will restore a great deal of confidence for young people looking forward. now, to be clear the marketplace has to react, and we have seen that. the pilot wages are increasing. we've got one airline who has first-year signing bonus and a retention bonus that effectively raises their starting salary to higher than some mainline airlines. yet, that airline in particular is unable to fill its new hire classes right now. when i hear this is just an economic model i think economics play a role there and that's part of it but we need to look beyond that. and we need to develop the pilot pipeline and restore it and keep it seamless. >> okay. well thank you. i only have half a minute remaining. ms. gilligan i think i'll just submit a question on the record for you. about the contract tower program and stress that the senate and

house continue to strongly support the faa contract tower program on a bipartisan basis and request you to comment on the record about any recommendation recommendations faa may have for reauthorization bill to insure that this program is enhanced and protected. thank you. madam chair. >> thank you, senator wicker. i think certainly after our hearing last week, it's important, many members of the committee share the support for the contract tower program so i look forward to the answer to senator wicker's question. thank you. now i would like to call on senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much. a lot of interest in the hearing. i'm pretending those are lines of people trying to get in that you just heard. thank you so much, and i also wanted to welcome the colgan flight people who are here today. members of the families. we worked with you, especially on the bill on pilot fatigue.

and captain sullenberger, i want to thank you for your continued attention to improving the fatigue standards, and can you share your perspective on why we should not continue to have two levels of safety regulations for passenger and cargo planes? >> thank you senator. i would be glad to address that. just as much as the 2010 airline safety bill was regulatory success, the cargo carve-out, exclusion of cargo operators in the new fatigue rule is as much a regulatory failure. and it's one that's hard to understand. it's one that's clearly the result of economic pressures and not a safety argument. we have learned in the last decades much about the science of fatigue. we know how predictable it is. it's predictable as the sun rise and the sunsunset, obviously. and it results in predictable negative effects on human awareness, attention, short term

memory, performance, and judgment. it's ironic in the extreme that the pilots who are doing the flying that require the most protection from fatigue are the ones who are specifically excluded from the rule. every night all night and much of the day, cargo pilots share the same air space the same airports with commercial passenger flights. they fly all over the whole country. over each of our houses. at 2:00 a.m., 3:00 a.m. 4:00 a.m., 5:00 a.m., looking for the airport. we owe it to every american to right this wrong. >> thank you so much, captain. and ms. gilligan is there any thought with the faa of changing this? i know that basically that wasn't the case when you looked at this but is there any case of reconsidering this after the decision was made to exempt cargo pilots before? >> senator, we actually think

there are other ways that we are expecting the cargo carriers to address the risks posed by fatigue. the bill itself required all carriers including cargo carriers have a fatigue risk management plan that required that the carrier look at specifically at their schedules and using the current science that we have for fatigue determine if any elements of their schedule provided the possibility that the pilots would be fatigued, and they are required through that plan to address that risk. in addition, we now have the requirement for safety management systems which is also applicable to the cargo carriers. that broader system will require that they identify whatever risks they have in this case the risk of fatigue. because cargo operations are a very different from passenger operations and the scheduling is very different, we believe the safety management systems approach will assure a better level of safety for the cargo carriers. they will analyze their schedules. if any of those fall into the

red, they will have to address that risk. >> okay. thank you. and again, we'll continue to pursue this with you. mr. baker, i know you touch on this in your opening statement, and i just wanted to let you know the senator and i did the bill on the small airplane revitalization act. we're so happy it passed into law, and i'm as frustrated as you are that we don't have the faa meeting the timeline to get the rules out. they're very important. we think there's safety benefits. i want you to know we're continuing to pursue that. i just actually have one last question that i sort of came up with after being on a flight recently next to someone who was a little bigger than me. and i know that there's been some issues with some of the planes having smaller spaces. i guess i would ask you, ms. gilligan, about this. and we have rules for space for pets and we have no rules for

space for humans, and over the past decade, seat pitch has decreased from 34 to 28 inches, as you know. when the faa is testing the safety of new aircraft does the faa also test for a variety of seat sizes? particularly as it impacts the ability to evacuate an aircraft, and is the faa or department of transportation taking any action to examine any potential risk from limited seat sizes on commercial aircraft? >> we have done research on both seat size and seat pitch. we do it based on what is called cuing theory. the ability for people to get out quickly, and we do set those standards to assure the most even flow of passengers out of the aircraft in the event of an emergency. so any of the aircrafts that are approved do meet those standards. >> and so has there been any renewed look at this given it appears there are some smaller seat sizes that we're starting to see lately? >> i'm not aware that the seat

sizes are smaller. whatever is installed does meet the standards that are required to provide the appropriate level of safety for emergency evacuation. >> including -- i guess they have changed in the last decade. so from 34 to 28 inches. >> but each new design must be tested to assure that emergency evacuation can be accomplished. >> all right, thank you. >> chairwoman thank you very much. ms. gilligan, the faa's 2004 sport pilot rule allows private pilots to fly small aircraft without a third class medical certificate under certain safety restrictions. the issue i want to explore is altitude. is there a clearly defined saeftd benefit for one altitude over another? i think theory is that pilots

