[Senate Hearing 114-635]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-635
UP IN THE AIR: EXAMINING THE COMMERCIAL
APPLICATIONS OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 10, 2016
__________
Printed for the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-851 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
----------
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana, Chairman
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire, Ranking Member
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
RAND PAUL, Kentucky HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
CORY GARDNER, Colorado CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
JONI ERNST, Iowa MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
Meredith West, Republican Staff Director
Robert Diznoff, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Opening Statements
Page
Vitter, Hon. David, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Louisiana.. 1
Booker, Hon. Cory A., a U.S. Senator from New Jersey............. 3
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, a U.S. Senator from New Hampshire.......... 73
Witnesses
Panel 1
Wynne, Brian, President and CEO, Association for Unmanned Vehicle
Systems International, Arlington, VA........................... 5
Canoll, Tim, President, Air Line Pilots Association,
International, Washington, DC.................................. 13
Dourado, Eli, Director, Technology Policy Program, Mercatus
Center, George Mason University, Arlington, VA................. 34
Panel 2
Vaneck, Thomas W., Vice President, Disruptive Technologies,
Physical Sciences Inc., Andover, MA............................ 58
McNeal, Gregory S., JD/PhD, Professor of Law, Pepperdine
University, Co-Founder, AirMap................................. 64
Alphabetical Listing and Appendix Material Submitted
Booker, Hon. Cory A.
Opening statement............................................ 3
Canoll, Tim
Testimony.................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Dourado, Eli
Testimony.................................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Responses to Questions Submitted by Senators Fischer,
Heitkamp, and Scott........................................ 90
McNeal, Gregory S.
Testimony.................................................... 64
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Motion Picture Association of America
Statement Dated March 10, 2016............................... 84
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne
Testimony.................................................... 73
Prepared statement........................................... 74
Vaneck, Thomas W.
Testimony.................................................... 58
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Vitter, Hon. David
Opening statement............................................ 1
Wynne, Brian
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to Questions Submitted by Senators Fischer and
Heitkamp................................................... 85
UP IN THE AIR: EXAMINING THE
COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS OF UNMANNED
AIRCRAFT FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2016
United States Senate,
Committee on Small Business
and Entrepreneurship,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 428A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. David Vitter,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Vitter, Risch, Gardner, Ernst, Ayotte,
Shaheen, Cantwell, Heitkamp, Markey, and Booker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, CHAIRMAN, AND A U.S.
SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA
Chairman Vitter. Good morning, everyone, and welcome.
Thanks for joining us today for the Senate Small Business
and Entrepreneurship Committee's hearing to examine the
commercial applications of unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS,
by small businesses. We are going to be hearing from one panel
of industry experts and one panel of small businesses, and I
want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today and
really contributing a lot. We appreciate it.
The purpose of this hearing is really twofold. First, to
highlight the need to integrate UAS into the national airspace
in a way that fundamentally ensures safety as the top priority.
I have raised significant concerns about the safe operation of
this technology and it is crucial that the Federal Aviation
Administration, the FAA, develops regulations to promote a
culture of safety and compliance for the growing number of UAS
users.
But the second purpose of the hearing is to also recognize
that while the FAA has certainly taken an extended period of
time to develop these regulations, it risks sacrificing not
only safety, but the proper development of this technology for
the benefit of the economy and for consumers. The FAA's failure
to meet regulatory deadlines has limited the growth of the
commercial drone industry. I am hopeful that today's
conversation will bring us closer to finding that right balance
between the safe integration of drones in the national airspace
and moving forward with economic development, not stifling
small business innovation and utilization.
The potential of UAS's economic contribution certainly
cannot be ignored, and it is not at all surprising that our
nation's entrepreneurs have made quick work of learning to
benefit from this technology. In recent years, UAS have
developed into useful and major tools for many small
businesses. They are used in all sorts of applications across
many industries, including agriculture, real estate,
construction, film and TV, telecommunications, to name just a
few.
The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
recently issued a report and it concluded that precision
agriculture is one of the most promising commercial markets for
UAS. The report estimated that once FAA regulations are
finalized, the UAS industry expects to produce over 100,000
total U.S. jobs and $82 billion in economic impact within a
decade.
In the meantime, drones are prohibited for commercial
purposes and the FAA has granted exemptions only on a case-by-
case basis, and that is one of the major issues and hurdles,
slow-ups, we are going to talk about today. It seems to me
case-by-case analysis is not the best way to proceed for
safety's sake, and it is certainly not the most efficient way
to engage a growing industry, and the FAA needs to update its
exemption process to be sure we cover safety and so that small
businesses are taken care of in a timely way. The current
process is simply unacceptable and leaves too many small
businesses out to dry.
The silver lining lies within the simmering growth of the
industry. In 2014 alone, the companies that were granted
exemptions are estimated to have contributed nearly $500
billion in revenue and represented over 600,000 jobs. And of
the first 1,000 commercial UAS exemptions, small businesses
made up about 95 percent of them.
I know that our entrepreneurs and small business owners
want to follow the rules and use UAS for low-risk activities.
But under the current circumstances, they face unnecessary
barriers that prevent growth. The last thing our economy needs
is unnecessary obstructions to small business growth, which is
responsible for a huge part of sustaining jobs for hard working
Americans.
And I also say the other reality of the current state of
affairs is that, quite frankly, you have a lot of folks,
including small businesses, that simply are not going to
comply. It is not practical and not sustainable, and that
brings up real safety issues if you have a culture of a pretty
wide open common non-compliance.
In light of these realities, I have authored the Micro
Drone Safety and Innovation Act. This bill would establish a
micro classification for UAS that weigh 4.4 pounds or less in
order to prioritize safety while promoting open innovation. The
bill calls for strict safety requirements that fall in line
with proposed regulations from the FAA. It is my belief that we
can help maintain our country's competitive advantage while
encouraging a culture of safety and compliance for UAS users.
Now, let us get to today's conversation. I am extremely
interested to hear from our witnesses about their experience
with FAA's current process and what they expect when proposed
regulations are finalized. I also hope our expert panelists
will inform us of the impact UAS integration will have on our
economy, how it has made a difference in their work, ways we
can emphasize safety in our country's air space. And, of
course, I would welcome any comments about my legislation,
which we are introducing this week.
Again, I want to thank everyone for being here today and I
look forward to the discussion.
And now, I will turn to Senator Booker, who will offer an
opening statement in Senator Shaheen's absence.
Senator.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Senator Vitter, I want to thank you very
much. It is very good that you are holding this hearing. I want
to thank the folks that are here today.
I get really excited about the future and the possibility
for us to innovate as a country. We have expanded our economy
in every generation because of American innovation, leading the
globe. We are the net global exporters of innovation, of ideas,
of new technology, and we need to stay on that cutting edge.
And, what frustrates me and worries me right now is when it
comes to UAS and drone technology, it is now literally taking
off across the globe but being stifled right here at home. We
are the country that invented flight. We are the nation that
led the world into the skies. But now for this incredible
technology, we have a regulatory regime that is undermining
innovation at home and spawning it in other places. If during
the time of Wilbur and Orville Wright we had this kind of
regulatory regime, we would not be flying planes today the way
we are.
And, so, this is something we need to create an environment
where we can explore, where we can innovate, where we can lead
again, and I am very frustrated that in this area that has such
profound potential, some of which Senator Vitter touched on,
which, really, to me, is just the tip of the iceberg in terms
of the transformational opportunities it holds for our economy.
And, this is not just our economy. It is not just dollars
and cents. As a former mayor who saw the power of first
responders, it can improve our search and rescue activities,
and it can improve our ability to provide humanitarian aid,
critical medicines. We should be making sure that we are doing
this responsibly. We should make sure that we emphasize safety.
But, we should do everything we can to let loose the reins of
innovation and ideas.
There is an unbelievably clear economic case. This should
be bringing left and right together when it comes to issues of
economic growth. The Senator gave a tremendous amount of data
and statistics. Already, UAS accounted for $500 billion in
revenue and represented over 600,000 jobs in the United States.
And for me, it could bring efficiencies across industries, and,
again, even more compelling to me is it can save lives.
In order to reap the major social and economic benefits of
this technology, we must have regulations that keep pace with
innovation. That is one of the frustrating things in my two
years as a Senator, is that the increasing pace of innovation
and change, we are just not keeping up as a government, just
not creating an atmosphere in which we can really maintain our
competitive edge globally.
I am very proud to be working in a bipartisan manner with
Senator Hoeven, who comes from a State very similar to New
Jersey, and I am working with him. We have introduced already
the Commercial UAS Modernization Act, which aims to unleash
commercial UAS and actually provide businesses with some of the
stable footing to make investments prior to the FAA's long
overdue rulemaking.
I look forward to working on, with him and others, to
advance this exciting technology as we move forward with the
FAA reauthorization later this month. There is an urgency here,
though. I really do feel an urgency, because every single day
that we have a restrictive, overburdensome, unnecessary
regulatory environment, we allow other nations to outpace us,
we allow people to move past us, we allow lives that could be
saved to be put in peril, and we undermine, again, our global
dominance when it comes to innovation, when it comes to
entrepreneurship, when it comes to expanding the horizons of
the world.
Thank you.
Chairman Vitter. Thank you, Senator.
As we always do, we will invite any other member of the
committee to submit opening statements for the record, but we
always like to get right to our witnesses and hear from them
and be able to interact with them.
I am going to introduce our first panel, and then,
unfortunately, I am going to have to excuse myself because I
need to be in the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Ayotte will
take over the gavel. But, let me introduce our first panel of
industry experts.
First is Mr. Brian Wynne. Mr. Wynne is President and CEO of
the largest association representing the unmanned systems and
robotics industries. AUVSI is the world's largest nonprofit
organization dedicated to the advancement of unmanned systems
and represents more than 7,500 members from 60 allied countries
and 2,700 organizations involved in the fields of government,
industry, and academia.
After that, we will hear from Captain Tim Canoll. Captain
Canoll is the President of ALPA, which represents more than
52,000 professional airline pilots who fly for 31 airlines in
the U.S. and Canada. ALPA serves as the largest non-
governmental aviation safety organization in the world and has
worked closely with both government and industry on the
integration of unmanned aircraft to the national aviation
system.
