opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to discuss unmanned aircraft systems. in the faa modernization and reform act, congressman day-to-dayed the safe and efficient integration of the uas into the national air space system. the administrator in announcing his initiative identified integration of uas and commercial space operations as one of his top priorities and we are working hard to meet those mandates. in the act, congress mandated that the secretary of transportation consult with government partners and industry stakeholders to develop a comprehensive plan for uas inteation. both documents have been published. the documents set out a phased approach that must be carried out thoughtfully to ensure safety is not compromised. consistent with congressional direction, we announced six uas sites to aid in uas integration.

as required, we set out to have one test site operational within six months of election. we surpassed that goal within four months and three more sites operational within six months of their selections. now all six uas sites are fully operational and have established their research agendas. the data and information from the test sites will help answer key questions about how unmanned aircraft systems interface in the air space as well as with air traffic control. the faa technical center in atlantic city is playing a key role in data collection and analysis and will continue to make significant contributions to uas integration to identify the data that will be most useful to the faa. we are moving forward through rule making. as md byantehe act, the rule making to permit civil operation of small uas in the air space. we all agree that project is taking too long.

but i'm pleased to say we believe we have a balanced proposal that's currently under executive review. in the meantime and consistent with the act, we're looking at activities that do not pose risk to others who operate in the air space to the general public or to national security and that can be operated safely without a airworthiness certificate. once the secretary of transportation is able to make that determination, faa then grants relief from other faa operating regulations. we have authorized 11 operators including five exemptions we have issued today to conduct commercial uas activity in the national air space covering activities such as surveying, inspection, and movie making. we continue to facilitate the use of uas by public entities. for more than two decades, faa has authorized the use of unmanned aircraft for important safety missions such as firefighting and border security. working closely with the departments of defense and other agencies who are taking advantage of the extensive federal investment made in these systems. in addition, more than 35 law

enforcement agencies now operate unmanned aircraft under certificates of authorization. and we are also working with law enforcement agencies to address the unauthorized use of uas for they are often in the best position to help us deter, detect and investigate such activities. we are working hard to educate the public about the requirements for national air space and we believe opportunities like this will help in that endeavor. but that has proven to be a challenge. unlike traditional manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft are widely available for purchase by individuals who may not realize that they are entering the national air space system or that they must comply with regulations. they may not appreciate the significant safety risk that is presented by unauthorized or unsafe uas operations in the air space. just as you directed in the 2012 act, faa can and will take enforcement action against anyone who operates a uas in a

way that endangers the safety of the national airspace. but we continue to lead with education because we believe the vast majority of operators want to comply with faa regulators. we remain committed to serve as world leaders in this segment of aviation industry. the u.s. will be leading the way to establish standards and recommended practices, procedures and guidance materials to facilitate the safe integration of remotely piloted aircraft systems around the world. together with our international partners, we will facilitate integration at the international level while continuing to lead the world in aviation safety. mr. chairman, this concludes my testimony. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much. mr. hampton? >> members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on faa efforts to integrate unmanned aircraft

systems, or uas, into the air space system. the increasing demand for uas systems has enormous economic implications and competitive implications for our nation. as you know, the faa modernization and reform act was a catalyst for technology. the act directed faa to take steps to integration with the goal of safely integrating uas technology by 2015. in june we reported on faa efforts and made 11 recommendations specifically aimed at helping faa to more effectively meet the goals. my testimony today will focus on faa's progress in implementing the act's provisions and the challenges that the agency faces in safely integrating uas technology. to date faa completed more than half of the 17 uas requirements in the act. this includes selecting the test sites as well as publishing a road map outlining agency plans. in addition, using the authority granted in the act faa recently authorized 11 companies to

operate uas in the commercial operations. however, faa is behind schedule on the act's remaining requirements, many of which are key to advancing u.s. integration. for example, faa missed the 2014 deadline for issuing a final rule on small uas systems. these are systems weighing less than 55 pounds. while faa expects to issue a proposed rule soon, it will likely generate a significant amount of public comment that the agency will need to consider. as a result, it's uncertain when a final rule will be published. faa will not meet the acts goal to safely integrate technology by september 2015. as faa works to implement the provisions, they also face significant technological, regulatory and management challenges. on the technological front, the evolution of technology is paramount.

also the risks of lost link scenarios when an operator loses connectivity with an unmanned aircraft remains high. further more, establishing secure radio frequency spectrum to support uas communications has also proven difficult to address. faa, dod and nasa have several important research projects underway, but it remains unclear when the technology will be robust enough to support safe uas operations. regulatory challenges has also affected progress to date. although faa is authorized limited operations on a case by case basis, it is not yet positioned to certify civil operations on a large scale. faa has worked with a special advisory committee for more than nine years but has not yet reached consensus with stakeholders on minimum performance and design standards for uas technology. much work remains to set requirements for pilot and crew qualifications, ground control

stations, and communication links for systems. finally, i'd like to turn to the management challenges in areas that need significant attention. faa lacks the training, tools and procedures air traffic controllers need to manage uas operations. faa also lacks databases to analyze data from current u.s. operators and a severity base classification for incident reporting. data from faa's test sites will provide critical information related to certification, air traffic control and technology i discussed earlier. all of these can inform faa's decisions when advanced progress. other important and much-needed steps include publication of the small uas rule and developing an integrated budget document that clearly identifies funding requirements in the near and midterm. in conclusion, uas will be and remain a front and center issue that requires significant management attention. it remains uncertain when and at what pace u.s. technology can be fully and safely integrated into our air space.

now is the time for faa to build on the knowledge base to make informed decisions, set priorities, identify critical path issues, and develop the basic regulatory framework for integrating uas technology into the national air space system. we will continue to monitor progress on these issues and keep the subcommittee apprised of our efforts. mr. chairman, this concludes my prepared statements. i'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. hampton. that's -- okay, we'll leave it at that for right now. dr. dillingham? >> mr. chairman, members of the subcommittee, my statement this morning is based on our ongoing work for this subcommittee and focuses on three areas. first, faa's progress towards meeting the unmanned aerial systems provisions of the 201 faa reauthorization act.

second, key research in development activities needed to support unmanned systems integration, and third, how other countries have progressed towards integrated unmanned systems into their air space. regarding the provisions of the 2012 act, the act included 17 specific provisions for faa to achieve safe unmanned systems integration by september 2015. while faa has completed most of the provisions, the key ones remain an additional actions are needed to effectively leverage a completed provision for the integration efforts. for example, a critical step for allowing commercial operations is the publication of the final rule. to develop the rule faa must publish a proposed rule. you heard it's been delayed. given the time that's generally required for rule making and the tens of thousands of comments expected on this, the consensus

of opinion is that the integration of unmanned systems will likely slip from the mandated deadline of september 2015 until 2017 or even later. the delay in the final rule which will establish operational and certification requirements, could contribute to unmanned systems continue to operate unsafely ill and legally and lead to additional enofrcement activities for faa's scarce resources. additionally, without unmanned system rules, u.s. businesses may continue to take their testing and research and development activities outside of the u.s. regarding research and development activities, the key technology issue remains essentially the same as they have been since the beginning of the era, including detection, command and control, and spectrum issues. there are a wide range of stakeholders involved and there's been some notable progress, including the

establishment of the test site. the role of the six test sites remains unclear. the operational start-up of the six test sites reviewed by many as a major step forward in acquiring the necessary data to address the technological and operational challenges associated with integration. our preliminary work suggests that this development has not lived up to its promise. the test site operators told us that they were significantly underutilized by faa and the private sector and that they were unclear as to what research and development and operational data was needed by faa to support the integration initiatives. however, our preliminary work suggests that it has provided some guidance to the test sites regarding the needed research and development and data needs. faa officials said that federal law prevents them from tasking the test sites for specific data. according to faa, the law does

not allow the agency to give directions to the site or accept voluntary services without payment. as we continue our study, we will be trying to better understand the relationship between the test sites, faa and the needed research and development and how the test sites can achieve the highest and best use. regarding developments in foreign countries, as is the case in the u.s., many countries around the world allow commercial operations under some restrictions. also similar to the u.s., foreign countries are experiencing problems with illegal and unsafe, unmanned systems operations. however, a 2014 miter study and our preliminary observations have revealed that several countries including japan, australia, united kingdom and canada have progressed further than the united states with regulation supporting commercial operations for small, unmanned vehicles.

but the regulations governing unmanned systems are not consistent worldwide. some countries such as canada are easing operating restrictions through a risk management approach, while other countries such as india are increasing unmanned systems restrictions. our ongoing study for this subcommittee will look further at the experiences of other countries for potential lessons learned for the united states. mr. chairman, ranking member larson, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. >> thank you, dr. dillingham. captain moak? >> thank you, chairman, ranking members for the opportunity to provide our perspectives on the critical importance of safely integrating unmanned aircraft systems into the national air space system. our country's national air space is the most dynamic and diverse on the planet and also -- i want

to underscore this -- the safest. we need to protect it and maintain it to deliver the safest, most sufficient air transportation possible. uas and remotely piloted aircraft systems include aircraft ranging in the size from a small bird to as large as an airliner. some uas aircraft operate completely autonomously. the flight route is computer programmed and the device operates without a pilot. other uas aircraft are flown remotely by pilots from an operational center or control stations that can be located at the launch and recovery site or perhaps thousands of miles away. alpa supports the safe use of unmanned aircraft systems. we recognize the potential benefit to our nation's economic competitiveness, but we also recognize the potential for a safety risk if we don't treat them as what they are, airplanes in air space. we have all seen photos of the

damage that can be caused to an airplane by a bird strike in flight. unmanned aircraft can be much smaller or much larger than birds, but they harbor added risk in that they carry batteries, motors, and other hard metal components. this was a bird strike. please take a look at this on a commercial airplane and this next photo of a military airplane's encounter with an unmanned aerial vehicle headed in the wing root there. we must not allow pressure to rapidly integrate uas into the nas to rush a process that must be solely focused on safety. standards and technologies must be in place to ensure the same high-level of safety that's currently present in the nas before it can be authored to occupy the same air space as airliners or operating areas that might stray in the air space used by commercial flights.

