but i would say that with all of the challenges and with all of the rubs and shortcomings that i have highlighted, i do believe that we in the navy have reimagined our future, we have restructured ourselves, and we have put the right leadership in place to take us there. and, again, i appreciate the work that is done in all dimensions of this exciting area that will help us deliver on that promise of technology, that promise of technology that is not an end unto itself, but the technology that must be integrated into how we will take our forces into the future, how we will take our forces anywhere on the planet where we want to go for the good of the nation and operate in an integrated, in a safe and in be an effective

manner with our friends and partners whoever they may be. so i thank you very much for your time, i thank you for your efforts, and what i'd like to do now is just open it up for a few minutes on any questions that you may have. thank you very much. .. >> as long as we see them as an integrated force with our manned systems. for example, and i'll use the

underwater world as where i put a lot of effort and a lot of thought recently. i believe that unmanned and underwater systems become extensions to the submarine, can become extensions to aviation, manned or unmanned as far as sensing the battle space. and so, if you were to ask me if you can extend your sensing area with unmanned systems, my initial reaction is we can get there more cheaply than if i have to buy many of the more manned systems that also reduces the risk to personnel, and it also reduces the cost of those personnel that we may have to have out who have limited duration, unlike unmanned systems do that can be more persistent in the battle space. and so that's where i think as

we look at how do we want to structure the fleet, how do we want to build the programs, that i believe that we can get more bang for the buck by integrating the unmanned into the manned networks. >> dr. roget brooks he -- robin murphy. the navy has a wonderful history of disaster related -- [inaudible] transport supply. what you see the role of the unmanned underwater vehicles they are, for? >> i think, you know, for example, you can use the unmanned underwater systems to sample water in the event of a disaster, not unlike what we saw in fukushima where as you also in the press there were concerns about contaminants. there's no question that as you

conduct a major humanitarian assistance operation, whether it was the tsunami off indonesia, i recently returned from chile where i've spent some time with, and their graphic office, where the bottom of the ocean shifted so much and as you're trying to close and bring in significant amounts of aid, and you don't know what the bottom is like anymore, what the depths are, i would rather to be able to send them some unmanned systems that can sense that bottom, can map the bottom, can provide information that tells us where to go, where not to go. so i think that can be, that can be huge. and i would say that those are some of the areas that show great promise. and quite frankly the technology is there today to be able to do that. thank you. yes, sir, in the back.

>> thank you for coming to speak to us. we have developed autonomous rotorcraft. i'm interested in your thoughts on particularly shipboard aircraft, the trade between larger, more capable, more costly aircraft versus more plentiful, less costly autonomous aircraft. >> thank you. i think that was one of the other areas where a couple of years ago we made another decision that is reflected in our programs that you see today. there was early on i believe in what i would call the explosion of unmanned air systems, that everyone wanted to get into the game of most active system at the time. and as i was looking at our budget and i was looking at the capabilities that we had, and i began to look at the future that

we would encounter, for me it became important that we in the navy focused on our strength, which is coming from the sea. and so we were investing in airborne systems that required as to be ashore, that required us to have additional manpower structure to be a sure, that required us to be able to train those people and how you live ashore. we are pretty good at living at sea. we have been doing it for a while now and we're kind of comfortable there as well. and so, we made the decision that the unmanned systems that we would pursue with the exception of bams would come from the sea. as i mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, that offshore option is going to become increasingly important. it's going to become

increasingly important for two reasons. the introduction of anti-access area of denial strategies and systems, where there will be an effort to keep military forces out of a particular area. and naval forces allows you to move, to flex, to change. but it's also going to be important politically, because i believe the future will be one where the sensitivities of sovereignty, a nations desire to control its own land, to be able to focus on that which is theirs, that the idea of large footprint ashore, faces a sure, improved ashore, may not always be guaranteed as we become used to over these past years.

and so the ability to have these mobile u.s. sovereign bases, whether you call them aircraft carriers, or in the case of rotorcraft, whether it is a small destroyer that allows that rotorcraft to use as it's landing field just a small spot in the ocean, i think that's going to become increasingly important. the question on the different sizes and the cost relative to those sizes will be one in my mind of trade-offs in payload and in endurance. and that's how we will look at that future. but the fact is that we have a lot of airfields in the navy that have very small landing areas. that's where the rotor aircraft comes into play. can we get more payload? can we get more range? can we get more speed?

that's were i think we have to go, but the vertical landing and takeoff will continue to be important to us because of the large number of landing field that we field in the navy that is sovereign u.s. territory, that we don't have to ask for basing rights, that we don't have to ask for access. it's a very. we can put it where we want it. yes, sir. >> admiral roughead, i'm david, i've been an operator in uas since the early days of d.c. and the pioneers. first of all, the cobbler, sir, over the last 20 years you have by far the most impressive and motivational cnl when it comes to the employment of unmanned system. i applaud your initiative. >> thanthank you very much.

so now i'll ask a question or two if i could. >> sure. >> first of all, from your perspective how would you like to see the acquisition process improved to expedite the development and fielding of unmanned systems? and on the fielding side, would you share with us your thoughts on how, you mentioned the fire scout. but what are your thoughts about how we can expedite more forward deployed forces? >> thank you. first off, i would say that we really need to take a look -- this is not an acquisition system. i think we need to take a look at how we can better engage with, collaborate with industry early on. i think weakens ourselves away -- we fence ourselves away. even though our friends and industry say we might like to

collaborate more, when i send going to bring company x. and companywide into the room along with company see, and even industry kind of gets sensitive because of proprietary information and the like. i can understand that. but i think the environment, the environment will be in, we got to figure out a way to be able to do that and we have to take a look at the constraints, both official and cultural that inhibit that from happening. i would also say that we should look at ways to work our way through the operational test and evaluation process faster with less cost. i don't for a moment get cavalier about safety issues for our people or ineffectiveness, but i really do think that we have bureaucratized that process to fairly well.

and we have to think of how we move things more quickly. i'll cite the example of what we wanted to do with the next role of the unmanned carrier r navy and tore we put a the department writ large, and, indeed, the industry, where we said that we would deploy a squadron, squadron yet to be defined as far as number goes, on an aircraft carrier to operate by 2018. there was a time in our country when we elected to put a man on the moon in 10 years, and it became a passion. it became a matter of national pride. in the case of putting a squadron of unmanned aircraft on a carrier in eight years, it was

deemed too fast. and i think we've got to get ourselves out of that mindset of too fast to conform to a process, as opposed to saying we can do this. and then we mobilize the resources that we have and intellectual power we have come and the industrial agility that we have to do it. but instead we have retreated to bureaucratic process that come in my mind, is an inhibitor. i'll stop there because i can feel myself getting pumped up here. [laughter] >> good morning. i was wondering -- >> you are right at home here with all these techies. >> not really, sir. this event very interesting. i was wondering in addition to the technical strategic and doctrinal changes the navy is

spearheading, what sorts of efforts is the navy engaged in to provide new guidelines for creating legal and ethical framework for integrating unmanned systems, in the new battle space? >> one of the things that we've done, and i don't want to inflict is bigger than it is, but when we created our way ahead, what we are calling information dominance, the restructuring of our staff in the navy to the director of information dominance, the reactivation of the 10th fleet global cyber operations, and the organization of all of our people in the navy who deal in the world of information into an information dominance core, those are the three things that tended to be the main point of this strategy, of our way ahead. but there's an obscure thing that we did that many people are not aware of. and that is that within the

office of the judge advocate general we created another element in their that deals with the law, and from that law how we deal with rules of engagement which really get to the ethics, the escalation mechanisms in conflict to be able to begin to think our way through that. because i think whether you're talking in unmanned systems or in terms of cyber activity, we are putting a lot of effort, a lot of talk, a lot of money into the technical side, and we're not looking up at the policy side which gets to your question. and so by creating and then educating people in this new

area of warfare and the rules of warfare was how we came at that. i think that the more complex of the two clearly is the cyber dimension, simply because of the body of laws that we do with and how do you work your way through that. i think in many cases that we are making a bit more out of the ethics of unmanned van i.c. -- unmanned then i see. and i look to have more time to explore the on my own. but i think that we're making a little bit more of that than it probably should be at this point. over on the right. thank you very much. >> hello, sir. i am from sweden. thank you for taking the time to come here and talk to us. i have a question regarding the

arctic. can you maybe elaborate a little bit on what the navy, what the challenges you see in the arctic and opportunities for unmanned systems. the arctic is getting a lot of attention especially for energy right now. and, of course, it's always a strategic area. thank you. >> thank you very much. and i would also say that the arctic is getting a lot of attention in the navy. about three years ago we established a task force on climate change on not just to address the arctic but the changes that will take place around the planet and how those affect the maritime domain. where will it induce potential sources of conflict, where will they provide potential areas of cooperation. but the arctic is one that we have had significant focus on these past couple of years.

and i think initially, as i see it, the first press up in that region will be for fishing as the fish follow the colder water and go up there. and this will then lead to questions of how do you monitor and how do nations enforce their rights and the regimes in the arctic areas. there will also likely be increased search and rescue activities. so the question that was posted earlier, can you use unmanned systems to enhance your ability to sense and respond to search and rescue as you get into the next of which i think is going to be the exploration and mineral extraction and oil and gas extraction, how do you make sure that you're able to monitor the environmental issues.

and i think unmanned systems can provide great information so that we can better understand what we're doing to the environment as many of these activities are taking place. and our estimate is in about 25 years you will have a viable and profitable transportation route across the top of the planet, i call it the opening of the fifth ocean. and they are, what sort of communication schemes do you need, what sort of syncing schemes do you need. and i believe even as you look at an open arctic, the condition of there are still going to be harsh, challenging, and it's still going to be quite cold. which will challenge the human dimension to be able to operate out there for any great length of time. and again, i think this is an area where unmanned systems can play. not necessarily as a system of

military capability, but one of sensing in information and communication that in that harsh environment it will be the optimum way to approach the problem. but clearly a very focused area for us. i appreciate the leadership and the intellectual effort that is taking place on behalf of your country. and what is truly going to be an extraordinary moment in history of mankind, as that ocean opens. the first ocean to open since the end of the ice age which i consider to be a pretty big deal. well, thank you very much. thanks for the work that you do. and i look -- look forward to following the great work of this organization and also involved in unmanned systems. thanks.

[applause] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you, admiral, for those remarks, and for fielding questions from the floor. zachary lemnios our second speaker is delay to whatever like to do is call up darryl davidson to perform one of the foundational words at this time. as zachary lemnios get your we will start with his presentation. thank you. >> so as you can tell i'm not david anderson and i don't have that wonderful scottish lilt that he does, so i apologize for that. but i want to go ahead and cover our last two awards for this

year, and the first one is our operations award, which this year the recipient of this year's operations award is mr. andy thurling, the test but for the hydrogen powered unmanned aircraft. he graduated from mit and was commissioned as an air force officer in june of 1987. over the next decade he served in various positions as a fighter pilot, including chief a program in flight commander. he is a distinguished graduate of the u.s. air force test pilot school, and of the air force institute of technology. he has over 2300 hours of flight time in more than 35 types of aircraft. as command of the 452nd flight test squadron and director of the global vigilance combined test force, andy had responsibility for the flight test of the nation's newest unmanned aircraft including the global hawk, predator, and x. 47 navy uas.

he has been responsible for all phases of global server testing from strategic concept development to acting as the initial contract instructor pilot. ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to make this award to mr. andy thurling. [applause] >> thank you, jerrold. and thank you to auvsi for inviting me to the truly outstanding show and thanks for the foundation for right now in flight testing that i had the honor to lead. you know, the flight test business is inherently risky. if you aren't finding issues, then you aren't looking hard enough. or you're not moving fast enough and fielding life-saving and award-winning technologies. so there's also risk in playing it too safe. we've said several times from

this stage during this week, if we're not fielding, we are failing. clearly, major setbacks must be avoided. at how a team responds to this is what will define them in the end. as admiral roughead so graciously put it, failure is learning, failure to learn from failure is bad. and i am proud to say that i have no doubt in the future, the future holds even greater accomplishment and achievement for the global observer testing. thank you again for recognizing our success, and have a great last day of the show, and an appropriately risk mitigated trip home. [applause] >> and our final award for this year is the pioneer award. the recipient of this year's

pioneer award is mr. joseph lose chair, technical director of aerospace systems design and analysis at the air force aeronautical systems center at wright patterson air force base in ohio. in his position is responsible for defining system requirements, developing candidate aerospace systems designs for modernizing air force, aeronautical systems. defying the odds in 1967 counties innovative ideas and groundbreaking research of a revolutionary new autonomous small longer-range turbine powered concept resulted in development of the air launch cruise missile, which was the first uas cruise missile since the 1918. he developed the original engineering concept using estimated guidance and propulsion system characteristics that were not available but he believed were possible. he determined a small fuel-efficient jet engine and a terrain contour matching guidance system could power and guide the missile over extended ranges. he face considerable challenges and resistance.

