would prevent them from joining? >> i believe that the -- there are probably attorneys in the room that can answer better. and there is something that can prevent two territories from establishing mutual aid agreement. the nature after compact between states is what requires congressional approval. but i don't think there is anything to prevent territories from establishing arrangements or appropriate yit agreement. and from a practical objective of course. for states it is one thing because they are contiguous geographically. we are talking about moving things. i think where the territories are concerned, it is a different logistical challenge. potentially less useful. >> to my regret, this will have

to be our last question. >> hi. how's the reseptember economic struggles impacted how states align with federal support and ability of the federal government toates align with fe support and ability of the federal government to give support? >> so here is the bottom line. there is a lot of downward pressure economically at all levels of government. and so, states and their political subdivisions, we have seen an increase in request for federal assistance, both inside and outside of the disaster declarations, to help offset the impact on budgets. i'll give you a great example. when it snows, there is a need to do removal of snow and ice from the roads. one would expect that most states and local governments would plan and budget for that. as a policy matter we generally don't provide assistance for road treatment unless there is a record or near record know fall.

that policy is meeting resistance because record or near record snow falls, governments are struggling to meet their snow removal budget. and the without putting too fine a point on it, we are seeing ice storms and other unusual weather events in places where those things didn't happen before. there is also ann the event of it not being expected. not occurring enough that you have a budget for it but recurring enough that you have to deal with it periodically. at the same time, local governments needing funding from the federal government, the federal government budget is detracting as well. regardless of what side of the aisle we're on, funds are sitting unused and waiting as contingency and saying maeb

that's not the best way to spend scarce dollars right now. rs that continues to be a challenge and probably will be for the foreseeable future. >> checks and balances works pretty well but under a domestic crisis, there are challenges that arise when someone says, who's in charge. what we try to do o during the course of this panel is present to you a better understanding of how the various agencies within our federal system of government and within the inner agency, coordinate within the system of checks and balances and have effort in achieving a life-saving and timely response to a domestic event. thank you all very much for your time. [ applause ] join us tuesday here on c-span 3 for programs focussing on health care issues. we will show you remark from cvs

president. and a house hearing on medicare fraud. all starting tuesday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. plenty more live campaign 2014 debate coverage coming up tuesday on c-span starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. an arkansas senate debate between incumbent mark meyer and congressman tom cotton. recent polling has this race as a toss-up. right after that south carolina government nor nikki haley versus vincent shaheen and tommer vin. that will be at 9:00 p.m. eastern. then oregon governor kitzhaber. that raise is lifted as leaning democrat. see it live tuesday at 10:00 p.m. eastern. also on c-span.

the c-span student cam competition is under way. middle and high school students will be awarded 150 prizes totaling $100,000. complete a 5 to 7-minute documentary entitled tleet branches and you. videos need to include c-span programming, showive it different points of view and be submitted by january 0, 2015. grab a camera and get started today.20, 2015. grab a camera and get started today. now part of the airline pilots association from washington, part of the faa and other agency discuss unmanned aircraft safety, and need for global flight tracking and flight assessment. this is almost an hour. >> okay. if we can go ahead and take our

seats, well get started. now i would like to welcome our webcast audience to join us this morning. thank you for joining in with us. let's go ahead and begin our next panel. okay. as i mentioned earlier, i'm going to change my role a little bit. i'm going to moderate a discussion with our friends from the faa, transport canada and civil organization otherwise known as are akale. it's been said that safety is never instate. those of us in the safety business know it is ever-changing and our work is never finished. we can never dilewd ourselves into thinking we've kbt all of the answers. i know most of you know that. no flight is ever routine or just like the previous one. to some degree there's always a

unique set of conditions and circumstances that present a challenge to otherwise safe and uneventful flight. we have to ensure the over all system is able to detect threats and alleviate high risk. industry and regulators around the world are working towards a common vision whether it is in areas appropriate for the use of safety data, safety management systems, voluntary safety recordings report programs or safe ipt gracing of unmanned aerial systems or as we like to refer to them, remotely piloted aircraft. there is always still work to be done. so i'd like to hear the perspectives from our regulators, and what the industry has been doing right along with their vision for the future. in areas that need to be addressed, not only here but in north america throughout world. i would like to introduce you to

