to jail for loss of government position never to regain it, and in the 1950s, chambers gave his version of the case in his autobiography witness which was among the most significant books of the post war cone sievetive movement, bible for william f. bucley, jr., john wayne, and many others who decliered themselves conservative in the post war years, his most significant role, instigator of the movement and participates in the founding of national review in the 50s and dies in 19 # 6 is #. his career is more important. >> did lionel and chambers remain friends and in contact? >> yes. even when chambers was a spy, the two had lunch at a vegetarian restaurant in new york city, and they were aware

of each other. i think after the early 1920s, they were not really friends, but the intriguing details for me, at least, in 1947, exactly the moment the case begins in public life, trilling publishing a novel called "the journey," and it's clear one of the characters in the book is based on whittaker chambers. he appears in fiction, the public sphere at the exact same moments, and trilling uses chambers to be a symbol for the infatuation with communism, move away from communism, and also as a lens of looking at america's society in the 1940s, where things are going to go and what direction do they travel. the most interesting historical point to attach to the novel is that trilling sees a 234u conservatism on the rise that is 15 or so years before the candidacy of barry goldwater, and yet trilling sees, in 1947, a new conservatism on the horizon, and attaches

conservatism to the chambers. intregging connection to be sure. >> what was lionel's involvement with communism? >> this is difficult to characterize perfectly. he was never a member of the communism party, but there was a time, maybe 16 months, maybe two years, 1932, roughly, when he was emotionally very invested in the destiny, political destiny was soviet union. it was not public acts, did not go to the neatings or write anything on behalf of the party, but felt this emotional affiliation, and that you sense in the book reviews and writings at the time. then, as would many in his generation, there's break with that, and he is self-critical and critical as a party, and goes to a period of l really extended disillusionment, i would say, from 1932 to 1941-42, reluctant, when the second world war begins, when american involvement because he feels it might be a reassertion of

american capitalism, and even in 1939, not quite deeply in the rad dale orbit, but 194 # 1-42 that changed, and by the end of the second world war, he's approaching an establishment liberal voice. a long progression for him and, for him and his career, thee most important political progression he experienced. >> michael kimmage, in your book titled "conservative turn" what do you mean by that? >> conservative turn is something i feel largely true for the time period. it's a duo-part process. first part, embodied in both biographies is a deep engagement with soviet communism, not just the left, but progressive, the structure you call the soviet union and communism, and then there's a recoiling from that, which is something that you sigh all across the 1930s, and it happens in many ways with

different consequences. one writes about this only within the history of the left to be sure, but felt to me in researching the subject that among the most crucial consequences was an uptick of enthusiasm for conservative widely construed, atonment for the sins of one's radical youth, and so a new kind of conservatism becomes possible. it's different in the cases. chambers, outright conservatism, doesn't need to go back or rediscover links to christianity or western civilization to assert through a political conservative party. that's not what he felt the republican party was, but he hoped that that's the the republican party would become. for trilling, it's a balancing act. they need conservatism to prevent themselves from going off the rails they had in 1930s in his view. they have to balance themselves with this kind of conservatism to keep them heals and stable.

in both cases, you see a new connection to conservatism 0 play itself out across the second half of the united states. >> you mentioned trilling was a supporter of jfk? >> yes, he was a card carrying democrat . >> he was not in favor by the left? >> no, and especially as time went on. >> it's in the late 1940ings when there's a young student at the university writing a lot of poetry and studying with master,

and this was beginsberg who was correspondenting extensively, a very warm relationship, really, but the relationship would fall apart in the 50s as it was a voice for radical youth, and vice versa, and very suspicious, and what he signified, a battle, and not only trilling, but professors like him and, and they cymballize a commitment to high culture, and they had the same, but it was no longer accessible and 5 white male spirit, after the 1970s, as to who trilling was, a

unsustainable set of cultural commitments. >> why did you write the book? where did it come from? >> when i read the novel, middle of the journey, and felt it which have captured something crucial and links 20th century into something organic, radical impulse, all in this book and connection to chambers makes it all the more fascinating, and so i wanted to puzzle that out in the course of my research, but beyond that, i wanted to write a book that engages the liberal and conservative add yedges, and that's why i feel the pairing of the two figures are useful m one is a significant figure on the left, the other a crucial figure on the right, and net e-yet they are bound together in so many ways, study at the same places, read the same books, preoccupied

many of the same questionings, and they often answer the same questions similar ri the differences between them, and that was the agenda of the book to get similarities across as much as anything else, and through that, to engage various factions and fragments of the political culture. >> did conservatism change after world world war ii? what was american conservative thought in 19th century, earliest 20 #th century. >> it was fragmentary, and it was often rather unrealrealistio look at it from the van teenage point, and there was a hope of returning to medieval times in american culture, might associate with that with henry adams and others, a return to catholicism, and there was also

a rage against technology, and the modern city in the modern machine age, and psl, there was a movement with libertarians, but it's not linked in any material ways to the other conservative sentiments. there's a reluctance on part of conservatives prior to 1945, intellectuals, to translate ideas into poling politics. that changes in 1945, and to me, whittaker chambers is em beliematic of the change. he was a highly politicized individual, highly trainedded from the years in the communism party to link ideas to movements to parties to initiatives, and he and others brought that strategic way of thinking about politics to conservatism, and, for example, when he argues with william f. buckley about politics, he has to use the republican party. neither of us like it, a huge distance to travel before this becomes a real conservative party, but we have to use the means that are available to us

and be prague mat eke and real liz take and work through the gradual mechanics of social change. that spirit is new. after goldwater, the spirit of the movement, and with reagan, you know it's a political fact in the larger quality of the larger culture, but the 40s and 50s, you see a transition. how does one be both conservative and strategic? thars the question they posed. >> what do you teach at catholic university? >> 20th century american history, literature, and grade book stuff. >> is this your first back? >> wee. >> conservative turn, name of the book, publishedly harvard university press, michael