And rounding out our first panel is Mr. Eli Dourado. Mr.
Dourado specializes in internet governance, intellectual
property, crypto-currency, internet security, and the economics
of technology. His popular writing has appeared in the New York
Times, the Washington Post, Foreign Policy, the Guardian, and
Wired, among many other outlets.
Welcome to all of you, and as I hand the gavel over to
Senator Ayotte, I will invite Mr. Wynne to begin.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN WYNNE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, ASSOCIATION FOR UNMANNED VEHICLE SYSTEMS
INTERNATIONAL, ARLINGTON, VA
Mr. Wynne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator
Booker, Senator Ayotte. It is a pleasure to be here on behalf
of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International,
the world's largest not-for-profit organization devoted
exclusively to advancing the unmanned systems and robotics
community.
UAS increase human potential, allowing us to execute
dangerous or difficult tasks safely and efficiently. From
inspecting pipelines to filming movies, the applications of UAS
are virtually limitless.
The UAS industry is also poised to be one of the fastest
growing in American history. Our economic impact study found
that, during the first decade following UAS integration into
the airspace, the industry will create more than 100,000 jobs
and provide more than $82 billion in economic impact, and that
is just in our community alone. That does not count the value-
added, some of the statistics that you were describing, Senator
Booker, to the other communities that will be benefiting from
the technology. Under the right regulatory environment, there
is no question these numbers could go even higher.
For years, AUVSI has been urging the FAA to use all
available means to establish a regulatory framework, starting
with finalizing the small UAS rule. As we wait, American
businesses are left sitting on the sidelines or operating under
an onerous exemption process.
In May 2014, the FAA announced it would consider granting
exemptions for certain low-risk commercial UAS applications
under Section 333 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act.
Since then, the FAA has granted more than 3,700 exemptions, the
vast majority of which are going to small businesses. For
example, Louisiana-based LandBros Aerial is a start-up founded
by two brothers in 2014 who use small quad copters to capture
aerial images for the construction industry.
While some businesses are flying, this current system of
case-by-case approvals is not a long-term solution and in many
cases serves as a deterrent. Policies governing the 333
exemption process are more onerous than those contemplated in
the proposed small rule. For instance, Section 333 exemptions
typically require approved UAS operators to hold at least a
sport pilot certificate, which requires a minimum of 20 hours
of training in a manned aircraft and costs thousands of dollars
to obtain. Under the proposed rule, however, commercial UAS
operators will more appropriately be required to pass an
aeronautical knowledge exam every two years in order to fly.
Additionally, access to some airspace is more complicated
under the exemption process. Currently, approvals automatically
allow commercial operators to fly up to 200 feet. Under the
proposed rule, commercial operators would be allowed to fly up
to 500 feet.
In addition to the bureaucratic nature of the exemption
process, the patchwork of state and local laws under
consideration in many jurisdictions will create additional
hurdles for small business. Any operator flying in multiple
states may encounter and need to comply with different laws and
regulations governing commercial UAS operations. The U.S. Code
clearly states, and I quote, ``The United States government has
exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States,''
unquote.
In December 2015, the FAA asserted its authority and
cautioned states and municipalities against enacting
conflicting UAS legislation. The FAA was right to do so, but
until the agency finalizes the regulatory framework for small
UAS, states and municipalities will continue to fill the void.
In addition to helping the industry thrive, finalizing the
small UAS rule will provide the necessary tools and training to
create a culture of safety. As more commercial operators are
certificated, they will join the longstanding aviation
community, which I have been a part of for more than 25 years
as an instrument-rated general aviation pilot.
Safety is essential for all users. That is why AUVSI, in
partnership with the Academy of Model Aeronautics and the FAA,
developed a ``Know Before You Fly'' campaign to educate
newcomers to UAS about where they should and should not fly. I
am pleased to note that ALPA is also a supporter of that
campaign.
While it is vital that the FAA finalize the small UAS rule,
Congress also needs to pass an FAA reauthorization. This is
critical for accelerating and expanding the commercial use of
UAS and the most immediate way to encourage additional
collaborative innovation between industry and government.
UAS technology is developing rapidly, much faster than our
country's capacity to develop the necessary regulations. We
need to make sure the FAA adopts the proper framework to keep
up with this technology and is sufficiently resourced to do so.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this
morning. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wynne follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Ayotte [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Wynne.
I would like to now call on Captain Tim Canoll, who is the
President of the Air Line Pilots Association. Thank you, Mr.
Canoll.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN TIM CANOLL, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE PILOTS
ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Canoll. Thank you, Senator Ayotte, Senator Booker, and
to the committee for the opportunity to testify today.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International, has long
stood in strong support of safely integrating unmanned aircraft
systems, or UAS, into the national airspace. We recognize that
UAS can perform specialized tasks efficiently and safely. ALPA
applauds the entrepreneurs who are identifying new uses for UAS
to help advance small business and the national economy. We
also commend the members of Congress who have expressed an
interest in UAS.
In this context, our support for innovation and growth,
ALPA's greatest concern will always be safety. The U.S.
airspace is the most dynamic on the planet. It is also the
safest. We cannot rush UAS integration process. That must begin
and end with making certain that the high level of aviation
safety that exists today continues tomorrow.
We know that unsafe situations involving UAS are occurring
right now. Each month, the FAA receives more than 100 reports
of UAS sightings from pilots and others. In Louisiana, for
example, the air traffic control tower reported that an
airliner on final approach to Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport
observed a UAS at 500 feet just one mile from the runway. In
Manchester, New Hampshire, the air traffic control tower
received a report from an airliner of a UAS hovering at 2,800
feet about 7.5 miles northeast of the airport on the arrival
path.
While it is almost certain that these events involved
recreational rather than commercial UAS operators, they
demonstrate the need for UAS pilot education and enhanced
safety.
For airline pilots like me, UAS often literally appear out
of the blue. They are much smaller than other aircraft and they
move more slowly than airliners. As a result of this
difference, UAS are extremely difficult to see in flight. While
the FAA is making progress, it needs to address all UAS uses
with a full regulatory safety framework.
ALPA's near-term action plan contains four parts.
Education. Anyone flying UAS, no matter the size, should
understand the aircraft and the airspace and the other aircraft
that share it. ALPA maintains that commercially operated UAS
should be flown by pilots who have the necessary knowledge. All
U.S. transportation forms, be they marine, rail, road, or air,
require commercial licenses for commercial operations. UAS
should be no different. Where our resources exist, such as the
``Know Before You Fly'' campaign, not every UAS owner makes the
effort to learn about the safety regulations. We urge the FAA
to do more to reach out to small businesses and other users
regarding UAS safety.
Registration. ALPA is pleased that more than 342,000 UAS
owners have already registered with the FAA. While we applaud
the civil and criminal penalties for those who do not register,
ALPA maintains that point-of-sale registration is essential.
Technology. If UAS operate in airspace intended for
airliners, or if they could end up there, airline pilots need
to be able to see them on their cockpit displays and
controllers need to see them on their radar scopes. The UAS
must also be equipped with active technologies to avoid a
collision with manned aircraft. The FAA should identify
resources to develop UAS-centric collision avoidance
technologies in fiscal year 2016 and adopt them in fiscal year
2017.
In addition, if regulations restrict UAS from operating in
a location, the UAS must have technology that cannot be
overridden to prevent it from flying there. The FAA must also
continue to evaluate technologies to identify UAS and operator
location.
Penalties and enforcement. ALPA calls for the full
enforcement of civil and criminal penalties regarding UAS. If
the FAA intends to rely on first responders to ensure
compliance, it must do more to inform local, state, and
national law enforcement about their responsibilities and
authority.
Let me close by underscoring that the UAS safety in the
national airspace is serious business, not only for small
business, but for every airline passenger and cargo shipper.
This registered UAS, for example, which is in the
classification of MicroUAS because it is under 4.4 pounds, can
fly as high as 6,600 feet for 15 minutes. It could easily end
up in the airspace I occupy when landing at Baton Rouge or
Manchester, or any airport, for that matter.
With ALPA's plan and Congress providing the FAA with a
long-term stable source of funding through a full
reauthorization, small businesses can capitalize on the
opportunities offered by UAS while maintaining our industry's
extraordinary level of safety.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Canoll follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Captain Canoll.
I want to now call on Mr. Eli Dourado, the Director of
Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center at the George
Mason University.
Mr. Dourado.
STATEMENT OF ELI DOURADO, DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY POLICY PROGRAM,
MERCATUS CENTER, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, ARLINGTON, VA
Mr. Dourado. Thank you, Senator Ayotte and Senator Booker,
for the opportunity to come here and testify and comment on
commercial applications of unmanned aircraft for small
businesses.
My name is Eli Dourado, and I am a Research Fellow at the
Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where I study the
regulation of emerging technologies and direct Mercatus'
Technology Policy Program.
We are at an exciting point in the history of unmanned
aircraft. I think of drones as occupying a similar position now
as the internet did in the 1980s. As members of this committee
know, until 1989, use of the internet for commercial purposes
was generally prohibited. The removal of that prohibition
resulted in an explosion of innovation, much of it completely
unanticipated, that has persisted until today.
As with the internet in 1989, commercial use of drones is
highly restricted, but will soon become generally available,
and as with the internet in 1989, we have only the vaguest idea
of how drones will be used in daily life in the future. That
vague picture does include some applications that we already
understand--using drones for photography and inspecting
equipment, for evaluating the health of crops, for transporting
goods with a high value-to-weight ratio. The improvements in
logistics generated by unmanned aircraft will allow new
business models, doing for local and small businesses what the
shipping container and services like UPS and FedEx did for
global trade.
But, I want to stress that what are likely to be the most
important applications of unmanned aerial systems remain
unknown, just as the most important internet applications were
unknown when the internet first became commercialized.
We must, to the maximum extent possible, treat airspace
with a very light regulatory touch. A regime of permissionless
innovation in which there is a default position of innovation
allowed will allow us to reap the greatest gains from unmanned
systems. I urge every member of this committee to set aside the
fearmongering that accompanies every new technology and embrace
the possibilities for innovation and economic growth that
commercial drones provide.