this very distinguished panel. to my left, john hickey. to his left is mr. martin eelie, director general, civil aviation at transport canada. on the far left, is mr. mitchell fox, chief flight operations at iko. you can see their full biographies on the back of your progr program. let's go ahead and begin. >> okay. i'm going to cut right to the chase. rs we're already hearing about a 200-pound remotely piloted helicopters that is applied to international airspace system. so john, how soon before amazon will be delivering a book on my

doorstep with a vehicle like that? >> well, i'll leave the marketing on dotcom to jeff bees yoes. the administrator made it very clear that regarding the entry of uass into the system will be done in a prudent step by step basis. with safety at the foremost in our minds. today we have, as you know, congressionally directed six key test sites that we will get information from. four of them have been stood up. other two are not far behind being stood up p. we also have issued the very first commercial type approved

restricted category aircraft in the arctic. they've been operating up there. and we've been very engaged in providing exemptions to eliminate a group of commercial operations. as a result of the congressionally mandated secs, what they call section 333 in reauthorization bill. so there is a lot of activities we're doing. but also a lot of stuff remaining. we really don't have standards that are appropriate yet for uass. i think many of you know that we will hopefully have a proposal for the small uas roll-out later this year. and there's always critical technologies that still need to be solved like sense and avoid. and so i think to some degree it's not going to be as soon as some people tend to think it is.

>> okay. interesting. in the rule you will put out later this year and response you will put out later this year, do you think you will achieve some standards at that time? or is that still a work in progress? >> remember, it is small u.s. role. >> right. >> and it is only an mprm. i don't think by virtue of the nprm itself, there will be activity. but there is rtca special committee to help look at standards, look at the ability to comply with prop 91 to see and avoid. >> very good. martin, what about in canada? where are we with uas integration up there? >> integration is probably a long way away. in one sense we were lucky in 1996, putting in place a rule to authorize uavs.

bad news is it was just a general authority. so those have certainly taken off in the sense that three years ago we stiped out about 150 of those. last year, 950. so clearly volume is increasing. we learned a lot along waitwai . wwaiawaitywaitaitit.wayt. a lot of them were dealt with individually. also we need to see what the expectations are in terms of what documentation do you need. how do you justify it. how do you write litigation. we also have a working group. we have a long term plan, four phases. first phase is below 25 kilograms. and i this i in that general area, there has been some discussion with the faa and

we're in the same place. the operation is less complex. we have a general sense of where we are. the next step is the on-line of sight and i think that's a challenge. not because of authority. but we have solutions for the vehicle. and phases are really getting into the bigger vehicles with that limit eventually. so that is some years away. we are in the predecessor trying to determine what sort of schedule we can get. rule making at least for the lower group. so probably within the next year or two, we will have something in place, probably if line with the faa. >> are you two -- is the u.s. and canada, do you have open i do log between your two agencies on this subject? >> the answer is, i think, yes in a lot of different areas. we have different rules, but i'm not sure if you're aware, there

is a canada-u.s. initiative directly for rule making -- sorry. anyway, very high driven on all sorts of subjects. one item for us and the first phase of that thp that was on the initial uav. there has been a technical level, too. >> mitch, bring in the global approach to this. what are you seeing at iko. and give us a perspective of how rpa and uas is developing worldwide from your perspective? >> very much like my colleagues from national regulatory authorities. we are taking the step by step approach. what we see ahead for this technology, what we are trying to do to the extent possible is near what we do in terms of our international approaches to four rpa operations to what we do for manned operations.

so in that respect, the uas study group which by the way soon will be up levelled to a full technical panel. we've been working ahead on looking at what sort of requirements would be necessary for the issuance of an air operatorer operator certificate. very much in line with manned operations. what type would remote pilots need to meet. the licensing requirements as well as the air worthiness requirements for the vehicles themselves. and that's been the major focus of our work. previously, back in about 2012, we couple out with some enabling standards. very preliminary in nature. first one is aircraft registration. actually recognizing remotely piloted aircraft as aircraft in the international context.