his perseverance gave birth to the program. ladies and gentlemen, it's my pleasure to make this award to joseph. [applause] >> good morning. it's certainly an honor and a pleasure to be here. i want to thank darrell davidson, terry taylor, mike farrell, and all the auvsi officers for the time and effort that you put in to furthering the association. i also want to thank the selection committee for selecting me for this honor, and fellow member anthony, for nominating me. in addition, i want to express my sincere appreciation to wendy

for her excellent guidance and help with the detailed arrangements. i don't want to take too much of your time, but i do want to tell you a little about the challenges of developing the very first modern day autonomous unmanned air vehicle system. we've come a long way, and admiral roughead said, we are still evolving as a result of your efforts. when it first flew in 1976, the air launch cruise missile was the first such system since the 1918 bug, as darrel mentioned. the bug was an aerial torpedo, a biplane. it flew to the target. when it reached its target, the engine shut down, the wings fell

off and it followed a ballistic path into the target. needless to say, a direct hit was a rare occurrence. cruise missile's after world war ii were very large. ground-launched and generally not autonomous. the real limiting factor to air launch cruise missile's were the largest sizes of the jet engines of the time and the fuel volume necessary for reasonable range. which resulted in very large ground-launched missiles like the matador and makes. in 1967, the assistant chief of staff of studies and analysis at the air force systems command conducted a mission analysis on bomber penetration to plan future capabilities for the strategic air command. experts were assembled at los

angeles air force station from all over the country. and i was selected to be the aeronautical systems division representative for aircraft design and performance. as a group we examined a large bridie of advanced concepts. small tv cameras were just becoming available, and people were mounting them on small radio controlled model aircraft. at the time, being able to fly over an area with an unmanned vehicle and see what was happening on the ground was a fascinating achievement. one afternoon i visited with a research engineer who built a very small jet engine in his garage to power his sail plane for takeoff and landing. this was a novel and unique achievement. he had eliminate the need for a tow plane.

the engine was about 12 inches in diameter, about 14 inches long. he could carry it out to the sailplane and mount it. had about a gallon of fuel. took them down to the grass, about 2000-foot altitude, ran out of fuel and he operated as a sailplane. i brought the idea of a small, longer-range cruise missile using a small fuel-efficient turbine engine to the group. and that night after dinner in my motel room, i laid out a conceptual design of an 800 nautical mile autonomous nuclear armed cruise missile that would fit in the day of the b-52. getting an air force program started, however, was a considerable challenge. the guidance was based on an inertial navigation system together with a terrain contour matching true, system, and people were concerned about the

availability of maps. but the advent of satellite mapping was changing all that. their propulsion community considered small turbine engines to be auxiliary powered units, and not primary propulsion systems. in fact, when i requested the work of some detailed propulsion data for more detailed design, a senior air force propulsion expert, who shall remain unnamed, called me into his office and said, let me tell you something, fellow, we work on engines as big as this room. guzzle fuel like you wouldn't believe. i was nice, but i thought to myself, that was exactly the problem we were trying to solve. because of the very vocal resistance, the concept of a small autonomous longer-range cruise missile began to wane. then in 1971, i briefed the

strategic panel of the president's scientific advisory committee on the missiles design detail and the potential benefit of air launch cruise missiles. as a result of that briefing, the alcom program was born. for 30 years, alcom and the tactical version have been crucial weapons in u.s. strategic and tactical arsenals. thank you again for this honor. god bless you, and god bless america. [applause] >> thank you, and back over to john. >> okay, our second speaker this morning is the honorable zachary lemnios, the assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering. he has held various positions

within industry at hughes aircraft company, westinghouse electric corporation and ford micro electronics. he was the deputy director of the information processing technology office and then director of the microsystems technology office at darpa where he oversaw the development of future research thrusts and represented darpa on various national committees. before assuming his current role in the government, he was a chief technology officer of the mit lincoln laboratory serving as a member of the laboratories senior management council and as the co-chair of the laboratories new technology initiative board. as the department of defense's chief technology officer, mr. lemnios provides thought leadership for the departments near, mid and far term research and engineering efforts to develop the technical capabilities to support the secretary of defense is goals and priorities. and acts as the principal staff advisor for research and

engineering. he received his bachelor degree in electrical engineering from the university of michigan and his masters from washington university. he has authored over 40 papers, holds for patents and advanced devices and monolithic microwave integrated circuit technology, and is a senior member of ieee. please join me in welcoming the honorable zachary lemnios. [applause] >> good morning. i want to thank you, john, for that kind introduction. and actually want to start this morning by thank you detainees and the conference that is here. the auvsi is an important part of the departments enterprise to build new capabilities for our war fighters. and i go off script for a minute and just tell you this morning i

was on a video teleconference with folks in theater in both afghanistan and iraq. the work that you are doing in building unmanned systems and fielding them to our troops are saving lives every day. so, it's great to go to conferences, it's about looking forward to seeing the exhibits, but at the end of the day what this is really about is protecting america's treasure. in the work that you're doing is so important. what i want to talk about this morning is a little bit of a glimpse into the future. and as the department's chief technology officer i want to say a little bit about what the science and technology enterprises going, what i see as the major challenges, and quite frankly, i'm enlisting your ideas. i'm trying to get a new set of ideas in critical areas. so if we can go to the next slide. and a framework for this, actually back one, the framework for this is we are in a remarkable period of change.

if i look at the globalization of research and development, whether i look at the joint operating environment, the joint forces command as outlined, or the national academy study rising above the gathering storm, we seek remarkable changes in the globalization technology. we see remarkable changes in the access to technology by countries all over the world. a rapid increase in the threat levels, and a few statistics, to sort of cement that point. in 2009, 51% of the united states patents were awarded to non-us companies. and, in fact, last year only four of the top 10 patents in this country were received by u.s. companies. most of these in fact are being filed by foreign entities. the globalization of the research enterprise is shaking

the foundation of what exists in this country. we see everyday in the commercial sector and we certainly see in the defense and industrial base. eight of 10 companies that have the largest research budgets in this country are opening facilities in china, or india, or both. and a survey of global firms that are planning to build new r&d activity say 37% say they in fact plan to relocate their research and development enterprises offshore. so while this has any immediate impact on jobs, it has immediate impact on our economy. it's a long reach and impact on the tech base and has a long reaching impact on avenues of innovation that are so central to the department. if we go to the next slide, i will step back a little bit and look at where the challenge is that we see in a mission to base. you had admiral roughead was here just prior, and i've also been reading this week about

news articles about this conference, and the work you have heard. stepping back and looking at the challenges of the department faces and the challenges that we face, whether we look at the national security strategy, the national military strategy, the quadrennial defense review, defeating terrorists globally, strengthening our biological nuclear security positions were pursuing a comprehensive transporters security strategy, these are problems and these are problems that take new tactical solutions. they are at the intersection of technology and policy and the warfighter. these are areas that we really need to address with vigor. next slide. early last year the quadrennial defense review was published and there were 16 mission areas that were sort of the center point of this document. and they are not the traditional

kinetic missions of the department. these are things like defending the united states of supporting civil authorities abroad. building security capacity for our partner nations, operating effectively in cyberspace. these are our problems. these are wicked problems. they're hard to define. they typically don't have a technology base that is assigned to them. and, in fact, where build a technical capability for each of these areas. so stepping back last year as i looked at this, we took a group of folks from across the department, both technologists and operators, and from each of these six nations were identified a set of architectures. and for those architectures we identified critical capabilities and enabled technologies to really understand that each of these what is it, the core idea that would help us prevail in each of these missions. and, in fact, been an overwhelming position in each of these areas.

next slide. the earlier this year secretary gates, in fact in april issued a memo outlining seven science and technology priorities for the department. and those absentee priorities in fact came out of the qdr mission analysis and then backing out of the architectural assessment that we did. i want to spend all the time going through the. because this is a glimpse into the future. these are the areas where we are building a new engagement with industry, with academia, across our defense laboratories, and within the defense industrial base to really build a solid foundation. three of these in fact address a new set of complex threats. and electronic warfare, electronic protection, you've all heard about cybersecurity. there's a cyber science and technology piece that has to be founded. counter weapons of mass destruction as well, i have a few things to say about that.

in the area force multiplicati multiplication, there were four crosscuts that we looked at and infected these include how do we handle very large datasets but this is the data, going from data, information, data to information, to understanding to decisions. and doing that anytime critical way. this is a challenge not only in the military status, but it's very much a challenge in the private sector if we look at the amount of information that is being promulgated on our commercial networks. human systems and autonomy. autonomy is center in the focus of your interest. and this is one that was pervasive across each of the missionaries of the department. and by autonomy this isn't just operation. they can interoperate with the user biggies are building systems that can, in fact, collaborate with the user and do and uncertain environment. so i want to say a few things about each of these into kind of

give you a sense of how we're looking at the future science and technology reasons for the department and how we will transition these into operational use. the first of these electronic warfare, electronic protection is so critical today, 10 years ago the key element in this space were largely constrained within the department, within the defense industrial base both technical components and in many cases networks. today, this field has proliferated globally so that almost any country has access to leading edge technology highly linear systems, all those things that sort of make the product warfare possible and frequency agility, the keystone for many of these areas. a rapid pace of technological advancement and the potential

for technological surprise in this domain is enormous. and so in addition to having key ideas in core technology, it's important to have and we're building a case for systems engineering in this area. the department is looking at ways we can, in fact, engineered large numbers of systems to interoperate. we sort of see that in the private sector. the difference is in the private sector with cell phone networks and rf networks, these are built on an instrumented ranges. in fact, when copies come in and lay down commercial networks, they do enormous, enormously effective site surveys of those networks of what's possible and what isn't. unfortunately, we don't have a site surveys in many of the areas we operate in but we have to operate agile, robust, mobile, ad hoc networks in environments that really don't have the luxury of being pre-characterize.

it's a very tough environment and it takes a new set of science and a new set of technology, technological innovations to work in that space. this is an area that has received much attention. one of the things i want to highlight here, the army in particular, but the services in general, are reviewing and, in fact, building test capabilities in ranges both at white sands and fort bliss and elsewhere to allow industry to come in with ideas. in fact, we're opening our test ranges and soliciting ideas to enable the best of breed to test their wares in a dod environment. and so i would point you to our advisor on the street, requester information to encourage participation by maybe some of the nontraditional contractors. maybe some of the small business contractors about ideas, and how

to work an environment of extreme stress. but working in those environments is actually central and i think what you see over the next several years is a you will see larger access to our test ranges and you see areas where we really want to engage industry to both valuing new concepts and transition those concepts from bench giant to operational use. next slide. cyber is a topic that everybody here is used, and i suspect very few people understand it or it's one of those areas that would be a foundational capability come is a foundational capability for the department in an emerging trend five, in an emerging tech base. the underlying, the underlying measurements, the underlying technology base is emerging. we see this and the private sector. we see this certainly and the defense industrial base.

the department operates 15,000 networks. we have over 7 million clients in those networks and we are attacked 6 million times per day. it's an environment of intense activity, and in order to understand these networks, in order to build the capability base that is robust, we've established sort of for principles. the ability to operate with resiliency, that is reconstitute a network or a client after attack in very short order. operate with agility. that is, reducing our signature on the network, much as you would in a kinetic sense. building a foundation of trust that allows us to assure the supply chain and everything within its supply chain as we integrate our networks. and fundamentally doing all this with a sense of mission assurance. and being able to operate through a very complex

environment with assurance of mission completion. as i talked to universities, as i talk to testers that are on our test environments, many of these concepts are just now emerging. we are building of the commercial network. in fact, the department in most of its cases operates a good statement of these using commercial infrastructure. but, in fact, we operate our own networks. those networks have interoperate in a way that is resilient and agile to outside attacks. so this is an area of enormous interest, and it's what i think you will see certainly in academia and in small businesses, enormous opportunity for newark over the next several years. next slide. the 2010 quadrennial defense review outline as one of the strategic objectives the mission of countering weapons of mass destruction. and in this space the focus today has been on building

sensitive and precise sensors that can detect fissile material at distance and can, in fact, help us understand where that material came from, where it is being delivered and what the tracking mechanisms are throughout that case. the challenge here is far, far greater than just monitoring material. the whole forensic peace to this, a whole piece of predictive assessment, and then there's the attribution peace that is also central. so, in fact, this is a systems challenge. it's not just a detection challenge. is really understanding into and how do we build a storyline, how do we build the elements, how do we assemble the evidence of material that is being tracked globally in very uncertain environments. and this is something that the department has been involved in. there is certainly working across the national intelligence community to do this work but it

is something that has had a renewed interest. next slide. resilient systems was another area that, in fact, we outlined as a science and technology priority for the department. and this is an extras excursion into a new area. if you think about most systems that we build today, they are typically targeted for a particular mission or a set of missions, typically very few. being able to design systems where we can trade operational capability, and trade performance against a larger operational space is something that would have enormous benefit. and, in fact, in this domain we are looking above model-based engineering and platform-based engineering to build a larger trades base for both our ground, our air and even our sea-based platforms. but this is going to require a new type of systems engineering discipline. it's going to require us to look

at in the same way we did 30 years ago in the development of integrated circuits, cell-based designs will have tommy decided it will challenge the way industry handles its intellectual property. it's going to find in the challenge of the way we do developmental test and evaluation. and yet the output could very well the systems that operate over far more aggressive environments and for more uncertain regimes. this is an area where working with universities, we're working with small business to really build that tech base so, in fact, the foundations of trust and system design. and the tools to trade system performance for operational capability across very large domains. the next key piece that we looked at, i mentioned it earlier, was this area that i'm calling data to decisions. it really is data to information to decisions.

