but more can and should be done. despite these positive steps, we need to permit expanded uses of uas technology that pose no additional risk to the air space system. for example, whether within the context of the rule through the reauthorization, ore by other means, we need to allow for a beyond visual line of sight, nighttime operation and operations over congested areas otherwise we risk stungting a still nation industry. uas technology is advancing rapidly. thanks to collaboration between industry and government. ...

>> better coordination will ensure we're maximizing the impact of these efforts. while the results announced pathfinder programmer show great progress, we need better visibility on how they will fit into the larger integration picture. third, congress should consider making the faa uas test sites

eligible for existing federal funding. while these test sites have been active for over a year, access to fund will give industry guidance and incentivize, and an incentive to better utilize the test site. fourth, we support the development of a u.s. traffic management system. some commercial uas operation will occur at low levels and is there space may become complex. the traffic management system of integrated uas into the infrastructure and ensure the continued safety of the airspace for all users and manned and unmanned. finally, knowing to uas integration must be done in coordination with a nextgen air transportation system there is an opportunity to consider linking the two efforts and the resources more effectively. we are pleased to see the faa recognized the need for more senior level attention with a new director and a senior advisor position on uas integration and look forward to working with those individuals once they are a board. in closing, uas technology is an

exciting, i is that an exciting and pivotal stage with new applications being complicated nearly every day. the increasing potential on us to ask you dangerous or difficult tasks safely and efficiently. thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. thank you. we will get back to you for questions. mr. geiger, advocacy director and senior counsel for the center of democracy, technology. welcome and your recognize. >> chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings and numbers of the committee, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify today on the subject of unmanned aircraft systems also known as the drones. i am harley geiger senior counsel at the server democracy technology, cdt is a nonpartisan, nonprofit technology policy advocacy organization dedicated to preserving civil liberties such as privacy and free speech while enabling government agencies to

provide security encompassed in figure i have three overarching points out what to make with regard to drones. by tesla focus on privacy although closer many other policy issues that are so say with unmanned aircraft. first unmanned aircraft systems out a promising technology might have potential to erode civil liberties by enabling pervasive surveillance. second, current laws do not provide strong privacy protection from government or private unmanned aircraft and a lack of privacy protection undermines public trust which holds back the industry. third, to earn public acceptance of uas which will promote its commercial drones, both governmenthegovernment and the y should put address civil liberties issues through a combination of legislation and an industry code of conduct. in my time remain apple extended his point. we want to see uas used for commerce, journalism, disaster relief, scientific research and more. however neither the government

nor the uas industry should ignore the potential for uas to enable pervasive surveillance that underwent civil liberties. here is a nightmare scenario. law enforcement establishes a broad-based drone dragnet that constantly tracks individuals in popular outdoor areas chilling the public's right to free expression, free association and assembly. at the same time a network of commercial unmanned aircraft record footage of virtually every american who steps out of her home even if that individual remains on private property. this may seem like a far-fetched to to do some. however, few existing laws would stand in the way and the public does not yet trust the discretion of the cup of uas industry to prevent this from becoming a reality. when it comes to government the uas, cdt believes prolonged surveillance of individuals in public places violates fourth amendment principles. the supreme court has held that

americans have no expectation of privacy from aerial surveillan surveillance. the supreme court has even held the fourth amendment does not violate when a police helicopter looks into the entry of a private building through a hole in the ceiling without a word. bottom line, there's very little protection in terms of privacy from government use outdoors. law enforcement use is the most acute concern the public has with uas. to address the public's concern congress should pass legislation that him and other things establishes due process standards for law enforcement use of uas. congress should limit law enforcement use to instances where the government has a ward or circumstances or other narrowly tailored exceptions. cdt believes preserving american privacy act would provide strong due process protection without

unreasonably burdening non-law-enforcement uses such a scientific research. cd supports these bills and urges congress to pass them smoothly. when it comes to private-sector uas, common-law privacy provides some protection out of them but only if the contact is highly offensive to reasonable person. any government regulation of private uas must not violate our first amendment right to take photographs from public places. industry code of conduct will help provide a basic protections from private uas where regulation cannot. it wil will be effective only ie industry agrees to adopt strong and enforceable code. the code proposed does not cut it. the code should establish reasonable limits on uas collection and retention of personally identifiable information and the coach agreed a publicly accessible registry of uas data collection policies, though there should be exceptions for that registry.