then the ruflt air, which apply universally over high seas airspace, was the initially enabling rule that would authorize one state to let other state use aircraft in their space. work will focus on pilot areas, air worthiness requirements. so our uas study group has been working away for last two or three years. in march of next year, they expect to roll out the rpa guidance manual. that's the first step leading towards the ehe is not ven you'll development of international standards. from the 23th and 25th of march 2015, we will have a global symposium to start to discuss the impact of rpas in international operations and

gradually line the upgrades. the aviation block upgrades. the even eventual integration. we are looking at standard in respect to licensing, worthiness certification and enabling standards in an ex ten. in about the 018 timeframe. then we will look for biannual updates for standards as technology matures.3018 timefra. then we will look for biannual updates for standards as technology matures.018 timefram. then we will look for biannual updates for standards as technology matures.2018 timefra. then we will look for biannual updates for standards as technology matures. as john mentioned, we will continue the study group. >> very interesting. >> you know, the two big international initiatives are rpa uas and next gen.

are rpas and uass, should that be a part of next gen? or are rpas and urps just another operator within next gen. i'm asking, do you see this as being integrated. or do we just leave the development of rps over here and they are just another user. i will start with you, john. >> well first of all, when you look at uass and i will use the phraseology that we use in the u.s., there is a focus on uass themselves. because of the significant challenges they have. privacy and many other issues. but it's impossible for us to look at look on it also considering the impact of uas.

at this point in time, there's not a lot of involve the or focus on uas as part of the next general environment. as my colleagues here mentioned, we are still many years away from what we would see as safe integrate and in the busiest airspace of our system. we're just not there yet. and it will be a number of years. as we go further down the road and they get closer and closer to doing that, there will be a bigger focus on it under the next general y. >> martin, can you comment on that? >> i think the bottom line is, if we want to individual take the airspace, they have to meet the stavety startard. that has been going on. if they get to the point where uavs of any size hasbility, not

to say there aren't other issues, so it is steting up and we are trying to get there, they will just be another user. so will be designer end. >> mitch, what did you think? >> very much in line with what both john and martin said. the aviation system brock upgrades, really ast is ems architecture. if you take an architecture approach to navigation, you have to consider all of the players that are going nobody that system. as we move across from block 0, wh ch we currently have block 1, block 2, block 3, there are modules that specifically apply to the remotely piloted aircraft. but it was an imt premtal approach. >> i've heard all three of you talk about safety here.

ensuring the public, what other steps can you talk to ensure the public that sigh ofty is the prime directive here. versus the work that's got to be done, you know, husband. what with we do as an industry follow a process that can ensure safety out there. >> maybe i'll start out. it is a relatively start answer. by taking slow deliberative steps, before letting them into the more busy airspace, there is a perception and it is built by some of the promotions like amazon.com and many others that we are imminently set foreseeing uas was. you would be on a commercial flight for dealt why airlines, for example.

you look out the window and you see a uav fly by. and we're not going to see that any time soon. i think if the public see is, you know, that this is not happening. and we've been very much out there, letting people know, letting the public know, that we will not allow the uas come into the system and be completely sure that they are safe. i think that's a great to educate them in public. >> i think the uas industry indicated there was 18 dpsh-if they get a bad reputation, that affects their future for many points of view. probably the uninformed users. people would who don't realize, even with commercial, that they have partial responsibility. we have the most work to do in short term because those are people popping up aon approach

to airport. >> yeah. mish from the international perspective. do you see what martin and john alluded to, educating people. there is a commercial interest and may not be aware that there needs to be standards put in place. are you seeing that on the international front as well. or hearing of that in international front? >> absolutely. when i look at the uaf's study group, we have a certain number of people and that study group representative of i will call it, and then the main core sort of of international aviation today. and a pilot also on the uaf study group. you saw two different approaches. and it is a matter to some extent educating. it took quite a period of time to educate the rpa industry on what are the expect racings for