in 2011, in the private sector there were 1.8 header bytes of data. this amounts to three tweets per day for every u.s. citizen in the next 27,000 years. just in the private sector. within our domain, if i look at what's being developed, was being brought back from theater today, enormous datasets, date. and the fact you heard this in previous speakers but i think you in fact heard this story even last year. data, the data content is projected to grow by at least a factor of 50 over the next 10 years. but what will really grow is the amount of metadata. the amount of data about the data which helps us understand how to really sort through these enormous datasets. and how to manage this enormously complex mountain of

information. what makes it complex is very little structure. very little of the datasets are actually designed to interoperate. they are all different. they are all structured different. the formats of the centers are different and the way we handle these to integrate disparate datasets to arrive at features and very cluttered and violence is the challenge of the day. as sensor fidelity and census sampling rate is increased, the challenges now is how do we handle this enormous aspect. and, in fact, we are working again with the research community to build new tools, not just to match, not just to apply match filters, but you look at trends in data over time to help us resort before we retransmit enormous amounts of data from our sensors in theater, and our sensors across our networks. the next chart outlines, the

next part of that problem, the next challenge which is then coupling that to the end-user. so whether it's in a training environment or whether it's in the operational environment, the challenge of the day is to, in fact, allow the user to handle information in environments that are changing dynamically with city features, the key features are, in fact, hidden in enormous amounts of water. so building training modules and building training environments that allow us to understand behavioral analysis from sense data are absolutely critical. this is an emerging field of research. it's one that we're coupled into and it's one we are pursuing across the defense industrial base. are biting situational awareness, real-time and dynamic environments is absolutely central to the way the department operates. so now let me talk about that last piece which is really the topic of this conference, and that's the piece that is

centered on autonomy. as i talk about the quadrennial defense review, each of those six nations had at its center the ability or the need to operate autonomously in some environment that we've had very little training data on or very little past experience on. and so, in fact, we build autonomous systems today. i'm sure many of you are part of that enterprise. we will see some of that in the exhibit hall later this morning. but most of those autonomous systems -- the next challenge is to infect build fully autonomous systems that can interoperate with humans on a very social environment. conversationally. the mobility peace and the manipulation piece of autonomy is largely solved. there are issues around the edges, but those issues were addressed a decade ago. they're still good work to be done, but the center work that has to be done now is building

real-time planning and understanding, and building environment where we can have humans and systems team collaboratively in environments that are very uncertain, and changing moment to moment. in fact, those are the two challenges, learning and reasoning, and human systems interaction. we do have an example. next slide. we have this remarkable example that each of us carries around every day. at 10-hertz, 10 of the 12 neurons in less than two leaders of volume in two leaders of mass, we can, in fact, operate in very dynamic environments, reconstruct a path, the path prediction and, in fact, operate entirely day today. and, in fact, we learn over time and we can do this time and time again. so there is an example, but taking this and apply it to our

uavs and applying it to these remarkably exquisite sensors that are being built is the challenge of the day. as i visited the joint operation centers in both milan and kandahar last year, i was impressed by first of all i was impressed by the servicemembers that were there. but i was impressed by the operational assets that we had on the flight home. i was really impressed by the processing and exploitation sales we had in each of the centers. they were manned by individuals come in many cases scientists and engineers that had to really understand the features of video feeds and the other sensor feeds that we were using day in and day out. the problem is that doesn't scale. the problem is i can build sensors with far greater agility, far greater sensitivi sensitivity, and far greater -- and much more intense data pieces that i can ever process.

so we can send ph.d forward, and we do, and we can send ph.d is rare and we can couple these environments and we do that as well. but fundamentally we need ways to understand environments in the same way you and i look at a set of pictures and the same way we look at video imagery, and find those features that just sort of call out to us. and so that's the challenge of the day. and we do have an example. next slide. so the autonomous vehicles in theater, as i mentioned earlier, are saving lives every day. these are remarkable systems that 20 years ago were not on anybody's horizon. they were not part of any program that was in our budget profile. it was simply a research concept that emerged into operational capability today that is second to none. whether it is the 12300 years, 30 weepers or 12 mobile hawks in combat operation today or the liberty aircraft that are in

theater providing thousands of hours of video per day day to day. these are remarkable platforms. but the center of every one of these platforms is a process and exploitation cell that requires, it's required to extract information and decisions out of enormous data sets that coming forward. so while your conference is looking at the full-scale, i'm looking forward to what's the next piece, how to sort of drive this so that we can effect reduce the the processing exploitation data. and so if you think about the challenges of human interaction, next slide, as we drive complexity, the amount of human interaction is, in fact, increased. we can build systems that, in fact, operate effectively unintended -- unattended, in environments that are very well

structured. in fact, the private sector does this in logistics environment. go to fedex or ups, their stock distribution is largely automated because the environment structure. there are companies that, in fact, so robotic vacuum cleaners for an environment that is largely structured. the department doesn't operate in structured environments. we operate in environments that, in fact, change moment to moment. so having systems that can interoperate in the presence of change, the presence of uncertainty with enormous complexity is the challenge of the day. next chart. so there is an example of how this is being addressed to the private sector. if you look back at the 2005 darpa grand challenge, and, in fact, the urban challenge that followed, those three events launched a remarkable revolution of robotics -- >> we are leaving this now for a

quick moment for a brief pro forma session of the u.s. senate. we will return to live coveragea of this conference after the senate session. the honorable jack reed, a senator from the state of rhode island to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands in recess until 2:30 p.m. tuesday, until 2:30 p.m. tuesday, >> following a final vote on her con fir ration, the senate will start work on a house-passed bill that overhauls the patent system. watch live gavel to gavel coverage here on c-span2. and now back to live coverage of the association of unmanned

vehicles conference here in washington. >> and they're now building a case with the state of nevada to allow, to permit the use of autonomous vehicles at least within that state. so this is a field that's changing, and it's one that the next inflection is going to be a critical one for us. foundational to this, we've got to drive change in our educational system and encourage students to pursue careers in each of these areas. and at the department, we're doing just that. the challenges in the undergraduate and graduate education system are enormous, there's enormous pressure from outside countries to work in this space. but this is an area where we need to encourage and inspire our young students to move into these engineering fields. it's an interesting field. it's one that attracts a lot of attention whether it's the first

robotics challenge or whether it's, next slide, whether it's working with the navy on their sea purge program or other programs across companies that have set up their own stem education efforts. this is an opportunity to attract students that will be your employees five, ten, fifteen years from now that will be grounded in many of the key technical issues that will be foundational for the department and for the nation. this is an area that we're pursuing with great vigor, and it's something that we hope to encourage not only extend the existing efforts, but also encourage those that are currently in place. next slide. so i want to end on just one point, and that is you've seen this week a variety of opportunities across the department for ways that you can help us deliver new capabilities to our war fighters and to the department for a whole variety

of challenges. autonomous systems, unmanned systems have gone from a research concept a dozen years ago to something that's central in our fabric, central in our operational fabric today. the next phase of this is building systems that, in fact, interoperate with human users in very collaborative ways, and that's a huge inflection, that's a significant inflection and significant push in this tech phase. so i'd encourage you to take a look at our web site, take a look at the department's web site in this area in areas that you can help. but i guess most importantly, i'd ask you to do two things. spend some time with those students that have an in this area. encourage them to work with your companies, take internships and build a cadre of students that five, ten years there now we can look at as being those engineers that drive this field, and can lastly, think about those soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines that are in harm's way

today, and think about how you can hem them not -- them not six months from now, but next monday, next tuesday, day-to-day in the areas that they're in. thank you very much. [applause] i'm happy to take a few questions, and then i do plan on seeing some of the venues downstairs. down here. >> hello, and thank you for coming. julie harris, mcclay technology. i met with you once. we're in booth 1311, so you should come see us. we're one of those small businesses. i wanted to talk to you about the testing. i talked last year to admiral handy about it, and she said we have reciprocity in testing. we have so many systems, and we

get so many redundancies because the army will test something, homeland security will certify it, yet darpa will be involved in a program to develop the same system the army tested, homeland security certified, and it goes on ask on and on. can't there be some kind of agency requirement as we do in the reciprocity of trade agreements? >> julie, i will try to come down to booth 1311, we'll start with that. [laughter] i don't know the trade agreement -- i don't know that trade agreements are a good example, so let me give another example. there are two domains of -- there are two classic domains of testing which is really about understanding the limitations of a system before we go to fielding. and then there's an operational test and evaluation piece which really is a statutory piece that validates that our systems are ready to accept and ready for

the war fighters to use. there's another piece that's actually with before developmental testing which i think is central to your question. and that is how do we encourage industry and provide feedback in a coherent way to address a set of issues we really want to have addressed. and i'll give you one example i just saw last week and another example i plan on seeing in a few weeks. i was out at fort campbell? it was colonel my dell. there you are, fort roberts. camp roberts. i was out at camp roberts this week. every day runs together. just south of monterey, and the naval postgraduate school has an effort there where they are inviting industry to come in, and it very much is like a jamboree environment. you come with your wares, there's lots of collaboration

between companies that are there, small businesses, universities have a big footprint there. and it is really a way to evaluate new concepts. but what makes that work is there are users in that environment, in that test range that provide you realtime, you know, this thing is going to work for a forward operating company, or it's not. and so, you know, as i looked -- and i've been to a number of these ranges. that one really drives sort of this intersection of innovation and user experience. and i look at the ranges that we have, i'd like to get more in that lane where we're providing small businesses, large businesses access to user feedback in a not so much sort of the structured, developmental test and evaluation for operational testing, but up front. because you've got to make your funding decisions early, early,u want to be sure you're on the right track to what we need, and

we want to encourage you to work in areas where we need be ideas. so i look at the camp roberts experience, the focus range there, as one example of that. and there are others. i'm happy to talk with you offline about how to engage in those. >> thank you. >> questions. yep, i'm sorry. >> thank you for talking with us. i had a question about the h2b2 program. i know they had a flight test on the 11th, and about nine minutes in it lost contact. i was wondering, what effect do you think those tests combine with the the first one just didn't achieve all its goals, especially -- [inaudible] and what's the next step for you guys? >> so the question was on the darpa, hypersonic test vehicle, the hcv2. we're in the middle of evaluating that flight data, and when the assessment team completes their assessment, we'll come out with a statement on that.

with that, i'm going to go to booth 11 -- 1311. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, undersecretary. that was outstanding and very informative. if i could just do a quick wrap-up of what we've done today and all week. first of all, this has been outstanding. you've learned a lot about technology, you've had information exchange, and you've had a glimpse of what the future's going to bring, especially for unmanned systems. and, again, you mentioned -- we heard mentioned by the undersecretary about sea purge. sea purge is a now a product and a capability within our foundation, the auvsi foundation now has daryl davis who you've seen many times up here on the stage, has wendy and ms. sue

nelson that are now part of the foundation, and that sea purge is an excellent opportunity to educate our k-12 individuals. so make sure you find out more information about that. i mentioned earlier about john lattman. john is the conference chairman and symposium chairman, and he has done a phenomenal job. with any great organization and with any good program that comes forward, it comes from the leadership. and john has provided that in if putting all of this together. so with a rounding applause i'd like to give john for all the great, hard work he's done in making this best unmanned systems north america conference we've ever had. [applause] [background sounds] >> thanks, mike. i'd like to thank you for the

opportunity to serve a second time as conference chair for auvsi's unmanned conference. every year the trade show reaches new heights in excellence, attendance and industry participation and is executed flawlessly by industry volunteers and the auvsi staff. although it may look effortless, this is our signature event, and it's the result of untold hours of preparation and detailed work on the part of the entire auvsi staff and conference volunteers. i'd like to especially recognize this year's conference team, i think you can see what's up on the boards here. but -- and i'd like them to stand up if they're still here. our technical chair was dr. mark patterson and his team of chris, gary, scott, bob and mike. they did a great job of pulling in speakers both for the plenary, the technical sessions and the hot topics areas. so, again, yes, let's give a

round of applause for those guys. [applause] but as i said, also, this is a product of the very hard work for the entire aevsi staff from mike, gretchen, all the way down. so it's hard to single out individuals, but i'd like to express my heart felt thanks to the conference services team of stacy butler, leslie hinton, carissa, and lindsay voss who was in large part for the round-up of speakers. please take the time today to locate and thank any of the team that you might run into. they're in the bright cobalt blue shirts today. and finally, my thanks to all of you for attending this year's conference and making it the big event of unmanned systems and robot robotics for the year. thank you, enjoy the rest of the conference, and we'll see you next year, hopefully, in las vegas. thank you very much. [applause] >> one last comment. many of you have asked can you get copies of either the presentations, the keynote presentations or any of the

information that's been going on for the last four days. the answer to that is, yes, you can purchase them down at the host set down at the registration desk that is located where you came in this morning. so enjoy the rest of the conference, and thank you, and we'll see you next year in mandalay bay, las vegas. thank you. [applause] [background sounds] [background sounds] [inaudible conversations]