To be sure, permissionless innovation is a much more
controversial proposition for the physical world of commercial
drones than for abstract information on the internet. What if a
drone collides with a passenger jet and takes down everybody on
board? Fortunately, the best evidence shows that commercial
drones do not pose a serious risk to the airspace.
To evaluate the danger that drones might pose to
traditional aviation, my Mercatus colleague Sam Hammond and I
examined 25 years' worth of wildlife strike data from the FAA.
This dataset provides an excellent lens through which to view
the possible danger that drones create for other aircraft.
U.S. national airspace is home to an estimated ten billion
birds, and the FAA has reported over 160,000 wildlife strikes
since 1990. Of those 160,000, only 12 strikes have resulted in
human fatalities, and of those 12, only one incident involved a
commercial flight and that incident involved not a bird, but a
pair of white tailed deer loitering on a runway.
We estimate that a drone is likely to collide with other
aircraft about once every 374,000 years of continuous
operation, and using statistical analysis on the risk that
birds of different weight pose to humans onboard aircraft, we
estimate that a two kilogram, or 4.4 pound, drone will cause an
injury to a human passenger every 187 million years of
operation. This is well within the realm of acceptable risk.
Given that drones pose little risk to the airspace, the
FAA's proposed drone regulations do not adequately protect the
need for experimentation and innovation. For example, in its
proposed regulations, the FAA does not allow drones to carry
external loads. This means that operators may be prohibited
from delivering items that do not fit within the drone's
fuselage.
The FAA does not allow operators to exercise their see and
avoid responsibilities through technological means, such as
onboard cameras. This limits drone operations to the operator's
line of sight, which will needlessly cripple drones' ability to
operate over longer distances.
The FAA will not allow drones to operate outside the hours
of sunrise and sunset.
The FAA has said that no one will be allowed to transport
property for compensation via drone without filing for an Air
Carrier Operating Certificate. This may be prohibitively
expensive for companies that wish to create small local
delivery services using drones.
The FAA has proposed a one drone per operator rule. This
rule drastically raises the cost for small businesses of
operating multiple drones.
Finally, the FAA has so far prohibited drone operation over
populated areas. Some of the most promising applications of
drones, such as local delivery services that improve the
logistical capabilities of small businesses, may only make
sense in populated areas. This prohibition will simply rule out
those business opportunities.
As this committee considers how best to prepare for a
future in which drones create new opportunities for small
business, I urge you to insist upon a light touch regulatory
environment for commercial drones.
Thank you for your interest in this issue and for the
opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dourado follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Mr. Dourado.
I want to thank all of you for being here. I chair the
Aviation Subcommittee in the Commerce Committee, and this has
been an issue that we are very interested in addressing and, in
fact, just yesterday dropped a draft of the FAA reauthorization
that includes in it some, I think, some important ways to
integrate unmanned aircraft systems into our national airspace
system, and I want to thank Senator Booker, because he has been
very focused on this issue and making sure that we continue to
reform our framework for handling UAS to spur innovation while
also we need to make sure that we protect safety and privacy.
So, I really appreciate your leadership on this issue, and we
were able to incorporate several of your ideas, and I am sure
there is more that we can do as we move forward with the FAA
reauthorization.
So, I wanted to ask all of you if you have had a chance yet
to review our draft that has been proposed legislation, or if
you are still analyzing it, and what your thoughts are.
Mr. Wynne. I will go first. We are still analyzing it,
Senator. Thank you very much. But, we were very pleased, and I
put out a statement yesterday saying we were pleased to see
that--I mean, there are many things in the bill. But, the
pieces that we, in particular, have been asking for from
AUVSI's perspective, the unmanned systems community's
perspective, we believe are there, and we are speaking
specifically of a risk-based technology neutral regulatory
framework, addressing of UTM, for example, unmanned aircraft
systems traffic management, as an opportunity, trying to pull
together the research that is going on in disparate areas of
the government into a more concentrated effort so that we can
increase the collaboration with industry and get the most for
the taxpayers' dollar.
So, we think it is a really good initiative and we urge you
to move forward with that.
Senator Ayotte. Yeah. I mean, one of the things that I am
concerned about is that there are some really terrific
technologies that I have seen, including crash avoidance
technology that is being developed, and we need to have
opportunities to continue to spur that innovation, because you
can incorporate the safety concerns with some of the
technological developments.
Captain, I wanted to get your thoughts.
Mr. Canoll. Thanks, Senator. We are still reviewing the
bill, but our initial view is we view this as a safety forward
bill and we are very pleased that it is out.
Senator Ayotte. Good.
Mr. Canoll. We are very encouraged by what we have read so
far, and particularly the commitment to doing all the safety
initiatives, or starting the way down the road on a lot of
these safety initiatives, and it is particularly the UAS. We
think there is some good information there, as well. So, we
will continue to review----
Senator Ayotte. Great. Well, we appreciate it, and I know
that it just came out, so you are still continuing to review
the details. But, this is something we want to address. We are
worried that delaying on it really will continue to keep these
issues outstanding for UAS in terms of the innovation piece,
because as Mr. Dourado has pointed out, the framework currently
in place is not workable on innovation, but also a lot of
safety issues. So, working on both.
Mr. Dourado, do you have any comments?
Mr. Dourado. Yes. Thank you, Senator. I have reviewed the
bill very, very briefly. I was gratified to see that it is
extending the 333 exemption process and also making clear that
the FAA does have authority to extend authorization for beyond
line of sight and outside the hours of sunrise and sunset.
I would note that in addition to the 333 process, there is
a 332 process that the FAA has avoided, and even their current
proposed commercial rules that were due last September,
Congress had ordered them to be done under Section 332 and the
FAA is promulgating those--continues to promulgate those only
under Section 333. So, asking the FAA to move forward more
quickly on 332 authorization would be important, in my view, as
well.
Senator Ayotte. Okay. Thank you for the feedback. I
appreciate it very much.
One of the things that, you know, I have been hearing, and
I know that Senator Booker raised this, is that we hear that
other countries are ahead of us in providing a regulatory
environment for UAS innovation. So, that is one of the
priorities, I think, that we have, obviously, ensuring that we
are protecting safety at the same time. So, can you tell me--
Mr. Wynne, can you comment on where other countries are vis-a-
vis the United States of America, and, you know, what
opportunities we have if we can move forward with the right
framework here.
Mr. Wynne. Well, ultimately, we do want global
harmonization of rules. That will be particularly important for
larger platforms that are going to travel across international
borders, of course, and so far, these are the kinds of
platforms that are getting the vast majority of the attention.
But, we have many different types of platforms that we need to
be thinking about, and that is why we are talking about a
regulatory framework. Some of our platforms are enormous and
fly above 60,000 feet for days on end, for example, and may be
able to deliver the internet to the Third World in a much more
efficient manner than trying to use wires.
So, there is a lot of different innovation that is going to
go on here. I, too, am very concerned about competitiveness. We
watch this issue very, very carefully. There are clearly
anecdotes--there are anecdotal places around the world where
there is less regulation or they have moved forward with
regulation a little bit faster than we have.
I think if we can move forward with the same kind of
cadence that we saw with the registration process, which AUVSI
participated in--both Captain Canoll and I were there with
Secretary Fox when that was announced, and we urged the FAA to
move very, very quickly, and they did. If we can increase the
pace of regulation, I think we can catch back up, and this is
the largest market for unmanned systems, so I like our chances
of remaining competitive.
Senator Ayotte. Does anyone else want to comment on that
issue?
Mr. Dourado. I would like to, Senator. I think that Canada
is governing circles around us right now. In Canada, up to a 25
kilogram drone you can fly without any special authorization
for commercial purposes if you simply notify Transport Canada
of your intention to do so. So, you simply give them notice
that you are operating within a certain range of exemptions and
you can operate. So, it is a much more simplified, pro-
innovation stance from the Canadian government.
Mr. Canoll. The only thing I would add, Senator, is our
members are seeing--are reporting and encountering the same
problems at other high-density population centers around the
globe as they do in the United States. In the low-density
population areas, like Canada, we do not see it as much because
they are just not as prevalent and the aircraft operations are
far fewer. So, we do see problems in London, Paris, around the
globe.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
I would like to call on Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. So, a perfect--first of all, Senator
Ayotte, I am grateful for your kind words and I just think that
for the record I want to say that yesterday morning was a
perfect metaphor for the United States versus the rest of the
world. As I was running past you on the Mall, I was the United
States, slow, sluggish, barely moving off the ground----
[Laughter.]
You were obviously the innovative countries around the
globe, because you flew past me at a speed----
[Laughter.]
Senator Ayotte. Okay, but in fairness, he had what looked
like a heavy backpack on his back, which I did not.
Senator Booker. So, the backpack is empty just so I get
people to assume that I am running so slow for a reason.
[Laughter.]
So, I have outed myself, but please understand that. It was
a very humiliating moment for me yesterday. I did not want to
be seen, and I was outed by my fellow Senator.
Gentlemen, I am grateful for you being here, and I actually
do not think there is much, Captain Canoll, which as a New
Jerseyan, which has an incredibly great Italian community, to
let your name be one vowel short of one of my favorite
desserts.
[Laughter.]
I am very, very grateful that you are here, and I actually
do not think there is any--there is much conflict between what
you are saying. I think all the panelists here believe that we
should be a nation that makes sure that we are safe. And, the
Air Line Pilots Association, I work with quite a bit, and just
revere the men and women that do--many of them former military
people who have made a tremendous sacrifice and commitment to
our country. So, I am just grateful for everybody being here.
I just want to dive in real quick. First of all, Mr.
Dourado, what you said is one of the most important points in
my understanding of the cycle of innovation, is that we
routinely underestimate the impact, the economic impact, when
we have a new innovation. We really never see the true
potential of that impact. Everybody wants to start talking
about what this new innovation can do, but nobody gets, from
the automobile to the television to--if you look at the things
that were said in those early technologies, they had no clue
about how transformative they would be and how much economic
growth would be.
So, your metaphor in comparing this to the internet, to me,
is spot-on, and not an exaggeration. Am I right?
Mr. Dourado. Yes, Senator, and I would note even Paul
Krugman, who is a great economist, as late as 1998 was
predicting that the internet would have no more economic impact
than the fax machine.