safety in our international environment.racings for safety in our international environment.acings for safety in our international environment. especially if you have airspace. i also feel it is very important that to the extent possible that he take the role bus safety system. including safety management symptoms that we utilize today in manned operations. apply those to to. >> thank you. what lesson vice learned, martin, in canada?o. >> thank you. what lesson vice learned, martin, in canada?o. >> thank you. what lesson vice learned, martin, in canada?. >> thank you. what lesson vice learned, martin, in canada? a lot of people look to can did. you've been there a while. >> we've shown many answers, is not the correct answer maybe. the expectation of the industry have come a long way with it. in 2009, we made a conscious

decision to pause. the fall aparts in the industry were concerned about the complexity. and again, prepped for the education piece. so generally people speaking. you know, a you're asking a company to take a faith approach, it is hard to go in there with the inspection tools and modify that. we do a lot of work on that. also also a big learning experience. i think those two things started to co-ellis. we see the need to cover all ailment of the industry. the airports have but the organizations that if you're going to be in the system went the whole system need to play with the whole rules. a decision is not known what and

when. >> can you give us an update here in the snus. >> yes. we're actually quite further along than some people might see. and martin brought up a number of key exponents that i think is very much turning friend to the united states. we don't have rule yet. don't have a mandate. we are in the prot says of a rule making. and instead of waiting for the rule to come out, we have developed a pilot program with dozens of airlines in the united states which comprise of, as martin said, the traveling public. we are seeing a variety oftive rent maturity levels. aep a variety of different airlines. what is important about s & s and this is what i think is exciting. and martin alluded to it, is

when the airlines get to a sophisticated level of maturity, it'll fundamentally change the way the faa conducts surveillance. surveillance understand for an airplane that does not have an smf requires a certain level of oversight that you might suspect. but if the airlines is doing all this, developing and development enhancement. checking the effectiveness of them. if an airline is doing that, the fa sa doesn't have to have the same level of oversight. then we can put resources on the more critical areas of the safety system. so we really see s & s as a tremendous boom to safety in the system. but also, the other thing i wanted to mention is we also are developing our own system. our staffing is based on risk

based management, just as you're making. many of the other decisions we're doing internal in the faa is fundally based on risk taking which is a component of s and s. >> very interesting. you know, a lot has been said about just culture. i think fundamental to sms is voluntary safety. hoppestly, i certainly here in meetings i go to, relations between employees and their interaction of voluntarily data is a management labor issue. but honestly, just culture, i think, is what brings good data to the table. where do you see the regulators role in promoting just culture to be at the operating room level and in changing that mind-set over that the operator needs to focus on creating that

information to get good information. what can you do as a regulator on this? >> well, i think the faa add long great history of promoting voluntary reporting systems. the one classic example of how successful, voluntarily reported day of, can be shown in the commercial aviation safety tea which has been under sift ins since late 90s when we were experiencing quite a bit of action in the united states. we created this government industry collaboration. we would bring data to the table. shared data. in a just culture environment. in looking at that data, we were able to development a number of safety enhancements. when two different dprups of people are looking at the same data, it is very difficult to

reach different conclusions. what i found is when you see different kinds of data is when you see differences between one group and other we've scent accident rate, commercial accident rate in the united states drop 80%.we've scent acc commercial accident rate in the united states drop 80%. because remember, you otherwise will never see that data. if it's not vol un -- if we don't provide a culture in an environment where people feel comfortable with permitting that information. i see that as being a big are role in the fewer touuewer tou.. >> have you had success in canada for all of the reasons john just -- >> we have had success. there are some things that

happen quickly and others that take longer. it is very clear us to that where we see the culture is driven from the top down. right? you can encourage people. where team management takes the leadership. they want that culture to exist. if that doesn't happen at the single level then people are not comfortable and it doesn't work. you asked about what our role is, i think one of the things we can do as government is to be a bit of a role model. if you're talking about a girl who can go trust, who goes first, we, as the government, have the opportunity to take that role in the industry. we are trusting you and hopefully develop that trust between companies and ourselves. quite apart from of the systems. what we see is people are much more likely to pick up the phone and say, we have this problem. we just told that you we're on it and we may refer to that. i think there is a lot of success.