we also need to make certain that uas pilots are properly trained and understand the consequences of possible malfunctions. now, i knew i would be speaking before you today, so i went online last thursday and purchased this quad copter for the committee for just a few hundred dollars. as the marketing promised, it was ready to fly in a few minutes and i was flying it in my office. now this uas can carry a camera, it has a gps which with the purchase of additional software can be used to preprogram a flight plan. it has the capability, this one, to fly as high as 6,600 feet for 15 minutes. that means it could easily end up in the same air space i occupy when i'm approaching at newark or seattle or any other airport. if we took this aircraft out in

the courtyard, it has the capability to fly from this courtyard to the final approach path at reagan national airport and from the park at the end of the runway -- that's reagan airport -- that's that gravely park, you can see it would be even easier to fly right into the aircraft zone. now, a well-trained and experienced flight crew is the most important safety component of the commercial air transportation system. a pilot in the cockpit of an aircraft can see, feel, smell and hear indications of a problem and begin to formulate a course of action long before even the most sophisticated indicators verify trouble. without a pilot on board, we lose this advantage. as a result, it's essential that uas pilots are highly trained, qualified, and monitored to meet the equivalent standards of pilots who operate manned aircraft. we also need to make certain that a uas aircraft can't stray

into areas where it poses a hazard if the operator loses control, that if there's a failure the aircraft doesn't endanger other people on the ground. if uas is intended to be operated in civil air space or could unintentionally be flown into our airspace, pilots need to be able to see them on cockpit displays, and controllers need the ability to see them on the radar scopes. aircraft also need to be equipped with collision avoidance capability. finally, the faa resources are limited, and the agency must have a long-term sustained source of funding as well as realistic timelines in a systemic approach that builds the path of uas integration based on safety. we appreciate the opportunity to testify today. we look forward to working with congress to ensure that safety is held paramount in bringing uas into the national air space. >> thank you, captain.

mr. kallman? >> chairman, ranking member larson, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify here today. i'm the head of business development and regulatory affairs for air ware, a san francisco-based company developing unmanned aircraft enabling companies to collect, analyze data for a growing number of applications around the world. air ware has raised over $40 million and our team has more than doubled over the last year. i also serve on the board of the small uav coalition which was formed to promote safe commercial operations of small uavs in the united states. this is a critical time. small coalition and others in the community would like to ensure that the united states becomes the global leader for commercial uav development and operations while maintaining the

safest air space in the world. today i will focus on three key issues for this subcommittee. one, the current state of uav technology and potential implications in a variety of industries. two, the need for a risk-based approach to uav regulations. third, the effective current and expected regulations on u.s. businesses. first, the uav industry is the fastest growing markets here in the united states. many here today may be familiar with the small consumer uavs used for personal enjoyment or photograp photography. i would like to focus on the biggest problems across a variety of industries. they are being used for disaster management, oil and gas exploration, search and rescue, surveying of crops. these uavs are equipped with many technological features to ensure safety and reliability of operations such as geofencing systems, which keep a uav within certain altitude and distance limits as well as away from

sensitive areas. also contingency management systems, which in the case of an issue on board the aircraft, enable the uav to automatically return to a safe landing location. these types of technologies are rapid rate and enabling safe operations today. in addition, nasa is working to develop a uas traffic management system to provide a means for safely managing a lot of these small systems. through my past experience work at the faa, i understand the challenge in regulating this new and revolutionary technology in the united states. there are steps we can begin taking to open up environments now. most commercial uav operations will take place below 400 feet. 100 feet below the typical altitude of safe aviation. this brings me to my second point. we must take a new approach to regulating uavs. for example, a very small aircraft at 300 feet would be subject to minimal requirements

whereas a larger aircraft over populated areas would require highly reliable avionics, additional training, fail-safe mechanisms like a parachute. these are the types of risk models being allowed to use in europe today including france. i'm pleased that the faa recently stated its intentions to shift to this model. i applaud them for this, but the critical question is how quickly can it be implemented. finally, i'd like to discuss the effective delayed regulations on u.s. businesses. as i mentioned, france alus le-risk operations as does canada and many other countries. the united states, typically a leader in aviation, is one of only a few countries that prohibits commercial uav operations. while we wait, small and large businesses in the united states are moving uav testing and operations abroad, where regulations are more advanced. delayed and overly restrictive regulations aren't just slowing the growth of the industry. many of the largest industries

and corporations in america see this technology as key for remaining competitive in the global marketplace. air ware raises a strategic investment from one of the largest corporations in america, general electric, who could use them in their business units. the farm bureau noted that u.s. farmers will not be able to keep up with foreign competitors if they are not allowed to use the same technology. ua, have -- ua vtech nothing will have a major impact on our economy. in the first three years of integration, conservative estimates include creating 70,000 jobs and adding $13.6 billion into the economy. with each year of integration delays, the u.s. loses more than $10 million in potential economic impact. we want the jobs, economic benefits, and core intellectual property created from this work to be here in the united states. we know that no matter the outcome today, uav technology will create jobs. it will save lives, and it grow the economies of those countries with the foresight to act. the united states is poised to

lead the way for this changing industry. we have the talent and the workforce to create the technology needed to safety integrate into the world's most complex air space. let's act quickly before major opportunities are lost. thank you, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. >> dr. roy, welcome. >> chairman, ranking member larson, chairman shuster, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the unmanned aviation industry in the united states. i'm a professor at m.i.t. i lead a research program on unmanned vehicles with a focus on unmanned flight in urban, civilian or populated environments. most recently i worked with google to fund project wing, a uav-based package delivery system. i returned to m.i.t. full-time in september of this year. i'm speaking solely for myself. i can't speak for m.i.t. or google. my main message today is that the u.s. does lead the world in uav development, but both testing the next wave of technology and training the next generation of engineers are more difficult in the u.s. than in

other countries. let me explain further. firstly, the issues around small uav commercialization are quite different compared to large military uavs. large uavs are safe and as reliable as manned aircraft. the usa is the unquestioned leader in the space so i'm going to focus on civil use. the vast majority of small uavs are toy aircraft such as model airplanes. this current generation of small uavs exists because of advances in technologies. computer, gps, and batteries. leading to smaller, cheaper that are easier for anyone to fly. there are many companies proposing to use these technologies for commercial use, but right now they can fly simple missions with the same reliability as a toy. a lot of example uses have made the news, but are for the most part prototypes. the current civil market around the world are tiny. hundreds to a couple thousand vehicles at best. there are real technology gaps. the recent faa call for center

of excellence is a pretty good road map for what technology is needed for growth. let me give you some examples. most people know what it's like for the gps in their car to get confused. this can and does happen to uavs too. they need sensors to let them know where they are at all times. they need to know about ground obstacles and how to avoid collisions. we need to ensure the pilot and can control at all times. as the number of uavs grows, the air traffic management infrastructure must grow to coordinate the number flying through the national air space system at any altitude. lastly, an unmanned vehicle only makes sense when the operational cost is less than a manned aircraft. on-board vehicle intelligence is needed to drive down the human labor costs in more applications. another wave of technology is required to scale up products for emergency response or package delivery. u.s. researchers and companies lead in these technology areas. we do have a demonstrated track record in autonomy, sensors and

algorithms. but there are hurdles. firstly, from the right cycle exchange 100 years ago in ohio to hewlett-packard, to apple, the creation myth of some of the most successful technology companies in the world is a small team of investors tinkering in a garage. the point is not the garage itself, but it gives the ability to test anywhere that is safe and this accelerates the development cycle. unfortunately it's harder to test in the u.s. than in other countries. it's not impossible. there are a number of mechanisms, but there's a considerable bar to industry. the current processes might be right for authorizing a pipeline inspection service across north dakota, but they're onerous for a basic technology. there isn't a single set of rules that can be adopted from another country that would work here, but there may be ideas to be learned. a clear definition instead of a case by case approval process will let engineers know where they can set up and start to work. secondly, and perhaps most

importantly, the u.s. position of leadership depends on our ability to train engineers and scientists with the scales necessary to develop the requisite technologies. there are a growing number of universities teaching technologies to undergrads. it requires real flight. while some institutions are near one of the approved test sites, there are too few and the cost is substantial. the same processes that inhibit access limit our institutions provide training in uav technology. furthermore, the support for basic research in uav technologies is diminishing. much of the progress in the u.s. has been funded by forward thinking program managers. afo, nasa. these program managers have not only funded the technology to enable the uavs but fund the students that is running on uavs today. universities outside the u.s. are acting as training grounds for a generation of researchers and as incubators for companies. let me conclude by saying that the u.s. is not currently lagging other countries