the code should also establish cybersecurity standards to prevent hijacking an unauthorized damage to uas systems. finally, cdt recommends the industry export technical measures to protect individual privacy and physical spaces was enhanced transparency for private uas systems. thank you for holding this hearing a look forward to your questions. >> thank you. thank all the witnesses. we will go right to question. as i mentioned in my opening statement having been involved in this little while, back in 2003 when we did one of the first faa reauthorization's, there was nothing and a builder it's amazing how technology does change our lives and amazing of government has failed to give up with changes in technology and craft the law to match that. we fall further and further behind it seems. in 2012 when it did the last reauthorization i tried to get specific and old people's feet to the fire.

we do that by putting some milestones and deadlines. and in the law we said for example, we said required to planning for integration. this is a lot that was passed. comprehensive plan not later than 270 days after the enactment of this act as secretaries purgation with consultation with the federal agencies, basically we have come up with a plan. was that deadline met? >> yes, sir. both a comprehensive plan and defied the roadmap were developed. ever both published in november of 2013. >> so further hold the feet to the fire, and some things have been done as we pointed out and i mentioned earlier, we put a deadline, the plan required under paragraph one shall provide a safe integration of civil unmanned aviation systems into the national airspace as is

practical but not later than september 30, 2015. that's the deadline we put into is that deadline going to b be met? >> you sort of another full integration -- >> at the deadline is not going to be met? >> no. >> when do you predict it will be met? >> we are taking the issue in manageable bites, if you will. >> you testified that you are granting exemptions and waivers at a pretty rapid rate, would you say, 50 a week speak with yes, sir. >> that's not what we intend that we intended for basically to have the will in place by september. that's not going to be met. we are going to get an faa bill, and we should hold their feet to the fire again. i don't know how you hold their feet to the fire because we missed a deadline that we have set in you. but we're going have to do something. is there something we're missing

that we haven't done that could provide you with the assets to move forward or make certain this happens as soon as possible, and what is your deadline of? >> we have broken the task into pieces, if you will. >> when will it be done in. >> so the will was issued earlier this year, in february. comments were closed in april. we received 4500 comments speed is all that's part of the record. when will we be done speak with so the rule, we have to adjudicate those comments come through the rollout by the end of the year -- >> sixteen, 17? >> the rule of what the in place within ear. >> within a year. so that down, staff. we would do a hearing a different offensive have completed that task. the problem in the meantime is your granting exceptions and waivers. it's sort of a spotty policy

that's in place. some folks talked about addressing risks, and that's the most important thing, wouldn't you say, is avoiding risk? >> safety is certainly our priority. >> by the same token we are falling a little further behind somebody other countries. mr. misener, what are you seeing? this hearing is about commercialization and moving forward. is the use falling further behind? $10 billion, a billion dollars here for the next 10 years we would lose by not having commercial rules in place for operation of drones. >> u.s. plan is not as aggressive as in other countries. >> the our a host of issues. privacy. we have this little question with the staff and some of us. who basically is in charge of

setting rules for privacy? is that the individual state and law enforcement was is that the department of justice? is this in as a responsibility? mr. whitaker, ma maybe you could shed some light on how we protect people's privacy? >> the president issued a presidential memorandum february designating a national telecommunications information has a lead on this issue. they open for public comment. i think that's closed. we're certainly a stakeholder in this conversation but speedy so we need to call them and ask them when they will have the rules in place for protecting privacy. but it is multijurisdictional. pickets beyond just the federal level to protect privacy, isn't? >> aviation has long been a federal initiative entry into the state authorities and i would assume -- >> i drone operated under 500 feet, whose responsibility would that be, federal or, local