Senator Booker. Right.
Mr. Dourado. And, it is not--you know, he is a great
economist, deserved of his Nobel Prize, and he even as late as
1998 was unable to see everything that the internet would be
able to provide, so----
Senator Booker. You are a braver man than me. I would never
smack talk a Nobel Prize winner----
[Laughter.]
So, let us just go where you are right now. I think Captain
Canoll said it clearly, that other European high-density
airports are seeing the same problems, not more. They have
better regulatory regimes for innovation. They are not seeing
an increased problem. They are seeing basically the same
problems we are having.
Mr. Canoll. I am not sure if the statistics would prove
that out, because we are not sharing information as much as we
should. That is a great point, that we should be looking across
other regulatory agencies to gather their information and do
some comparison.
Senator Booker. Right, and so that is a really good point
and I think that is important. We should collect data. As you
agree, data is important.
But, what I really want to jump into is even what the other
countries are doing so much better than us, and even in our FAA
legislation we just introduced, is we are burdening businesses
with multiple--each and every different use case, they are
going to have to run to the government to get yet another
exception, while what other countries are doing, and it is not
just Canada--which we should speak nicely about because I hear
Trudeau is close by--but it is not just Canada. It is France,
dense country, big cities. They are doing one time going to the
government, creating a use case. But they are not creating the
differentiations we are between weight. Is that not so much
easier and still allows us to have the kind of governmental
scrutiny on safety that we want?
And, in the last minute that I have, I would like, Mr.
Wynne, Mr. Dourado to comment, please.
Mr. Wynne. Well, I completely agree, Senator, and it is
clear. I started--I stopped trying to figure out what new
applications for this technology a long time ago and I started
trying to think of how it would not be utilized and what
segments of the U.S. economy would not benefit from unmanned
systems.
And, again, we are talking about all manner of things. Some
of them can be created on 3-D printers very, very rapidly. So,
we need to have a system that allows for us to move forward
with that. But, at the same time, we are integrating into an
airspace which has a very low margin of safety----
Senator Booker. So, if I may interrupt----
Mr. Wynne. Please.
Senator Booker [continuing]. Because I have got 20 seconds
left, and the Chairman is very rough. So, real quick. Why do we
have to have multiple check-ins for every new case use as
opposed to other countries which do it once, far less
burdensome, far less systems, and far less restriction to small
businesses?
Mr. Dourado. I think that is a great question, Senator, and
I would like to see more done on an ex post basis. So,
obviously, there will be accidents occasionally with unmanned
systems, but we can handle them the same way we handle car
accidents, with cases potentially being litigated in court
rather than with ex ante precautionary regulation. So, I would
like to see us moving more towards that ex ante dispute
resolution mechanism rather than ex pose--or, I am sorry, ex
post dispute resolution mechanism rather than ex ante
prohibitions and regulatory prohibitions.
Senator Booker. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Senator Booker.
Senator Heitkamp.
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is good
to see you here.
I think many people on this panel understand the
contribution that North Dakota is making to this entire
industry. In fact, the New York Times, I think, called us the
Silicon Valley of unmanned systems because we have that perfect
marriage of an airbase that has a number of these systems based
out of that airbase, a university that basically is one of the
great aviation universities in the country, and a community
that is wholly embracing and supporting, along with our
extended use lease, building out these technologies. So, this
is a very important industry potential for the State of North
Dakota.
But, we also know how important it can be to precision
agriculture, how important it can be to monitoring
infrastructure, whether it is a pipeline leak or whether it is
a power line failure. So, we see these uses in only that big of
a lens.
But, I want to confirm what Mr. Dourado said about Canada.
I recently met with a researcher from UND. She was researching
wildlife, could have done it in North Dakota, ended up going to
Canada because she was using unmanned aircraft to do the
monitoring and it was much easier to get the permissions and
the authorizations in Canada.
And, so, we need to remember that it is not just building
out this technology of the platform, but we are also losing the
innovation of the utilization of this platform for all of these
other uses, and so we have got to catch up.
With that said, there has been a lot of focus today on
safety, which obviously has to be job one. I asked what the
FAA's resistance is, why do we wait and wait and wait for
integration, and I think that no one wants to be the person who
authorizes something that leads to a catastrophe, and so there
is a natural pulling back or inability to kind of think about
it more broadly.
But, I want to talk about another challenge with this
technology and that is privacy. You know, we had the very high
profile case of somebody who shot down a remotely piloted
aircraft or an unmanned aircraft. Obviously, I think that if
they shot it down, it probably was flying lower than what the
person who owned it was saying it was flying. But, we have got
to not only catch up in terms of the regulatory world, but the
legal world in terms of who owns the airspace, what is an
appropriate distance for this aircraft, and how do we make the
world comfortable, and certainly in the United States, my
farmers and ranchers comfortable with this utilization.
Where do you see that? I guess I would ask Mr. Dourado,
where do you see the privacy implications evolving to the point
where this technology will be more accepted?
Mr. Dourado. Well, Senator, I think that the privacy issues
are different in degree than the privacy issues we have seen in
the past, but they are not different in kind. So, there were
privacy concerns when cameras first became available. There is
a famous law review article in 1890 from the Harvard Law Review
on the right to privacy and fearmongering about cameras, and
now we all have cameras and we somehow get along.
But, it is an important--privacy is an important issue, and
I think it will be resolved through court cases. The Supreme
Court in 1946 issued a very important ruling when regular
aviation was taking off establishing the property rights----
Senator Heitkamp. To airspace.
Mr. Dourado. To airspace, saying that you could not
interfere with the use of a property. So, I think that applying
that same precedent from 1946, which was very flexible, to the
modern world, as long as you are not interfering with a
person's use of their property, then you are not interfering.
And that could be interpreted to include privacy harms, as
well. It already exists under the law.
Senator Heitkamp. I think we are going to have a really
hard time with that kind of vague definition of what is
airspace ownership. You know, obviously, if someone believes
that they have a commercial right to privacy in terms of what
they are growing, in terms of what they are raising, and
someone thinks, no, I am the USDA and I am going to fly--I
mean, I am going to test what is happening on the ground, and I
am going to tell you what your crop looks like, that is a
problem for a lot of ranchers and farmers.
And, so, what I am suggesting is that we need to broaden
the dialogue here beyond safety, and we need to talk about how
we manage this new technology in that privacy space. And, I
think that is something that we have not done all that well.
In North Dakota, one of the things that we have been able
to do is put together a committee that not only talks about
when should you be able to basically deploy this resource, but
what do you do with the data afterwards, and the for instance
is, we send one up to monitor traffic out of the hockey arena,
which is a big deal. I know you guys do not believe that, but
it is a big deal.
[Laughter.]
Monitor traffic out of the hockey arena and then you do not
need that information, so that information gets deleted out of
the system and not stored. And, so, those are the challenging
questions that are being asked in terms of data collection and
in terms of information, and I think we need to have a broader
discussion beyond safety about how this resource is used in
America to protect the privacy rights of landowners, but also
not irrationally restricting utilization of the resource.
So, I am out of time, but----
Senator Risch [presiding]. Senator Ernst, you are up.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would just like to echo--and, first, thank you for being
here today. I do appreciate it. And, this is a topic that is
very interesting and we do need further discussions on. And, I
would agree with some of the comments that are made already,
especially as it applies to agriculture in a state like Iowa or
North Dakota, it is a great tool for our farmers to use if they
are doing that precision-type agriculture and monitoring, and
it does eventually save on labor costs, and it makes our
environment that much the better because we are targeting
specific weeds in specific areas, not entire fields.
So, I think there is a lot of great application that we can
find from these systems, but I wanted to echo the privacy
concerns that we have, as well, because even in the rural
areas, it may be a great tool for farming, but you certainly do
not want somebody else's remotely piloted aircraft or drone
flying overhead taking pictures of your family as they are in
the backyard or whatever other methods are being done out
there. So, those are some concerns.
Much of Iowa is rural farm ground. I mean, it goes without
saying. Just like so many of our states, it is so rural. Many
of these UAS are being operated for agricultural purposes, far
from the nearest town let alone from the nearest airport. So,
what do we do to ensure that we are not overburdening some of
the folks that are utilizing this technology in those types of
areas? Any thoughts on that?
Mr. Canoll. Well, Senator, I think there are a couple of
areas that we can make advances. The technology exists today,
it is just not fully deployed by the manufacturers--I know they
are working on getting it into the platforms--called geo-
fencing. So, if it is truly a platform used only for
agriculture, a very low altitude surveillance, then we have to
find a way to geo-fence that vehicle from stumbling or
trundling into airspace. It probably has the capability if it
is a vehicle strong enough to carry a camera like this one to
fly very high, 6,000, 7,000 feet.
So, that technological platform has to be restricted from
ever operating there, and then we can really mitigate the risk
to the national airspace and to airliners, for example, or
general aviation, which we have a very large portion in this
country, largest general aviation operations in the world by
far that operate not near airports, they are just puddle
jumping around, and they have a risk to running into one of
these vehicles, as well. So, I think technology is the most
profound way to protect it.
Senator Ernst. Okay. Any other thoughts, gentlemen?
Mr. Wynne. Well, Senator, agriculture is probably the
lion's share of the numbers in our forecast because it is low-
risk flying. In many respects, it is rural, as you say, and it
is away from people and it is away from other aircraft for the
most part, unless it is aerial applicators, and we are in a
very robust discussion with them. So, I think agriculture is
where we actually expected this technology to take hold very,
very rapidly, and it is. There is no question that many of the
exemptions that have been granted by the FAA are for
agricultural applications.
Interestingly, it is still early, and because we have not
gotten to scale yet, because we are flying under exemption,
agriculture being a low-margin business, it is probably not
going to take off in the early stages as quickly as we thought.
But, meanwhile, there are many other applications where we have
seen tremendous adoption and uptake for the technology.
The sooner we have got more people flying under rules, the
sooner we will have datasets, and in aviation, we use datasets
to figure out what is equivalent level of safety. No question,
we are going to have the occasional conflict, and that is a bad
thing in the airspace. But, we will learn from that, as Mr.
Dourado has pointed out, and I like agriculture because it
offers us a very low-risk profile, and again, we are looking
for a regulatory framework that is risk based, because if it is
technology based, we will never keep up with it from a
regulatory point of view.