>> you know, one thing we talk about is information and data's that we can walk on. there is always a discussion about what about litigation. iko just made information available in regards to protecting mitigation. maybe you can highlight for us. >> i will if i can. i would like to provide backdrop for this. in this room when we are talking primarily north american population or primary european population, you talk just culture and everybody understands exactly what we mean. if you talk about that globally what a just culture is, there's a lot of room for interpretation. that's just natural. when you talk about something

that is just an culture, that is open to interpretation internationally. so what we focused in on is exactly what you mentioned, is the protection of safety information. it is difficult. you are talking about a balance between protecting safety information for the cause of safety and need for proper administration of justice. in varying justice systems. initially the iko work under that area is the so-called attachment e to an ex 13 which talked about guidance in protection of safety information.ex 13 which talked about guidance in protection of safety information. that can only be guidance on safety information. come out of the high level safety confirmation of 2010, there was guidance. goidance that we needed an innex devoted to safety management processes and we need to focus in on protection of safety information.

so just november last year, the newest annex to the suite of oo nnexs we had, it also included what we callannexs we had, it a what we call an attachment. which is guidance on safety information. so what had been the latest changes. well, we've had safety information protection task force that met for the past three years. it's been very difficult work. they came forward just a few months ago to the air navigation of iko with proposal to at least annex 19. how could we upgrade our guidance to a standard? so proposal went before the commission, was accepted. covers three areas. the one area i mentioned about standards concerning a need to

balance, use of safety information for safety purposes, with that say of course proper administration of justice. other major areas establishment of standards to ensure safety information is used for its intended purposes, so collecting information for intended purpose. let's make sure it is use ford that purpose. >> and then, determine the levels of protection appropriate to circumstances. so different levels of protection for safety information. these are important proposals and these go across those interpretations of what are just cultures. it goes across the different types of judicial systems in the world. this is an initial proposal. it will go out for consultation with states and international organizations. the pilot, international community, will have their opportunity to comment on those

proposals. we are expecting proposals to come back in about january next year. and one thing that the new standard could become applicable in the inform timeframe of 2016. >> very good. martin and john, do you see any changes as the result of what mitch is developing up there? you see any immediate changes that we will see here in u.s. or canada? >> no. no, i don't. because i think we've been very, very diligent and very -- we take very high importance of protecting information. i can reflect back on the 2000s. it was very difficult to get airlines and pilots to come to the table and share information. i think at the root of the problem, at the root of the red sense for them to come to the table was mistrust of the faa,

of perhaps retribution and et cetera and sharing data.table w of perhaps retribution and et cetera and sharing data. we have developed a community of labor and the faa at holding at the highest level the tenant of protecting data and information. that is, if we can't do that, i can assure you all of the data will dry up and it will all go away. so i think we are already there. i really do applaud the work because i do think that it's going to help many of the other states that perhaps don't hold this to the same degree that united states does. >> vern, anything to add to that? >> i think the clahallenge we'v seen in some areas has to do with a reporting culture. at the same time, confidential reporting system. to protect them are quite different.

had you brought them together, that will challenge -- we are missing some protection. something we need to put in to provide that protection. we did try once before. there is a lot of debate. we never got to that protection but that is something we will go back to and that to protect the individuals. not the companies themselves that need the guidance, but make sure there is some overriding authority there. >> okay. the last two days we've had -- we've alluded to the tragedy of malaysia 317 and there is more about the disappearance of malaysia 370. and a lot of spotlight comes on as for as what is the role of iko in accident investigation and safety? and so, mitch, i'm wondering if

you would share or give us a prediction of where you think this is going? iko has come in the front here now on this area. >> thanks, cluck. i think it would be wise to break this up into two different issues. i think we have two really distinct issuees. malaysia 370 and malaysia 17. i will address a little bit about what i call the community is doing in relationship to malaysia 37. 0 firs0 first. we don't know much about malaysia 370. the only thing we do know is we scant exactly location where it is. that's all we know at this point. the community got together, organized a meeting on global flight tracking in march of this year. this brought together poej government and industry to start to talk about this issue and

start to set some near term mid term and long-term objectives for the future in respect of tracking airplanes. so near term objectives, i have to applaud an objective. in moving ahead in tracking airplanes on a basis. there is a commit tomt work ahead on this issue, na particular in lookinging ahead to the issues where there isn't surveilled airspace in a potential exist for airplanes let's say not to be tracked presently at the rate we would like them to be tracked. so forming an aircraft tracking task force, the attf. the attf is a broad cross section of our aviation industry.