"washington journal"

continues. host: we now go to virginia tech, where we are joined by jon who helped establish the unmanned research test site there. good morning and tell us about where you are sitting. guest: good morning. i am at the kentland on aimental air station, farm outside of blacksburg, virginia. beautiful, rural location. we have been fine for 6-7 years. host: this is one of six designated faa sites. they are starting to come up with their regulations for unmanned aircraft systems. what is the focus of the work being conduct it --cannot did -- conducted there?

guest: the research program has been very broad. control systems to the applications for unmanned aircraft and agricultural uses. as we move forward, it will be even boroader. we get the fundamental problems that allow us to integrate unmanned aircraft safely and responsibly. host: we talked about the competition for these tests sites. there are 25 proposals. what sets the virginia tech site apart? guest: i think that the key thing is brain power. we have three universities that our team members, ranked in the top 50 of research universities.

those are university of maryland, rutgers, and virginia tech. we have a number of team members who bring a variety of different strengths. and we have close relationships with some of the national research and development centers for federal labs. we think that relationship that we have and the ability to bring our researchers to work on the tough problems will allow us to address fundamental issues that exist and allow us to fly safely. host: the umbrella group. the mid-atlantic aviation partnership. there's a possibility to do some future testing in new jersey. correct? guest: right. our intent is not to fly simply here. this is a small area. it is a working farm.

we do not want to turn it into an airport. one thing we're looking at is where we will fly for the long run. we'ree a number of sites looking at in virginia and new jersey and maryland. will be able to do some of the fundamental experimentation required. host: we have a map of the different unmanned aircraft system sites. -- faa put this together a&m,a, north dakota, texas university of alaska -- how much coordination, how much work do you do together with these other sites? guest: quite a bit. aresix of us and the faa working together to figure out how we will make this work. we have some talent just ahead challenges ahead of

us, not just the regulatory challenges, but funding for the short-term. we're trying to figure out how to best move forward. as we do that, i think we will find that, although we will compete with the other sites, the most important thing is collaborating with them. there is some scale we can gain. we can also ensure that we make the most efficient use of resources to work on this fundamental problems. host: where does the funding come from for your program? are there federal dollars involved? guest: there is no federal funding at this point. we were able to gain some funding from the commonwealth of virginia to stand up the test site.

new jersey and maryland are in the process of dating funding for the next fiscal year. we think we have a way ahead for the short-term. it willlonger-term, require some industry funding and some federal funding. we have a plan to do that. host: how much funding will you need to make this viable? we havell, so, crunched some numbers about what we need to do. it will be a couple million dollars per year per site. that is in order to make it viable. you can question is, make this viable, but what do we need to do to make it -- to solve these technological and policy issues and get the data that we need to make data-driven decisions on when it is safe and how it is safe to integrate unmanned aircraft? host: we are talking with jon

greene, the interim executive of the mid-atlantic aviation partnership. site is now operating in a farm outside of virginia tech in blacksburg, virginia. he is here to take your questions and we want to hear your thoughts as we discussed unmanned aerial vehicles. we will go to ray in new hampshire on the line for republicans. caller: thank you for taking my call. we sell -- you call them drones, we say copters. helicopters or what have you. you can get ready to fly everything in the box, under $500. you can add your own camera to it. you can get accessories for it.

you can have first person video. you can be monitoring what you -- see what you're doing while you're flying. they have somewhat limited range. havethese quad copters limited range for hobbyists. you cannot get that far out with them. most of them are remotely controlled. you have to be in controlled with your radio. this is becoming a lot cheaper now. gps autopilot systems -- $400, you can program a flight pattern for your airplane or remote control helicopter. and it really is taking off.

all of this is being made in china. we are losing american jobs. but i think what a lot of people -- when they think of drones, they think of the military. with all of the drone strikes overseas and the military use, theme have a bad view of in that regard. i think when you take these drones for commercial use, like farmers or building inspectors -- i have seen these for people who want to inspect rooftops. they do not want to have to climb up. they can fly over and if they see something, then they get on the roof. the price of these are down so far that it will make it for building inspectors or people who --

the agar first, real estate. host: all right. ray in new hampshire -- what would you say to people who are skeptical or frightened of drone technology? we have heard of a few of those. well, i think it is ok to be skeptical. it is good to ask those questions. when we rolled out cell phones and facebook and twitter and gps capability -- we really did not think about the implications of that technology. it has a significant privacy concern. that is one that people are concerned about. the other one is safety. but we are trying to do in the faa totes is help the find the regulations that will allow us to make use of some of those capabilities that the

caller mentioned can save lives and time and money. to do that and a manner that is responsible, so we do not put people at risk or invade privacy. host: to be clear about these sites -- you are providing data, you're not involved in the regulatory writing? so i think we are all expecting that we will have some role in helping the faa in the rulemaking. our primary function is to provide data to the faa on some of these issues, about what is required to fly safely. host: on twitter -- where are drones being made? who are the biggest companies investing in this technology? so, to date, the

primary investors have been the defense industry. bigral atomics has been a manufacturer. there is a company in virginia, aurora, that is manufacturing unmanned aircraft. certainly, lockheed martin and boeing. there is a subsidiary of boeing. northrop grumman has been a big player. host: back to the phones. las cruces, new mexico on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: greetings. thank you for taking my call. i am astonished that people cannot see the bad affect -- e ffects that will occur. all of the attractive uses of drones, like monitoring forest fires or finding people lost in

the mountains, are very attractive. as on the technology is attractive. what is in store for the bad side or misuse of drones? i have a quick list. first, say goodbye to your american sense of freedom. you will have the psychology of a soviet citizen in a total surveillance society. when you expect that there are drones overhead and you cannot see them -- your psychology will change. ofwill be a deep formation the american psyche. host: how would you respond? isst: well, what i would say that i do think we need to pay close attention to the unintended consequences. there are privacy concerns that we need to address.