Mr. Dourado. Senator, I would add that Japan is doing very
interesting things with drone-based agriculture, and so I think
that looking to their example and seeing how they are handling
these issues is also very useful.
Senator Ernst. Very good. And, I know the FAA has been very
slow about getting these rules and regulations in place. But,
if you are an average Iowa farmer, how do you know what those
rules are, or how are you notified that you need to be
registering your unmanned aerial system? How do you know that?
How are they going to know? Is there some sort of registry that
takes place when they purchase a system?
Mr. Wynne. A very robust effort. As I said, our ``Know
Before You Fly'' campaign is pointing people at the resources
that they need. There are over 80 supporters of that campaign,
and increasingly, we are reaching out to our colleagues, the
American Farm Bureau Federation, et cetera, to get information
in their channels so that it is readily available, not
complicated information.
Senator Ernst. Okay.
Mr. Canoll. Essentially, when you purchase it, you open it
up, there it is. The information is presented.
Senator Ernst. Okay. Good. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Senator Ernst.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Senator Ernst has put her finger on it. It is the best of
technologies and the worst of technologies simultaneously.
There is a Dickensian quality to this technology. It can enable
and ennoble farmers and Homeland Security officials to protect
our country, but it can also be used to fly drones over
people's backyards and photograph children or families in very
sensitive situations, and we need rules in order to make sure
that it is clearly understood what these drones can be used
for. But, we also have to have clear rules in terms of where
these drones can be flown.
So, there have been several recent drone sightings near
airports in Massachusetts, and I am becoming increasingly
concerned about the threat of a drone colliding with a plane.
It only takes one drone to fly into the path of one passenger
plane in order to create one of the worst disasters in American
aviation history.
On New Year's Day, a commercial plane spotted a drone
flying 800 feet in the air nearly one mile from Logan Airport.
Just days earlier, another drone was reported two miles from
Logan's runways, also flying at about 800 feet in the air. Last
month, I sent a letter to the FAA to find out what concrete
steps the FAA is taking to prevent and respond to drones flying
in sensitive airspaces.
Captain Canoll, can you lay out for the committee what the
dangers are, from your perspective, if we do not have real
rules and these drones continue to insinuate themselves into
the airspace of commercial aircraft.
Mr. Canoll. Yes, Senator. The biggest problem is, and it
was mentioned in the opening remarks, that we have had a lot of
wildlife bird strikes. Aircraft are pretty rugged things. I
have hit many birds in my operations, both when I was flying in
the Navy and in commercial aircraft. Aircraft pretty much can
sustain it.
But, there is a big difference between a bird and a drone
with a heavy, lithium metal battery, motors, cabling. That is
going to--this will do significant damage to an aircraft if it
hits it. A quarter can destroy a jet engine if it goes down the
intake--destroy it. So, we have both the threat of that and
then the proliferation, which is an issue for us, as we have
seen these hundreds of thousands sold in this last holiday
season.
So, I think it is important to note, though, that my
members who are flying around reporting these sightings, we all
firmly believe that it is not the commercial operator or even
the serious hobbyist that we are running into. This is the
hobbyist or the non-commercial operator who really does not
know what they are doing. So, we need to enhance enforcement.
We need to enhance enforcement.
Senator Markey. And, so, what is the area that you think
should be built around an airport, like LaGuardia or Newark or
Boston----
Mr. Canoll. I think----
Senator Markey [continuing]. Where the air traffic is just
absolutely massive? How wide a radius should be created?
Mr. Canoll. The FAA has established five miles, and that is
a good place to start----
Senator Markey. But it is not being enforced, is that
what----
Mr. Canoll. Well, the problem is, it is hard to enforce it
because someone can walk into that area with a drone this size
and just take off and start flying----
Senator Markey. Yeah.
Mr. Canoll [continuing]. And you do not know it is there
until you have had a couple of near misses.
Senator Markey. And, to what do you attribute the lack of
enforcement? Is it that the local officials, the state
officials, the federal officials are not properly signaling to
all these new drone owners that there is a penalty they have to
pay?
Mr. Canoll. I think there is--yes, I think there is a
coordination issue through the FAA to the law enforcement
agencies. The other thing I think that we could think about
from a technology standpoint is we have the ``Know Before You
Fly'' campaign, and it is presented, as we told Senator Ernst
before, is you open up the box. You see this pamphlet there
that you should go to this website and look at it.
The technology exists to make it so, just like when you
open up a version of Microsoft Office, you have to enter a key
code before it will operate. We could do that with our
recreational drones so that you have to go pass an online test
which informs you that you cannot operate within five miles of
an airport, enter that key code before the vehicle will turn
on.
Senator Markey. And, I agree with you. We need standards
and the FAA has to put in place policies that will prevent and
respond to these new risks and to do so in a way that all new
drone operators--we are going to have ten million of these, 15,
20 million of these, and they will be--a lot of them will be in
major metropolitan areas with so many planes, that without
clear standards, a catastrophe is just going to happen. There
are just no two ways about it, like you are saying.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Thank you to the panel for taking the time to come visit
with us today. This is certainly a critical issue that I am
sure, as with a lot of things with technology, it is in its
infancy and we are going to learn a lot, and as we move
forward, hopefully, we will get a lot better at doing this,
just as we have with the camera, as was mentioned earlier. So,
thank you so much again. Thank you for coming.
We will now move to our second panel.
[Pause.]
Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us today. We are
going to hear from each of you, and I am going to introduce
both of you and then go from one to the other.
For the committee, for the witnesses and everyone else, as
usual around here, we are on a short string. We have a vote
that starts in 28 minutes, so we will try to be, as usual,
efficient, but certainly as thorough as we can be.
Dr. Thomas Vaneck is the Vice President of Disruptive
Technologies for Physical Sciences Inc. As a small business,
PSI has been at the forefront of drone technology development
for years, working on both military and civilian commercial
applications. Dr. Vaneck leads a team of technologists focused
on the development and application of multipurpose small
unmanned aircraft systems called InstantEye.
Our last witness is Dr. Gregory McNeal. Dr. McNeal is an
expert on drones and topics related to technology law and
policy. He is a nationally recognized commentator for Forbes
and a frequent keynote speaker at industry events and academic
conferences related to drones, technology, law, and public
policy.
So, we will give you each about five minutes to address the
committee, and then I have no doubt we will have deep and
probing questions for you.
So, starting with Dr. Vaneck, if you would, please.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. VANECK, VICE PRESIDENT, DISRUPTIVE
TECHNOLOGIES, PHYSICAL SCIENCES INC., ANDOVER, MA
Mr. Vaneck. Distinguished members of the committee, thank
you so much for giving me the opportunity to testify today
about our experience in commercial UAS development and
operations and working with the FAA.
At Physical Sciences, a small business, I have the
privilege of leading a group of talented technologists focused
on the development and applications of the multipurpose small
unmanned aircraft system we call InstantEye, and I have
actually brought InstantEye with me so you can see the size.
While at first we solely supported the military, today our
customers include not only the military, but also law
enforcement, first responders, and a growing list of commercial
users. Working with military, we broke new ground to push the
technology to those most in need of it, the individual
warfighter. This required significant innovation to make the
system easy to operate, extremely rugged, adaptable to mission
needs, and low cost. We also created a two-day program of
instruction to train operators in the use of the system,
including emergency procedures, and how to service and maintain
the equipment.
Much of the technology developed and experience gained
during this SBIR-supported product development effort has
successfully been transitioned to the commercial sector. Today,
supporting commercial customers is one of our greatest growth
areas. As we expand into these markets, we work closely with
the FAA to obtain the necessary certifications to conduct
commercial operations.
Teamed with a commercial customer in the power and gas
industry, we applied for and received a Special Airworthiness
Certificate for InstantEye so we could test its efficacy as an
inspection tool. We and others have applied for and have been
granted Section 333 exemptions allowing InstantEye to be used
for commercial operations. Today, our systems are used to
inspect power lines, pipelines, wind turbines, solar arrays,
endangered species habitats, and many others. The list grows
weekly.
The process used by the FAA for both the Special
Airworthiness Certificate and the 333 exemption was to take
regulations developed for manned aircraft and apply them to our
unmanned system. When regulations did not quite fit, we applied
for and were granted exemptions, which kept the safety intent
of the rule but modified its implementation so that it made
sense for our small UAS. While the process was tedious, it was
always apparent that the FAA wanted us to succeed. They also
did not want to do anything that would break the system. Safety
always came first.
We understand that today the FAA is seeking to develop
rules that are specific to UAS and their operations instead of
continuing the approach of taking existing manned aircraft
regulations and modifying them through exemptions. We applaud
these efforts.
We firmly believe that, for this process to move quickly
and to ensure that safety is not compromised, it needs to be a
collaborative effort between the FAA and the UAS industry. Over
the last 90 years, the FAA and its predecessor organizations
have created an airspace architecture that is today the safest
it has ever been. That experience will be invaluable as we
enter this next era in aviation.
Equally important is the knowledge and experience of the
UAS industry. We know our systems and their limitations. We are
forever finding new applications for the technology. And we can
use this knowledge to help suggest regulations that are
appropriate for this industry, maintain safety, and allow it to
grow and thrive.
We also believe in developing UAS regulations, one size
does not fit all. Rules and operator requirements must be
appropriate for the system being used and operations being
conducted. An approach based on the engineering risk model will
likely be the most successful methodology. Evaluating risk
encompasses a number of items, including failure analysis,
probability of injury, probability of property damage, et
cetera. This will allow us to collect combinations of system
type and intended commercial activity into groups which we can
apply safety requirements to and ultimately derive rules.
Lower-risk activities will require fewer rules on the
operator and the system, while higher-risk operations will
require the operator to have greater demonstrated skills and
the system to have additional capabilities to ensure that an
equivalent level of safety is met.
Not only does this approach build on the existing FAA rule
architecture for manned aircraft--a sport pilot flying a sport
aircraft does not have to have the same rule burden as does an
airline transport pilot flying a commercial airliner--it will
also drive innovation. Clear rules, thoughtfully developed and
applied, will allow healthy competition by virtue of a level
playing field and will encourage creative companies to invent
innovative solutions that both adhere to the rules and also
create a better mousetrap.