it involves the airlines them self. major manufactures. airbus, boeing, it involves air navigation service providers worldwide. it also involves the airline pilots through international federation. so that group has been working diligently ahead on near term measures to implement flight tracking and locate airplanes on a worldwide flight. we expect their recommendations will come forward from iada to their governoring boards for implementati implementation. directly connect with that, is our ability to more robustly track airplanes improves, we want to make sure that the

system that we need to respond to an abnormal flight situation can equally and robustly respond to that. the objective of course is to search and rescue people within a reasonable period of time. if there are survivors. so we have to look at the entire infrastructure. we are looking at concept of operations that more closely integrates what airlines would be doing in terms of their tracking of airplanes and how that fits into the overall air navigation system. again, this group is working in parallel. a group of leading community, what we call the chairs of our technical panels, working with the air navigation commission and also liaison over to the aircraft tracking task force.

and developing this concept of operation. they are looking for the concept of operation to be in draft form. for consideration by the end of september as well. so two groups, working in parallel, but there is cross pollination. so part of the concept of operations that applies to airlines and what we the would do in terms of aircraft tracking, that part of the concept of operations is being drafted by the airlines and we're looking for an integrated system ahead. so, ultimately in summary, the aircraft tracking task force will come up with its recommendations to the industry, end of september aep the operations for system wide approach, their recommendations by the end of september. >> what about malaysia 17, as far as the role, as far as accident investigation. do you see any changes coming

down the pipe for that? >> in the history of what they've done in actually providing advice, going on fact-finding mission, i don't think that changed much with malaysia 17. i think i need follow through on a little bit of a timetable and what the events were and what they have done to spell it out. i will say we may have had a little bit more of a role than we've had in the past given the circumstances that this occurred in. and certainly spelled out a path for future work that i'll briefly describe. as all know, the tragic event occurred on 17th of july 2014. within five days, we had a team of people in the ukraine to provide advice to the government of ukraine in this accident

investigation. so to provide advice, to provide guidance on all of the aspects of the convention. international convention on inter international civil aviation and as it pertains to accident investigation. it was also there a fact-finding mission to ensure that all of the evidence is thoroughly considered. now all this is very much consistent with the united nations security council resolution which called for a full, thorough and independent international investigation consistent with international guidance. i think you can imagine that with the circumstances that this occurred that the international community made a strong call on iko to parties nate thcipate in process. so we have been more involved in past occurrences. we did participate with the

international community in get handing over recorders to the appropriate authorities. in addition that, we basically provided looking over the shoulder as recorders were, the information was downloaded from both the voice recorder and the flight data recorder and will continue our guidance and support. but i think what this did and i listened intently to the previous panel, and these comments are very consistent with that previous panel. just last week, the president of the council of iko and secretary-general of iko convened a ceo-level meeting between iko, iada, airlines, aci for airports and air navigation service providers worldwide. jointly, when they got together,

condemned the use of weapons against civil aircraft. and they found together and made a joint statement that the downing of malaysia 17 is unacceptable. so here is where the challenge is. almost immediately after the event, we came out with a state letter. this is how we inform all of the states in the industry. we reminded the states of what their on mizations are to do risk or threat assessment and was previously mentioned to mitigate for that within the airspace above their sovereign territory. the coordination a state is responsible for between its civil and military sectors. coordination that's necessary to air traffic services and to the operators. but in the world today, as was mentioned in previous panel, there are countries that are at conflict and those countries can't always carry out for

obvious reasons all of the threat assessment, risk mitigation, because they are in the midst after conflict. and they may not always have that capability to do that. so coming out of this meeting on the 29th of july, it was agreed to form a high level task force that's called the high level task force on risks, to civil aviation and arising from conflict zones. there will be high level representatives from regulatory authorities from states. high level officials from industry and also the pilot community that has a very strong vested role and interest in this will also be present during the task force meeting. task force will have its first meeting next, i believe thursday and friday. the 14th and 15th of august. they've been given clear mandate to come forward and i

characterize the recommendations are in a second. and what the recommendations are within eight weeks. that's a tight timeframe. a little bit unusual in the iko context of things to be can quite honest with you. so that might be a slightly different role. so to characterize recommendations making sure that the right information gets to the right people at the right time. and how do we go forward in that? thanks. >> thank you. very interesting. we will keep posted on that. we want to give the opportunity to ask questions. all three panelists are willing to take your questions. may or may not be on anything we have discussed so far. in light of what mitch just said, how can the u.s. and transport canada participate or encourage or even direct the international bylaw going on.