regardless of publicity around prototype demonstrations. the same technical hurdles will need to be overcome in any country before they become a reality. nevertheless, there are issues and constraints in this country that may allow other countries to overtake the u.s. in training the generation of engineers required to carry out that development. thank you very much for this opportunity. >> thank you. dr. roy. chairman schuster? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. we appreciate you bringing your expertise here. but i think it's important to point out that on this subcommittee, on the full committee, we have members that have expertise, we have pilots on this subcommittee. i think i have them all down here. congressman graves is a pilot, congressman hanna, scott perry, congressman perry is a helicopter pilot. we're going to be joined by congress murkita who is a pilot and jeff denham was an air force

mechanic. our counsel is a pilot. so we have a lot of expertise here, a lot of folks that understand what you're saying and, so i think it's going to be important as we move forward listening to you but listening to the experts that we have here on the subcommittee is very beneficial to us. i'm happy that they are here and with us and able to help us guide us through this. first question to captain moak, in your written testimony, you stated that commercial uas operators should hold a commercial pilots licenses and instrument ratings. we heard that the skills to fly uas are different, significantly different than those to fly a passenger jet. some parts of the curriculum really seem to have little relevance to flying uas. for example, operators need to master stall and recovery techniques in a cessna if they plan on flying a quad copter. what would be the relevance there? how would it benefit safety? is there a scientific basis for your recommendation?

>> so, even on another committee i sat on, we had the air force where they were working -- initially all their uas pilots over the last several years were coming out of the pilot pipeline. but as the need for more operators for the u.s. air force increased, they set up a separate uas track, which you may be familiar with. in that track, they do go through all the basic skills of flying for a couple reasons. one is to understand when they are in the airspace and the other is to make sure they are operating the uas properly. so the air force has briefed us on that. we think it's a good model. with what the faa has been doing, treating these as an airplane and going through a process of certificating the aircraft, certificating the operator, the person trying to

operate it, the company, and then certificating the pilots and then monitoring and oversight of all that i think is one of the foundations of having a continuing with a safe national airspace. so should they be able to recover from a stall or each of that, i think there's room for that in any curriculum, i agree with you on that. >> to modify it, if it doesn't make sense. the second thing is we have some reports from newspapers and other media sources that leaking out some of the proposed rule making. this it question to captain moak and mr. roy, there appears to be not be permitted to operate beyond the line of sight. if that were the case, my concern is it would almost eliminate the benefits that a uas system brings to us.

can you comment beyond the line of sight? >> right. so you've seen -- there's news stories all the time but two recent ones, one at jfk and one at heathrow. this would have been a different hearing this if this would have went down thegine of an aircraft. it would have been catastrophic and we'd have a different hearing today. i think what's important is if it's going to be operated in that method that you're talking about, there needs to be a way to have pilots that are flying be able to see it, and it's very difficult, if not impossible, to see this because, much like other things in the air, if there's not relative motion, your eye can't pick it up. all right? on the airspace issues, for example, for helicopters, 500 feet and below is where helicopters life flight and lots of other airplanes operate.

so i would just suggest this -- if we're going to be operating it beyond line of sight in dense areas, big sky, little airplane, but lots of airplanes, there needs to be a way for air traffic control to seat cie it, for airplanes to see it, for the people who's operating to be able to communicate with air traffic control and with the airplanes in the area. beyond that, you could easily operate with beyond line of sight. if you're in the area that's not occupied by other airplanes, of course you could operate it in that manner, but the only thing would be what do you do with a loss link, which, you know, has happened quite a bit in the military. >> based on what captain moak said, can you comment? i think this get bax to the earlier point i made in taking a risk-based approach.

you could fit myth gait with technology. for example, in france today, what they're doing for beyond line of sight operations they're operating at low altitude where is there isn't general aviation traffic or commercial traffic, and they're enhancing it through technology, such as cameras on board, a system where an operator can actually see if there's other traffic in the area to the point on loss link scenarios, they're utilizing technology i mentioned earlier for contingency management so, in the case you do lose link with your operator, you're able to preprogram in so the ua vx knows exactly how to respond in those cases. depending on what the area is, what the environment is, it knows a safe location to return to. these are the types of technologies in place today. >> one more minute for mr. roy to answer. >> beyond line of sight is eminently doable.

a risk-based profile makes a lot of sense and it's more feasible in unpopulated areas where you have some notion what the air space contains. the technology issues, there needs to be a contingency plan. loss of link is a problem. these are eminently doable. >> thank you very much. to me it was loud and clear. safety is paramount. i think we all can agree with that. this can be done. and as we move forward, making sure that we're looking at the technology and the safety aspect that, again, one size doesn't fit all. thank you. >> mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to focus my initial questions on this end of the table. i know folks on my side will have some questions for folks down here. but i wanted to talk a little bit about the technology side.

and it is -- dr. roy, have you looked at the use of the six test sites and made any assessment about whether they're being used as much as they can and if you have made that assessment, what would you suggest be done otherwise? >> so out of these six test sites are not my area of expertise. i haven't personally done an assessment. m.i.t. was heavily involved. in setting up the new air test site. and i got back to m.i.t. this september. so been a bit busy. haven't looked at what's available there. but we hope to be playing there soon. >> given your research and course of study, what would be an ideal environment? >> so that's a good question. one of the limitations i think is the distance with which one has to go in order to get to the test sites, and the -- i guess the onus on setting up operations there. in an ideal world, i describe in my written testimony the ability to designate local test areas

anywhere, local flight areas anywhere test areas have clear rules so that for instance if you are more than 150 -- i'm picking these numbers entirely arbitrarily but 150 meters from people on the ground or ground structure and you have secured the airspace, then if you had the ability to do that, that would allow, you know, presumably you could not do that in downtown cambridge but you could go farther afield to an area where you can take your students more easily than going to griffiths air force base and fly. >> do you have comments on generally what an ideal environment for these test sites would look like? >> absolutely. >> how would they operate, that is. >> i agree. i think the important thing for test sites is the ease of access so that small companies, large companies all have the same opportunities to go utilize the airspace. obviously safety is of utmost importance. so being able to do that safely through, for example, issuing a note to other operators in the area so they understand there's

testing going on in these areas but ensuring that these areas are able to allow for companies to get that approval and utilize that space quickly and rapidly and at low cost to these companies. >> we'll talk to the test sites about whether that's happening as well as some of the stakeholders. you talked a little bit about the risk-based approach and what it would look like. is there any scenario where a sector where you can envision a test to operation scenario? where, you know, like on the armed services committee we sort of broke through the acquisition on certain things to break through the slowness of the pentagon to act on things. is there -- using that model, is there a scenario where we can get to a test to operations scenario at these test sites? i mean in certain cases? >> absolutely. i think that could be very valuable.

i know organizations like nasa ames are already engaged in looking at things like to allow companies to bring their technology to showcase what it's capable of doing and ensuring that it will respond safely in a variety of different scenarios. i think that will be very important to have and i think that there should be infrastructure for that. >> yeah. dr. roy? >> i completely agree with that. i think that's essential because there are going to be operational scenarios that can't be represented in the test sites. so, for instance, as the commercial application of infrastructure inspection, package delivery and so on, they're going to require more urban environments for testing, and so as we stand up those markets, the test to operation is going to be an important part of that. >> yeah. and then want to come down to ms. gilligan about on the test sites, issue of designated

airworthiness representatives. you designate one for nevada test site. what about the others and is that something that test sites need to request or is faa trying to conclude that they ought to have these? >> we've offered that as a tool, a technique for the test sites to be able to expand attracting industry into those locations, and so we did it in nevada. we've offered the training to all the test sites. they've not yet offered a candidate for that training. we're ready whenever they're ready. after the training, the designee needs to demonstrate they'll have the skill that will be done with one of our engineers. after that, the designee will be able to actually approve the operation of the vehicle for the test sites. we think that will help to expand the attraction for industry to come to those test sites. >> this is an oda model essentially? >> at this point it's individual designees. it's not necessary it be an organizational designation because there's not that level of demand that we've seen.

certainly if the demand expands and we think an organizational model makes sense, we can certainly move to that. >> i'll yield back, mr. chairman, and look forward to the rest of the question, thanks. >> thank you. ms. gilligan, the question i'm going to try to get to is the effectiveness interaction with faa and the test sites. and there's a lot of faa activity with uas arena, with the test sites in section 333 and so on. could you explain the respective roles of the faa tech center, the test sites, the centers of excellence, cooperative research and development agreements, section 333 in terms of how they are getting us towards uas integration? i mean, seems like there's a lot of stuff out here, but we're getting reports that the test centers are somewhat frustrated because there's not the interaction that they were expecting and we're not getting results. can you talk about this?