>> there's more live coverage coming up later today on the c-span networks. on c-span this afternoon, republican presidential candidate gary johnson is the luncheon speaker at the national press club here in washington. he's starting a nine-day campaign tour of new hampshire tomorrow. live coverage at 1 p.m. eastern this afternoon, again, on c-span. >> in a city that averages 250 murders a year, former baltimore homicide detective kelvin sewell takes on the tough question, "why do we kill?" ? be it includes a book launch party for armstrong williams and his latest, "reawakening virtues," and how unlikely allies got together to try to change our nation's school system. steven brill talks with diane

ravitch on "after words." get the complete booktv schedule at booktv.org where you can also watch nearly all of our 9,000 programs online. >> and all this month you can watch booktv in prime time here on c-span2. tonight it's "road to the revolutionary war," starting at 8 eastern. maya discusses american loyalists and the revolutionary war. at 8:50 it's gordon wood and the idea of america: reflections on the birth of the united states. and later at about 10:10, how the boston tea party sparked a revolution. it's booktv in prime time all this month here on c-span2. and remarks from the chief of naval operations discussing the future of unmanned vehicles at the conference here in washington. >> also here to reclaim our national honor. as many be of you know who may follow world cup soccer, our

women fought valiantly but lost to the women's team of japan, our great friend and allies. but the navy-sponsored robo soccer team defeated japan yesterday, so i think we're even in that regard. [applause] but it really is good to be here. i was so pleased to see the response that the symposium generated and the number of people who have signed up for the week. i think it's indicative of the interest, the passion and the promise that unmanned systems of all varieties portend for the future. the last time i was with you i talked about how i believed unmanned systems would continue to move into the spotlight, and today i'd like to spend a little bit of time on addressing our

view and the approach that we have taken and the expectations that we, um, have on our plate. there's no question those of you who follow national security issues, defense issues that war fighting and fiscal realities, i believe, are going to drive us more rapidly and in a much more focused way beyond our traditional platforms and to the inclusion of unmanned systems. i think that, clearly, in the navy's case without the work and the commitment that our office of naval research has done over the years, kind of kept the pot stirred if you will, we would not be in the position where we are today. but clearly, it was that sustainment of onr and then in the last couple of years in the case of the navy where we've reorganized ourselves, we've

relooked at how we wanted to come at unmanned systems, how we've moved many of those programs into our director information dominance. i don't believe we would have been able to achieve the things that we have done. but it's also important to acknowledge the contributions, the interest and the competence of the technical community, of academia and how they have been able to bring the intellectual power to bear in the world of unmanneds. and there is no question that industry deserves great credit for continuing to pursue many of the initiatives that we see operating in the battle space today. but i'd like to touch a little bit on how we see unmanned systems operating and what i have been referring to during my time as the chief of naval

operations operating in that way that we can provide the nation with the best offshore options that are available to the commander in chief. and those offshore options are very active today. they're very busy today, and i would submit they're very pivotal today. a few months ago i was giving some remarks, and someone asked me about the maritime strategy that we had issued about four years ago. was it still relevant, did it still matter in the world in which we live today? that was on the eve of our operations into libya. i knew we were going into libya. it was not in the public domain. but as i tried to formulate the answer, i just had this vision of our navy at that moment in time. as some of you may know, when we laid out our maritime strategy, we said that we would be a force that was forward, we would be a deterrent force, we would

project power, we would control the sea in the areas where we needed at that moment in time. we would conduct maritime security operations, and we would provide humanitarian assistance and disaster response. and on that particular evening our ballistic missile submarines were on patrol as the nation's most survivable deterrent force. two aircraft carriers were in the middle east as changes were sweeping through that area. not a bad conventional deterrent force. we were forward in every ocean of the world and on every continent. so those two capabilities were checked. we were moving ships and submarines in position to make the initial attacks into libya that took down the air defense system with our ships and with our submarines. those ships and submarines were also providing sea control in the area off of libya. if you went farther east, you were able to see the united

states navy working with friends and partners in the somali basin attacking piracy in that area. maritime security. and then the ronald reagan on its way to a combat deployment in the middle east within 24 hours shifted over and was providing humanitarian assistance to the people of japan in the wake of the tsunami there. so my answer to the gentleman that asked me the question was, yes, it is relevant, it is active, it is viable, and it does provide those offshore options that the nation will need in the years ahead. and it's able to be done without any footprint ashore. and i'm often complimented for our navy because of how fast we are able to respond. and we are able to respond quickly because of the great skill and competence and

initiative of our sailors who are deployed today, about 65,000 of them. but the key to that speed of response is also the fact that we are always there. we are present in be every ocean of the world, we are standing by in those areas where conflict or disorder is likely to occur, and it's that presence that gives the nation the speed that will become increasingly important. but in all of those things that i just talked about, i think it's important to recognize that in all of the operations that we conducted our communications were not challenged, the command and control of our forces were not challenged, and there was no real threat to our ability to access those areas. and so we, in a way, were never challenged in how we wanted to

operate and what we wanted to do in those particular circumstances. those days are not always going to be the case. there will be challenge. there will be systems that will be arrayed against military forces that want to come into an area that will challenge the command and control. that will challenge our ability to gain access. and for that reason i believe unmanned systems will play an even larger, more critical and more crucial role in the years ahead, particularly in those contested environments. that's not to say that what we're doing with our unmanned systems today is not important, is not relevant and is not having an impact. i cite our bams aircraft

demonstrator that we sent to the middle east a couple of years ago just to see how it would work. it has yet to come home. it's not broken, it's just that no one wants to let it go because of the value that it provides in sensing the battle space there. with our fire scout unmanned helicopter, we deployed that two years ahead of its initial operating capability date. i think that is a significant step, and it's an important step that i'll talk about later. and, in fact, although that system for the navy was procured to operate off of our ships, it is operating ashore in afghanistan, and there's an additional demand for more fire scouts to support operations there. and without those initial deployments, those early deployments, we wouldn't have been able to get those systems in the hands of our operators, in the hands of our sailors so that we could learn

operationally how to use unmanned systems. we've made good use of shallow water mine-hunting systems in the vicinity of iraq and the waterways there as we participated with our iraqi friends in opening up the waterways and the harbors that are absolutely critical to their economic viability. and we've also used them extensively in underwater searches, for example, in a helicopter off the case of san diego. and i also had the great pleasure of going to wood's hole oceanographic institute and seeing the work that they're doing there and how they used leading-edge technology to find the flight data recorders from the air france flight that disappeared in mid ocean without any specific locating information. we were able to use those systems in that regard. and then, of course, our oceanographic community is using

gliders in very extensive ways that are increasing our awareness of the underwater battle space. but even with all of that i think it's true to say, and i won't sugar coat anything, that many of our unmanned systems still operate on the periphery of naval operations. indeed, i would say many of all of the unmanned systems operate on the periphery of all the operations in which we conduct. they clearly are not optimally integrated into our ships, into our squadrons and into our concepts of operation. but i think that the pace of development, the culture that we tend to have within the military, indeed, within any large organization and the need to this point are why we have not seen that optimal integration. those are the three things that in my time in doing this i've seen as the impediments. but i do believe as i alluded to

earlier that the growing antiaccess area denial capabilities that we see coming on, the importance of the activity in the undersea domain will cause us to have to focus and to put more energy and more purpose into bringing these systems to bear. because, quite frankly, we don't have the time to let things languish along and find their way into our operations at a comfortable pace. and we also can't allow the work that we do, the experimentation that we do, the research that we do with unmanned systems to be viewed solely as an unmanned problem. that was one of the reasons, the main reason indeed, why we pushed the early deployments of some of our systems. because while we can go ahead and look at the technological needs that we need and look at how well does the system itself work, it is so important, it's so important to me that we get

these systems in the hands of the operators so that they can blend them into the operations and into the environments and learn from that. because there's an operational level of learning that has to go on in addition to the technical level of learning. and i also believe that we don't have time to treat how we think about and how we move information around as an afterthought to the system. that has to be part of the architecture in which we envision and that we reimagine how these systems are going the play into the battle space. and from the outset that i have always believed that it's not a question of unmanned systems and manned systems and how do we program for and buy and develop and research in those two individual lanes. for me it's been an issue of looking at the battle space in which we will operate and then looking at the optimal blend of

manned and unmanned and how does each complement the other and not take away from the other. those are the things that we have to think about. and so our approach has been one that has looked at unmanned systems that allows us to move forward with systems and concepts and ideas that have a great deal of commonality, but then that we can take some of that and tailor it off and perform a certain mission. and whether that's in the large diameter uuv, the per sint undersea surveillance system and some of the air-independent propull suggestion work we're doing, i think that allows us that broad commonality, but then we can also parse them down into the needs that the operators may have. i also would say that we've pressed quite hard on bringing the x-47b into our thinking in

the navy. my staff knows that on the first flight of the x-47b i was like an expectant father. as in all cases when systems like that are fielded, you may get ready to fly, then there'll be a little glitch that you'll prudently and wisely and appropriately want to check out that may delay the flight a few hours, it may delay it a day. i was on pins and needles, and i have no idea why it was that particular event in my tour as the chief of naval operation that caused me to be so focused, so excited and so enthusiastic. probably because in my mind it truly does portend a significant change in the advantages and the power and the versatility of naval carrier aviation. because if we can blend the

unmanned on an aircraft carrier and the manned on an aircraft carrier, we've changed the dimension of carrier naval aviation in a way that has not happened in decades. but i would also say that as an organization, and i alluded to this earlier, that culturally we are often slow to adapt, we tend not to want to pull these innovative solutions into the way that we do things. we struggle to answer needs in new ways even though we know there's a compelling argument to get these systems out there. and that's why i believe the approach that we've taken, the reorganization and the great young leaders -- some of whom you see here in the audience today -- are the ones that will carry us forward. ..bad.

resisting to get to what i call speed to fleet how quickly can we get systems out there? and the time that it takes us collectively to get an idea into a system, get it out into the fleet, i think, represents again a risk averse culture and a set of processes that are not engaged in the age that we live. and i believe it's also worthy to note that even though we have

had the fire scout deployed from a ship, the fire scout deployed a shore to the iraq and afghanistan to the troops that are using it that the item of note was that a fire scout was shot down and all in the negative. all the positives seemed to be glossed over and all the lessons we learned by deploying two years early to shape our future for the future, that seems to be minimized and i believe that's indicative of thinking and processes that are not helpful to our future. i also believe that we have a belabored operational test and evaluation regime that from time to time more often tends not be

able to deliver the integrated and the interoperable systems that we're going to to need, again could i have a stovepipe look at how we're bringing systems into play and not being able early on to determine the interoperability systems and issues and the integration challenges that we know we will face. we have to think differently about how we do that because if we fail, what happens is those systems get put on the back of our sailors and they are the ones who have to struggle through the process. they are the ones that have to fight through the inability for systems to work together. i think more of us in uniform and those of us who are in the department can do a better job of articulating requirements, stating those requirements and

working closely with the research community and with industry to make sure that we get those systems delivered quickly and can work our way through rapid fielding. because it's so important at this time because i really do believe -- >> remarks from the chief of naval operations earlier today on the future of unmanned vehicles we're going to leave it here and go live to the unmanned vehicles systems and emergency first responders talk about the use of unmanned systems in their operations. and some of the challenges they face in integrating the technology. this is live from the washington convention center and it's just getting underway. >> the board of directors for 12 years and six years currently the cfo of the organization. we have a fairly large panel here with a varieties of background and expertise. but let me introduce them to you

real quickly. we got first mr. mike o'shea with the national institute of justice. next to him is mr. jim lowry with the arlington police department. to his right is mr. greg sackman with the seattle police department and next to him is ben miller with the mesa county sheriff's office and then dave bagett the school center for asymmetric warfare and to his right i have mr. f freborn with unmanned experts and last but not least on the end mr. ed tobar within texas llc. what we're going to do each one of the panelists will get up and give a short presentation. on their background their air of expertise both with the first responding community and the uas community and then after everybody has given a presentation, we'll open it up for questions, answers and discussion. and with no further ado, we'll start, mike, mr. mike o'shea.