law enforcement is already using some devices and other folks are using it. who controls, that's probably the biggest concern privacy, somebody within 500 feet over people's homes, property, surveillance capability of these drones. >> by statute even at those altitudes its federal airspace. >> so we will wait to see the development of that and specifics on that rule. i predict that there will be, you know, sometimes we don't move until there's an incident. there will be a crash, probably fatalities because he had so many of these things flying. i hope it doesn't take down a commercial aircraft. i hope it doesn't have a lot of details but i think it's inevitable. how many thousands of these drones are now flying?

i for different figures from several thousand to 20,000 flying. >> i don't know the exact figures. i think it's important to distinguish the vast majority of those are amateur operations, not covered under the rule. we are prohibited by statute from regulating that sector. >> that still remains the primary risk. did you want to comment? >> to your question on who is in charge of privacy, so the faa is regulating safety, and safety is very limited, a very limited mandate when it comes to also providing privacy regulations. -question whether not the faa could put for the rules on privacy. >> that's interesting because when we were talking about this several years ago, when we drafted this legislation, i was

told it was the department of justice or judicial matter that privacy, and those outside of our realm deregulate but maybe in this faa bill, do you think we should have rather than the president said, however he did it, what was it, executive order? >> presidential memorandum speed should we have something in federal law? >> we do think there should be standards in federal law. the 2012 the mentioned privacy exactly zero times. the privacy issue has plagued the discussion. >> you said the 2012 -- >> modernization and reform act. >> i just explain to you when we started down that path concerns were raised on both sides of the aisle about privacy. is a big deal. that we were told it was outside our realm. it was really a judicial matter and outside the purview of the

transportation committee was considering the legislation at that time. we're basically without except what the president has set forth, and maybe that, some parts of it should be codified. that would be a summery? >> parts of the. all the with the president set forth is quite limited. the department of justice essentially says, and does good things in the policy, but it is also very limited. they will use ues for unauthorized use harmonize with the fifth amendment o. it doesn't provide any additional protection would be on what is in current law. the process will not touch government use. >> let's go to the ranking member, mr. cummings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. geiger, the expectation of privacy, talk about that, certainly no court cases in light of the question comes down

to what is expected of the person. i guess when you have drones it really broadens the expectation, is that right? it kind of throws, it just opens the door to all kinds of surveillance. do you follow what i'm saying? >> i do. i believe this is how courts will interpret that in the future. right now the supreme court has interpreted the regional expectation of privacy doctrine do not include aerial surveillance from the publicly navigable airspace. i can only imagine that regional expectation of privacy standard or in common law torts would count as highly offensive to raise will persevere i will only imagine that will shrink as more and more ues take to the sky. this is one reason why we are arguing that current federal law

does not provide adequate privacprivacy protection to we d not just rely on common law or the fourth amendment, the ought to be something in federal law that provides the due process. >> if you were trying to put that law together to try to balance, allowing drones to operate but at the same time trying to maintain some reasonable assemblies of privacy for citizens of our country, what would that look like? do you have something that you all put together? what elements would you be looking at? >> is a couple bills right now which provide a good starting point. representative paul and lofgren are serving american private sector protecting, provide good starting point to both our focus largely on law enforcement use.

as i said, company statement, in part because the publics concerned with privacy and ues is most actually felt with law enforcement used to i don't think people are quite as concerned with uses of research, disaster relief and so forth. on the commercial side any regulations would have to be aligned with the first amendment and, therefore, will be limited. side think the combination of the due process stand and industry code of conduct could provide meaningful privacy protection to individual. on government use rethink their to be a board standard with exceptions for exigent circumstances and other recent exceptions for law enforcement use. as well as a registry of government ues applications that is publicly available, much the same way the faa, as a registry for small aircraft. >> you know, with all of the cameras everywhere on light