>> i'd be glad to, mr. chairman. we have biweekly conferences with all of the test sites. so i think we have begun to alleviate some of those early concerns. i do think the test sites got off to perhaps a slower start than we and they were anticipating as they really came to understand what it was that they'd undertaken. i think we're seeing good movement there. they all have approved coas, they all have flight operations under way, we're collecting information from them but of course the numbers are still small because they're really all just getting under way. i believe the improvement that mr. larson referred to with the ability for the test sites to have a designated air worthiness representative who can work with companies that want to use the test sites, we believe will go a long way to increasing the appeal of the test sites to some of the companies that my colleagues on the panel have talked about who want to do research in these areas. so we think that will be an

important improvement as well. >> so does the faa have a plan to use these assets in a coordinated fashion? >> for faa research, we're looking at what our research needs are, and to the extent that the test centers can help us fulfill those and we have funding for that research we'll certainly look to use the test sites. right now faa has not placed research at any of the test sites. these test sites, as i say, were set up in accordance with the intent that we saw in the act, which was to allow industry, which as my colleagues have said, right now it's difficult for industry to have access to airspace for the purposes of research and development. we believe the test sites offer them the perfect opportunity to meet those research needs here in the u.s. and that's why we're working with the test sites to expand the ability for them to attract that kind of research. again, if faa research needs can be met at the test sites, we will certainly look to fund projects at those test sites as well. >> so when you say you're

working with the test sites to expand that opportunity, can you tell me a little bit more about that? >> again, we're trying to keep them well informed about what they are able to do under the agreements that they have with the faa. we now have individuals actually from the test center who will be traveling to each of the test sites to work with them more closely on what it is that we might be looking for to be able to get research data through the test sites. and then the designees, we believe, once the test sites take advantage of the ability to have a designee on site, we think that will open the doors for industry to take advantage of the test sites. >> can you tell us a little bit about how you are engaging with u.s. companies that might want to do research and development here in the u.s. versus overseas? and, excuse me, what i'm after is about some of these reports, media reports that companies are

frustrated. are you interacting with these companies? or how are we trying to keep them to keep the jobs here? is what i'm getting at? >> yes, sir. the staff in our uas office are interacting with industry constantly. there's a large conference, for example, this weekend in new mexico, a yearly conference. we are well represented there and we're reaching out not only in public sessions but in private meetings with manufacturers to try to understand what are their needs and whether and where they can meet those needs. the recent newspaper report that you saw, we've been working with that applicant. they're looking at both an exemption under part 333 as well as what we are recommending is that they seek certification for their vehicle under our special certification rules for the purposes of research. and we think that we can actually enable them to accomplish what they need to accomplish here in the u.s. through the test sites and through their own certification.

>> well, obviously a lot of areas of interest here that we as committee want to try to keep our fingers on, but while keeping safety paramount, the economic opportunities in an economy that can desperately use it is also at the top of our list. thank you. mr. defazio? >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. gilligan, there's this inanity of the anti-deficiency act where you can't give direction to someone utilizing a test site because you're being -- they're providing an uncompensated service. have your lawyers really looked at that to see whether or not there is a way around that, or are we going to need to legislate to fix that? >> our lawyers have looked at it, sir, at this point, and that's the advice that they've given us. i certainly will ask them to look more closely to see if there's some alternative. at this point we are again supporting the test sites by trying to make them attractive

to industry, who really is the -- >> right. and i've also heard from some who use the test sites that there's quite a bureaucratic process to come in and if you want to run one flight, you have to file all these papers, then you want to modify something and run another, you can't just do it -- you can't say we're going to change eight parameters and do another flight. >> we are working with the test sites and asked them to come in with a proposal for what we call a broad co-authorization. they're working on that proposal so that we can start to address some of these concerns. >> right. i mean, you got the test site, we get all those parameters in place and then someone comes there and says come back in another 30 days if you want to run a little modified -- i mean, they should be able to do it on a test site, be able to do multiple operations with different parameters. it would be useful for your people to observe, it would be useful obviously for their development, would greatly facilitate things. i hope that we can do that very quickly. why aren't there more test sites?

we limited it to six. but why couldn't we have more? we just limited it to six. is there any reason to have more test sites? i doesn't cost anything, right? >> it does cost us -- >> in terms of personnel monitoring. >> yes, we have people that work sites. there is a resource -- >> i don't consider them very well geographically dispersed. for a small start-up to have to travel a thousand miles to a test site, that's another thing we ought to look at. are we seriously pursuing a risk-based approach, which just makes so much sense to me living in the west and knowing that there are vast areas with agriculture where you could be praying safely and there are no potential conflicts or virtually none. >> yes, sir, we're using a risk-based approach as we look at the 333 requests for exemption to make sure we understand the level of risk and what limitations need to be added to it. we're doing the same in, i think one of the panelists referred to it.

we do have applicants who want to actually certify the systems. we're using the same risk-based approach there, we're looking at our rules and with the applicant what are the risks that need to be addressed by design standards and what standards can we pick from those standard thats exist now. >> geographic makes a lot of sense as a starting point for risk-based approach in refers to proximity tertiary, airports, critical air space whole different problem. i hope you're seriously working on that. there's one other question to you and that is the staff provides something that they say in the case of the film industry that after they got the section 333, they have to get a separate operating authorization which has not yet been granted. so -- >> yes. they need approval to operate in the air space and we need to be able to put out a notice to airmen where the operations are occurring. i believe all but one of them have now gotten that approval for at least one particular

location. >> okay. >> but we agree that under the exemptions process, we might be able to make that more efficient as well. we're looking closely at how we could do that. >> okay. this is a -- to the panel generally or maybe that end. i mean, transponders. how small can a useful transponder be these days? >> some of the smaller transponders that can be used now in uavs, be right now about the size of a cell phone or maybe smaller. >> a what, cell phone? >> yeah, cell phone sized. those are some of the smaller system, there are still some costs associated but i think that it could be helpful technology when you're at a higher altitude where there could be other traffic in the area. >> right. withdraw. we said over a certain altitude, you'd have a transponder. in certain kinds of critical air space, you have to have a transponder. right now those things are invisible to our crude radar systems. that's right.

okay. and then this lost link. that's been a problem with the military. you know, you think you've got that nailed in terms of having, if you have the geo spatial restrictions and that's all somehow programmed in and these things can find a safe harbor point remotely and they know they've lost the link so they're going to go to that point. >> typically how that would work is the manufacturers of the vehicles know what a safe amount of lost link time is. and for example, they can specify in certain applications where the link is absolutely critical and if there's any sort of lost link, it needs to immediately return to the landing location in a way that is safe. in other case, a lot of these systems are so highly autonomous that interruptions in the link may not be as important, if it's in an area where it's controlled, so it's all depending on the risk of the situation and you can actually program a lot of that into the actual avionics of the system. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> mr. meadows. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow up on some of what you were just sharing, mr. kallman. you talked a lot about technology and where we are. we see an aircraft sitting in front of captain moak there. it is possible to put in the type of technology or can you expand on the types of technology that would increase safety but yet not require an aircraft license as the gentleman to your right is advocating that would keep us safe. what other technologies are out there? >> i mentioned two very important ones, the geofence technology which is very common in the industry and can be used on vehicles as small as the ones you see here. the management functionality it gets to a lost link also loss of gps so that should the vehicle no longer be able to make itself aware of where it is, it knows there's a lot of really great research going on right now here in the united states and other parts of thm-ykykykml9

professor roy talked about on sense and avoid technology. that's going to be a critical piece for enabling a lot of these high risk applications at higher altitude with other traffic in the area and there's already very significant advancements in that area as well. >> how confident are you that if we do not change our regulatory scheme, that canada, australia, europe will own this type of technology and on a scale of one to ten being most confident that if we don't change things that we're going to lose out? >> i would say i'm pretty confident. because we're seeing a lot of the highly skilled manufacturers in europe really surpassing a lot of the u.s. company of their ability to go and iterate, do very frequent testing, do a lot of research on their products where they're able to actually go two or three generations in their products where a u.s. company may only be able to do it once. so we are starting to see some of that. >> so they're actually doing a lot more testing in europe or

canada or other places than we are here? >> just because a lot of them, the main manufacturers there have easy access to testing facilities. >> so ms. gilligan, let me come to you from an faa standpoint, obviously we have some six sites that we're talking about, but if there is so much work going on in these foreign countries, are you gathering data in terms of commercial activity from them successes, failures or are we just being more focused on the united states and not using their -- learning from their mistakes or successes? >> no, sir, there's a lot of coordination at the international level. both in terms of what should we

as an industry be setting as the standards for these operations as well as sharing experience that we are seeing around the world. but i do want to comment on the vast differences in the complexity of our air space and our aviation system over some of the other countries where we are seeing that there's some easier access. we have ten times the number of registered airplanes than our friends to the north. we have multiple times the numbers of operations. >> and that's without a doubt. but there is, as mr. defazio was talking about, there are certainly areas that -- where these, the risk would be minimal. i've learned today that i probably violated a federal law by taking pictures of a golf course. now, there was more danger of somebody getting hit by a golf ball than there is from the drone that flew over the -- to take the pictures, but as we see that, can we not look at it on a risk-based assessment and really

open up the testing so that our airline pilots can feel comfortable with what we have but yet not keep it so confined? >> we're working closely with the test site in north dakota, for example, with just that in mind. recognition that there is lower level of air traffic over most of the state of north dakota and they're looking at how they can broaden access for that test site. so yes, sir, we agree that there are areas where this can safely be accomplished and we're looking at working with the test sites on how we can expand that. >> so have we implemented any recommendations that we've received from foreign countries that would actually help alleviate some of this? or are we just gathering data? >> i'm not aware that we have recommendations from foreign countries that would address this, but we are learning from their experience and looking at -- >> if we're learning and not implementing, that's not doing any good, is it?