>> i'm program justice and i'm in a division called the office of science and technologies and pretty much what our job there is to support federal, state and local law enforcement with local technologies and while i'm there i have three hats that i actually wear. one i'm the program manager for the corrections technology center system which is a system of regional centers across the country that provide tactical support to state and local law enforcement. i'm also responsible for school safety technologies and we do a lot of work in incident planning, software, modeling and simulations for schools to keep them safe. we do programs like incident commander. we have a program called astro. and i also manage the law enforcement aviation technology program. we started that program about five years ago when we had a lot of requests from small and rural law enforcement saying that they could never -- they couldn't call upon the state police to fly for them anymore because they didn't have money to fly their helicopters or their planes or they couldn't call on

local departments or military units because they were either disbanded or deployed overseas so we started looking at low cast aviation technologies that could support law enforcement and as many of you know, there's 19,000 law enforcement agencies out there and most of them are smaller and rural and they have very little dollars to do stuff like fly a helicopter like dan does so we're looking for low cost technologies and we start looking at manned aviation, we put out fixed wing aircraft, powered parachutes and we're currently deploying and flying gyroplanes that we're flying in european and aerostats that you can launch and have a camera system so you have that long-term lookdown capability and if a storm comes through your city, county or state you can launch one of these balloons and use it as a radio repeater if that storm knocks out your current radio infrastructure. the last thing we start looking at was unmanned aircraft systems and we actually started back in

actually about 2002 giving some money to universities to actually build us some low cost easy to fly unmanned aircraft systems. we started at that aspect. what we started doing after that on the faa and starting with the rules and regulations involved. we were concerned that most law enforcement were did not know there were involves in unmanned aircraft systems so in september 2007 with the cooperation of the faa we created the technical unmanned systems for safety. if you get a cover for the faa and public safety and the first thing they will send you that bulletin and we started working with the department of homeland security buying small systems and evaluating them on the river and putting them what we call some sort of law enforcement scenarios, tough situations, bad weather situations looking for lost kids, lost boaters and that kind of stuff looking in windows with unmanned aircraft systems so we did some basic testing

with some different systems down there and dhs has been very kind to us and bought us systems and allowed to us deploy them out to state and local law enforcement and we're currently putting them out and evaluating them right now. the other thing we've done is we've sat on the -- i sat on the small unmanned aircraft system aviation rulemaking committee with the faa that rule is out for public comment and it's supposed to be implemented sometime soon. i'm currently sitting on the large unmanned rulemaking committee with the faa which is going to be sort of the big overarching committee that decides what's going to happen with unmanned aircraft systems as a whole from predator down to wasp, big/small. you'll hear more about that probably in the future. and that's a three-year commitment. currently this week we -- some of the people that are on this panel actually participated. we had some meetings with the faa and we're working with the faa on a streamline, sensible and logical process for law enforcement to actually use unmanned aircraft systems in the national aerospace and that's

what we're currently working on with unmanned aircraft systems. >> thank you, michael. jim? >> i'm the special operations commissioner in arlington pd i'm combined as a west patrol commander. i've been with arlington a little over 28 years. arlington is a metroplex city that's located between dallas and fort worth. we're about 100 square miles. and a population of about 400,000. depending on what statistic you look at we're the 49th or 50th largest city in the united states. we're also located directly south of the dfw international airport. so we are in class b air space, heavy air space. we have been looking at uas as an option for us due to the fact that traditional aviation assets for law enforcement have proven their worth over the last 50 years force multiplier officer safety, situational awareness, there are many benefits from those. unfortunately, for us, as many

other law enforcement agencies we can't afford the platform and the initial cost-up and the actual day-to-day costs of running traditional aviation assets. so we looked at the uas program. we have secured a koa from the faa for the last year for training and evaluation for a uas. our issue is it's a very limited area. it's probably about 15 acres but it's a nonpopulated area for us and we're in training and evaluation. we're looking to go operational and apply that. our issue with that is that it's harder for us to expand that under the current guidelines of our koa. that's one of our bariers for us. the next one is technology with the manufacturers of this equipment. we are looking for a battery-operated piece of equipment that will allow us to be more secretive and we are not

looking for a gasoline operated vehicle. or also we garnered a relationship with uta to help us through that but we're also looking for a different application for this than from the military. so the things that we're looking for also is we're also looking for audio capability on these pieces of equipment. so as from a s.w.a.t. aspect, if i was to send this piece of equipment inside a building, a smaller uas, or on the outside, i would want be able to put it on a hover mode and let it sit and i would like to listen to it and be able to give commands. it's proven if you call somebody out, you and the blue suit wearing a purple tie you get a better reaction this just you jim lowery in the building come out. if you have an audio capability listening and transmitting, that's the technological piece of equipment we would like to have. the other issue and a barrier for us is the misconception if you will -- a misconception by the media and a misunderstanding

of the public of what this equipment and this technology is. i will present to you that the platform that we're using at the uas is new because of micro and nanotechnology we are allowed to bring this to a smaller piece of equipment. the technology, the equipment that we're using has already been vetted through our court systems. the constitutionality is already there we're not using new technology for any technology information that has already been vetted. we are sensitive to the citizens' concerns for their fourth amendment rights violations and we want to make sure we don't vital those. and we are very sensitive to those issues and we will make sure that we operate within the law but we get a lot of misunderstanding and a misconceptions of what the uas is. a lot of times as i say, they believe it's a uav. the larger type of larger vehicle that the military is using. we're looking at a piece of equipment by our standard and we're still trying to come up with a full understanding or

definition as a small uas that's 55 pounds or lighter and that's the piece of equipment we're using is roughly 20 pounds. those are our barriers for arlington pd. thank you. >> thank you, jim. i appreciate it. next up is greg. >> good morning. my name is greg. i'm with the police department and arson bomb unit and under that falls our uav, uas program, we also have oversight for that. some of the barriers we ran into in implementing our uav, uav program kind of the same as arlington. we've had koa now for about six months. we currently have two small uavs that we're using for testing purposes in evaluation. same restrictions as arlington has. it's a testing and evaluation koa so it really restricts us to two specific areas in the city of seattle. they're both located in city

parks, some unpopulated areas but it gives us a chance to fly and evaluate and do some training as well. so one of the bicker issues and you can see some of the slides there is getting through the koa process. it started three years ago initially looking into getting a koa. faa provided spreadsheets it's supposed to take 60 days for completion it took us 18 months to get through the process so it's a significant amount of time and resources we are spending achieving the koa and finally getting it but we do have that now. the couple biggest issues we had a fight internally. even before we got to the stage of getting a koa and getting a uas system is liability. there was a lot of concern on behalf of the city of seattle on flying an aircraft. city of seattle used to have in the '70s of helicopters they

both crashed, unfortunately, a couple officers were killed and there's still some reluctance of the city to fly anything in the air. we have regional king county helicopters that we rely on but the city of seattle itself is the police department doesn't own any fixed or rotor ring aircraft. you know what happened if uas was to crash in a populated area will somebody get injured in an populated area and privacy concerns. arlington pd had the same issue as people were questioning what we want the uas system to do is it within the guidelines of our more restrictive investigations through the city of seattle? is this something unusual. it took a lot of convincing for people to understand exactly what we were envisioning with the program.

one of the issues is the availability of funding. currently in order to fund our uas program i rely on grant funding exclusively at this point in time i'm not getting any funding out of our operational budget. it's all coming through grand funding. and personnel -- the personnel that i have on the program are all assigned from other units. one on a full-time basis and others as needed but it's a significant hurdle. there's reluctance on the part at least my department to allocate the resources until they say, you know, what the payback is going to be. and i think one of the primary hurdles that we had to get over was just the initial skepticism. uas, uavs -- you know it's a new program. you know what people see and think about a lot of times, you know, the way they're used in the military, you know, we're not out trying to fly a predator. we're not looking at that scope of a system. what we're looking at is

something that fits into our tacticals so there was initial skepticism that we were able to overcome that by process of education and once we actually got the uas systems and basically we invite the world out to see what we have to include the media and that worked out extremely well for us. okay. just some of the things that we're -- we would like assistance from, from the uas community as far as manufacturers, users, et cetera, you know, one of the primary things is recognize civilian law enforcements, and civilian first responders are not the military. okay. one of the key things we run into, you know, if you go out and look on the floor there there's a lot of names, predators, stalkers, baby killers, whatever. [laughter] >> to me that's not -- it doesn't help. it doesn't help to sell the uas, uav program to my mayor and my city council with a name like that.

and, you know, when i suggested to some of the manufacturers is, you know, bumblebee, butterfly, nice happy names, people can relate to that. it's not viewed, you know, as a hostile thing. and, again, it goes back to what a lot of people's version of uas, uav is a drone. okay. they see afghanistan/pakistan blowing up cars. we're not trying to blow people up. and which brings me to my second point. i had manufacturers try to sell me, you know, on the benefits of having fully automatic 556 rapid firing guns on a uav. i don't need that. civilian market we're not looking to basically shoot people with their uav. okay. so i guess the bottom line on that is, no. do you know what the civilian market is it's a lot different than military. they have similar requirements but it's not exactly the same. some of the things that could be helped again, you know, just

getting the faa to understand again what our needs are. first responders. and redundant safety centers. this is one of my big things. i realize from talking from all the manufacturers that your uas is the safest in the world but i need redundancy. again, a lot of this goes into the fears of liability. if you can show me redundant systems on it, you know, that's what i'm willing to pay extra for, you know, if you can have, you know, one of my big things, you know, if you can put a ballistic parachute on a helicopter, great. you know, i need something that i can sell my chain of command and the city on if something happens and it is going to happen, it's inevitable, that, you know, there's a backup and if there's a backup to the backup it's a lot easier for me to sell. okay. so we've -- the police department has had a successful uas program and these are some of the keys to the success. one of them is we got extremely early in the process and extremely well with our local

faa region. we know their names. been golfing with them. developed a relationship that's extremely helpful to us and to them and perseverance like i say it took 18 months. there's a lot of road blocks. let me back up. there's a lot of requirements that we perceived as road blocks that we were able to overcome just by providing the information the faa required. and the reason we saw them as road blocks because they were new to us. we've never done this before, okay? one of the other things that we're successful with we got key leadership and the city involved, risk managers, aclu, media out initially and one of the things we try to do especially with the media is be up front with them. basically we've invited them to come out -- what you'll find is that, you know, if there's some kind of secrecy or anything involved that's when they get excited and they start doing the stories. we invited them out. some of my officers that are here, you know, actually

presented the uav to them, let them fly it, et cetera, showed it to them and honestly, you know, that satisfied their curiosity. since then, they haven't been back, okay? and then the last item here is we have strict adherence to faa guidelines and internally we've developed strict protocols for when we fly, who flies, what kind of training is required. and this is kind of a general item but one of the things that's going to -- that i'm worried about the most is there are agencies that may be flying without a koa is we're all in the same group here. first responder is the first time one crashes and injured somebody, takes down an aircraft, whatever -- my program is going come to a screeching halt and i worry not just my program but nationwide. there has to be strict adherence to standards. if it's uniformed standards developed by whoever, you know, i'm all for that. bottom line is everybody that's

in the uas, uav community. somebody happen regardless where it is it's going to impact all of us. thank you. >> i work in grand junction, colorado, the western half of the state and amongst the other state i'm the unsystems programs for our agency. a few months ago with a conversation at the water cooler if you will an idea began and we began to research what solution unmanned systems could provide for law enforcement and over the last few years we began to explore that and had some great successes with this summary judgment in our day-to-day missions. we've been very successful with the faa working with them. though i would not call the process easy or streamlined in any way, we have been rugged in our pursuit of the approval that

we needed to operate unmanned systems. we now currently have approval over 3300 square miles. our entire jurisdiction. and arguably probably the greatest amount of air space approved in the nation to date with that. it brings us the ability to move from a test and evaluation program more to an operational program. our system now soon after our pilots complete their proficiency assessment we'll be transferring a from the office and back to the patrol car and responding to calls day-to-day and minute-by-minute. moving forward, kind of the subject of the panel, what are the barriers that we've seen? first, as i said, the barriers were the fact that it's new. the fact that there's not a lot of people doing unmanned systems in law enforcement. and the inability to find many

out there that really had, you know, best practices and stuff like that. another barrier that we have found, obviously, is the regulatory environment. we speak of unmanned systems and i would agree with my colleagues that immediately the public perception goes to the predator and there are significant risk assessments that need to be taken for operation of that stuff in a congested air space by no means we don't want to leave anybody here or anybody watching c-span at home with the impression that we're operating anything of great scale. our system is about 2.5 pounds. it rides in the back of a patrol car. it has the capability to do so. and really the liabilities involved -- though there are some, that need serious attention, however, are not anywhere near that common public perception. i just wanted to share with you a few of the successes that we've had. what we're finding probably the number 1 benefit of unmanned