In summary, the commercial UAS industry represents an
immense opportunity for our country. It is creating jobs. It is
driving innovation. And each day we discover yet another
application for the technology. To realize its full potential
and to ensure that the United States is a world leader in this
area will require a close collaboration between the FAA and the
UAS industry. The rules and operator requirements that are put
in place must ensure safety and protect privacy to garner
public trust. This is essential for success.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for your
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vaneck follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Risch. Thank you, Dr. Vaneck.
Dr. McNeal.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY S. McNEAL, J.D., Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF LAW
AND PUBLIC POLICY, PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, AND CO-FOUNDER,
AIRMAP, SANTA MONICA, CA
Mr. McNeal. Senator Risch, Senator Booker, members of the
committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to
participate in today's hearing on unmanned aircraft systems.
My name is Greg McNeal. I am a professor at Pepperdine
University, where my research focuses on unmanned aircraft. I
served on the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Committee for UAS
registration, and I currently serve on the FAA's MicroUAS
Rulemaking Committee.
I am also the co-founder of AirMap, a small business that
provides safety-related software to UAS manufacturers,
operators, software developers, and key stakeholders like
airports and universities. We provide the airspace safety map
for the ``Know Before You Fly'' campaign and approximately 85
percent of the non-toy, non-military UAS sold today use or will
use our software, and more than 250 software developers use our
SDA to integrate our safety software into their own programs
and into their own UAS.
From my vantage point as a professor and as a small
business founder who works directly with UAS businesses ranging
from one employee to 1,500 employees, I can tell you that these
individuals are being held back, and it is not just American
entrepreneurs. Students, educators, journalists, and volunteers
are ready to use unmanned aircraft to save lives, generate
significant economic activity, yet they have been held back,
unable to operate even the smallest of devices because they
want to use these devices for a purpose that is not strictly
recreational or hobby.
Every moment spent without freeing these individuals to use
unmanned aircraft results in unavoidable deaths and injuries
from people falling from towers, missed moments to educate
students about technology, foregone moments of free expression,
and lost chances to find missing people.
Since the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, one
thing has been clear. Only Congressional action has ensured
individuals were able to use unmanned aircraft. In Section 332,
Congress called for UAS operations in the Arctic, and we have
seen those operations take place.
In Section 333, Congress created a process for categorical
exemptions, and we have seen those exemptions and operations
take place pursuant to those rules, but those exemptions were
granted on a case-by-case basis rather than categorically, as
Congress directed.
In Section 334, Congress directed that public safety
officials may operate unmanned aircraft weighing 4.4 pounds and
less, and we have seen those operations take place thanks to
Congressional action.
And in Section 336, Congress carved out protections for
hobby and recreational use of unmanned aircraft weighing up to
55 pounds, and we have seen such hobby and recreational uses
take place.
The trend line is clear. When Congress acts, innovation
takes flight.
But despite the Congressionally directed progress of 2012,
there is more work to be done. Entrepreneurs, students and
educators, journalists and volunteers have been left on the
sidelines, and it appears they will continue to be left on the
sidelines. The only way to secure the benefits of unmanned
aircraft flight for these important constituents is to create a
micro classification that prioritizes safety while promoting
open innovation.
That is why I am here today to ask Congress and the members
here to support a MicroUAS classification that empowers those
who have been left out of the process. The MicroUAS category
should be focused on simple and straightforward requirements
that are minimally burdensome and streamlined.
Specifically, the MicroUAS category should be for
registered devices that weigh 4.4 pounds or less, that are
operated within line of sight of the operator, less than 400
feet above the ground, and which provide notice to the airport
prior to operating within five miles of that airport.
By eliminating the distinction between recreational and
commercial use for the smallest and safest classification of
UAS, it cuts red tape for entrepreneurs, encourages a safety
culture based on rules that are easy to follow. It also
relieves the FAA from the burden of licensing and exempting
grants for low-risk operations, allowing them to focus on
important initiatives, like unmanned traffic management.
Moreover, people strive for compliance when rules make
sense. However, overly burdensome requirements, including pilot
certification, aeronautical knowledge testing, traveling to
test facilities, and retesting every two years will create high
barriers for low-risk users, increasing the potential for non-
compliance.
A MicroUAS classification is a reform that will allow for
operations on terms similar to those already allowed for
recreational operators, but it would allow entrepreneurs,
educators, and volunteers to operate unmanned aircraft by
removing the restrictive recreational or hobbyist purpose
limitation, focusing instead on the already accepted safety
standards that Congress put into place in 2012.
American entrepreneurs, students and educators, journalists
and volunteers need the support of Congress. History has proven
that the best way to foster innovation is for Congress to take
action to empower innovation and protect entrepreneurs. Now is
the time for Congress to act by creating a MicroUAS
classification, and I am hopeful that you will be able to
support that initiative.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McNeal follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Risch. Gentlemen, thank you very much.
Let me start with the questions. Mr. McNeal, do you feel
that the--this outfit is not very good at passing corrective
legislation. It is totally unlike the states, that if they make
a mistake, they revisit it the next year and correct it. This
outfit almost never does that. I cannot answer why. Do not kill
the messenger. I am just saying that is the way it is here.
So, the question I have for you is, can these be corrected
by agency rule and regulation, which is obviously much more
flexible, or does the actual Act need to be revisited?
Mr. McNeal. Senator, that is a great question. Give
yourself more credit. Three-thirty-two, 333, 334, and 336, I
think the body did a pretty good job at crafting a framework.
But, with regard to your specific question, in my written
testimony, I suggest some language that would allow for
Congress to create this very lightweight category, something as
small as that, or that would fit in the palm of your hands up
to 4.4 pounds, and then the operator could operate under that
category, or if a more permissive category is developed by the
FAA after some additional analysis, they would have the option
to operate under that. So, it preserves the flexibility while
giving Congress the ability to act on innovation.
Senator Risch. That actually sounds like an excellent idea,
but the question I have is could that be done by rule and
regulation as opposed to legislation, or is the legislation
going to have to be revisited?
Mr. McNeal. So, I actually walked over here from--or I took
a taxi over from the Department of Transportation, where we
were talking about the MicroUAS category, and to put that in
perspective, Senator, we are on a fast timeline to complete our
recommendation by April 1. And then once that rulemaking
process begins at the FAA, that rule, if the FAA hits every
single deadline, simply cannot be enacted until next summer.
Just, if you just take the timeline of 60 days of----
Senator Risch. This coming summer or the following----
Mr. McNeal. The following summer, Senator.
Senator Risch. We do not move much faster up here.
Let me ask you this. Being an attorney, I would like to get
your take on what the state of the law is on this privacy, and
I understand it is in a state of flux, and I understand that
common law takes a while to develop. But, I think--I read
stories all the time, as does everybody else. Some guy walked
out in his backyard and saw a drone and shot it down because
his daughter was out there doing whatever. What is the state of
the law on that right now? Are there sideboards? Have they
developed standards, or is this still--is there any rule of
thumb?
Mr. McNeal. So, I think with any new technology, there is
obvious sort of apprehension. We can just think back ten years
when cell phones came out, and the immediate response was,
these devices should beep every time they take a photo because
everyone is carrying a camera, and eventually, people got
accustomed to the technology.
I think with regard to the laws that are being promulgated,
we are seeing very different laws coming up in the states. I
think in the states, existing law really does address a lot of
the concerns that people have, and we are starting also to see
that industry is coming together and meeting with those state
legislators to say, why do we not look to those existing laws
that might need to be amended rather than creating UAS-specific
rules. I think that is the right path forward.
I think the challenge for this body, if it were to
legislate in this area, is that Montana is not Philadelphia,
right, and New York City is not Nebraska----
Senator Risch. How well we know.
Mr. McNeal [continuing]. And I think we really want to make
sure that, on the privacy rules, that we do not try to over-
legislate here in a way that would stifle innovation, that we
entrust the states to handle those types of things under
existing state law, Senator.
Senator Risch. Is there any effort by the Uniform Code
Commission to adopt something like the UCC or something like
that that----
Mr. McNeal. There is----
Senator Risch [continuing]. That states can look at?
Mr. McNeal. There is an initiative. It is not the Uniform
Code Commission, I think it is an ALI group that is meeting to
create a harmonized set of rules. There is also a similar group
that is trying to create a harmonized set of rules across the
states for a variety of the other things that we are talking
about with regard to trespass, privacy, and nuisance, to try
and ameliorate the concerns about a patchwork of rules and
regulations cropping up across the states.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much.
Senator Gardner.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the witnesses for being here today and your testimony.
I had the privilege of traveling to where I attended law
school, the University of Colorado Law School, and a couple of
years ago, they got a new law school, and so I went and visited
the old law building, which was still there, and inside the old
law library is a, I guess a UAS test and flying facility. They
had this--it looked like a batting cage net up where they were
flying around UAS, doing all kinds of things. It was the best
use of a law library I think I have ever seen. At least, I wish
they were doing that when I was studying there.
[Laughter.]
But, I mean, they were doing tremendous work.
Do we have any idea--do either of you have any idea about
how much money is right now being put toward research and
development at various universities' engineering laboratories
across the country on UAV systems, those kinds of things?
Mr. McNeal. I do not know the specific dollar amount,
Senator, but I know that many universities are looking to get
involved in it. Actually, to tie this back to my testimony, one
of the challenges that I face is that I want to educate my law
students about technology, and if I were to take a drone and
bring my students outside and start flying that drone, I would
need to get a 333 exemption. I would need to go to flight
school and become a pilot, all to be able to show my students
how to use that. And if they were to use it as part of their
education, that would be deemed non-recreational, non-hobbyist,
not in conformity with the set of community-based guidelines,
those students would have to go through a similar process. And,
so, I have taken to not bothering to show them how UAS work in
the classroom because of these prohibitions.
And, so, I think it is Senator Peters that has an act that
he has proposed to try and free up universities. I think that
dovetails nicely with the MicroUAS proposal, to free up
universities to be able to conduct this type of research, to
help expand STEM education and even reach down into high
schools and intermediate schools to do the same thing.