maybe can fly lower than the 18,000 feet, the floor for class a airspace. what should we know about safety based upon the ability to fly at various altitude levels? >> well, senator, i think there are a couple elements to that. the one you point out is that the structure within the airspace tends to separate aircraft based on the sort of technical abilities of the aircraft. lower airspace is not as conducive to jet operation for example, or to commercial operations. higher altitudes allow them to be more efficient. so there are some elements of the airspace design that suggest separation of operations by altitude. >> my question is, can we make safety considerations different at lower altitudes because larger commercial aircraft are flying at higher altitudes? >> well, of course all of the

commercial aircraft pass through those lower altitudes at least for departure and arrival. but there are some differences that we do apply within those different airspaces depending on exactly what the operations are that are in that environment. is that helpful? >> it's helpful. i guess what i was trying to find out is what difference does it make whether the threshold is 14,000 feet or 18,000 feet or 10,000 feet on the safety considerations for private pilots. >> one is related to 10,000 feet and below because at those altitudes, the aircraft does not need to be pressurized so you don't add the added risk you would lose pressurization and the pilot would lose consciousness. that's separate from inair space issue you raised initially. there are element of the air space design that addresses safety risk and some elements related to altitude that assure the pilot a little more protection from what might be a

safety risk. >> thank you very much. ms. black, anything you would like for me to know about the topic? >> to be more clear about it. the idea that you need supplemental oxygen for any length of time and it could be cables in your nose, to safely fly up to 18,000 feet but above 18,000 feet, you're required to have a pressure mask on so it's full-on oxygen. you could still fly up to 27,000 or 30,000 feet but it's a different type of mask. i don't see any safety issues as long as you're doing what you're required to do as a safety issue. >> thank you. let me turn to -- let me come back to you, mr. black. we're hearing about pilot shortage. what is it that aopa and others what can pilot schools do to promote -- when i was a kid in high school, we had civil air patrol, and all us kids got excited about civil air patrol.

i know it still exists, but what could be done for a different generation for issues to get excited about flying and can address pilot shortage and compensation. how do we make this a career path for american snz. >> we're testing a few programs called the ucan fly program, which the cessnas most people learn to fly in. we've got a number of those in the states right now and we're trying to get people actively involved in joining a flying club. even starting earlier, we're working with a number of high schools. we have a program called s.t.e.m.a., science, technology engineering, math, and aviation. we're getting people involved in education, a career decision or frankly for recreactional flying, but we want to get involved with the high school training programs and start showing what we know works and remind people they can afford to fly with the flying clubs that makes flying affordable if they

want to do it for recreation as well. we want to reenergize general aviation. >> your organization or others are interested we would love wichita, kansas others places in kansas to be a part of the process. if i can help encourage s.t.e.m.a. and encourage people to have an interest in becoming pilots professionally or as a hobby, a sport, for personal enjoyment, include me if there's any way i can be of assistance. >> may i quickly add. my first officer for four years immediately after our famous flight were co-chair of the eaa young eagles program. which is a worldwide program to encourage youth to be enthusiastic about flying. and in fact, to get them a first flight with a volunteer pilot to connect the dream with the reality. so that's something we're very familiar with and eaa young

eagles is a big program that encourage encourages thousands to do just that. >> captain, great to know that and you would have the standing, the stature, that would excite young people and i appreciate your interest in the program. my time has expeered. i would say the issue of reliability of air service by regional companies in my state of kansas and i assume across the country it's a serious challenge. it's hard for people to make decisions about flying a regional jet. i have bane champion of essential air service since i came to congress. there was a commitment to made to many of my communities in my state and we fight here in congress for the financial support of essential air service, but if we have a regional carrier that fails to provide the reliable service, people are having a difficult time deciding whether to buy a ticket on some scheduled regional airlines with the uncertainty of whether or not that flight is actually going to take off, and you know, the explanation is often that there's a pilot shortage, but it sure makes it difficult for us

to continue to advocate for regional service and essential air service as a component of that without the relyiability. >> i think when we restore -- may i respond. >> yes, ma'am. >> when we restore certainty to the pipepen line and can get more stability, more of those issues will be resolved. wie have one carrier that served 64 communities that is now serving 32. that's one of the examples of the pilot shortage in those communities, and dhats something we're seeing, not just the eas carriers but all of our carriers. every day, carriers are cancelling revenue flights. i'm very close to the program and a shared advocate, and we think that's really important. we know that that ability to use the service, the ability to know it's going to take off when you want it to for business especially, is essential. i think this is critical. this is very critical issue for essential air service. and another issue that we have

is with some of the pilot supply issues with carriers being unable to even bid on those routes. you get more and more carriers bidding under the alternate eas program, so here you have carriers who aren't even required to meet the att regulations filling this contract flying because the other carriers that were filling the flying before can't fill the flying anymore. >> thank you. >> thank you, and thank all of you for being here, and to all of the family members of those of flight 3407 thank you for not waivering at all and trying to help us make the skies safer. let me say this, on the pilots bill of rights we have introduced that and you're familiar with natthat. we have been working on that for quite some time. on the fundamental problems we tried to fix was the appeals process. i would ask you, since you have been working this so hard, are the pilots today getting a fair and unbiased review of the faa