posts, on buildings and of course as you well know many crimes are solved, people don't even know that they're being observed. it seems to me that they would be an argument that with all of that, that technology out there, that i would one want to differ from company, straight away from the idea that a drone is going too far? just as i'm talking i'm making the argument. the drone can follow you to the light post. >> first of all we do have civil liberties concerns with a ground base surveillance system. our concern is largely tech neutral, but drones do have capabilities both because of their vantage point to get

talked about ground-based cctv, you turn a corner and into your fenced in yard in the ground-based cctv can no longer see but it would be very hard to escape the scope of observation of a sophisticated and highflying ues. so privacy intrusion is potentially greater. >> tony, can you tell me, tommy about how -- tell me about how amazon, i just want to know the logistics how that works. what are you all trying to do something as a package that they want in iowa tonight, so what happens speak with a customer -- >> and the package is then, watches you. go. >> mr. cummings, i have three seconds. seconds. >> i just want a picture of how it works. >> very fast delivery system. we have distribution facilities throughout the country.

we would like to enable the network of facilities to deliver packages to customers more quickly than his curly possible using the ground transportation network. we look into all different kinds of functionalities. what really works are drones. in this way i passed will be able to order something off of our website and have it delivered in less than 30 minutes to his or her home. she doesn't have to go to the store, try to get a delivery truck to bring the it just gets delivered to her house spent a just pops up on a drone right in front of your door speak with yes, sir. >> okay. [laughter] mr. wynne, the faa proposed rulemaking this -- >> we have a basket of fresh fruits headed your way right now last night spent essential use of drones such as crop monitoring, bridge inspections, aerial photography. can you give us a few other examples of commercial use of

drones at? >> there's all manner of infrastructure that needs to be inspected in the country. for example, natural gas pipelines, high-voltage lines, et cetera. that would be another example of large industries that are just chomping at the bit to embrace the technology. so the small uses, lord jesus, there's visual like the site when it comes to taking pictures of the house from a different angle for a real estate agent, all the way through insurance companies inspecting after a hurricane stand event. what's going on in a particular area, areas that are inaccessible to agents and gain information as quickly as possible. >> faa's mission is and i quote to provide the safest most efficient aerospace system in the world. can you expect some the challenges of integrating drones into our nation's airspace? >> one of the challenges that we can much more complex and

diverse airspace and any other country and abuse your airspace, so in addition to for the biggest airlines in the world and thousands of pubs unit business aviation, nearly 200,000 general aviation operations, helicopters, rescue vehicles that fly in all airspace. so integrating instead of setting aside space to operate but integrating into the airspace requires that these new vehicles be able to stay clear of the existing vehicle. to detect and avoid. that's a major technological challenge that has to be solved the you also have to solve the communications challenge, the operator communicates with the vehicle, what the spectrum is that is allocated and what happens if that link breaks. these are some the technology issues being researched in various venues that we need to fully understand then build standards around so we can fully integrate this into the system. >> not long ago a fellow had a

little drone at the white house and all of us were very concerned about them. i know that that's a significant concern of many. and i'm just trying to figure out, if you all of these objects flying around and then you've got a lot of people on the ground, and he got to protect airspace, it just seems to me like we are headed towards disaster. at some point. >> we're going to try to make sure that doesn't happen but there actually very robust technology that will allow this type of editing tested in various -- >> allow what could have been?

>> the vehicle to stay clear from humans and other vehicles. we need to make sure that technology is robust enough to incorporate into our air system. >> i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. massie? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. whitaker, i'm glad to see that we have a proposed rule that we've been way off a longtime the ice on the transportation committee and we been pushing for this. i'm excited to see this. i think does allow a large class of operations that heretofore have not been able to operate, but mr. wynne, can you talk about the types of commerce that will not be facilitated by this rule, particularly that require but that at all times there has to be an operator that got you like the site to the drone. can you talk about some of, some of the applications that can't

