
that will allow us to go above and beyond what is currently possible
and give us a glimpse into what the future holds for UAS operations
around the country. Importantly, participants will collect data that
will help determine the best practices for coordinating state, local
and tribal government input with the FAA to keep our skies safe going
forward.
The industry is excited to see these pilot programs progress, which
will help chart a path forward for federal, state, local and tribal
collaboration on UAS-related policy issues.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
Matthew S. Zuccaro
Question 1. Mr. Zuccaro, you mentioned that you have been involved
in aviation for more than 50 years and that you have not experienced a
more exciting watershed moment than the integration of drones into the
national airspace. As this technology continues to grow in use, we know
that we will need a state of the art unmanned traffic management system
to safely enable operations within the national airspace. Based on your
experience, can you share with the committee what you believe to be the
additional infrastructure needs that levels of government and the
private sector will need to consider?
Answer. Our national airspace system (NAS) is the safest, most
efficient system in the world. As we integrate new aircraft into the
system, the additional infrastructure to accommodate these aircraft
must preserve and maintain safety. UAS are aircraft and the fundamental
requirements for all aircraft operating in the NAS is to have see and
avoid capabilities. The overarching industry goal is to safely achieve
Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations which will enable a wide
scope of operations for UAS. Detect and Avoid Technology is the single
most important technology that needs to be deployed to enable BVLOS
operations. Unfortunately, this level of needed capability to ensure
safe operations within the NAS has not been implemented. The technology
itself must be tested and approved by regulators and supported by
industry, and it must not result in any form of airspace denial for
current NAS operators. HAI fully supports the inclusion of UAS into the
NAS but it must be done in a safe, well thought out manner with Detect
and Avoid technology that is certified and fully functioning. Rushing
the process and introducing technology with reduced capability will not
work. Detect and Avoid Technology must be resolved so UAS operations
can be safely integrated into the airspace.
Question 2. Mr. Zuccaro, as has been referenced in testimony, a UTM
is critical to help ensuring the safety of drones, helicopters, and
airplanes sharing the same airspace. I read with interest your
testimony on the importance of integrating all aircraft safely into the
airspace. Your written testimony says, ``Operating any aircraft, manned
or unmanned) should be considered a privilege, not a right.''. Can you
share your suggestions on what requirements should be put in place? For
instance, should licenses be issued at point of sale for a drone much
like a VIN number and registration for an automobile?
Answer. Just for clarity my testimony stated that ``Operating any
aircraft, manned or unmanned, comes with a degree of responsibility and
accountability to ensure safe operation''. As stated in my testimony we
have successfully integrated numerous aircraft categories and classes
safely into the national airspace, and we do not need to reinvent the
wheel. UAS are the latest category of aircraft and as such should
comply with the existing criteria tailored to their unique
characteristics for certification and registration of the aircraft, and
training, testing and certification of the pilot/operator. As is the
case with manned aircraft, the FAA should have surveillance and
regulatory oversite of UAS operations, both commercial and private/
recreational, under a specified set of regulations and recommended
practices.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jim Inhofe to
Matthew S. Zuccaro
Question. As a pilot, I always hear from the aviation community
regarding problems with different FAA regions interpreting the same
national standards and guidance coming from Washington. You have
highlighted the need for the FAA to maintain preemptive authority to
regulate the Nation's airspace and not allow a patchwork of rules by
multiple authorities regulate--who, where and when a pilot can fly an
aircraft or drone. How does Federal management of our Nation's airspace
provide greater safety for manned and unmanned aircraft, especially
aircraft that operate in lower altitudes?
Answer. Singular Federal management of the airspace provides the
critical standardization necessary to keep aviation operations safe.
Our industry's first and foremost concern is for safety. Safety is the
bedrock of our operating principals. Federal airspace preemption allows
one national regulatory authority, staffed by professional subject
matter experts, to oversee the NAS with a common set of rules and laws
understood by all operators, either manned or unmanned. Individual
pilots train to these regulations and company operators structure their
operating procedures based on these common set of regulations. This
long-established structure is an integral component of aviation safety.