i would also say that i think there are methods to address these issues. example, a lawr was passed that allows police and first responders to use unmanned aircraft when necessary to save the life or in an emergency. they are not out there today in virginia collecting on individuals as they go about their day-to-day existence. i do think we need to look at it. as unmanned aircraft become ubiquitous, there is a threat of that. that, in ao remember lot of cases, there are other ways to obtain the same and permission, other than using a n unmanned aircraft. if i want to spy on my next-door neighbor, what am i want to do

is crawl up a tree and put a cam era up there, rather than flying a drone. that drone only fly for 20 minutes. then i have to land it. i have to control it. i do think it is worth investigating. i am not concerned that we will state in a soviet style in the future. host: you bring up the virginia state law that we mentioned in the last segment. here it is again. this is the summary. state law passed last year places a moratorium on the use of unmanned aircraft systems by state and local law enforcement and regulatory entities until july 1, 2015, except in defined emergency situations. the moratorium does not apply to certain national guard functions

or research and development. one of the research site is virginia tech. iss is where jon greene joining us live this morning. there is a view from the outside of the entrance into that lab space in blacksburg, outside of virginia tech university. let's go to christian in bowie, maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question is about national security. identify? able to we have people in the country -- [indiscernible] will they identify between their

drones and our drones? host: you are talking about different government agencies? caller: no. we do not know if the drone is american or not. will they be able to identify those drones? to identifyable u.s. drones versus a possible foreign drone in the united states -- guest: one of the things that we are working on is the ability to track where all of these aircraft are. there is a new program called avsb, i cannot remember what that stands for. what that will do is provide a transponder to tell you where each aircraft is. the faa would be able to tell what vehicle iswhere and if there is something not carrying a transponder or a transponder is not working.

that would stick out like a sore thumb. there is good possibility we will be able to tell who is who in the zoo. host: that technology, who would have access to that? just the faa and the government? or could private citizens find out about that? guest: yes. services subscription that you can purchase. i think there is a time delay on them, for obvious reasons. difficult for you to know where any single aircraft is at a given second. for example, where you want to shoot something down would be difficult. i do think that there are transcription services

available,ou can get feeds. for example, a number of pilots laptop that around a has the ability to show where other aircraft are that are carrying transponders. host: on twitter, another question about funding at virginia tech. how does for genentech received funding for its research? is it the dod, do you have military contract? guest: i do not believe we have any military contracts at the moment. so, our research in the past has been funded by the national science foundation, the office of naval research -- outave had some contracts of naval air systems command.

we do not have any right now. this is mostly grant research focused on fundamental patrol systems and services. host: you got into this were coming out of the navy. can you tell us how you got involved in this research? i did have a navy career. my last tour was a small research and development commu nity in virginia beach. i came here to virginia tech to help them develop their navy research program. this opportunity came up and i was a big supporter. i have been a big supporter of the virginia center for autonomous systems.

as a result of my interest, this opportunity came up and i said i would be happy to leave the effort. that is how i got involved. host: we have 15 or 20 minutes left with jon greene. he helped put together the proposal that was picked by the faa to be one of six unmanned system test sites. hone aso to guy on the p we show you video shots from the kentlands laboratory. he is calling from california on the line for democrats. caller: i will make this as quick as possible. i have a three-part comment and a proposition. i am 100% against drones, whether federal, state, or local. i live in southern california.

we feel like we're living in a police state. second, we need to look at the power plants on these platforms. we'll talk about local warming. we do not need to add any more fuel to the fire. third, we need to look at how organized crime may take a dvantage and abuse this technology, including terrorist organizations, who are in this country. host: any comments on any part of that statement? well, let me start with the first one. use of unmanned aircraft by police forces. there are a number of cases where we want the police to have these capabilities. i can think of a number of cases

in hostage situations where i would like to have the ability for unmanned aircraft to get in a building, and maybe fly around and locate -- maybe end up getting shot by the perpetrator, in this case. it does not put anyone's life and risk. i do agree, there needs to be a at how police forces are allowed to use unmanned aircraft, just like there is a look at how they can use wiretapping. we need to pay attention to that. it is important in a democracy. there are ways that this could be very useful and saved lives. was note last caller the first to bring up concerns

about this technology, the systems falling into the hands of terrorists. can you address that concern? guest: i do think that we need to pay attention to that as well. is, ast of the matter the previous caller mentioned, you can get one of these vehicles and expensively. you could potentially do some the various things. the larger vehicles will be expensive and they will be licensed, much like an aircraft is licensed. so, you know, i think if we are worried about terrorists getting a hold of aircraft, we have taken measures in regard to that with respect to commercial aircraft -- there is nothing to keep iteris from buying a general aviation aircraft today.