>> i'm sorry, when i was going to say is we're learning from them and looking at how we can implement what they've learned safely here in this system. we continue to look for ways to do this safely. >> all right. i thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. meadows. i want to thank the members for watching the clock. you may notice mr. larson and i kept ourselves on the clock. we have a lot of folks who want to ask questions so i appreciate that. we'll now go to ms. titus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i represent las vegas, so there's a lot of enthusiasm in nevada for the development of drones or uafs, we've got a lot of open space. we've got creach air force base. we've got a creative gaming industry that wants to provide bottle service by the pool with these things. i mean, the potential is great. we applied to become a test center, we got that. i was supportive of that. we've been working on it. but the enthusiasm is starting to wane because that test site

is not producing like we thought it would. i hear ms. gilligan being positive about it, but the things that i hear from people who have briefed me from nevada are more in line with what dr. dillingham pointed out. just they just don't think it's getting off the ground, so to speak. and i heard ms. gilligan say about three different times, we are working on this so we can start to address some of the concerns. well, that doesn't give me a lot of comfort because you've been working on the rule for such a long time, i don't think working on it to address the concerns is going to get us there in time to be competitive. i don't know why a business wouldn't just go test in canada instead of going to one of our test centers. seemed to me there are three problems that i hear over and over from the different folks

from nevada who come and talk to me. one is they don't know what information should be collected. it's just not been clear to them what data's needed, what -- how to put it together, what procedures should be followed. now, i hear dr. dillingham say you're working on establishing that, but there's no timeframe for when that's going to be done, so that could be who knows when that might be. a second problem that they seem to have is this speeding up the coa process. we heard some reference to that, you have to do it over every single time, takes so long. i wonder why we couldn't maybe prioritize the coas for the test sites over others because that seems to be where we want to put our emphasis. third, the problem of intellectual property, protecting industrial secret, so to speak, of companies that come and test there that has to give all this information to the faa and the public. i just wonder if you would address some of these questions, ms. gilligan. and dr. dillingham, would you give us your perspective on them. >> yes, ma'am, i'd be glad to. if i could start with the last one first, that's why we are very pleased to see that nevada has stepped out to begin the

approval process for a designee. we believe and i think they believe that using a designee will allow them to bring industry into the site without having to put in jeopardy the intellectual property that i know some of the folks who wanted to work at that site have had. so we think that's an important step forward. i believe the approval for that designee should be completed this month. so i think with that the test site will see that they can now sort of market that they have the ability for industry to bring their research projects to this test site and not put at risk the intellectual property that was a concern earlier on. so i think that's an important improvement and we applaud nevada for stepping out first to take that on. in terms of the coas, we do prioritize the requests. all of the test sites have approved authorities now for air space. there are some that are still pending. we're again trying to work through those as quickly as we can because, we agree with you, the test sites have been

designated as a location where we can take advantage of what we can learn to continue to integrate uas safely. so we are pursuing that as well. and i'm sorry, i forget the first one. >> i've forgotten the first one myself. what information should be collected. >> data, i'm sorry, yes. again, we saw these sites initially and primarily and continue to see them primarily to be a place where industry can go to do the research and development that they want to do, the work that some of my colleagues here on the panel have talked about. in terms of what data the faa needs, we now realize that is a valuable piece of information for the test sites to have. with the applications for the centers for excellence, we have identified the research needs that the faa has and again in our biweekly conference calls with the test sites as well as now with the visits that will be made by our staff from the technical center, we'll be

working closely with the test site operators to make sure they understand what could be helpful to faa based on the work they could be seeing at their test sites. >> dr. dillingham? >> ms. titus, you hit on all the key points, the same stories that we've been hearing from the test sites. we've had the opportunity to interview half of them and visit some of the test sites. and those are the key issues. i think in terms of increasing their value and their capacity to input, i think ms. gilligan, if faa fulfills those things that ms. gilligan talked about, that will go a long way, but i think sort of key to this is something that mr. defazio said about looking at this anti-deficiency law and seeing is there a way that, you know, funds could be made available to pay for research or support research at the test sites, and also in terms of the idea that we only have six test sites, i mean, our information suggests that in canada, for example,

they are ready to designate a very large air space up to 18,000 feet for testing beyond visual line of sight. so perhaps as we move towards the next stage of this, that not only additional test sites and a maximum use of the current ones that we again think in terms of risk-based approach to it. >> thank you. thank you. mr. chairman. >> mr. perry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to question. i don't sit on the subcommittee, but i have a great interest in it. from the context of safety juxtaposed with the industry and

the things that we're missing out on, i think as well as the time it's taken to come by the rule, my mind-set is many but i'm just looking at an article in the local paper on november 14th of this year, which is not too long ago at 4:30 in the afternoon on a wednesday. so it's not on the weekend. an ems helicopter flown by a guy that i used to fly with in the military at about 600 or 700 feet agl encountered a uas about 50 feet away from the aircraft and, you know, did a pretty strong evasivive maneuver to make sure that he didn't hit the aircraft. he didn't have his patient on board. he was coming back from having the patient on board. but that concerns me. it's not just ems. it's, you know, reports from ken do dee where just in the same month on november 16th one came within ten feet of the left wing of a delta airlines flight,

which is concerning. we want everybody to -- hobbyists, people that want to use it for business and so on and so forth to be able to access the air space, but we also need to make sure that we're all understanding what the rules are and that they make sense. with that in mind, just one question for you, mr. moak. what's the cost of one of the engines on the airplane you fly? >> millions and millions of dollars. >> i mean, literally over a million dollars just for the engine. >> absolutely. >> so if it's -- if the uas were to fly through it or hit it -- >> well, this is, just to be clear because i think maybe this wasn't clear. this has a gps in it this has geo coding in it. it has the ability to do the things when it loses lost link, it's supposed to come back. so this going through an engine would do that damage that we showed in the earlier picture

and to really be clear, we're all over this risk-based security, risk-based approach to it. and we also commend the steady hand of the faa and make sure that as we bring them along we're safe, but again we'd have a different conversation if it ran into that ems helicopter or ten feet closer to the delta jet. >> ms. gilligan, can i ask you a question in that regard. what specifications, if you can enumerate at this point or give us insight, is the faa contemplating to incorporate into uas to make sure that pilots can detect and avoid -- pilots don't just look straight ahead in the direction they're flying, you have to look almost at 360 degrees. you can't look behind you. and then if you could address all-weather capability of uas and what the plan is for that. anonymous operation. if that aircraft were to hit other aircraft, how do we know who owned it and maybe liability if that's germane to this

current conversation. >> thank you, congressman. on the question of standards, we have several groups that are -- industry groups that are working on advising us on what those standards should be through the rtca we've had a special committee working on uas standards. they expect to put forward their first set of draft standards around this time next year with final standards due about the year -- about a year after that, which is the standard process that we use when we're setting new design standards. in the meantime, we do have applicants that have come in to get certification for their vehicles. they're working on our los angeles aircraft certification office. we're approaching the certification basis with those applicants by looking at our current regulations and identifying those that are appropriate for this kind of technology. as it relates to the small uas, we do have a rule coming out shortly that will make proposals around a number of these areas and we'll look for comments back on those as well. >> are you talking -- for instance, lighting, a strobe or after-hours of darkness required

lighting, proximity warning or t-cass of something of that magnitude, then if you could address the anonymous component or the ability to track if there is a liability issue. >> again, we do not have existing standards for the design or manufacture of unmanned aerial systems for civil use. that's why we're working with rtca and astm. both of them internationally recognized standards setting organizations to define working with the industry what should those standards be. that's work that's under way and that the community completely agrees needs to be well developed to address just the kinds of risks that you're talking about. the other issue, which is something we're seeing now, the operation of small uas fundamentally by people who are able to buy them but have no aviation history or experience who, in many cases don't even realize they have a

responsibility to know that they're operating in the national air space system. our first approach to that is through education. we're doing a tremendous amount of outreach. we're working with the manufacturers who are voluntarily putting information into the kit, into the box when you get it about what those responsibilities are if you're going to operate a small uas. they are directing people who buy them to look at the modeling -- the american + %

congresswoman titus. i live in the other end of the country. for my state which has long been at the forefront of aerospace design, i see both tremendous opportunity for american businesses and for workers in my state, but also serious risk. i was at an event recently, a charity event which i had my first encounter with a drone, which was a little hard to actually be appropriately reflective during a benediction while a drone was overhead. so it kind of brought home what the reality of that is. so i want to return to my one of my favorite topics which is next-gen and ask several of you. it really goes to your point, ms. gilligan, i don't think we can rely on the hobbyists here to take the time that modelers have always taken because they see themselves in the aviation space. these are people who are enjoying toys in some cases and don't have that sense of responsibility. if seagulls can take down an

aircraft, what do you think something made out of metal can do? and all it is going to take is one horrific accident. i'd like to ask you, captain moak, can you talk about what we need to do in next-gen to keep your pilots and passengers safe in this country, what we need to be doing with next-gen and mr. hampton you're next on deck about this, and what about integrating both of these together, which i think is tremendously important. we need to move very rapidly. thank you. >> we work with the unmanned aircraft systems groups, and they shouldn't be defined by this because they also have the same concerns we have of one of these causing an accident. all right? so the risk-based approach, we're working with them on, we're working with the faa. on next-gen, the larger type of