FAA airspace preemption ensures that all operators know the rules of
the road. Safety at all levels is enhanced by standardization of rules
and procedures, a stable knowledge base, and clearly defined lines of
authority. Degrading and fracturing FAA airspace preemption to allow
other entities to introduce regulations for either manned or unmanned
aircraft creates an uncertain operating environment with reduced safety
margins. Safety is created by knowing how other operators will
transition through airspace. Introducing multiple variables of
potential operational behavior just because you have crossed imaginary
political boundaries adds risk to the operator and the public. At
worst, these multiple variables may produce conflicting procedures or
incentives, leading to a significant breach of safety. A helicopter
conducting a routine aerial powerline inspection mission might cross
dozens of local municipalities during the mission. If each municipality
were to have singular authority over aviation activities within its
boundaries, the result could be a regulatory environment that is
uncertain, in conflict, and counter to safety initiatives. Different
FAA regions interpreting national standards and guidance coming from
Washington can produce the same problems and concerns as allowing a
patchwork of rules by multiple authorities to regulate the Nation's
airspace. If each FAA region interprets standards or guidance
differently, operators are left with uncertain operating environments.
The FAA must maintain a recognized and enforced top down regulatory
approach so that all FAA regions apply a common, regulatory standard.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Matthew S. Zuccaro
The lack of any mandatory black box on drones to help with
investigations. Should there be an accident that causes injury or loss
of life due to a collision between a drone and another aircraft,
authorities will investigate, but they may turn up little information.
There is no ``black box'' or flight recorder on board a drone that
could give us valuable evidence of its operation, control, or flight
path. There might be some ways of tracking activity, but little that is
very robust.
Question. Should Congress require that black box-like technology be
installed on drones and UAS?
Answer. As part of the integration of UAS into the NAS, HAI fully
supports the tracking and identification of UAS. As technology develops
the concept of requiring a black box-like technology for UAS could be a
part of the tracking and ID regulation. That type of information
recovered from a ``black box'' would be valuable to investigators in
any unfortunate incident or accident. In this type of scenario however,
we should not promote one type of technology over another. For example,
one solution set could be that the tracking is not done on a ``black
box'' onboard the UAS but the information is gathered in the
controller. Regardless of the type of technology used, the concept of
requiring this data could be an important tool for investigators and
tracking flight performance.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Matthew S. Zuccaro
Question. Are small Unmanned Aircraft Systems--Class 1 and Tier 1
and 2--FAA's greatest interest? Are there other sizes relevant to
congressional attention?
Answer. All unmanned systems regardless of size are considered
aircraft and, as such, should have the attention of the FAA and
Congress. The FAA's UAS Integration Strategy is based on a continuum
(see graph below) that addresses a progression of integration into the
NAS. All UAS have potential impact to the NAS and the public and
present various challenges to various portions of the full NAS if not
handled correctly.
The FAA is correct to be focusing its efforts on smaller UAS
aircraft at this time (as indicated in the graph below), as they are
the most prolific group trying to gain entry into the NAS. Congress
should continue to support the FAA's efforts in terms of the
integration strategy, as a safe and effective means to achieve long-
term UAS integration into the NAS and maintaining system safety.
While the majority of UAS currently operate in the lower airspace,
according to the FAA's continuum, larger UAS will eventually be
integrated. Regardless of the speed of integration, all different types
of UAS are important and require well thought out rules and regulations
and the appropriate congressional attention.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Margaret Hassan to
Matthew S. Zuccaro
Privacy. While the benefits of integrating UAS into our airspace
cannot be understated, it is clear that some issues remain with regard
to safety and privacy.
People in my state and across the country have legitimate
concerns--which I share--about how commercial and recreational use of
drones might impact and impede their privacy.
Question. What more can be done to ensure the voices of our
constituents and state and local governments are heard at the Federal
level when it comes to generating and implementing drone policies with
regard to safety and privacy?
Answer. HAI is on record strongly advocating for the singular
authority of the FAA over the NAS. FAA airspace preemption ensures that
all operators know the rules of the road--because there is one
regulatory authority that oversees all of U.S. aviation. Manufacturers
build to FAA regulations, operators train to FAA regulations, and
companies structure their operating procedures based on this common set
of regulations. This long-established structure is an integral
component of aviation safety, efficiency, and economic viability.