that could be used as an attack. i think we need to remember that these are tools. tools can be used in a positive manner or a negative manner. i would say that is true for a hammer and it is also true for a gun. it is also true for an unmanned aircraft. we need to look at the policy as we move forward and make sure we are getting it right. host: let's go to david in minnesota on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i appreciate you having this topic on the air and i appreciate mr. greene as the expert on the topic. overall, the concern with the drones is that we are getting a little too fast on the technology. people are having problems catching up. this is something that people are looking at right now. i am looking at a drone over mr.

shoulder and thinking i do not want that hovering over my house. my far larger concern is people. what happens on the highway when there is a neck that? -- an accident. gawkers. now i have a drone flying over city streets, what will people do? stop and start gawking. it will cause all kinds of problems. my real question right now is, how many drones, government, law enforcement, or commercial are in use right now? thank you. host: is that a number you know offhand? guest: no. i don't know. i am certain that dod has thousands. dsere are hundreds in the han

of researchers. then, if you start talking about the quad copter that you can buy at the hobby shop, again, there are many of them out there. more every day. that is a concern that we need to look at. tly, there is no regulation on the operation of unmanned aircraft as a hobby. you can fly up to 400 feet. you should not be within a certain number of miles of the airport, but other than that, you're supposed to play responsibly and there is no regulation. it is something worth looking at over the next few years. what is the difference between a

for a hobby and one that is form for commercial purposes? the rule is that a farmer can go out on his farm and fly a quad copter as a hobby. if you does the same flight profile and looks at his crops, that is not legal. we have some things to work out. host: talk a little bit about the global competition here. we are talking about the drone market. this map is from one of the brochures put out by your group at virginia tech. countriesin red, the that are developing unmanned aerial systems. they have deployed them, in red. in orange, those who have prototyped systems. and in green, the countries who have systems in development.

what is the competition in this market? well, it is pretty fierce and it is getting fiercer. the united states had a when these were only used for military purposes. as we are converting to commercial purposes, the restrictions we are facing from the faa and united states are allowing other countries to move further ahead of us. for example, there is a tremendous amount of crop dusting in japan. the vast majority -- i think the number is 90%. so, that is an application. we ought to look at it today. there are ways we can do that safely today. if you think about it, there are

tons. go ahead. host: here's a story from the wall street journal that talks about drones and regulations overseas. estrone stick flight over europe, regulators rush to catch up. this is from earlier this week. is trailing in the development of unmanned aircraft and its beginning an effort to avoid falling behind on commercial drones. the european union will spell out rules and could reach $27 billion per year. i will let you finish your statement. guest: what i would say is there are a number of places where they are flying unmanned aircraft today for commercial uses. many of you who watched the olympics noticed during the ski acrobatic event

-- there was the shadow of a drone used as a camera. this points out that there are ways to do this. we can limit it today and do it safely. we have to catch up in the regulatory aspects. host: on twitter, any new technology is a double-edged sword with great attention to. brandon, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. a lot of what we're seeing today is concerns about privacy. my concern is about safety. these vehicles fly at 400 feet and i believe that i heard they weigh 55 pounds.

if the battery or it runs out of fuel and falls out of the sky, how safe are we if it lands on her head or causes a crash while we are driving? host: jon greene? guest: well, that is my primary concern too. what i would say is, the safety of any tool depends on the weight is used. -- way it is used. it is important that we have trained and responsible operators using these tools as we move forward. is other thing to recognize the spectrum of risk here. a small quad copter -- i do not think we have one here. that is a lot less risky than one of the vehicles behind me. we need to take a graduated

approach to the way we operate. one of the things we are doing as we move forward is focusing on the ideas of low slow and small. we are going to be operating low, at slow speeds, with small aircraft. we will gain confidence in our procedures and train our folks to do things properly before moving forward. that is the kind of philosophy that the faa has about moving forward. you have the safest airspace in the world in the united states todays. charter is to allow us to integrate unmanned aircraft systems and keep it as safe as it is today. host: talk about what this program has meant to the community in blacksburg.

is there any extra safety precaution in place? --st: again, where we are starting out as a working farm. on the farmut here our university employees and students. we have a set of safety procedures that we put into lace -- place before we fly. we have an observer on site at all times. officer, issenior in place and ready to say at any point that we need to land the aircraft. we have been very careful about the way we have done that. flying over a populated area is the way to start. and to gain confidence in the system themselves.

if we have a failure and it falls on the sky, it falls down in damages corn, but not anybody. host: are there restrictions on flying over -- there was a train in the background of one of those pictures, going by as the drone was taking place. guest: right. the area that we are authorized to fly in this not go over those train tracks. we have a very small area here at the farm that we are able to fly in. we have done unintentionally because we have only made it as far as it needs to be. as we move forward and gain confidence -- and maintain safety, we will fly over larger areas. eventually, we have all seen the amazon commercial --

that they want to deliver things to populated areas. that is where we're are headed, but it will take years. host: we have a few minutes left with jon greene of the mid-atlantic aviation partnership. he is the interim executive director there and is joining us live from the experimental aerial systems laboratory in a blacksburg, near virginia tech. jeff is on the phone from st. louis, missouri. on the line for independents. caller: good morning and thank you very much. i have his back, but this is absolutely spooky. this is 1984. can you see the ios having their own fleet of drones? the government will have them. they will be buzzing around. they're going to take advantage

of it. it will be intimidating and i will want a drone to protect my space. i know i will never be able to buy a drone that will protect me. this is big brother. host: can i ask you to respond to this tweet? what is the difference if police use binoculars, manned aircraft, or drone? caller: personally, a drone is more invest the -- invasive. a helicopter, fine. a drone, small drone -- they are inexpensive, they can be more people can have them. they can be closer to your house. a helicopter cannot get that close. what can you attach to the strong? -- these drones? all kinds of things. it is truly spooky.