systems in law enforcement is cost. we like to get excited about what the technology is capable of. as a small rural agency in the united states we don't have manned aviation. what we found is that we can do roughly 30% of the mission that dan can do in houston in his helicopter for about 2% of the cost and that is revolutionary. it's not the ability to put a camera in the sky as my colleagues have mentioned before. that's been done a long time ago and we've been doing that for decades. that's been vetted in the courts. your fourth amendment rights are absolutely protected as mine are. but the ability to do that at such a low cost is what is going to change the face of law enforcement across the country. there are 19,000 agencies in the united states and of those only 2% have manned aviation assets. and again that is because of cost. i would estimate and what we've learned over the last few years that this technology is going to be applicable to around 10,000

agencies across the u.s. at the price points. one of our program metrics is to allocate that industry out there produces systems that are priced less than that of a patrol car. and along the lines of patrol car, a small inside that can fit a patrol car. that are easy to operate and have a saying i call it the big red button. we want that big easy button. our guys commonly, i think, across the nation won't be an officer that is dedicated solely to the operation of unmanned systems. there will an officer first and an unmanned operations second so, therefore, they will need the ability to operate that system very easily. we're moving forward. we've done a lot of air fundraiser for crime scenes which we found to be very helpful. the ability to take the jury to

the crime scene months later and now we're looking at software technology that takes all the photos that we can take in an aerial perspective and maps those together in a three-dimensional format to where a jury can actually tour a crime scene virtually from the courtroom. i think it's a new advancement that has been capable in the past and now it's affordable and so really just one of the highlights of our program that we've seen. we're moving into a fixed wing system that one of the things we found that rotocraft have their limblations and rotocraft of this size do and we're moving to fixed wing to provide us more time in the air, a greater range and a greater capability to complete our mission. and it's my hope one day that -- i would love it if it's our agency but i really hope it's anybody across the country that some day we provide, you know -- the day -- i can tell you this the day we hear the story that somebody provided a child to

their parents after that child is being lost in the woods is the day my life may be complete. with that i thank you for your time. >> thanks, ben. i appreciate it. >> hi, i'm dave. i'm representing the naval post-graduate school center for asymmetric warfare. my personal background is the fire service i'm the token fire service with token police departments. i'm fire service. i did 32 years in the los angeles fire department. i was an assistant chief there. and unlike some of the other agencies, there's an air force there. the los angeles area county and fire departments all fly manned aircraft. and like my colleagues have said, and like many of you know us it's an expensive process. the -- those agencies are generally looking at unmanned

options but in my current life, working for the -- excuse me, naval post-graduate school, i've become involved with working with them. last year and the year before the naval post-graduate did exercises. and sitting over there on that table are dvds that were produced of last year's exercise for auvsi with their approval. they're handed out for your use. i brought a few slides that are incorporated in that. and what they basically say is that the public safety people who went to last year's week-long exercise where many of the platforms are demonstrated and showing things that are said among my my colleagues. it's a universe set of challenges, opportunities if you will that face public safety

responders, all of them, fire service, and law enforcement, in utilizing uavs. the -- and i'm not going to try reading all this stuff to you because all of you can read and like i said there's copies over there. but what it really boils down to is that there's no one answer. if you said there was one answer for law enforcement, you'd be wrong. if you said there was one answer for fire service, you'd also be equally wrong. and if you said there was one answer for any of the other public safety service entities, you'd still be wrong because like virtually everything else in your life, the best tool is a tool that's right for the situation. and if you're going to use uavs for fire service, which, you know, fire service is a very broad concept. it's not just fire it's search and rescue and on and on and on, then the best tool for that is going to be the one that works for whatever that particular issue is. the platforms that were in this

exercise last year varied from blimps that were roughly the size of this stage that could be tethered. others that could be operated remotely to various fixed wing and rotowing aircraft. all of them had lots of benefits. all of them had down sides. so what i would leave you with in my short introduction here is that those of you that are in the manufacturing field really do your due diligence in talking to those of us that are in public safety because you need more details than what you often have, like some of my colleagues have already said, the tool that's been developed primarily for a military application generally is not ideal for a civilian application although they do have many capabilities that can be transported from one to the other. some of the groups that were involved last year, as you can see, there was a lot of people there, a lot of really good stuff came out of it.

there's a lot of really good comments in those dvds and with that, i'm going to pass it to my neighbor. >> we have mr. freeborn. >> and thanks for coming. for my five minutes of fame i'd like to talk about public/private partnerships. i'm here representing unmanned experts who in themselves represent the first generation of retired military uav operators and managers and they are truly the experts. i tell everyone i'm the least expert of the experts. i do know a little bit about public/private partnerships,

though, through having worked for and with people like mike o'shea and his program. to me unmanned aviation system, law enforcement public safety public/private partnership is all about preserving this incredible capability of unmand systems to improve officer productivity and officer safety. there's lots of pitfalls out there in the adoption of a new technology such as uas that must be avoided. these are represented by the bullets here's, safe and orderly adoption, making sure that the appropriate technology that meets law enforcement and public safety requirements is fully utilized. it doesn't do anybody any good if an agency buys an unmanned system and it sits on the shelf. risk management -- we've heard about that. fourth amendment concerns, the classic example is the officer

who suspects his wife is cheating and ask his buddy who's the uas operator to follow her around. forensic considerations including quality assurance, chain of custody, all those kinds of things and the transition of d.o.d. technology and the folks who are returning back and their tactics and techniques and procedures for civil uses. i feel kind of good because a lot of these were validated by the folks on the panel this morning. what is the public/private partnership i like to use the three-legged analogy. in this analogy the public or government sector is one leg. the private sector or industry is another leg. and the third is a nonprofit represented by nonprofit companies, federal -- federally funded research and development organizations, professional societies such as auvis, leia

and academia. what's in it for me? what is -- what is driving a public/private partnership? it's a win-win. it has to be; otherwise, it's not a partnership. successful law enforcement public safety adoption can lead the way for broader usage of uas systems by commercial and general aviation. they can be the tip of the wedge. partnerships can help. the uas community understand law enforcement public safety is unique requirements. when i worked for mike, we'd put technology out there in the hands of users and they had come up with wonderful feedback. they come up with wonderful ideas. the listening capability and to

transmit voice messages to someone. on the -- on the community side -- excuse me, the law enforcement side, we can help law enforcement public safety understand the uas technology. you might have a young guy who's really interested in uas technology and he wants to be able to go and talk to his captain or his chief about this. we can help support that. partnerships can help, law enforcement public safety understand how to intergrate uas into their operations. this is one of the key requirements that we're -- it's kind of a derived requirement. once the coa and all that stuff gets settled, how are we going to -- how are we going to use this? what's the kept of operations? so those are some of the win-win things -- whoops, wrong way. some of the key enablers like i

said understanding the law enforcement public safety unique requirements. and including that aspect which is key of feedback to industry to develop appropriate technology or to adopt what they already have. developing the value proposition and anecdotally it was echoed here. >> it said if a piece of equipment is on the order of magnitude of a cruiser, it's something that's going to be adopted. well, if you're a chief and you got the choice between buying a cruiser which you know can -- it's been proven, it's a proven technology, why would you want to buy a piece of uas technology? especially in these times of extreme tight budgets where the emphasis is on maintaining current services and everybody is gunning for your budget, developing concept of operation including integrating uas into operations, outreach and education, time and again we hear -- and dave was talking about that the other day,

opportunities for getting chiefs and the people all excited about this technology and having that flow down or officers who want to educate their their chain of command and as well as folks in the uas public safety -- excuse me, the uas industry community. honest broker technical support, again, i have to defer to mike as being the star in that regard. and it's so important because i hate to say it, there's a lot of snake oil salesmen out there and they got to make their bottom line. they got to make their monthly quota. they'll sell anything in order to make that and someone who might be naive and not know about some of the resources available through nij or things like that, they'll buy 'cause, the spokesman told me -- i think there was the comment. it's got to be the best. that's what the guy told me.

risk management liability, obviously, key factors. benefits of partnership, building trust. and trust is essential. once you establish that trust relationship with your law enforcement or public safety agency, you're in. but it's time and again people will say it's a closed community. it is because they've been burned so many times. and once they've developed that relationship, they're your good friends. educating the stakeholders, honest broker, unified voice. we, law enforcement public safety and the uas community can make things happen. triangulation. if you're looking at the model of the stool again within your own sector -- if somebody gets out of line, you can get the other folks in the -- in the other legs or within your own leg to bring them back in line.

and the demonstrable value proposition and sustainability. once these things are in place, we're going to have to maintain the capability. i wanted to go back for a second here. i think i skipped -- yeah, the examples of the public/private partnership. obviously, nij, law enforcement, aviation program, auvsi the post-graduate job that dave talked about the communication for unmanned vehicle systems. it seems the canadians are always a little bit ahead of us and they have a little bit different model as far as public/private cooperation but there's lots of things we can pick up from him and then the unmanned public safety program which is an initiative which i and a colleague have been working on and kicking around the conference here. we hope to develop a public/private partnership on that order. i think i also mentioned -- is

this -- is this the latest one, nick? okay. okay. yeah, that was under next steps or whatever, okay. thank you. >> thank you, ed. mr. ed tobar. >> thank you. good morning. my name is ed tobar. i'm from austin, texas. and basically -- let's see, nick. yeah, i'm going to give you one slide. this is a slide where you can pull out your iphone and take a picture and get everything probably there as far as lessons learned. i'm a contractor. i was a consultant when i left darpa in 2006. went back to texas. i wanted to look at the

possibility of introducing a microunmanned system to the law enforcement community. basically in a nutshell i could probably summarize it in cost, complexity and risk. okay? those are the things you basically have to consider. with we went -- when we attacked this issue, there's a number of things that you have to consider. you're going to have to be a bundler of capabilities, okay? part of the issue is, you're going to have to consider training, providing training, providing the ability to purchase the equipment and then you're going to have to deal with the regulatory issues, okay? if you can do all those three things, you're going to accomplish your mission. and basically in the state of texas, we have this can-do attitude and we're not going to stop because we can't meet the regulatory regulations. we're going to get smart about it. we're going to talk to the regulators. we're going to learn about it and then we're going to deal with it.

many times when i talk to contractors they dismiss the faa or they dismiss any regulatory agency that might be an obstacle in their way and we took the approach of we're going to learn about it and we're going to learn about it and we're going to get really good at it and follow the rules and when you deal with law enforcement, nobody wants to break the rules but they do want to get educated because they see a future and what it is we're about to do and it just makes good sense. training, we're very fortunate in texas to have the places we can talk about. when you talk about restricted air space you're talking about fort hood. many of y'all don't know this, but the military has a number of agreements with law enforcement that allow them to come onsite and train. that means any kind of training, whether it's shooting, well, as you can -- if you can go on to fort hood, you may be flying microunmanned systems under 500 feet, you may have shadows flying a little bit higher. and you start to look at everything and the way things are run and that's how we learn

about it. what's noisy? what's not noisy? what should we consider? what's it like at night? you can fly at night. that's great. you hone your skills that way and so you need to start using the resources that you have. if you don't live in texas, you should start looking for restricted air space because now you can come and test your products or you can test your skills. these are perishable skills. these are not the kind of tools that you're going to have in the trunk of your car, pull out and expect to use it the first time when you really need it, okay? texas a & m, dr. robin murphy, she doesn't just play with unmand aircraft systems. she place with the examit of all the other types of robots that what is it that i'm going to need when the emergency calls for it, okay? so she's agnostic to whatever is out there. she just needs to know is it cost-effective for me to have?

is it complex? can i use it? can my rest of my team be able to use it when i'm called on to use it? is it easy to repair if i have to fix it? so these are all the things that we all deal with in texas. the other places we've gone to train in camp bullis in san antonio. fort bliss in the desert over in el paso. these are all great places to go to because they're all different environments that you have to train spoke. the other thing we wanted to do is go to the gulf coast because we have the luxury of doing that sort of thing with the coast guard. as you can see from just the lessons learned become knowledgeable. get educated. auvsi, mike o'shea, the rest of law enforcement -- you only have to ask them. be creative and aggressive. make sure you understand what kind of strategy you're going to put together as far as teaming goes. you can't have a vendor that's

not flexibility or willing to make some investment along with your investment. another requirements, training facilities, aviation section we had a major law enforcement agency come to us and say, can you help us get a coa? i said, wait a minute, you can't -- i can't believe you can't get a coa. they said well, it's taken us three years. and we still don't have it. we're able to get ours in eight months. okay? so what happened is we helped them out but what happens is, it is very tedious. it is very time-consuming. but we made an investment by hiring a pilot. why? 'cause they know the rules. and it cuts through a lot of that process when it comes to doing those sort of things. consider multiple platforms. we certainly learn that one platform fixed wing is not going to be adequate. the rules or the -- the emergency or the mission that we have to go on may require a

hover solution. so you need to add a number of different platforms into your arsenal of tools or toolbox. again, certified pilots, start with the pilot project. start small. include your training, include your period in which everybody can come together and work as a group. understand the con ops. what we do in texas, what we do in central texas may be different what you do along the gulf coast what you do in the other states that you have to operate these hardware. you can't bank your business on one customer and one -- where you're getting your funding from. you're going to have to take your lessons learned and move on to the next customer because there's going to be multiple customers in this business. basically, that's all i have. thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> thanks ed. we're going to open it up for questions now or discussion.