systems that would be in the air space, there has to be a way for the pilot in the cockpit if it's going to be in the same air space, to be able to see it, there has to be a way for our controllers who keep the air space very safe to be able to see it on their control room currently we do that with iff, we have adsb in and out with next-gen coming online and i'm confident that these technological challenges that we're facing here going through a process, same kind of process we use to certify aircraft and operators that we'll be able to do that at some point, but right now they're being defined by this. and what we have to be mindful of is as the air space gets more crowded and not less that we have those same capabilities. when the air force comes to the next-gen committee sets on it, their concern is how they're going to be integrated in the

air space, in and out and whatnot. so that's really -- i think that's really the focus and the tie-in with next-gen, congressman. >> mr. hampton, about this integration effort of next-again with uas. >> currently a lot of today's discussion's been focused on the smaller uas. when we did our review last year, uas are operating today, of the authorized -- they call ms. gilligan and the industry calls them coa. there are about five of them. dod operates them now, albuquerque center, los angeles center and the only preliminary work to be done to look at the air traffic control systems and the adjustments that have to be made. in particular, the automation systems take a look at the 2.4 billion e-ram system, the flight planning system will have to be adjusted. another one we talk about is the voice switch. today most of the discussion's been about today pilots talk to

controllers via voice commands. today that discussion is going to have to be with the person that's operating the system that's on the ground, not in the cockpit of the system. so a great deal of work has to be done to think about how systems in the air traffic control system have to be adjusted. some work's begun. it's in its infancy. that has to be done now. i think the planning and requirements adjustments that something that has to be done very quickly. >> if anyone's got thoughts on the funding, you know, if this is appropriate to go to the industry to seek the resources to realize both the safety but also the opportunity for industry and if anyone would care to get into that, i'd love to hear your thoughts. >> your time is just about -- >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we'll start with ms. gilligan.

we created section 333 to push the faa to begin allowing small u.s. operations before finalizing the rule. you all stated goal was to approve these petitions within 120 days. however, only 7, according to my figures, have been granted to date and 60 applications are passed 120-day window. what's the status of these petitions and can we expect to see more timely response to them, especially with regard to areas you've predesignated as the test site? it seems obvious that you can let the airmen know that in these areas there's going to be the presence of uav, you can dedicate air space to them, you certainly ought to be able to streamline around the test centers. >> yes, sir, i'm pleased to say there were five additional exemptions that were issued today. so there are now 12 exemptions that have been granted. >> but there's 200 filed.

>> i believe it was slightly over 160, but we'll confirm that number for you. having said that, we agree that we need to speed this up a little bit. each of them is -- some are more unique than we were anticipating, but we're learning quickly as we've gone through this first set. as to the test sites, we actually believe that the statute intended for them to be separate from the test sites. they are for commercial service which is actually not the reason for the test sites. the test sites are about -- >> let me ask you something real quick with commercial service. i'm also worried about the cat being out of the bag. i've got a quad copter on my christmas list, as i suspect quite a few people do. so at some point there are going to be so many of these that are out without -- we're not going to know who owns them. you can look back to the fcc and the walkie-talkies that came with a card that you're supposed to register them, but nobody did. i think this is a more dangerous scenario, and it's something that i think you guys need to be

putting a priority on. when there are too many of these out here capable of going beyond, you know, a couple hundred feet, actually being able to go up to 6,000 feet, we've got a problem. and our failure to regulate them, we'll have a genie out of the bottle issue. i'll ask dr. dillingham, you studied this. how can we speed this up? i mean, things move at internet speed now. these are considered tech devices. silicon valley gets stuff done in weeks not years. >> yes, sir. this is a situation that, although we've studied, we don't have an answer for because, as you pointed out, we're talking about civilians, regular public, using these kind of platforms, and there are already existing regulations that the modelers follow, but the public has not adhered to it. >> the resources to enforce that against tens of thousands of these that will be sold at christmas? >> it will be a difficult if not impossible task because faa already has so many calls on its

resources, it's -- i think what ms. gilligan said earlier probably is one of the best steps. that is, education for the public that there are, in fact, rules and regulations that they need to follow. when we see these public announcements of individuals being fined or otherwise the faa acting on them, that probably is going to have to be one of the incentives as well. >> even the existing regulations assuming they were in force. let's assume i buy a quad copter and put a goat cam on it and go to my friend's ranch and film deer around a deer field. i'm perfectly legal at this point. i post that to my blog that has google ads on it, all of a sudden i've probably crossed into a gray area of commercial use. and i mean, that's -- that's a

lot of fine line distinctions to have to educate the public about. >> i can't argue with that, sir, you're right. ms. gilligan, i'll give you an opportunity to answer my question or concern that we're operating at the speed of the internet and if we can't -- if our regulations can't keep up technology and there's so many of them out there, we're really going to have a dangerous situation. is there a sense of urgency? >> yes, sir. there is within the faa. as i commented in my opening remarks, our small uas rule has been delayed beyond what any of us think is acceptable, but we believed our balanced proposal will be out shortly and we'll start to get comment and finalize those rules.

>> thank you very much. i see my time has expired. >> mr. massey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. gilligan, you mentioned that a rule would be coming out short ly and mr. hampton you've documented the ways that we're kind of behind schedule. i understand that things rarely go according to schedule whether you're in the private sector or the public sector, but when you say a rule is going to be coming out shortly, to quote a colleague, is that in a geological time scale or an internet speed? >> the proposal is under executive review at this point, sir, so i really can't tell you exactly what the timeframe is. but, as i said, all of us who are involved in the project understand how important it is to get this out as quickly as we can now. >> i would be remiss in my oversight responsibility here if i didn't get a date or some kind of commitment at this hearing so that when we're at the next hearing, we can measure progress toward that.

what are some of your goals in the next year? >> well, for the rulemaking, the department of transportation has a public website which shows the rules scheduled for release by the end of this year. once the rule is released, it will go out for public comment. that period will last anywhere between 60 and 90 days depending on what the community asks for. there's a concern that we'll get a substantial number of comments which will delay how quickly we can get to the final rule. but we'll certainly keep the committee informed of how we are progressing once we're able to publish the rule. >> to ms. esty's point earlier, how are we going to make sure these rules are copacetic with the next-gen, is it putting adsb in every drone? is that going to be one of the answers? would that allow them to interoperate? >> well, sir, i can't really comment on what's in the rule

because it's a pending rule making. but we have a industry very tightly involved with us in determining what should be the design standards for these kinds of platforms, if -- when they are to be certified by the faa. so we'll base our decisions on what the community recommends. >> one of my concerns for drones in the commercial development of them is if you require something like adsb and there's no low cost solution to that, are we throwing up another impediment because the low cost solution to adsb doesn't exist right now for private aircraft and do you see any progress in that field? >> well, again, the industry, members of the committees who are advising us know they must address the risks to sense and avoid other aircraft and for the unmanned platform to be able to be seen by both controllers and pilots in the system. they're looking -- working hard on what exactly those technology solutions can be. and we're sure they'll find them.

>> i know you don't want to comment on rule because it's not been released, but can you give us some indication, is it going to be risk-based or to what degree will you incorporate those recommendations of a risk-based strategy? >> i can tell you that we did take a risk-based approach. it is the approach we use now for all of our standards. we also look at performance standards rather than directing particular technology solutions for example. and those are just the general policies that we follow. >> so i've got a question for mr. kallman or dr. roy here. some experts have talked about integrating privacy by design. you know, we're talking about safety. what about privacy here? this is a genuine concern that the larger public has, i think. are you aware of any technology solutions to the privacy issue? >> to the privacy issue, i think

it's important to state that privacy is definitely one of the things of utmost importance for the uas industry. privacy by design. a lot of manufacturers are engaging in this today and doing things like restricting where and where cameras can turn on and protecting that information. but ultimately i feel that privacy is really independent of the type of technology that's collecting that information. i feel that privacy is really about what information is private, what information is public and insuring that we protect that independent of differtyods. >> dr. roy. >> i'd also like to add that privacy is a little bit of a moving target. it varies from not just country to country but across the u.s. as well. it's really a question of expectations. i think that when we talk about -- your suggestion privacy technology i think so long as the public understands what information is being collected and has clarity into that, then

that will go a long way towards actually defining privacy. >> quick question, i don't know if there will be time for an answer, but one of the things in addition to a ceiling that i'd like to see is a floor. what's the reasonable expectation on your property, if something's an inch above the ground is it trespassing? if it's 10 feet above the ground is it trespassing? the right to engage a trespasser. so that's something i'd like to see considered along the privacy lines. i think my time has expired. >> it has. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i understand because of the number of folks you have and the folks we have that we'll go two to your side and one to our side and get through this. i want to yield a little bit of time to mr. defazio who has a question, then i'll take the rest of the five minutes. >> i thank the gentleman. try and do this quickly. when we see these things in the new york air space, have we found anybody operating