host: let's go to georgia on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, sir. how are you? host: you are on with jon greene from virginia tech. caller: i have a commercial drivers license. i see the trait in the background. there is a state highway right there. the expressway goes right by virginia tech. what happens if one of your experiments get out of line? it is dangerous. host: if you want to respond -- guest: it is potentially dangerous. so is flying an aircraft. what i would say is, where we're flying today is probably 15 miles from 460, which is the

expressway that goes next virginia tech. there is literally no way that one of these vehicles would end up over there. up going offend the reservation. that is why we are starting out in unpopulated areas with land that is owned by virginia tech. this is only our own employees here. we notice going on and we can do it safely. as we move forward, we need the same reliability built into the systems that we have in general aviation aircraft today, may be better. if you think about it, also right next to 460 is the blacksburg aircraft. aircraft are taking off there all day long and flying over 460. there is a risk. there is a risk that one of those aircraft could end up interfering with somebody on

460. what we do is we train our pilots that, in an emergency, you look for an area where you can land safely as possible. we will do the same thing with unmanned aircraft. we have emergency procedures. when there is a problem, they will go to those areas that are preprogrammed, where they can put down safely. host: before we let you go, you told us about your work with the faa. tell us what this industry needs from congress, from your perspective. know, the keyou thing we need is the ability to make money out of drones. the rules are that you cannot operate an unmanned aircraft system for commercial purposes. ability,there is the

with significant restrictions and with clear rules to operate safely in some applications. the things i withdraw our agriculture. we can do that quickly. we need those rules for how we can fly unmanned aircraft systems. that is the bottom line. greene, the interim director, we appreciate you joining us this morning from the laboratory down there near virginia tech. c-span 3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we head back to the virginia tech laboratory, where woolsey.ned by craig we have talked a lot about the future today. can you talk about the history of drones?

was this borne out of hobbyists or military? where did this start? guest: there has been a confluence from both directions. the military has been using these systems for decades. the first uses were aerial targets, really. unmanned systems were used for reconnaissance early in the vietnam war. some would say the earliest was who flew oney, mile down the potomac river before the wright brothers had their first flight. hobbyists have developed their own technology for decades as well. really, being very innovative with that. recently, the miniaturization of electronics made it possible to do more. my graduatearch, students use a lot of products developed by innovators and hobby markets.

there is a confluence leading to progress. host: talk about the difference between unmanned systems and autonomous aircraft. we are using these terms interchangeably. explain the difference. for giving meou the opportunity to do that. unmanned aircraft are vehicles that do not have human operators or passengers on board. they are not necessarily self-control. they may be robotically operated. says we are working on unmanned aircraft systems. every system will have a pilot in command. it is true that aircraft are capable of controlling their own flight. that is what we mean by autonomous. autonomous flight is self-controlled flight. an autonomous car is a self driving car.

we are interested in advancing this technology at making it possible for vehicles to really control themselves. we are experienced with this with cruise control. thinkt these vehicles to well enough to behave safely. host: when we read stories about amazon package deliveries and see video projections of drones delivering packages down streets, is that farther off than the work you are doing now? guest: i think it is. the grand vision -- there are a lot of problems to solve. is would be that jeff bezos going to fly a package from broadway -- there are a lot of technological problems to solve. there will have to be awnings and tree branches and traffic lights in the way.

the aircraft will have to behave safely. it will have to synch well enough to mitigate hazards. i heard a caller from louisiana ask what happens when there is a failure? the vehicle needs to deal with that in a way that a human operator would. i think it is a little far off. one of the problems that the faa is concerned about is the ability to see and avoid other aircraft. we have not solved by a. -- that yet. host: what sort of license to your pilots need? we saw one earlier. we are showing one now. what kind of license do they have to fly those vehicles? what do the other people do there? well, the pilot in command has taken the faa

written exam. some are actual private pilot. they have also passed a medical exam. there are two medicals. in addition, there are personnel around to our scanning the airway for other aircraft. in the same sense that a driver scans the highway for other drivers who may be misbehaving, we assume that all of the drivers are licensed and trained at some point. that does not mean they are all behaving properly. we always scan the roadway for other traffic hazards. the faa requires the same thing of pilots. whether general aviation or manned aircraft. the aircrafts that cannot do this and avoid attacks on its own. in addition to the pilot, who is flying the aircraft, there are

other personnel to make sure that the plane is de-conflicted with other air traffic. host: we're talking with craig woolsey, director of the research center we have been featuring today. we're taking your calls and questions and comments for the next 40 minutes or so, as we continue to discuss drones. professor, you talked about the miniaturization of the technology. here's a question for michael on twitter -- paranoia aside, is it true that nanotechnology can make drones small enough to become a " fly on the wall?" guest: i will not say no. there is definitely interest in pushing these things down. you can develop new capabilities. the smallest i know of is at harvard, the robo fly.