we'd like you to come up to the mics that you see sitting out here and if you would state your name and who you represent and where you're from and then ask your question. you can direct them to an individual. you can direct them to the panel. feel free. >> gentlemen, my name is leonard. some of you know me. i've interacted with a few of you in the past. those of you that do know me know i'm a bull in a china shop, but at the same time, i think i've proven that i'm also a friend to law enforcement and the public safety and the unmand aircraft world. i have question first for greg. a quick comment, though, karen haverty13 months she came to albuquerque to query about some

of the questions that you talking about and i think i kind of scared her away when i started laying out the details this is what you're going to need to do and these are some of the formidable processes you're going to have to cross. so you may remember when she came down there. >> yeah. there's nothing easy about it. and it's a long drawn out process and new for us, so, yeah, we appreciate your guidance on that. >> but my question is, i was hoping you would cite some of your successes, operational, not training, that have proven or convinced your leadership to consider a possible expansion of your program? have you had successes to date? >> the answer to your question is -- [inaudible] >> evaluation coa so, you know, we're sticking to what we can and can't do, but, you know, basically like i said when i did my presentation is i invite

everybody to everything. and so, you know, my chiefs the chiefs in the region and the sheriffs are smart enough to realize, you know, when they actually see a uas system up 200 feet and it's getting, you know, a visual down length through a multitude of different transmission means hey, i can send this video image from a scene, at low cost and it can go into our regional command posts without too much difficulty then they start realizing, hey, there's, you know, a multitude of uses for this. you know, and it just takes a little bit of guidance. i just have to provide, you know, the platform for them and the opportunity. bethey -- you know they're all law enforcement professionals. they have experience so, yeah, they can visualize, you know, from what i'm showing them, hey, there's so many uses for this and, you know, when i explain the costs to them, that it's not $1500 an hour to operate, you know, the systems that we're currently having that we're envisioning that it's a lot less

and there's a lot flexibility. it's not a replacement for, you know, the existing rotaary wing and fixed wing and being able to do things we haven't done before and that's where we've seen the potential future for it as far as training we know -- my guys do training all the time and i'm very open with it. i invite anybody that wants to come out and see it there's no secret to your program so it's police, citizens group, media, i don't care. they can come out and see and people, you know, have seen exactly what we can do with it and it's a viable system. it's not a danger, you know, we're not looking in sorority's windows. it's regulated and it's got a value and people see it. >> if i can step one more tim, i apologize. ben, sort of the same question. can you cite successes that are proven and convinced your state's leadership to consider expansion of your program?

>> absolutely. this year so far -- one of the benefits that we have are now our air space approval gives us the ability to deploy much quicker and obviously i think everybody knows in law enforcement that time is of the essence and so we've been very successful this year to date so far we have 21 deployments on our rotary craft system and some of are tactical craft missions and one of them i'm thinking about is a couple weeks ago the phone call came in requesting the system at this point it's housed at the office and so when it's requested there are some response time we hop in the car and we drive in the office and we get the equipment and we head out to the call. as it was, we had the -- from the program perspective the good fortune of getting to a call that we had time to do that and we arrived on scene.

it was about 5:00 in the evening. we had about 3.5 hours of daylight to operate. we are limited to daylight playstation and to paint a scene real quickly. two people at a party got in a fight. one person decides to leave. another person decides to chase him. they basically get in their own personal motor vehicle pursuit. one car -- they crash into each other. one car flips upside down the guy crawls out and tries to get away. the other person then assaults him with a knife. significantly. so now we have an injured vehicle and we have a suspect at large. and in the area it was very vegetated. it was next to a river and the incident commander on sign felt it was not important to send our tactical team or s.w.a.t. team into the bushes to look for this vehicle so we had an overflight with infared and we had a camera

to look for infared into the vegetation and our team tactically cleared that area. we didn't find the suspect. we found the suspect in another area a little while later. i still can't show you photos and videos of us taking somebody into custody. some say that will occur. but first from an operational perspective, absolutely that was a success. we had the capability, the means to employ it and we did so safely and that's just one. there's many more and absolutely when you do that, when we get back and we look at the costs involved, that entire mission, i always joke that we charge batteries for around 10 cents an hour. and that when you compare that to manned aviation it's a significantly less thing and by employing it in a manner that we have not asked our local government to provide a

position, another staff member to operate these systems that they're easy enough that our current staff can operate them as a extracurricular duty then those costs remain very low. it's missions like that that sell it through my leadership and our sheriff is on board. and he sold -- [inaudible] >> we're a county sheriff's office. we're not the state police. i would love for our state leadership to be on board. as far as congressionally we have interests there. both on the state and the federal level. as far as state law enforcement leadership, again, to an agency -- you talk to the county state patrol who has an aviation wing and that mission, that problem has a solution from a manned aviation asset. i understand that they have not had much interest to date as they like i said they have a

solution for that problem which they don't and can't afford and now we do. [inaudible] >> statewide are you starting to get some more prolific response from the other sheriff's departments and others where they are -- [inaudible] >> absolutely. i think there's some success and attention that we've had over, you know, the last year, 18 months i always tell the folks and they probably think i'm full of it but i get probably between 2 and 3 calls a week of different agencies that are interested and have seen us somewhere and gotten the number and they had gotten contact. there are agencies within the state of colorado that are looking at systems. i have a warm spot in my heart for those agencies. and we are assisting them and others in, you know, the regulatory piece as far as them identifying equipment that will solve their problem. >> my compliments to you, thank you. >> thank you for your questions.

let's come over here. >> good morning. my name is tim mars. i don't need this mark. i represent saic applications. [inaudible] >> a couple of questions. >> can you go to the mic, please. >> i have a couple of questions regarding -- and particularly to mike o'shea, please. there's a lot of experience granted it's from the military. but there's a lot of experience that we think that we can bring to the table, those of us have been doing this since early 1990s, that can capture the requirements to the information flow, again, we need knowledge applied as ed said so very aptly -- apply it to the law enforcement or the fire environment. but i think we could help these folks. how do we structure -- is it possible that your organization could structure a consulting group or something that we could go and help these folks and also

bring on the air space side to help them do this. i think it is -- i think that's absolutely imperative that we go do this. and i want to apologize from the auvsi that this room should be filled. it should be filled with manufacturers willing to help you with those barriers and i want to apologize for our organization. >> in this there's a lot we could learn from the military side of things. some of the uses we're running into and one of the biggest bare barrier is what people have said and it's costs. it's great the military has a system that does all these wonderful things but it if costs more, for example, a patrol car then it's too expensive. a patrol car, you know -- i don't want to use that as everybody go well, if it costs what a patrol car costs then we're in the market. in reality there are departments who can't afford to put gas in their patrol cars.

so -- i mean, it has to be very cost-effective. and i think someone brought something up here and this is something we need to learn from the military is, what are the units that work over and over and over again because our people, unlike the department of defense, can't afford to launch a unit and if it doesn't work they launch another one. that's their only unit and if they're going to make that significant investment in this technology it's got to work. and someone made the comment -- one of the ed's probably something to the effect -- sorry. said something to the effect that, you know, they want to try -- a trusted and tried technology and that's correct. if you're a chief or sheriff and you're looking to buy technology and buying an unmanned system and if you don't know what that system is going do for your agency or how reliable it's going to be you're not going to make that investment. so we need to do probably more testing on our side. ..

>> and that's not a good return on the investment. so we're working a lot with the agencies and try to educate them what these devices are, what their limitations are, who they can talk to. most of the phone calls ben gets are people i refer to him or i refer to susan so they can answer how to operate these in the field. >> if i may, quick -- sorry, go ahead. >> i just wanted to address your question which mike kind of deftly avoided, can mike help

with a program or something like dealing with limited resources. and that's one of the ideas with a public/private partnership is to harness the resources of industry and work with folks like mike and the practitioners in order to address all of this, the whole ball of wax. so, yeah, there's a solution. >> and a pick follow-up statement for the panel. we have been doing this for over 20 years as an industry to, that have captured the requirements to understand the information flow, to understand the feedback loops that need to occur, to get that reliability, to get that sustain m. sustainment. we are to the point, i think, that we want to come help you do that. but realize, i want you to realize -- and it sound like i'm doing a shell effort for dollars, and i'm not -- i'm just telling you that there's a price

to pay for that because we think it's worth the experience that we bring to the table for you guys to come help you guys. so it has to either do it through a partnership, through a -- [inaudible] or willing to talk to you guys one-on-one for a day or two. so, i mean, that's something to think about. >> i think if mike gets money, he's going to open the northeast center back up again. [laughter] >> can i comment just real quick? in all practicality, if i had call it $250,000, i wouldn't be interested in unmanned systems. i would be interested in light support aircraft or something that provides me a greater operational envelope. and i think your comment to it's going to cost and there are costs involved, um, i still in our, in our process that what we've learned probably the number one thing is the most, the greatest piece to this new

technology is its low cost. >> thank you, tim. >> hi. my name's stephanie levey, by question was originally intended for greg, but feel free to jump in the if you have anything. how do you build standards that are realistic for unmanned systems and law enforcement to current law enforcement and technology? we've had a lot of talk this week about the difference between human error acceptance and the idea being if you're going to have an unmanned system doing the same job, there needs to be zero room for, um, error. do you think that that, um, disparity's fair for what you guys are trying to do in if law- in law enforcement? >> you still directing it at me? [laughter] okay. to answer your question, yes. is there room for error? and i'll just take an example, and i'm not going to mention manufacture. we had a demonstration probably

a month ago. they came out to our location and flew their unmanned system, great system, everybody was very impressed. um, i was actually talking to my uav coordinators telling 'em, hey, i want redundant systems, i want safety, safety, safety. right at that time we looked up, the two company operators that were flying the uafs got distracted, nothing around for 500 feet, they flew it right into our camera mast on our vehicle. rotor strike. um, wasn't a very pretty sight. fortunately, it landed without hitting anything. bottom line is, yes, there is zero room for error. our standards are so strict because of that fact that we cannot afford anything to go wrong with this program, and so what we did is we take the faa guidance, you know, we go through all the training. you know, my guys who weren't pilots before, you know, went through the rotary and ground school. we made all the requirements for

faa, and then we basically contacted all the other agencies that have uaf systems and, basically, stole all their procedures and policies and consolidated all that. but i'd say ours are probably as strict as you're going to find because there is zero tolerance. we cannot at this point, you know, nationwide in the uas program afford be any kind of -- afford any kind of situation or error. and it's going to happen, but we need to do everything we can do at our level to avoid that. so -- >> there's actually different kinds of standards that you look at here. he's talking about operational standards for a police agency. there's regulatory standards that we're working on with the faa for the use of these things, and then there's manufacturing standards which is probably going to be the long pole in the tent issue. we have standards for small and large unmanned aircraft systems, and i think what has to happen is we need to come to some kind of universal agreement so that when we know we buy a product from company a and it meets at

abc, whatever standard, we know what we're getting. as operational standards, that's something we're going to have to work with as a community in law enforcement to make sure that we're all in agreement about what are some of the basic standards out there. and really based on safety and risk management. >> plus, um, the law enforcement-specific standards, and that was kind of what i was alluding to with forensics. if you're going to take metric quality imagery from an unmanned platform that someone's going to have to defend in court, you need to look at camera calibration and be metric quality there, chain of custody standards, um, if system is being operated by someone and it's downloaded into somebody's laptop, there's got to be standards as far as that in order to be able to preserve that as evidence. so there's law enforcement-specific standards as well.