be practiced because of that rule? >> the easy one is mr. misener's, the application he was talking about earlier. that does require beyond visual line of sight. that is all manner of inspections that i was mentioning as well. bnsf was mentioned earlier being able to check for split rails in advance of trained. other infrastructure, et cetera. and just if you imagine one of the early applications, early adopters of this technology will be agricultural interest, farmers, looking to all manner of inspection of the property. some of these farms are large of course and so could easily be flying over the property but haven't well beyond line of sight. again basically flying a pattern that a computer is controlling. very low altitude. these are the types of operations that we think, some of them are more complex than

others but we think there's a way to advance the technology, to test the technology. the more we are flying, taking him to the level of safety to the current aircraft system, airspace system that we have today, the more dated can collect, the more we contest technologies like detect and avoid. there are a number of those things, low-hanging fruit so to speak. >> mr. whitaker, is there any chance before this rule comes out to have a category of drones that authorized in low risk situations like agriculture or powerline inspection, rail inspection? is their chance to get something in the role for the category? >> what we've done by the rule is been is what issue exemptions. we've done over 600 exemptions. we've done more than a for public sector operation from fire and rescue, that type of thing.

the rule will take care of very large set of operations and will allow a lot more commercial innovation without our involvement in we tried to include the issues we think we have a clear understanding of the safety risks and how they can be mitigated the the issues that outside other like beyond line of sight we think we'll get there and try to get there as quickly as we can but that our technology issues and standards that have to be developed. we will have to work diligently to keep it moving as the rule progresses. >> thank you. on the privacy aspect of this, it does present new challenges. one question that i have is should there be a floor wax we are talking about achieving a 500 feet. should there be a floor for operation of drones was do you own the property and inched above your yard is a question i had. if you have a gate, a locked gate on your property and somebody climbs over the gate, your expectation is they are

violating your privacy. what if they fly over the gate was what if they are hovering an inch above the ground? could you talk to that are personal property aspect, we are your property rights being violated?

>> should somebody be regulating. >> we do have areas where the operators are prohibited from

>> we are work to go develop an app that people can see if they're in restricted aerospace. and we work with local law enforcement to give them guideline and interact with people that are airporting -- operating in an inappropriate fashion. >> in light of the proposed rules, it says an operator -- in other words. >> how is that going to work

commercially? >> it won't. we don't disagree there's more difficult case, the flying drones. it is. we are working on that. that kind of technology is being developed. our disagreement with the faa is we believe that that can be considered right now on the same risk-base approach. the risks are higher. >> the technology -- the technology would allow that now? >> it's in the works. all i'm saying -- i'm not saying that the rules of operation need to be applied right now. what the mpr did listed that as prohibited kind of category of operation. what we are trying to say is that ought to be considered right now right now. >> this notion of lost link

scenarios, what's the current state of technology between the links of operator and drone, and the drone getting beyond the visual? i'm sure that went into the white house grounds was beyond his control. >> various sectors and loss of control. we have a center of excellence where there will be research along the lines. >> do you see a drone going to far such that you can call it back? >> there's technology that can be used for that. that's the technology that's being tested. we also have to develop standards for operation particularly in the radio strek

-- spectrum and it gets defined. >> you lose control of youron -- your own unmanned aircraft. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony. mr. misener, the united states is falling behind on this particular use from technology to some of competition that maybe open in other places; is that correct? >> yes, it is. >> more complex than europe. from a regulatory standpoint, do you see that we could perhaps have had in the rule making going a little bit further to

anticipate new technology to allow for greater innovation so that we don't get beat out by our competition in other parts of the world? >> yes, i firmly believe that. i acknowledge that the aerospace is complicated and oh -- other places around the world. other countries are taking another approach. i don't blame the faa for having rules in place. what i'm suggesting that the risk-base approach taken of much of the mprm is visually and high automated operation. >> we talked about the six

regional areas across the united states. what i have found something is we have come out with the proposed rule, is that most of this seems to be a rule that is looking backwards, not forward. for example, i mean, looking at had not been able to operate these other than line of sight or at night is -- it's extremely short sided, i believe. a rule that's restrictive and if there's the technology, which we have the technology, to manage this other than line of sight, could we not do that in a safe manner? >> we had a lot of debate around this as the rule was put together. i think there was an attempt