illegally who was putting people at risk? i mean, you've talked about some commercial violations. have you caught anybody who has like put people at risk with one of these things? >> i can't make the correlation to some of the reports we had. >> right, because we don't know who is operating them, who owns them, anything. how about a system where we require registration, licensure, the user fees go to help you with your deficiencies in your budget and you vary the license according to the uses and the weight and the capabilities so that the cost for, you know, would be appropriate so it won't be burdensome on little small, but so anyway think about that. there's no real answer now, but i thinks that the way to go. we need to know who has these things, who is operating them and, you know, people are putting people at risk, taking a plane down, they got to be prosecuted. thank you. >> thank you. mr. hampton, the faa uas working

group has recommend the integration office be placed at a higher level in the faa. have you looked at or do you have an assessment moving the uas integration office would help coordinate efforts better across the agency? >> sorry about that. that's a very good question. in industry, that's a very significant concern. at this time, i think we're more concerned about outcomes. and as going forward in the reauthorization process, i think we've have to look a year from now and see the outcomes and whether things have advanced. we're going to -- faa is going to quickly move from a situation from actually planning to actual execution on a number of fronts. so i think we'd have to wait in about a year from now and see where we've gone with the execution of the rule, whether we've gone where faa's response to a number of our recommendations on developing and executing a framework for

collecting data where we've come with the test sites, so i think that's a very real possibility. i think the key -- i'm not really too concerned about how faa's organized and structured, but outcomes, sir. i think that's a very, very good question. the office was structured and it does a very good job of coordinating. a year ago we were concerned about staffing levels. they staffed up. we're also concerned about the requirements of what's important for it to actually begin to develop the regulatory framework, do controller training, so requirements and the position of the office to execute things and make things happen with a sense of urgency, so i think we'd have to take a look at that in about six months to a year, sir. >> just for the record, i'm hopeful we'll be done with this reauthorization well before that year is up. >> yes, sir. >> dr. gillingham, from your discussion with test site

operators and holders do you have any idea how test site levels could increase participation in the u.s. integration efforts? >> yes, mr. larson. in our conversations with the test sites, in addition to the blanket coa that ms. gilligan talked about, and the appointment of the air worthiness director, the test sites also talked about perhaps they could be a part of faa's approval process of the section 333s. that number is going to increase and it's a workload burden on faa. we're hearing that it will be two or three years before we have a rule, so in the meantime, any tools that are available to further the idea of commercial use of uas would certainly be helpful. the idea something was talked about earlier again is sort of

the development of an integrated budget that allows faa to be more supportive of the test sites as well as again we bring back are there issues around the anti-deficiency law that can be somehow dealt with so that it allows faa to adhere to the law but also be supportive of the test sites. >> captain moak, just one final question on this. how are pilots communicating near misses to faa? is there a structured way to do that and are you confident that every near miss that is seen is being reported? >> so if you see one of these, you're going to take action to avoid it. you're then going to report it to the controlling authority. so if we're out in the approach corridor, we'll be talking to approach and let them know immediately so that they can make sure someone else doesn't

go in the same air space. if we're on the tower frequency, we would report it to tower at that time. then on the -- once we're on the ground safely and have gotten to the gate, we have an asep reporting program that we work with in the faa and the companies with. we report it through that so that everybody can know about it. i'm not confident -- i am confident that when someone cease it, we're reporting it. i'm not confident that we're seeing them. because they're very small and, like i was saying earlier, we don't have any indication in the airplane like we do with t-cass with the other aircraft and the relative motion necessary for your eye to be able to pick it up is difficult, especially this size and maybe just a little bigger. so it is a real issue. our pilots are reporting them. and we just need to stay on top of it. i'd like to see us take some kind of construct on this type of problem that we took with the

green laser problem we were having and we became a lot more successful on reporting and also prosecution of people that were pointing those lasers at pilots on flying. >> thank you. >> mr. davis? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i echo the comments of chairman lobiondo and chairman shuster, both from a safety perspective as well as an opportunity for economic growth. the briefing materials that we were provided by the committee cite that this -- that uas systems will have an $82 billion economic impact and perhaps provide up to 100,000 jobs by the year 2025. my questions should be viewed through that lens. i'd like to start with associate administrator gilligan. one thing i say with uas is more

efficiency in rural areas, like the one i represent, viewing farmland and precision agriculture. and make sure we have proper drainage and better production, better environmental impact. so one thing that can hamper this is a requirement. if the rule required a pilot's license in order for a farmer to operate a uav, can you confirm the small uas rule would require a farmer to get a pilot's license in order to use one. >> unfortunately, sir, because we're in rule making i'm not able to talk about what's contained in the rule. we're mindful, however, of the -- how easily uas could be applied to agricultural operations. of course, we also have a very active ad pilot community we're dealing with who are concerned about operating in air space with these kinds of platforms. so we're looking at how we can address all of those safety risks and how they can be mitigated. >> thank you.

please note my concern requiring that, if that is going to be part of the rule. dr. roy, the faa's slow pace may be causing our best and brightest to maybe leave the united states, especially when you look at major u.s. tech companies that have moved their research and development operations overseas. do your students have better job opportunities outside the united states in this field? >> the field is small right now. commercial uavs. so the job opportunities are few and far between in the u.s. and other countries, but i think you've heard from several people that the rate at which the opportunities are growing in other countries possibly is going to lead to a lot more opportunities. i'd say that the -- it's immeasurably small around the world right now, but i would worry that there are many

more -- i personally am seeing more start-ups. very small start-ups but more start-ups outside the u.s. than inside the u.s. >> one of the major issues with uavs is the flyaway problem. loose connectivity and flyaway. it affects consumer uavs and also high end aircraft with the military. how do we mitigate that risk and integrate this into our aviation system? >> yeah, and i tong reiterate also that safety again is of utmost importance. with the flyaway issues, that's a matter of technology. i think that the technology is increasing at a very rapid pace. i mentioned earlier a lot of functionality and a lot of these systems to manage issues. you'll lose the gps or something along those lines. so making sure systems have the ability to know how to automatically respond should any system fail on board the aircraft and be able to return it to a location that's determined safe before the

flight. those will be very important to insure. >> safety is paramount on the flight simulators many of your pilots use to train. is there a simulation for uavs? >> not per se. there is simulation for, you know, detect and avoid. visually pick up something or if you have a situation where you're losing control because perhaps you had to maneuver it. maneuver it in a manner that you wouldn't normally be maneuvering it, meaning you were banking it excessively and how you recover from that upset situation. >> thank you for being here today. this is an issue we should be able to address. we've seen unmanned aircraft fly sorties within the theater of war in a much smaller area than they've done it safely. we ought to be able to not fall behind countries like canada in put together a rule making

process so that we can get commercial uavs into the marketplace and do it in a way that's going to be safe. i have concerns, too, with our medical helicopters. i'm in the flight line of my house in taylorville, illinois. i want to make sure we have these rules in place, we can do this. i appreciate your work and look forward to hearing you at the next hearing. >> thank you, mr. grace. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and make sure we have proper drainage and better production, a couple of comments i would like to make. gilligan mention agriculture because i am very concerned about that.

during the periods between may and august, at least in the midwest, we have heavy traffic at and below 300 feet. that's going to and from the airport. and that's on the site where they are spraying, too, and it's a big concern. there is a huge potential out there for uavs and agriculture sector. but they are in that same air space and it concerns me a great deal. this comes down to, and captain mentioned it. comes down to visibility, being able to see these things. i don't think transponders are necessarily the answer. that gives air traffic control visibility on them but if you are on a flight plan you aren't talking to air traffic control, you don't have the benefit of that sight. if we put adsb out anthem, that's going to paint them but you have to have it in to be able to read that as well. and it still comes down to situational awareness and the people flying the manned aircraft have the manual awareness.

but traveling 100 knots up to our airline traveling 350 knots and everything in between, you're moving pretty fast and that's awfully small and very hard to see it, particularly if there is no relative motion. i've got a huge concern with how we're going to move forward. i'm not so sure we don't need to take a more active role in congress when it comes to reauthorization. but it concerns me in a big way. we haven't begun to talk about the safety of individuals on the ground when these things do go rogue and what happens to those folks? we're just talking about aviation and the potential. i don't want to run into one.

interestingly enough, there are a lot of birds out there and we have bird strikes but birds have situational awareness, too, and they'll get out of your way, for the most part. but this is a big concern. there is no question in that. we need to move very, very carefully as we move forward. >> thank you. mr. williams. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank all of you for being here today. appreciate it. i'm from texas. we've got a lot of air space in texas. and my question to you would be, ms. gilligan, as companies look for economical ways to modernize their delivery systems, unmanned aircraft systems are looking more and more attractive as we learned today. amazon prime air is currently investigating the possibility of using small drones to quickly deliver their packages to their customers.

my office has met with amazon prime and learned they are having some difficulties getting permission from the faa to test their delivery system outdoors in a rural area in washington state. would you please give this subcommittee an update on amazon primary's petition under the faa modernization reform act of 2012 that will allow them to test this system outside here and in the u.s.? >> why sir, i'd be glad to. they have applied for the exemption, and we've worked closely with amazon. we've been in regular contact with amazon since, i would say, over a year ago when they began pursuing this project. we believe, though, to some extent what they want to be able to do they can do under a -- with a research certification for the vehicle. we're also working with them on taking that approach because we feel that will fit their needs betters. they are having those conversations.

we know they are not satisfied that they have to go that path but i'm certain we'll reach some conclusion shortly so we and they can figure out how to support what it is they are trying to do. >> my second question would be also to you. looking to the future, do you see a time when the faa will have an assistant administrator for unmanned aircraft systems. if not, why? and what is the faa doing to prepare for this change? >> we believe unmanned systems are like many other of the technologies that we've brought into the system over the years. so we do believe there will be full integration and that will be handled within the structure that we currently have. we do not see a need at this point for a separate organization because we need to make sure that the aircraft itself and those systems are integrated in design and manufacture with the aviation system and the operations are integrated with the operation of

the rest of the aviation systems. that's the approach we're pursuing. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. yokida. >> i thank the chair. i'm not on the committee yet, but i appreciate the time to ask some questions. i have six pages of notes here which for me is an all-time record so i can tell i'm going to hate being on this committee. i thank the witnesses for their testimony. if i heard your testimony correctly, it seemed like you were defending the faa process here and where they are at when you said, look, other countries might be ahead in terms of the regulatory schematic but they're still going to incur the technical difficulties. did i get that accurately? >> that's correct. >> so then those countries must be acting with reckless abandon or something. >> no, i don't think that's true. >> then why can't we follow the same path?