>> thank you. >> stephanie, thank you. i believe that's going to be a barrier for law enforcement. there's going to be a lot of agencies out there, and i can't speak for the chief there, but i am just for working it so long, i have a good idea that we're pretty risk averse. and if chief has to self-certify the aircraft and accept all liability that goes with that, i think that's going to be a real stumbling block for law enforcement. without a third-party certification in lieu of an airway certificate for these vehicles, i think that's going to be a real stumbling block. and be i think the manufacturers out there that give some sort of third-party certification on their aircraft and we start building a list, i think law enforcement's going to have a much better comfort level with that than just saying, hey, chief, it's your responsibility, you and the department are personally liable for this because you've certified it as an air police vehicle. >> i'm from met on aviation.

i was just asking a general question, two quick questions, actually. i was first to get the co-op, how did you proceed from the water cooler to the coa? did you do online research or was it, like, read a book or something like that? how did you go from the point of water cooler to the coa? >> ben, i think that was your analogy. >> i can maybe give a, i can maybe give you at least my perspective. part of it is socializing. you're going to have to do a little research. who is it at the faa that is responsible for this? are there regional representatives that you can talk to also? our success was working with the regional representative. they, basically, wanted you to be success. but at the same time you had to follow their instructions. it's very time consuming, it's very tedious, there's a lot of verbage in there that refers to aviation. that's one of my comments was

hire a pilot. you know why? because it's second nature. dan is a pilot. he can read those regulations and go, okay, what's the problem? but to be able to sit down there, fill the blanks in, submit your coa application, expect to get a rejection soon or few months from now, and you go back at it. some of the agencies that we worked with, they were traveling, they were on the go, law enforcement, the way their lifestyle is, by the time they got back from their trip, they had to open that up again and get back into it, okay? you had to stay there and persevere through that process. and in the end you have huge payoff because you end up having six coas. who else has six coas, you know? it's because once you get that started and once you understand that, it starts working. but you have to associatize with the faa. -- socialize with the faa to get their perspective.

you have to talk to mike o'shea. they butt heads with the faa to challenge why are you doing this and what is new. and as long as you stay in that loop, then it'll help you to be successful. but that was one of the things that had to come online at that particular time in order to make sure that you become operational. because if you buy the equipment, you do the training but you don't meet the regulatory standards, you're dead in the water. and you're not going to make a dollar out of that. >> and my next question was for you. so, basically, like, when you had the chase, does the suspect -- you mutually had to inform the faa to clear the region to base your temporary flight restriction, or how did that work for your flight? >> um, our -- [inaudible] we are allowed now at this point, what we've done, the process, the coa process -- and you'll hear coas for test and evaluation -- the faa will grant

you a coa for a small area. when we began a few years ago, that was a mile radius at our local landfill. not only that, we owned that dirt and sage brush. we've progressed from there as we developed the program, and the coa that we fly under now defines our operational area as the border of mesa county. that's 3300 square miles, and basically that means that anywhere inside our jurisdiction with a few provisions, we file and note 'em, we contact denver and our local grand junction regional airport air traffic control tower. there are time limitations on those, and that's really what limits us as far as a response at this time are simply the notification requirements. that specific day that hour we have an -- we have an hour time. at this time it always takes an operator time to respond to

wherever they're at, pick it up and get it back out. they're also making phone call as they drive to make those notifications, and it really works together. when we move into placing that system in the back of an suv, um, the system itself i could have airworthy in 15-20 minutes. and so we're working with the faa now on those notification requirements and the time frame. but that given day we have time to make the phone call and still respond, and by the time we had contacted the incident commander and let them know we were ready to fly, we had made those notifications as required. >> and one final question. again, what is, like, i know faa and the coa are usually asked about the lost-link procedure -- lost-wing procedures. >> they're very specific to whatever system you're flying. i think one thing that the public doesn't know that equally as advanced as the technology is, it also has safety provisions that are equally as

advanced. most systems have at the way point navigating, i'm sure you know, navigate back to a set in that spot. you include that type of functionality in your system into that lost link procedure, and it's, basically, what we developed, what we do in the case of lost link, our specific system, um, we monitor quality of link before it's lost. and our procedure is preemptive in the sense that if it degrades to a certain point, we take action at that time instead of waiting until it's gone and then hoping the system takes action. um, on top of that the system can take action should we miss it, should there be operator error, those kinds of things. but absolutely, lost link the is probably one of the biggest issues that i'm sure you're aware of that the faa is very concerned in. so -- >> thank you. >> thank you. >> uh-huh. >> hello.

ben with auvsi. thank you all for coming. this has been a great panel. um, i have a question about an issue that a number of you raised which is civil liberties concerns and public perception. i was wondering if you could just talk more broadly about those issues and about how your interactions with some of the civil liberty groups have gone so far. >> well, from the arlington pd aspect, we approach it from a positive media, working with the media, getting the word out there. conveying to the citizens exactly their concerns for fourth amendment rights. again, i go back on we're not using any new technology other than the platform itself. everything that we're using has been vetted through the court system. they bring up concern, we are transparent with them. we will answer their questions. we show them what piece of equipment we're using, we tell them the applications, we show them our policies. we have a very strict policy.

we don't just randomly fly this piece of equipment. it has to have a specific mission. it can only be launch with the the commanders, the special operations commander's authorization. we're very sensitive to that. anybody that has a concern, you have to be very proactive in your dealing with these associations or groups that are concerned with that, and i think there are valid concerns that need to be addressed, so if you are proactive in the very beginning and you reach out to these groups, let 'em know what you're doing instead of sitting back and be trying to be surreptitious in your nature what you're doing is going to cause your problems. >> and i can echo that on the other side. houston police department dabbled in uafs for a brief time several years ago, and that was the main issue is that we didn't, we weren't transparent. we didn't include the media. and when the media showed up and they were ordered to leave, they department take it very well.

and so that -- they didn't take it very well. so immediately we're looking at spy aircraft, and we're going to be spying on citizens, and that was the way it was portray today the media. and that effectively ended it after just one flight, and that's the reason why, is because we didn't do that. he said that. you need to involve everybody, you need to be transparent, you need to let them know what you're doing. if you want to be successful, that's right. >> just from my perspective, about three years ago when we started our program, we sat down and made a list of any concerned people we could see. it raked all the way from aclu to senior risk managers all the way up to our police officers' union. and so what i did is i -- this is well before we had a coa, before we had any kind of air airframe. went out and explained exactly what we were trying to do. these are the parameters we're working on, it's not an intelligence-gathering platform, a spy ship or anything else. it's designed, and it's going to be controlled in the these

specific manners, and i sat down with them and, you know, explained what we were trying to do, you know, got their feedback, listened to them. they had some concerns about storage of data, privacy of data, encryption of the down links, etc. we addressed all those. you know, we addressed them years before we even got a system in place. so, honestly, it has not been an issue since we got it. you know, our relationship is, at this point in time, i'd characterize it as great with those agencies because we know exactly what we're doing. it's no secret to them. >> one of the issues we have is called the csi effect. they see tv, and they see, you know, whatever flying overhead that can read the stamp on somebody's mail, and they're worried that law enforcement is going to do that. and, you know, so we have to try to defeat the csi effect and say that would be great if we actually had that technology, but it doesn't really exist. that's tv. so what we do in doj in if our bureau is we do what's called public safety technology acceptance panels, and we bring

in all the interested partners to discuss the issue is and say what are the issues here. and we've done it in the past with tasers, other technology, license plate rating systems, anything where people feel their rights are going to be violated so they have a chance to voice their concerns and we can, hopefully, address those concernses. and that's one of the things we are planning on doing with unmanned aircraft systems. when our bureau chief started his first day on the job after he was appointed by president obama. he said what is the forty amendment issues -- fourth amendment issues, and we said, well, that's what we're going to look at. we've done some initial discussions with folks and talked with folks, and the bottom line is we're not doing anything that someone else is not doing with current manned aircraft. we're not doing, we're not having -- the concern is having a camera system on people, and i don't think people really realize how many cameras are currently out there. and that's one of the things we typically discuss. every atm machine you walk by, every traffic intersection you're at has a camera system. we were in the u.k., and in one

block by parliament there were 2,000 public safety cameras, you know? and it is a concern by people. what are you watching me for? you know, how are you keeping this information? is it going to be used against me in any manner? and those are some of the things we plan on discussing in the future. >> i was going to say, too, an interesting counterexample not necessarily in this country, but similar to what you did, dan, constable olafson yesterday said he wanted to publicize it, but his city government said they didn't want to. so we might have a counterexample similar to what your experience is. um, a little bit different constitutional question, but similar concerns. >> right. >> can that'll be interesting to watch. >> yes, sir. >> my name is terry erickson, and i've been in the uav industry for, since '95 about

unless you count torpedoes that i did before that. comments on obtaining coas. many of you have talked about, um, the process and the difficulty of the process, and that's all true. um, what -- and the comment that's been made, you know, use a night lot or use -- pilot or use, i would emphasize, use someone who's had experience obtaining coas in the past because they know the faa personnel as you have said. get to know the people and what they need. but someone who has been through the process knows the kind of things that the faa is looking at. um, people like leonard and like robin and some of you up there who have done et -- it before, and myself. you know, welcome -- and i'm sure you do too -- calling on that, that experience.

um, one other thing. i think that the faa is being much more proactive in the working with people on coas. and two examples of that are recent coas that have been issued, one in the state of texas down on the gulf. um, there's about 400 square miles on padre island that is authorized for a particular airframe to fly night and day. also there's a new coa just issued in the boot heel of new mexico, also for a fairly large area that is authorized for night and be day flight. now, both of those are pretty remote areas, but even so this is -- and they're both associated with universities, incidentally. texas a&m, corpus christi in texas, and new mexico tech out of socorro in new mexico. it's just an indication that the faa is beginning to be much more

logical in their approach to safety and the hazards in the area that they're flying in. and i don't really have a question, but feel free to comment on any of this. thank you. and thank you for coming here. it's been very informative. >> want to comment -- [inaudible] >> i'll comment a little bit about the coa process. you know, there was some discussion on whether or not that's actually a barrier, and it's really not, it's more of a hurdle. because people are getting coas and flying aircraft. and the faa as they get some comfort level with these systems in the national air space have made it easier to do, and people are getting coas and being able to do more with them. what our goal is on behalf of law enforcement is to make those hurdles even less so that it's easier. part of, you know, people talked about gaining this experience and how to do this. one of our goals out of what we're doing with the faa is,

basically, a guide on how you get coas, the information they want, live areas of aircraft so you don't have to repopulate the system every time you want to fly a system that somebody's already populated the system with. so the whole idea is to, basically, streamline the process to make it easier for law enforcement to use, and i'm pretty optimistic, and some of the people here actually sat on that panel with the faa that there's going to be some pretty positive results coming out of that. >> absolutely. um, you know, the nature of the panel is to provide feedback to the industry. i've had numerous calls with folks interested in learning the coa process to provide the coa process, assistance in the coa process as a service to end users across the country. and i would caution that business model does not aid the industry. i would say that you put it as a metaphor of a driver. there's not many people out there that go out and make money helping somebody get their

driver's license. the industry is around selling the vehicle. and with that metaphor i think it's relatively straightforward, what i suggest. but i would say with that collective that the end users -- and we have -- assisted as we can other agencies and end users to get coas because that is really the, it's not barrier, it's a hurdle. and then i think collectively we can assist each other getting over it. >> social it's about information sharing. i'm on the law enforcement association. if you're not familiar wit, it's an organization mostly in north america. we put on safety seminars, six regionally a year and an annual conference we just completed in new orleans last month. and there we had a full out of ten educational tracts, we had one full educational tract on uafs and basically had people like ben speak there. how do you start, where do you go, vehicles, stuff like that.

so in the industry we are, there are groups out there, and we are looking at that, and we are providing that information. and as this grows and as the air space is easier the access, we'll continue to do more of that. >> let me add a comment to that if i may, dan. ben, i think, hit on it earlier. i know you did. it's one of my biggest fears, also s that the gentleman asked earlier about examples of positive operational. there's positive for training also. and i think all of us probably get 2-5 phone call every two weeks people asking. my biggest fear in all of this is just what we talked about earlier, is that a law enforcement agency that's not aware of the fact that there are standards, there are regulations hear about this, they call us, and they say, well, what platform are you using? and then they want to purchase that and say i'm going to go out, and this is how i'm going to do that. and then you start telling them about the process, and they're still defiant. well, can they really tell us

what to do? the answer is, yes. we have to be onerous in our actions, and that is my fear because one negative incident in the civilian law enforcement field, i think, will have very catastrophic outcome for all of us. >> absolutely. >> so i think it's important that we emphasize that point. and the other point i wanted to emphasize is that uas is not here to replace the traditional platform of law enforcement aviation. it's to augment it. it's to make it available to those other agencies that can't afford those larger platforms. no way in the form or fashion was this designed or intended to replace traditional aviation assets. they have a very distinctive role and an irreplaceable role. >> right. yes, sir. >> i had a question or a comment about this fear that you talked about. i understand it completely. but i think that there's something else that is happening right now. like, the crux of the uav is

lowering at an exponential pace. yesterday i was researching, like, some open source uavs that have, like, pretty good capabilities that cost like the same cost as a cell phone. and be these thing -- and these things are just open source, so anybody can go in and build them. what has happened in the past few months is that some of these are starting -- [inaudible] and they don't follow the rules. so sooner or later an accident will happen. it's likely to happen due to -- [inaudible] instead of the law enforcement. and my, what i think is that you guys should actually accelerate the pace of using these devices so that you have a history or you have, like, some examples of, like, basically how useful it's been during your operations, how it has lowered your costs so the moment where this accident will happen, you