it is an amazing vehicle. so yes, there is a move towards miniaturization. the applications are -- a lot of the work has been turned by the defense agency. they have their own applications of mind. we do not work at that jail in my lab. -- scale in my lab. host: we are seeing several drones over your shoulders. can you talk about the drones in use at virginia tech? guest: absolutely. my group works with primarily fixed wing aircraft, which is what people think of when you talk about airplanes. i have a colleague who works with rotary aircraft, which is helicopters. and i have a colleague in plant pathology, and the college of agriculture. he uses fixed wing aircraft to study plants. these are used for a variety of research activities, focused on

everything from plant pathology to bio security. in my case, i have aircraft that we used to study flight control. i have a colleague who is very interested in making these vehicles operate more effectively in difficult conditions. we use these to go out and demonstrate the controlled algorithms. guest: several folks are waiting to ask you questions. we will start in ohio on the line for independents. good morning, linda. caller: good morning, professor. i wanted to talk about the failure of congress and the state to anticipate the legal infrastructure needed to protect citizens. my question is, this is way behind in technology. cell phones and everything else. what happens when the press gets a hold of them? what happens when private

investigators decide to use them? what happens in a divorce situation where a husband or wife decides to stock their sp ouse? how long will it take to adjudicate? host: professor? guest: thank you, those are great questions. i think that the legal construct will evolve in parallel with the technology. my fear is that our fears will present a technology that does have a lot of uses -- andable uses to society might be stunted on concerns that could be addressed through existing procedures. i think your points are well taken. they have come up when other technologies have evolved. the ability to have cell phones, for example. or what comes to mind is the face recognition. seehe same time, will we

football stadiums for people who committed misdemeanors or something like that? these are legitimate concerns. that the have faith legal system will keep pace with the development of technology. maybe you have less faith. my fear is that if we are to afraid of the potential misuse of technology, and there are some, we will avoid the technology altogether. --t: a question from twitter is there an educational program available that will teach you how to be a drone pilot? there are such programs. we do not have one here at virginia tech. we focus more on the engineering of systems. there are other universities in our consortium and around the

country that are developing programs focused on training people to be unmanned operators. that is important. it is important that the operators of these vehicles are well trained and well versed in these regulations. i see the technology evolving in a way that you have relatively few, well certified operators, who provide services. maybe everyone will have a drone and operate these things and create hazards. i think the reality will be closer to relatively few trained operators providing services to consumers and clients. host: let's go to fill in clearwater, florida. caller: good morning. great show. as a former land owner and farmer, if i saw one of these over my house, i would shoot it down. that is all there is to it. what do you think about that?

i know americans will not put up with this. host: professor? guest: well, you are not the first person to suggest that. there is a congressional candidate in montana who says he would do the same thing in his campaign videos. that is dangerous. the vehicles that are in their, they are there legitimately. sophisticatedy vehicles. if you shoot at one, it will not operate to where it is supposed to. it may pose a danger to people on the ground. the concern over -- i gather that your concern is that the reason the vehicle is there is to invade your privacy. that is a policy concern. jon,rmer colleague -- addressed that issue as well. host: we showed our viewers a

poll that came out yesterday. of their study of technology and the next 50 years. at the public is largely unenthusiastic about these of nonmilitary drones in the country. 63% of americans who would be a change for the worse it personal commercial drones are used. are those number surprising to you? guest: i think there is a good reason that those are the numbers that show up in the polls. we have unmanned operating systems in public view for years. -- providingity security for war fighters in afghanistan. them providing intelligence and surveillance

-- at theaissance militaristic uses, the reasons why they were developed heard what we will not s. oft of my job and the job these unmanned aerial system test sites is to go out in a very controlled way and demonstrate the potential commercial uses of these vehicles and uses by first responders and others that will help to sway opinion. i'm not surprised that is the prevailing opinion. host: matthew in louisiana on line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. in google earth live on google and it showed that they have a pilot program in california where they are

watching everything that is being done on our streets. if you punch that up, it will show you the pilot program. i'm sure drones are some of the problem. as american citizens, do we really want to be watched 24 hours a day? the government is not our parents. e are other ther privacy concerns besides this emerging grown technology? caller: right. it isre some of the distrf drones, but i was shocked when i read up on that. missouri on our live for republicans. good morning. hello.

if thereting to know is any relation between the drone and the picture i am saying on television with the fellow from virginia tech -- between that and the old flying saucers back in the 1950's. i have seen this with my whole family in jefferson county. these saucers flying up in the and making a weird noise lights flashing and everything and all of a sudden it took off. host: you think these old stories might be a government drone as opposed to some of these other explanations out there? i think it might be the start of something like that. airline pilots have all seen these.

host: you talked the bit about the history of drones earlier. how long have these larger drones like the large helicopter behind you -- how long has that technology been around? technology specific behind me has been around for a couple of decades. the 1990's is when they were introduced in japan. mr. green talked about how japan -- 90% is autonomous vehicles. the fellow in the pickup truck who drives from field to field and watch as the vehicle and sprays fertilizer or herbicide -- the technology has been around for a long time. passenger aircraft has been capable of this operation for a long time. the ability to do this is not new. what is new is the idea that you would have an unmanned aircraft

system with no pilot or passengers on board. that is what is bringing up the policy concerns. host: staying on technology for a second. an e-mail from bill in pennsylvania. "if the drone loses power, a parachute is deployed for soft that is oneest: thing they have looked at. there are others. with these aircraft, if you lose power, you may be able to recover the aircraft if -- in our operations, we are high enough and close enough to the airfield that we can still bring t in.ircraft and glid i there are ways to fix or recover the aircraft. in the case where that is just not possible, there are additional mitigations you can take to guarantee that the risk of injury or damage to property is minimum. bring out the aircraft in a way

that will minimize the risk of collateral damage. host: one caller was concerned drones.ollution from what do they run on? the unmanned behind me is electric powered. that is becoming more common as the motors get better and power batteries get better. we will see more of that use of the power system. and doesis it quiet not admit exhaust, it is also very reliable. the best engine pollution systems are historically very reliable. i think at one time 40% of the losses of unmanned aircraft, the propulsion