take on possible issues of the rule, and the decision was made to come up with a rule that covers the majority of the types of operations that we know people want to undertake that the technology is there, it's proven and can happen. we define an envelope of operation, if you will. the things in that are issues that are still out there to be worked out. >> but we are talking about -- you say that would provide for what we're talking about. i would disagree with that if we're talking about line of sight. you know, doctor, you work for nasa, can you put something out in space or in moon without in a

safe way and do it without line of sight? >> well, i work -- >> be careful how you answer. >> i will speak to the -- >> can some of your colleagues do that, i guess? do they have to view the whole way in order to be safe? >> that is certainly not the case. >> okay, so i guess mr. whittaker coming back to you, i'm going to encourage you as we are looking for a faa rea reauth, stakeholders, it's all over, and because if not your regulation becomes the throttle or -- or the choke that keeps

innovation from moving as forward and ultimately we will lose out to competition. do i have your commitment that you will look at that aggressively? >> we will. granting the bnsf railroad is part of that effort to lean forward. >> all right, i yield back. >> mr. lynch. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think all of you have contributed well to the understanding that we are gaining regarding this technology. i think some of the ramifications that you have brought to mind are very, very helpful. mr. whittaker, the greatest concern is the fit of faa and technology in the near future.

in one of your answers the system being developed to take drones away from people and other sensitive areas. the problem that i have with what you are doing now with aircraft. i represent logan airport. eighth and seventh districts. we represent a smi -- semi circle. i hate to put this on you. i would have to say that out of all of the agencies in this committee and we deal with everybody, cia, dod, defense department and others, irs, faa is probably the most unresponsive agency that we deal with in government from this

committee, and that's just a fact. and i want to give you an example. the faa has adopted since 2013 has adopted a new navigation system around aircrafts. i do know that the result of that program that instead of flights being spread out in communities, now we have a different system where we have a tractor beam. so the people who live underneath that tractor beam, i'm worried about that health. based on the volume of calls this is not working.

as an elected representative i tried to get a meeting and i wrote a letter to mr. huerta who is the regional for that area. they agreed to come. i understand how difficult it is to operate the airport and do their job but we have the basic responsibility for the people we work for. those folks have yelled at us. that's part of the job. sometimes they have a good reason. i have been so frustrated with this process of just getting a meeting in the town of milton

that i had to go on the floor and put an amendment to cut $25 million from faa's budget because we do money to do outreach. outreach is not happening right now. since you're not doing that job, i'll put it some where else. that's where we are at you and me. you're not treating -- i don't mind being just myself. i can deal with that. congress' popularity is at 6%. i'm used to that, when you refuse to meet with the people that i represent, then i get mad. i can't have that. nobody here can have that. we all represent, look i represent people and we have a

problem. and now like i said, this new technology at some point -- when we have problems with drones, they're going to tell me sorry pal, we're busy. i can't have that answer. you have three seconds. >> i apologize for faa being not responsive. >> apology accepted. >> i think community outreach and engagement is one of the most important things that we do. so let me -- let me make sure that we get back with you shortly. >> thank you, mr. whittaker. >> all politics is local.

>> thank you -- >> yes. >> mr. walker was next. i apologize. you have been heard, mr. walker. >> thank you, mr. chairman -- >> i'm sorry, you are recognized , mr. walker. >> thank you very much. we have several classified briefings as far as concerns locally and regionally that have to be worked out. i'm going to take a little bit of a turn and talk about the pros and the positives for probably the new technology that we move forward. any time there's something new to develop, there's always a pushback even in my 46 years, i can remember several different timelines when its about