Senator Gardner. Absolutely. And last summer in Colorado
and across the country, we saw wildfires throughout the Western
United States, a number of incursions between drones and
firefighting operations. You have recommended a ceiling of 400
feet for the MicroUAS classification, but retardant drops are
usually made from heights of 150 to 200 feet. So, in your
opinion, what should we be doing to make sure that the likely
proliferation of micro drones does not further imperil that
kind of an emergency response situation?
Mr. McNeal. Yes, Senator. So, these devices would similarly
be subject to the same hazard restrictions that are already in
under my proposal, that are already in place. And, so, flight
within a temporary flight restriction would be a violation of
the law.
Additionally, just to tie it back to AirMap and tell you a
story, a year ago, AirMap started as a company believe that
unmanned aircraft operators needed accurate and up to date
information about airspace information, and now approximately
85 percent of the market gets a live update about where
temporary flight restrictions are. One of our partners, DJI,
will geo-fence that temporary flight restriction so that you
cannot fly into it. Another one of our partners, 3D Robotics,
provides an alert to the operator, letting them know this is an
area where you cannot operate.
And, so, that gives you an idea of the pace of innovation
when we allow the industry to act quickly in response to
problems, perhaps to avoid the--because they see the threat of
legislation or regulation coming, trying to stay ahead of that
trend, whereas if we get overly prescriptive, what ends up
happening is we slow them down because they have to meet
regulations, instead of allowing innovation to address the
public policy problems.
Senator Gardner. How does that alert work that you just
talked about? You said--how would that work to the user, the
operator?
Mr. McNeal. Sure. The user, upon opening their system up,
is immediately provided accurate information about the airspace
in which they are operating and they would get a pop-up
notification on the screen letting them know that they are in a
temporary flight restriction and they are unable to fly in that
area, and it would give them the exact detailed rationale
behind why that temporary flight restriction was there, be it
POTUS movement or a stadium event or a wildfire or any other
significant event.
Senator Gardner. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Risch. Thank you.
Dr. McNeal, for those of us that are from the Western
states--I see a few of us here, four of us here anyway--this
fire issue has become a real issue. This last summer, we had a
number of fires. I am sure you had the same thing in Colorado.
And the firefighters are concerned, and they are having a lot
of issues with the drones, because it is a natural thing if you
are a hobbyist or what have you. You want to go out and take a
picture of that. So, common sense is going to play a role here
somewhere.
Well, I have just been ignominiously chastised by the
Ranking Member for ignoring her and not allowing her to make an
opening statement. Unfortunately----
Senator Gardner. Mr. Chairman, that was as much my fault as
anybody's. I am sorry to the Ranking Member----
Senator Risch. Well, in my defense, I did not start this
shindig and I thought you had been here----
[Laughter.]
Senator Shaheen. And I did not, either.
Senator Risch. So, in any event, Senator Shaheen for your
deep, probing, important remarks.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator Risch. It is so nice to
chastise you.
Senator Risch. Yes. It is not the first time, I might add.
[Laughter.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, RANKING MEMBER, AND A
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you very much, and I am going
to submit my statement for the record, but I would point out a
couple of things.
One is that, as both of our witnesses have testified, and
we thank you very much for being here, unmanned aviation
presents new opportunities for innovation and for delivering
services, but it also raises a number of new and serious safety
concerns. And, as the discussion has pointed out, we need to
address those safety concerns very thoughtfully and with an
understanding of what the ramifications of that would be.
And, I would just point out with respect to wildfires, this
is something that has been called to our attention in New
Hampshire, even though we are not a Western state, and I have
introduced the Wildfire and Emergency Airspace Protection Act,
which would make it a federal crime to knowingly operate a
recreational drone that interferes with disaster response
efforts. So, I do think that is a very serious issue.
I also want to recognize Dr. Vaneck from Physical Sciences
Inc., which is a business that is located in Massachusetts, but
they do some of their work with drones in New Hampshire, so we
are delighted to have PSI represented here. I had the
opportunity to discuss with representatives of PSI the
importance of the SBIR program and what we need to do to
reauthorize it and, I hope, make it permanent. So, thank you
for being here.
[The prepared statement of Senator Shaheen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Shaheen. My question--I am going to start with you,
Dr. Vaneck, because I wonder if you could walk us through the
experience that PSI has had to date with getting involved in
the commercial drone sector and how the costs and constraints
have affected your business.
Mr. Vaneck. Thank you. Certainly. When we first started
getting into the commercial activities, I want to step back and
say that, initially, we primarily focused on the military and
we have a large number of these systems that are in theater
supporting our military quite successfully.
It was a logical step to take that to the commercial
sector. We worked with several commercial companies that wanted
to use the system for inspection. First, they wanted to
understand, was it useful for inspection, and then if it was,
that they wanted to actually put it into operation. We worked
with an energy company that, through working with the FAA, we
were able to get a special type certificate for the system that
allowed us to operate it in the experimental category, and that
was simply to go and look at the efficacy of using the system
for those kinds of inspections.
The process was tedious. The FAA applied manned rules to
unmanned, but in our viewpoint, they could not do anything else
because they had a rule set that worked really well. This was
thrust on them. They had to do something. It took a long time.
We were able to be successful in getting that type certificate,
and the system has been used commercially by that company to do
power line inspections.
The 333 was a good step, not the last step, I hope, in
getting to a point where we can now use these commercially. I
have to say that the process that we went through was not that
onerous. The FAA emphasized safety. It was on a case-by-case
basis. We made our pitch to them, and were able to receive the
333.
It led us to believe that this risk model is the proper
approach, and I believe that is the model that the FAA is
proposing. I will say that categorizing both the risk and the
type of operation, you get micro systems that will have one set
of rules. You will have other systems that perhaps want to go
beyond line of sight, will have a different set of rules. And
then you will have rules for very large systems, and I think
that is what makes sense. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Can you also--maybe both of you could talk
a little bit about the degree of training that should be
required for drone operators, because on the previous panel--I
missed it, but I understand that the President of the Air Line
Pilots Association was here, and that he raised some of the
concerns around safety and training requirements that the FAA
is looking at. So, can you speak to that, and then perhaps----
Mr. Vaneck. I will quickly comment on that. For our
military customers, it is a two-day approved training course
that they go through to fully be able to operate the system and
maintain it. We believe that for the commercial side, anyone
who is going to operate the system commercially should have
some degree of training. That could be as simple as an online
training that you would take and then pass an exam so you
understand what the airspace is that you are going to be
operating in and what the rule architecture is. So, we are
fully in support of that.
Senator Shaheen. Would you like to comment?
Mr. McNeal. Yes, Senator. So, I do think that we should
take a cue from other countries. I just sat through a
presentation yesterday. The Canadians have segmented up based
on the weight class and the risk category of the operation
whether or not someone needs training, and at the low end of
the spectrum, basically that 4.4 pound and below area, I think
it would be prudent for us to not require substantial training.
To put it in perspective, Captain Canoll--I keep wanting to
say Captain Cannoli, Senator Booker--he put a DJI Phantom on
the desk. My five-year-old operates that with my supervision.
It is not a complex device. And if you think about if you were
trying to sell your home today and you had that, or it was your
kid's DJI and you wanted to fly up and take a picture of your
home so you could sell your home, that would be a commercial
operation.
Do we expect that that person is going to go through that
educational process? Probably not. And, so, what we end up
having is people who are skirting the rules and not complying,
in the same way that I could have skirted the rules and used
the device to educate my students, but because I am a law
professor, I felt it would probably be wrong for me to violate
the law while educating my students. So, I do think we need to
key it to the type of operation as opposed to having a blanket
rule that everyone must go through some formal training.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you both.
Mr. McNeal. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Shaheen. My time is up.
Senator Risch. Yes, it is.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. I realize there is a vote coming up, Mr.
Chairman, and I know Senator Cantwell has not had a chance to
ask any questions, so I would defer to her.
Senator Risch. Oh, I am sorry.
Senator Booker. Okay. Then, I will instead continue with
questioning. Thank you.
So, real quick, I have a lot of concerns, as you heard in
the last panel, about what we are doing to choke innovation and
through overly burdensome regulation that does not seem to be
in any way keeping pace with what other countries are doing who
have the same safety concerns but have an ability to spawn
innovation that has now seemed to be taking off, no pun
intended, in other countries, but not taking off here.
But, I actually want to shift for a second, because this is
the Small Business Committee, and I would like to know that
beyond the discussions of what the FAA is doing, how can other
government agencies actually help small businesses, such as the
SBA, foster a culture of innovation around UAS, particularly
for these commercial users? And, I open it up for both of you.
Mr. McNeal. I think there are a few things that can happen.
One of the things that we struggled with as a company was just
being able to access certain types of data and communication
protocols at the FAA, where the FAA had an approach to allowing
people to create innovation and participate with the National
Airspace System in a way where they basically sort of selected
single contractors who were the only people who could provide
certain types of approved solutions, rather than creating
standards to which everyone else could develop.
So, an example of that was rather than creating standards
for aeronautical apps that would allow individuals to provide
information to end users, they instead created their own app,
which did not get a lot of adoption. And, so, I think flipping
that focus, calling on agencies to say, here are the standards
to which we want people to create new software, or here are the
standards around which we want people to innovate, and then
free those individuals to innovate and then maybe they get the
stamp of approval if they have met those broad developmental
standards. So, that is speaking just to the software category,
Senator.
Senator Booker. Great. Any other thoughts?
Mr. Vaneck. Very quickly, two quick thoughts. One is, I did
want to go back and talk a bit about the SBIR, very briefly.
This system would not be in existence today had it not been for
an SBIR program that got it started. We were able to develop it
to a point that we had larger agencies providing funding to
continue on and actually get it into military operations.
The other is this is an ITAR-restricted piece of equipment.
Part of our market is going international, as well. There are
tremendous burdens, and the rule structure is not as clear as
it could be for us to understand how we push this technology
out internationally. If we want to compete on the international
stage, I have to be able to put my technology into the
international market, and I think we need some--a look at the
ITAR restrictions that are placed on these types of
technologies to ensure that we are not burdening it--overly
burdening it so it does open those markets up.
Senator Booker. And it puts you at a competitive
disadvantage to other companies that might be----
Mr. Vaneck. Yes, Senator, it does.