However, a successful integration strategy must be inclusive and
provide a place at the table for all appropriate stakeholders,
including local and state municipalities. Safety and privacy are
essential to all of us, and HAI is fully committed to UAS policies that
respect individuals' privacy and safety. We expect the FAA's Unmanned
Aircraft System Integration Pilot Program (IPP) to be an effective
testbed to further explore examples of possible solutions to improving
the vital link of communication between local and state authorities,
the aviation community and the FAA. HAI has and maintains a very
aggressive program of community relations and looks forward to working
with local municipalities on such important initiatives.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Jim Inhofe to
Todd Graetz
Question. For over two years, the BNSF Railway has been working
with the FAA through the Pathfinder Project to specifically explore the
ability to safely operate drones beyond visual line of sight in rural
areas. Do you believe that your participation in this program has
provided the needed data and operational experience to allow FAA to
move forward with rulemaking to allow the operations of drones beyond
the visual line of sight?
Answer. Through BNSF's participation in the Pathfinder program, we
conducted more than 680 hours of ``beyond visual line-of-sight''
(BVLOS) drone flights which provided more than 2.8 terabytes (TB) of
flight and safety data collection information for the FAA to review.
This information will help the FAA safely integrate commercial UAS
flights into the NAS, but most of the BVLOS flights we conducted were
in a remote corridor which limited the presence of random air traffic
and overflights of populated areas. We are confident our work with the
FAA to develop multiple safety mitigations to protect manned aircraft
from our drone operations in Pathfinder will allow them to apply the
lessons as they consider moving forward with any rulemaking to permit
BVLOS drone operations in areas with higher air traffic levels.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Richard Blumenthal to
Todd Graetz
The lack of any mandatory black box on drones to help with
investigations. Should there be an accident that causes injury or loss
of life due to a collision between a drone and another aircraft,
authorities will investigate, but they may turn up little information.
There is no ``black box'' or flight recorder on board a drone that
could give us valuable evidence of its operation, control, or flight
path. There might be some ways of tracking activity, but little that is
very robust.
Question. Should Congress require that black box-like technology be
installed on drones and UAS?
Answer. BNSF believes the question of the necessity and utility of
a flight recorder on various types of UAS is best left to experts in
the development of drone technology at the FAA and the UAS
manufacturing community. As a railroad, we lack the institutional
background to determine whether other options or concepts might be as
or more effective to address potential incidents regarding a wide range
of UAS flight activity. For BNSF's UAS utilization, we have found the
tracking and recording mechanisms presently utilized on our UAS flights
sufficient for safety and flight review.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Todd Graetz
Question. Are small Unmanned Aircraft Systems--Class 1 and Tier 1
and 2--FAA's greatest interest? Are there other sizes relevant to
congressional attention?
Answer. BNSF has been using various classifications of UAS to
support safety initiatives on our network, but we are unclear as to the
FAA's interest level in the specific sizes and types of UAS that are
commercially available. Congress will likely need to remain cognizant
of the capabilities of any size drone that is commercially available as
it considers future action regarding the safety and security of their
use.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Maggie Hassan to
Todd Graetz
Privacy. While the benefits of integrating UAS into our airspace
cannot be understated, it is clear that some issues remain with regard
to safety and privacy.
People in my state and across the country have legitimate
concerns--which I share--about how commercial and recreational use of
drones might impact and impede their privacy.
Question. What more can be done to ensure the voices of our
constituents and state and local governments are heard at the Federal
level when it comes to generating and implementing drone policies with
regard to safety and privacy?
Answer. BNSF initiated the use of UAS on our system with a complete
focus on safety when our company was selected to be part of the FAA's
Pathfinder program. Drone technology was used to provide an additional
overlay of inspections making it another tool for our comprehensive
risk based safety program. In taking every step to ensure the safety of
our workforce and the public, the FAA implemented a robust risk-based,
data-supported oversight system which enabled the agency to best target
priorities and resources, and permitted BNSF the necessary flexibility
to safely make the first long-range ``beyond visual line-of-sight''
(BVLOS) UAS operations a reality. The FAA has significant experience in
working with local governments and the American public on a host of
sensitive matters. As Congress contemplates developing future policies
to address safety and privacy needs regarding drone flights, it should
work closely with FAA to consider the agency's experience and review
lessons learned through the Pathfinder program in these issue areas.
[all]