performance problems. you are seeing move toward electric power. they don't have long endurance, but that is changing. het power you mentioned -- mentioned global warming and other concerns. some of the uses of these technologies are to address exactly those concerns. the ability to have an aircraft in the air for a day and a half, ocean allows you scanning ofedented those problems. the vehicles are being used to address exactly that kind of problem. one of the issuesst: you brought up is replacing some

of the current technologies that are out there like cropdusting planes with more precision use of drones. explain that effort. guest: in general, one of the reasons why doing cropdusting with an aircraft is appealing is it's a dangerous occupation. at one time, it was the most werhal occupation for manpo in the united states. cropdusting is still an effective and efficient way to apply fertilizer or herbicide. it is very dangerous. automating that particular operation, there is tremendous potential for the vehicle. if you move to a smaller scale and vehicles capable of hovering in place and doing detailed imagery, you can start to address the problems we treat with herbicide. we are concerned about disease.

it is expensive to do that and not environmentally sound. it would be better if you could find where the disease is starting to emerge and go and treat it right there. it will cost a lot less and result in higher yield and the less run off of these chemicals. host: sam waiting in blacksburg, virginia on our line for democrats. good morning. i was regina chosen to have the test site -- why was virginia chosen to have the test site? guest: thank you very much. virginia tech has a well-established history of using unmanned air systems for these research purposes that i talked about. --the national airspace control of economist vehicles, many of them have chosen to work indoors for the problems of

getting approval from the faa. it's an onerous process. we committed to doing that. working with the ffa in order to operate safely. having developed that relationship with the faa played virginiae in an virgini tech's selection. we have accomplished partners in our program. a number of universities and commercial organizations that are cutting edge with the technology. the overall team is outstanding and virginia tech's history helped us to win the award. host: we are showing a video of one of your student pilots bringing in one of these smaller drones that was tested earlier this month.

what kind of jobs are the student pilots and the researchers down there at your lab going to go into? host: the students are all pursuing aerospace engineering degrees. they're getting masters or doctorate in aerospace engineering. they're studying advanced mathematics. the kinds of jobs they will go into might include working for companies like some of the smaller companies we mentioned earlier. boeing lockheed martin. service go into civil working at places like the faa or nasa. a number of them may go into academia and continue the fundamental research. host: ted on a republican line from florida. good morning. concernedm a little

with the program. why haven't we discussed the technology that is already out usingthat i happen to be that makes the government itself on and flies the dgi platform? in one hour, the american public can go to any local hobby shop and spend $1500 and be a drone and attach a go pro to it and videotape or do any surveillance they would like to do in a quicktime and easy fashion. with a drone that connects to satellites and is failproof. that is a great question. for privates citizens to go and buy or build

and fly drones has been codified since at least 1981. john mentioned the advisory circular in 1981. as long as you keep it below 400 feet and below 55 pounds, you can go and fly. that is a great question. the technology is there. that brings up a point i would like to make. i think about these policy issues at some. who can violate your privacy? let's play that game. the government is physically capable of violating her privacy. people are very sensitive to that right now after the snowden revelations. people are rightfully concerned about what the government can and can't do with these vehicles. david industry might be able to violate your privacy. a good example of that is someone mentioned google earlier. they had this idea that they were going to develop street view. we will add imagery to our maps

of the environment and people walking around in the city and we can look at their street view and see where they are. there was a lot of outrage over that. people are in the pictures. we will blur the faces and license plates and they put up the website so if you think your face is not poor enough, you can ask them to make it blurrier. they put in policies to address this. this is the third entity -- other private citizens. that is absolutely true and a legitimate concern. there are harassment laws on the books. people can do that. that concern has nothing to do with the commercial use of unmanned aerial systems, which is trying toaa address. hobby use is already there. they can put a camera on and go and fly legally.

the wood is illegal is the kinds of things that will turn the tide of public opinion and allow us to make advances in service to civil society with commercial uses. "am i allowed to shoot down a drone over my property?" guest: you are not. the faa controls the airspace. they have come out -- there was issuedy in colorado that a hunting license for drugs. the faa responded that it was a bad idea. you will create a serious safety hazard. legal to shoot down a drone that is operating over your property. tois perfectly in your right find out who is doing it and bring it to the attention of law enforcement and maybe a harassment case. host: we have 15 minutes left.

let's go back to the phones. and tony is in newport, tennessee on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i am behind technology. if it was not technology, the united states would not be where it is today. callers rbr will bring. are youof your callers will bring. s-- some of your callers are bewildering. -- hed the guy who said does not remember way back when there was a woman lying in the

and they were looking for things that got confiscated and they took the wrong amount. and can cover the borders the seas and cover everything a lot better with drugs coming in from other countries. about all i have to say. i'm behind technology. my friend was a teacher where you are. i back you guys 100%. you very much for your comments. i agree with you. there are a lot of compelling applications for the systems

that people need to keep in mind while they are continuing to raise concerns that they have. ofre are lots of examples operations of manned aircraft that could be made safer if we automated them. i have colleagues in the will flywho routinely low and fast as they do radio surveys and things like that. of think of recent incidents police helicopters, one recently in atlanta that crashed and killed a couple of occupants. -- it would bes a real tragedy if we don't enable first responders to have access to this kind of technology in the case of disasters. host: "how high can drones fly and collect atmospheric data?" guest: good question. drones fly up to 60,000 feet.