obviously we have a strong ntsb here. strong tsb up in canada. what roles do you see playing as this discussion goes on and we may see changes result from this. >> i think there is certainly a role and we are part of that task force that is actually my colleague on the security side. i think it is inevitable that security and safety will be interwoven. so i think of ourselves and probably ssa playing for the safety point of view and supporting some of the solutions implemented through safety improvements. perhaps design. and a fair amount of intelligence in that. i think we will both be very engaged. >> we are very much engaged in the task force. and i would like to echo the previous comment that iada really i think came out quickly about the need for some form of continuous monitoring or

monitoring of aircraft during difficult periods of light. while i'm not they're describe or discusses stab lish u.s. policy, towards our position on that. i do think it is fair to say that is it is very difficult for anyone to say that we shouldn't have something different than what we have had. because really from an aviation safety standpoint to have it disappear and not know why is a setback to aviation safety, tho doubt about it. we do need something. it all comes down to what form does that take? >> we do have a text kbe. question.. questio question. >> yes, good morning. one of the questions, we have a few, is it true that airlines for canada, there is from martin, cannot look for type

writes when looking for new hires in canada. >> that particular issue is labor issue. there is discussion of that. i'm not sure i want to give you a blunt answer because i'm an hundred percent sure even though i'm familiar with the subject. the foreign workers are only permit fed there is labor shortage. what are you looking at when you look at domestic resources first. so i don't really want to answer the question because i want to make sure it is precise. that is labor belonging to different area. even though it is transport we only do that with agreement. i can't remember what the acronym stands for. it used to be human resources but they changed their name. we are not the lead on that decision. >> sir? >> i apologize to set up this

question. i have to give a me speech here. but mr. hickey said that sms and well running asap program is a compliment to it will save the faa money and it is kind of a bit after forced multiplier. i think everyone agrees if you have a robust, you don't have to send enforcement to the cockpits as often. but there is 12066 c coming out soon. it's been promised to come out next week, next week, for the last few years. it is supposed to come out in a couple of weeks. some of the rumors that we're hearing about this may be issues with things like soul source. like a pilot that would know something and there is no other way to find out about it, so that is soul source.

also, faa wants everyone going to template for asap programs, meaning all agreements are exactly the same. we at our company take -- we're having a hard time with this. the mou portion is a great way to start a program. if you've got, here's the template, here how to you set up the program, here is what we offer and how the programs work. but we started the program with the faa. we were in the beginning. we evolved. to roll back to what you give to the new entrant billy bob air service out of des moines, makes absolutely no sense to us. the first tie lot that has taken a task of a report will end all information come together faa.i a task of a report will end all information come together faa.pn a task of a report will end all information come together faa.e

a task of a report will end all information come together faa. a task of a report will end all information come together faa.l task of a report will end all information come together faa.ia task of a report will end all information come together faa. all of it. [ applause ] and i don't think that's the intent. i think that's a very, very big pl mistake that the faa is missing. so i urge you to work with the people at headquarters. and say, look, guys, if you have an established program that works, like united and most of the airlines here, don't touch them. let them go. if you're trying to avoid the 30-page mou that someone says, then give them the template. if you've got 30 pages, it's not working anyway. like the template is a few paragraphs, one or two, and that's it. but if you take those away, we lose. is there anything that you can tell us as a body that is -- what you said earlier was you are assuring us these are protected and you want the information. you are going to lose the

information if you go down that path that we're being told we have to go down. what can you tell us about that? >> well first of all, let me back up to maybe the very beginning of what you were commenting on. when i mentioned fmf and talked about how it would drive a different surveillance model, the specifics about whether we're in the cockpit or not, please don't misunderstand.