>> let me draw a distinction between a small number of flights that demonstrate capability or provide a service and the -- what is required in order to service all of, say, agriculture in the u.s. so a good example is japan. so japan is sort of a high water mark in terms of precision agriculture. somewhere between 30% and 40% are sprayed using yamaha rmx helicopters. one model of aircraft is providing service for about 77% of all the uav and it's doing so with about 2,000 aircraft. that's a very small number. the effort required to support that is relatively small. it's nice that japan and the other countries have the regulatory infrastructure in place, permission for testing that allows companies to go and develop their technology, but

what's required is another way of technology to scale up to the amazon prime air servicing all of d.c. or the boston area. and i think that next step is what's going to be required to really grow the markets everywhere. >> okay. thank you. i'd like to ask any of you if you're aware any of actuarial studies that have been done. if we're talking about a risk-based approach and what you've all indicated that's a fine approach. insurance companies all day long do studies that analyze this using math. so if we're worried about a strike in an approach corridor around an airport, we could take the number of, let's say birds, that are in a square mile of that airport or some area and then let's say it's 10,000 or 20,000 or 100,000, whatever it is and then add the ten drones that would be in the area at the same time and see what the increased percentage of risk is. and then we could have a discussion based on science and math and not what -- not pictures and beliefs because the fact of the matter is a bird which has situational awareness.

i completely agree. but it still can be -- still can determine what the risk is. captain? >> so we have procedures for birds currently. so there if there are birds in the area, there's the atis system that the controllers are putting bird reports out. meteorologists are putting that information out. you can see some large flocks of birds on your radars. we have procedures if we were to have a bird strike. so there's all kinds of procedures for dealing with birds.

it's not preferred method. >> but not a bird near a miss. you outlined a procedure for a uas near miss. >> bird near miss. we have a procedure for that. you report birds in the area because you know you have another plane coming right behind you. >> flocks of birds and that kind of thing on the airport and it's in the approach corridor but there's not the detail procedure you indicated for a -- >> there is. if you're going to hit a flock of birds you're going to maneuver the airplane in a manner -- >> i meant you get down, you call, you -- then you alluded to a prosecution element that was inherent with the laser stuff, which is an intentional act. but my question is about the actuary studies. have there been any actuarial studies? >> for the large aircraft that's the case. for the small aircraft, i think

the answer is no. there's a couple of reasons for that. we don't have good models -- good failure models for a lot of the parts and for the consequences of failures. components. we don't have good mods for the consequences of failures. bird strike action might be one that does exist. for other failure models, i'm certain they don't exist. >> would that be helpful? >> they would be extremely helpful. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. if there are no further questions, i'd like to thank the witnesses for their testimony. the subcommittee stands adjourned.

the army's aviation restructure initiative is expected to save the army $12 billion. under the plan, the national guard would transfer its fleet of 192 attack helicopters to actor force for 111 black hawk utility helicopters. an update from the director of achieve of u.s. army aviation at 1:00 p.m. eastern live on c-span2. energy second talks about energy policy and a report bit international energy agency looking at how energy in the u.s. is being released. he is at the policy center at 2:00 eefastern on c-span.

john huntsman on the future of u.s./china relations. it begins live at 5:30 p.m. also on c-span. the justice department and georgetown law school co-hosted a symposium on cyber crime. a u.s. attorney for the western district of pennsylvania spoke about how law enforcement is going after criminals and prosecuting them. this is ten minutes. thank you very much. let me give you the good news. i'm going to be very direct and to the point. we're going to get out of here very ñ/fwquickly. this has been an extraordinary conference. i'm very grateful for the invitation to be here and the honor of closing the conference. we developed a signature in western pennsylvania in the cyber realm. certainly, if you have been

paying attention, 2014 was a watershed year for us. on may 19, we brought the case against the five members of the pla for economic espionage against hipittsburgh companies. then just two weeks later, i was back in washington to announce the case which we talked about in detail today. our body of work also includes iceman. you heard him referred to as king pin, iceman. he is max butler. he was prosecuted in pittsburgh for the largest computer fraud in history. as alluded to earlier, iceman was a criminal. he was a cooperator and he was a criminal. i think that reflects part of our challenge. one of the cases you didn't hear about was university of pittsburgh bomb threats. i think it's important to hear about this case. i'm going to try and give you the lens of the body of our work

as a reference point to try to tie together what you heard together. because much of what we dealt with in the practical reality of handling these cases was addressed in various ways by many of the speakers over the last eight hours. the pitt bomb threat case happened right after we had had a mass shooting at our psychiatric hospital in pittsburgh. which was affiliated with the university of pittsburgh. we had over 100 bomb threats that were coming through anonymous people of various types through media outlets causing great terror in our flagship university. i took the step at that time of activating the joint terrorism task force, which was considered controversial. it put us out on a limb in whether we could solve a cyber needle in a haystack problem. in pittsburgh we have some of

the best resources to deal with a cyber threat. you heard earlier about keith who was the agent on the iceman max butler case. he is the head of squad 16 in pittsburgh. earlier today for a brief period of time, luke was in the room. he was formerly in western pennsylvania and he was the prosecutor. if you don't want to read the book "kingpin," pull in american gr greed and you can read about this. that's kind of the beginning of the story in western pennsylvania. with all of that talent and the national forensic cyber alliance and the partnership between dhs and carnegie mellon, i felt we were going out on a limb, but we had no choice. we had a shooting with

fatalities and less than a week later, a series of threats against the university. the chancellor was in the position of determining whether or not he evacuated upon these signe cyber-based threats. he did each time. there was no question that that was exactly what the threatener wanted him to do. this threat stream ultimately had a tail to it which was two individuals from cincinnati who were another part of the threat who used the anonymous moniker to further terrorize the university. without going through all the details, it involved details with our partners, a trip to ireland by me, because we had a pittsburgher -- the president of the steelers as ambassador to ireland to implore him to make sure that the people understood how important this was. we were able to identify an

individual who has been charged and we are doing everything we can do to extradite him to bring him to pittsburgh. he has since in an open interview confessed that he in fact is the one who did this. i think that was a huge achievement. and all of that was going on at the same time since i began as u.s. attorney in 2010. we were working towards efforts in the case and in what we know at u.s. versus wang dong, the espionage case. why does this matter? because -- this is lost in this discussion today, which is no criticism of the forum. we need to take as first principals that cyber intrusions affect real people in real ways. our entire approach in pittsburgh is victim centric. the comment about how microsoft does its business res natuonateh

me. in each case i tell you about -- of course, we have the whole spindle of seib acyber cases. we have one of the largest concentration of exploitation of children involving cyber medium. we have cases involving theft. we announced one today involving a million dollars of theft with a couple who were using surfing social security numbers at walmart with 900 victims. we're doing this every day. like most u.s. attorneys office, a large part of what we're doing you never hear about. it has been victim focused. and it has been done with attention to the fact that we embrace the challenge of having to deal with both the security issues and the privacy issues. that responsibility in western pennsylvania falls on my shoulders. like most u.s. attorneys, we accept and relish that

challenge. all of the conversation about where the legislation and the law will go will never take that responsibility out of the u.s. attorney's office ultimately. we can have both. it's a false choice that we have to give up one to have the other. i am heartened and take note that we cannot have privacy without security. we have to deal with the threat as it is. so it's a borderless threat. it's insidious. even before encryption, it involves evaporating evidence. when you talk about how slow the government moves, be in a meeting where we have a dedicated national cyber group where we operate as if the whole worldv 8ç depends on our work a listen to me saying, we need to move faster. we can't just accept that we cae we would do in a historical

crime case. this is a dynamic challenge. as i have said to the fbi directors times two and to the leadership of the department of justice, if this matters as much as we say it does, we have to reject all convention. we have to let the limits of our imagination be the guide to where we go to deal with this difficult problem. you see because i believe that you have to understand my narrative about pittsburgh, which you can translate into your own narrative about where you reside. to appreciate how significant this really is. notwithstanding martin's provocative jab earlier today, pittsburgh is the center of the universe if you did not know that. we were the home of american industrial revolution. andrew carnegie started steel there. john rockefeller started oil there. if you go back