we have high-altitude aircraft that can fly above 60,000 feet, above commercial traffic and can stay there for more than a day. -- theere is a concern weather is a concern. in blacksburg, the conditions of operations require that we fly in fair weather conditions. plenty of visibility and low wind. host: mike waiting in arizona on line for republicans. caller: i had an opportunity to be a test engineer for missiles and space they were developing. they could do a figure eight and anda laser beam on a target

fire from 10 clicks away to hit the target. it had the capability of making sweeps on areas of land miles for items that were not natural items like tanks. at the time, it was developed for a scenario and the soviet union collapsed and so did our programs. we perfected hours somewhere was workingwhere it and the army had accepted it as an artillery spotter.

that's my story. i see all the things about drones coming up. there is nothing particularly frightening about them. maybe the navigation gets off a bit, which we had problems with. arizonatesting it in and flights got lost approaching tucson or mexico city. fortunately, there were no accidents. a new technology that we were helping. -- that we were developing. host: his experience on the military drone side. guest: that's a great comment. we as american taxpayers have been supporting the development of this technology for decades. it is very cable.

the development to date has been for military purposes, so that is what we see in the news. the vehicles developed to serve military purposes. have an opportunity now to realize a benefit from all of that investment. a dividend, if you will, from the investment the department of defense has made. towe can only find a path certification for commercial use. that is what these test sites are all about. itping the faa helped make possible for companies and service providers to make money using unmanned aerial systems in the national airspace and the united states to solve problems that desperately need to be solved. host: are the biggest challenges the regulatory side or the technology side? guest: regulatory. there are some technology hurdles. one of them is this requirement that the aircraft be able to see and avoid other aircraft.

that is the one that the faa holds up as the major hurdle to clear. the reason the faa is in the position they are in is because there is such a clamor from the developers of the technology to allow them to adapt these technologies for useful agricultureses like -- it happens in rural areas where there's not a lot of air traffic. that is one good reason. agriculture is a major driver of our economy. there is a tremendous benefit if we can increase the yield and crop security. there is a tremendous benefit to that. a sense of trust in the systems and develop technology as well. we will address concerns as they arise. i definitely see policy as the bigger challenge right now. those six faa unmanned

aircraft system test sites around the country on the map. university of alaska and texas a&m and virginia tech, where we are bringing our viewers live this morning on a special show today of the "washington journal." some video shot earlier this month of a drone test that happened at that virginia tech test side. let's go to nelson in tennessee on our line for democrats. you're on with the professor. caller: good morning. understand that we live in a rural area. it is an agricultural community. research has been

done. it is very beneficial. done with theeen units and how cost effective and how many acres can be used and how widespread will it be done per unit? i will hang up and listen. guest: that's a great question. you bald and it will become clear what is and is not cost effective. inan say that my colleagues -- our laboratory ollegeated on the c farm. they are very interested in

advancing the technology. i have one colleague who is a who has a innovative ideas for how to use the systems. he is interested in plant seed and how it spreads. he uses a small unmanned aerial systems to collect plant pathogen spores, which are these tiny spores that are released by diseased plants and carried up and bounced around in the atmosphere until they are deposited on another healthy plant. you use unmanned aerial systems to sample these things? they're very sparsely distributed and tiny. you have to sample huge volumes of air to get a statistically significant sample. the small unmanned very cool come in 20 minutes you can sample thousands of liters of air and develop a very good measurement of what you are looking for. if you can do this repeatedly, you may be able to find the source of the spores and

identify the location more easily and quickly and mitigated. it.nd mitigate there is a lot of innovative thinking about how to use the systems in our culture. it is not just cropdusting. host: you talk about your colleagues down there. how did you get involved in this work? what is your specific research area? guest: my background is in controlled theory. i develop mathematical models of vehicles and develop theories to help based on those models control themselves better. that is oftion interest to me and to my sponsors his vehicle control. we work with atmospheric flight and autonomous underwater vehicles. my interest is in making the systems behave more smartly and

more effectively and more efficiently and more robustly. host: ed in north carolina on our life republicans -- our line for republicans. i just want to know how low these things are legally allowed to fly. i know you have some callers call up and talk about shooting know that in't wouldn't do that if i did not know what it was. i think we've got enough corruption in our government -- and that is why people are concerned. we have an attorney general who refuses to enforce our laws. that is disturbing. that is where i have a problem with it. i love the idea of the technology and would love to see it go forward. there is general concerns about this. i want to know how low these things can apply. i can have an interest passing

sign on my property. if i'm 1000 yards from anybody, i'm not allowed to do anything about it? guest: there are a couple of questions there. how high or low can these aircraft fly? i'm required to keep the aircraft below 400 feet. the faa's concern is de-conflicting the operations of these vehicles with other aircraft. the nature of your question is more, do i own the airspace over my property? the answer is, no. the faa regulates that airspace. you don't have a right to build a tall tower that would with thely conflict air traffic without letting the faa know that.

to can't watch your own uab several thousand feet because it might interfere with other air traffic. the faa is concerned about the airspace and they regulated from the ground up. there are people who think that we should look at minimum altitude limits for these things. is fairly advanced in the development of policy where these vehicles. because of their advancement in the development of policy, they are seeing issues arise. they are seeing problems arise. it is not because they have more problems than we do. they are allowing more operations than we are because their policies more events. there was a recent incident where a young woman was hit by a multi-rotor vehicle that was there filming the triathlon. and itt to the hospital turned out the operator was not licensed.

there is a licensing program in australia and the operator was operating illegally. they do have a minimum altitude of 30 meters. you need to get away from people if there is a problem. you need to be high enough that you have room to do that. if you are too low, the altitude arguments for establishing minimums as well. the director of the virginia center for autonomous systems. you can check out more of his work and the virginia tech site at unmanned.