technological base industry and other aspects. more than $10 billion in potential economic impact every year that the u.s. integration is delayed. is that accurate? >> yes, sir, that's in the community that i represent, the commercial uas community. i think there's additional value that can be added to other industries that want to utilize the technology that want to go on top of that. >> what steps -- let me back up just a bit. you have been doing more testing in other countries. do you have less restrictions? why do you seem to be doing more testing in other countries as opposed to here? >> thank you, mr. walker. we have turned that corner with the faa. they have stream lined in a way

that's beneficial to the industry. we had difficulties getting that approval last year and early this year, i think we've turn that corner now. we look forward with working with the faa on that. but on testing, i think we are able to do it in multiple locations including the united states. >> what is the objective of amazon, if you give me a timeline where you want to see this go in providing that the things that are worked out with the faa? >> we would like to start delivering to our customers, we are working working in the tech. i have an 8,000 team. the team is trying as quickly as

possible. we have to get our fulfillment center and distribution facilities right. we have to get that item some where in a very large building ready to get to the drone, so that's another set of engineering challenges that we are working on. >> do you have the technology in place to move forward providing other restrictions or given the green light? >> today no, we would have it in place by the time any regulations are ready. we are working very quickly. it's very rapid, and so we are confident that we will have it in place. this is why we look forward working with faa to provide those rules. >> what specific solutions can you provide the committee that we can act on or not only help the development of the commercial uas but also f faa's

safety? >> and nasa plays an important role in this. the faa plays an important role in this. dod has successfully flown unmanned aircraft for many years successfully safely. they can learn from one another. an industry brings a lot of resources and technology to the cable. one of the key things is to make certain that all of that is well coordinated and i think some outside pressure for froird agencies to work together i think is always important. that's beginning to happen now. i am pleased with that. i think there's resources that will be required. i know the fiscal constraints make it difficult for new resources to be brought to the cable. with the right coordination and

right plan we can do that. i think that's an appropriate role. >> i'll yield back to the chairman. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. walker. recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to follow up on the rules. i think that your comparison to the military use is a little bit off mark. i was actually in charge of the state of illinois national guard attempt to accomplish rules to state side. i had to comply with the keeping the aircraft under the faa on flying over restricted air space. the military has to actually has to if we're going to fly, follow and i don't think that is something that the commercial entities are willing to do at this point. i could be wrong.

i was flying my aircraft over eastern shore in the aerospace area and in contact with control and i had an aircraft about 10 feet away in front and i was flying at 2500 feet. if this can happen with recreational matter, i have real concerns about uabs flying around. this is something that what you're trying to do is make it more regulated. i would expect to be much more responsible on how they fly the aircraft. any move to require commercial use the use of responders on

uavs? >> there would be test requirements and your operators -- a lot of the operators on the amateur side are not from the aviation sector and don't realize they entered the world of aerospace. that's a real issue, that's why we focused on public education and that type of thing. as far as the use of devices, they come in all sizes. we're not sure there's going to be technology that would allow that kind of usage. if you're flying in aerospace that requires and i think you're really looking at system that is

talk to each other to achieve that sensitive void. >> so if i'm out there in single engine, i'm going to have -- there's a correct responder to it, even a small bird will take me out. are you saying then that we are not looking to require some -- it's just -- explain what you mean be is it -- what is it doing? here is what i want. i as a pilot i want to know if it's flying in my vicinity and i know that they're there, if i get hit by one of these aircrafts i want to know who is flying it and i want them to

find them and say you just flew in commercial aviation. >> right now we are looking at rules, separation and procedures. the proposal would be bellow 500 feet. the rules would be to be 5 miles away from the airport. as long as you are following the rules -- the other issue that is you are raising are some of the issue that is need additional resource and a separate set of rules expanded operations. >> okay, thank you. i'll put in a question if the record. if we're going to talk about operation, i used to fly

helicopters, there were significant restrictions, i would like to know what amazon, mr. lynch, what your operations for those loads, all of the issues that helicopter would have to follow as well. thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. whittaker, just kind of a point of clarification, i think the answer is yes but i want to be sure. does the faa or the administration actually have a plan for directing traffic concerns or is this something that's being developed or in process? is there an actual plan? ..