Senator Booker [continuing]. Other countries. And, again,
this goes to that point about how we are really undermining
innovation, economic growth, jobs, because we are doing things
to our businesses and innovators that other countries are not,
and they are not having these horrible safety disasters, and
they are taking a focus on safety, but they are not creating
these regulatory burdens.
And, so, just for an example, either of you, how long does
it take for a typical small business--not the people who--the
individual users who crash into the White House lawn and things
like that, but I am talking about for a business that is trying
to use and innovate an application, how long does it take for a
small business to apply for an exemption through the FAA? I am
just curious, just for the record.
Mr. McNeal. Well, worse than the exemption process,
Senator, would be the fact that if we just decided to start
today, it would take 120 days at the long end, but they have
really narrowed that gap down to about 60 days, to approve the
exemption. But, then you would have a piece of paper----
Senator Booker. Wait----
Mr. McNeal. You would need to learn how to fly. You would
need to go fly a Cessna and fly for 20 hours before you could
fly that--what is it, 200 grams--that tiny 200-gram device. You
would need to know how to land a manned aircraft.
Senator Booker. Right. And, right now, there is a backlog
at the FAA----
Mr. McNeal. There is a backlog, right, and now people--and,
so, I think people are sitting on the sidelines, too, hoping
that--the people that last summer were sitting, expecting that
Congress would hit the deadline--I mean, the FAA would hit the
deadline Congress gave them. They did not file for their
exemption. Then they heard there would be a delay. They did not
file for their exemption. And now, some of them are probably
kicking themselves for having not filed the exemption. The
regulatory process takes a long time because the agency has to
run all of its traps.
Senator Booker. And, let us just be clear. Right now in
America, we are killing innovation as a result of this. We are
killing jobs. We are undermining the life-saving potential that
this technology could have for our own communities. And this is
just a regulatory regime that desperately needs to be changed.
Mr. McNeal. I one hundred percent agree, Senator.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
Senator Gardner [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Booker.
Had I known that we were bringing some of these visuals, I
have a Millennium Falcon drone in my office I could have
brought here, too, so----
[Laughter.]
Mr. McNeal. Do not fly it commercially, Senator.
Senator Gardner. No, no, no. After some experiences, I am
pretty sure nobody would want me to do that.
[Laughter.]
I guess Senator Markey is next.
Senator Markey. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
PSI is a perfect example of why we have Small Business
Innovation Research grants. It is an amazing number, just for
Massachusetts, but there have been 20,000 SBIR grants to
Massachusetts companies totaling $5 billion. That is the
program that has been authorized by this committee year after
year, and those 20,000 grants have helped to create, just to
Massachusetts companies like PSI, and PSI, Physical Science
Incorporated, to be distinguished from PSI, pounds per square
inch, where Bill Belichick is the expert----
[Laughter.]
Notwithstanding what anyone who comes from any other state
might believe is accurate.
So, we thank you, Dr. Vaneck, for your incredible
innovation at your company.
Can I turn just for a second, then, to the privacy issues.
Obviously, right now, there are no rules in terms of the
gathering of information and how they can use it, how they can
sell it, and clearly, there have to be rules. You just cannot
allow these drones to be hovering over people's backyards and
taking pictures. You know, it is one thing to say it is great
for Amazon to be able to deliver a package, but what about the
film now that is in there as they are hovering around the home?
What is the rule for the reuse or resale of all of that
information, especially if it is related to children in the
family?
So, in a way, for the purposes of public safety or the
purposes of helping the agriculture sector to better monitor
what is occurring, there are eyes in the sky, and that is
great, but there is also a spies in the sky aspect to all of
this that, clearly, we have to talk about, as well.
And, last year, I actually introduced the Drone Aircraft
Privacy and Transparency Act, which establishes safeguards to
protect the privacy of individuals from the expanded use of
drones. We need guidelines, especially with regard to
information gathered about children in our society.
So, could you, Dr. Vaneck, talk a little bit about how PSI
ensures that drones are protecting the privacy of those on the
ground.
Mr. Vaneck. Certainly. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Actually, the privacy concerns, I share them, as well. When
we worked with the power and gas company, I will tell you that
certain operations that they conducted, inspecting these power
lines, they would only inspect from one direction, because if
they inspected from the other direction, in the view would be a
farm, and they knew that that farmer was very concerned about
privacy. So, they conducted their operations so as to not to
impinge.
I think it actually can drive innovation. If you pull up
Google Maps, you will see that license plates are blurred.
Faces are blurred. Even signs on buildings, which,
unfortunately, when I am trying to find that building make it a
little difficult, but they are blurred.
We have a lot of the technology already starting to be in
place that we can apply to this as far as the video feeds and
even other data that we collect. So, I think it can drive
innovation. We are actually----
Senator Markey. You think the solution to the problem lies
in innovation itself.
Mr. Vaneck. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Markey. Like Google Maps.
Mr. Vaneck. Absolutely, and I think we can begin to apply
that. I think there needs to be rules in place that say this
has to occur----
Senator Markey. Yes.
Mr. Vaneck [continuing]. And that will drive innovation. It
will get the three guys in a garage who come up with a great
idea that then will deploy across the entire industry.
Senator Markey. And, so, that then basically says that the
FAA could say that this technology, such as Google Maps, which
blurs faces, blurs that kind of personal information, should
then be applied here, and once it is adopted, then you have got
a balance between the innovation and the use of the technology,
but also in the protection of the privacy of individuals.
Mr. Vaneck. I would say that I am not sure the FAA is the
organization to do that----
Senator Markey. Yes.
Mr. Vaneck [continuing]. Because they are safety-related.
But, I believe that there are rules that can be put in place by
organizations to ensure that that takes places.
Senator Markey. Yes, and I agree with you a hundred
percent. And, again, we thank you. We are proud of having PSI
up in Massachusetts. Thank you.
Mr. Vaneck. Thank you.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Markey.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Vaneck, I wanted to ask you, NASA has been working on a
drone transportation system to basically monitor the ability to
fly safely on altitudes under 500 feet, and yesterday, the
Senate introduced a FAA bill that had a pilot program on that.
So, do you think that a traffic management system can be safely
put in place for drones so that they can--we can get that
network operating?
Mr. Vaneck. I believe it can. There are already activities
now for micro radars that are able to, not today, but very soon
will be able to track aircraft as small as our aircraft. The
other advantage to something like that is it can track
individual birds around airports. You have heard from pilots of
bird strikes. If that radar were to exist, they could alert
pilots of individual birds.
Of the management system, commercial airliners today have a
system on board where the aircraft themselves talk to other
aircraft. It is called TCAS. Those kinds of technologies will
be available for these small aircraft, I think, in the future.
Again, it drives innovation. We are going to have the necessity
to have those kinds of technology in place, and we will have to
develop the technologies to do it.
Below a certain size limit and the operation type, it may
not make sense, it may be too much of a burden for line of
sight, because you have an operator and an observer who are
keeping clear of other traffic. But, for example, beyond line
of sight, we certainly need a technology like that.
Senator Cantwell. Well, if you could--I mean, obviously,
with a digitized system, everything could be monitored. I think
my colleague, Senator Risch brought up this issue as it related
to fire, which is a perfect example. We definitely believe that
drones could be a huge asset in helping us track and monitor
fire starts. At the same time, literally, we had aircraft who
were fighting the fires having to physically suspend and set
down because hobbyists' drones were flying in the area, and
they could not risk the safety.
So, that is a perfect example of the need for a traffic
management system, if you will, and a communications system.
Not everybody probably understood where every fire was, given
that they were so immense across our state, anyway. So, it was
pretty hard to go and identify and tell everybody, you know, a
drone APB. Do not fly. We have firefighters flying their
missions. But, so, if you had a system, you obviously could see
that system and identify and communicate with it.
Mr. Vaneck. Absolutely. We are actually developing
technologies now so that this system can be used by smoke
jumpers for fighting wildfires, for looking for hot spots using
thermal cameras, for having just an SOS that the firefighters
are in trouble and you can send up an SOS. Right now, it is
humans deconflicting the airspace. We need to move that to a
technological solution to take the human out of the loop and
have that information both sent throughout the infrastructure
that is fighting the fire, but to everyone else, as well, with
geo-fencing and other things to prevent the other users from
being in that airspace.
Senator Cantwell. So, do you believe the FAA's 333 is
fostering this environment of voluntarily compliance, and do
you think that that works to achieve that goal?
Mr. Vaneck. The--as I said, the 333 was not an onerous task
for us. It did take a long time. It was about 160 days for us
to receive our 333. The real issue, and it has been mentioned
by others, having someone have to be a pilot, a manned aircraft
pilot, to be able to operate this is a burden that is just too
far.
Senator Cantwell. That is not where our international
counterparts are.
Mr. Vaneck. That is not where our military is. Most of the
operators that we have in the military are not pilots. They
have other jobs to do, but this is a technology that they use
for life saving, for other things.
Senator Cantwell. So, are we losing ground to international
competitors because we are not----
Mr. Vaneck. Yes, Senator. Absolutely.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I definitely believe that we need
to fix and address that. We need--this is unbelievable
applications, life saving applications, information saving
applications. I just think about what we need to do with fire
and fire-wise, making sure that we attack fire starts right
away. This kind of data and information would give us a
perspective that is just invaluable. So, I hope we can figure
out how to move faster as the U.S. and not be left behind the
international marketplace. Thank you.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. I just wanted to make a final comment, and
that is, as we talk about the challenges at the FAA, one of the
things that would help a lot to allowing them to move forward
more expeditiously is to reauthorize the FAA so they do not
have to worry about what is going on with their life span. And,
just as we need to reauthorize the SBIR program, we need to
make sure that the FAA is operating, that they know what they
are expecting, and that this is critical. As we talk about
innovation, we should not be doing things here in Congress that
hinder the innovation that we need in the country.
So, thank you both very much for your testimony.
Senator Gardner. Thank you both for your contribution and
testimony today. We are in the middle of a vote, so we are
going to go ahead and conclude the hearing. Very informative
and, obviously, important to balance the safety, the safe
integration of unmanned aircraft into our nation's airspace
without stifling small business growth and innovation.
Thank you very much for being here, and this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]