decision in u.s. district court. >> the process of appeals for the ntsb, i think it was clear that a number of years ago it was worse and it has improved steadily steadily. while i'm not concerned, there are people hung up in the system and there should be a circuit breaker, if you will, in how we approach those kind of legal issues, while it's improved i think there's rool for more improvement. >> being a pilot myself, i have 3,000 hours, but my hours were accumulated over 40-something years. i would ask as far as a safety standpoint, the 1500 hours i have to agree with you going backwards would not be a way for us -- respect, i disagree with the direction you're going on this from a safety standpoint. i know the decisions i have to make, but i'm asking on the simulator count does that count

toward the 1500 hours? >> no. >> no simulator at all. >> no. >> the 1500 you accumulate when you're a co-pilot flying second seat? does that accumulate. >> if i could try to help, and we'll get you the actual breakdown, but it is -- there are some circumstances where taking the second seat can be counted as that flight time. it depends on how the aircraft is designed and certified. it's certified for a two-man crew, the time does count. if it's satisfied for a single pilot, even though they may have a second pilot, the time -- >> the 1500 hours in the type of flying or 1500 hours flying? >> 1500 hours of flight time. >> i could apply with the hours i have. >> correct. >> i don't think you want me in the left seat right now. >> you also need a type rating now. >> type rating.

the other thing is there any time period, a period of time in what period of time? no, sir. >> i have 3,000 hours. if i go back and get type rating i could -- >> so, the 1500 hours qualifies you to take the airline transport pilot test along with some additional specific training and high altitude and whether operations that you must demonstrate you had as well and pass through the tests and if you war to be hired by the airline, you receive training on the aircraft and receive your type rating. >> i understand that. to both of you you're saying there's no pilot shortage. there's people coming into the the system. you're saying that the regionals are not paying the price to basically get those quality of people in there, and i think ms. black is saying completely different because she's not getting the pilots she needs and she has to lower the criteria

for them to get the pilots. am i correct in what i heard both of you? >> no, if i could just -- >> real quick, and then the captain. >> yeah, there are senator 110,000 pilots in this country with airline transport certification. there are another 65,000 who could quickly get it. really the issue and it has been for several years, that there are some companies that just aren't good places to work. and the word has gotten out. and the first officer on the colgan air flight was making $16,400 a year. she was based in newark, could not afford an apartment, even to share one, where she was based. she was communitying from her parents' home in seattle. on a poverty level wages, probably qualified for food stamps, that is the reality of that life. >> even more disturbing is they put her on a flight where she had known icing conditions and not prepared. it's unfathomable for me to

think. >> it's -- >> that anyone at regional would put her in that situation. she even knew she wasn't qualified for that, correct? >> she obviously didn't feel uncomfortable with that. to the extent there's a problem, it's inflicted by the industry. there's a perception that if you want to have a successful career, you might look elsewhere in the financial world for example, and not become a pilot. >> ms. black giving you the final on that. explain to us they changed the criteria of the quality of the pilot and what they're prepared to fly in what type of weather. >> sorry? >> do you make determinations? are you looking at the person's qualifications, how they got the hours, where they accumulated the hours, did they do it all in florida and not in the east where there are weather conditions? >> i think that question really speaks to the heart. first, when i say we don't want to roll bake the safety, we don't want to move backwards,

we're proposing an alternative pathway and because we're seeing negative unintended kwauns knss from the 18500 hours. when i hear you want to hire an experienced pilot, i agree, but i don't agree 1500 hours in an unstructured environment is going to get it, and it speemaks to the point. >> what makes a point if they're 1,000 or 1500? they're going to accumulate the same way. >> we have seen data that after 500 hours, there is negative learning. >> you survive 1500 hours, you had to make some decisions. >> indeed you do, but there's no guarantee that 1500 hours is spent in a scenario-based environment. really, it's not contributing to what you see in a commercial airline cockpit. that said, what i think we can do is propose an alternate pathway that takes advantage of the scenario based training you get. it certainly does include some flying, but the flying is done

in a structured environment. there's a room for flight instruction. there's a proomroom for the tradition traditional pathway, but at some point, if you are away from your time and training, you come out of these great structured training programs and we say to you, you now to have spend a year building time away from your training, i find it surprising that it seems common sensical you would lose your skills. it seems natural your skills would deteriorate and we're seeing that. our airlines are seeing a diminished quality of the applicants. this is a very real situation. it gets to heart of a pilot's professional development to be able to seamlessly go. we're prepared to make the investment investment. the characterization we're trying to cut costs or don't want to make the investment is just not true. safety is an investment that we willingly take, but we think we need to restore a pathway that makes sense, that takes a pilot from structured training that prepares them not just as ms.

gilligan says to respond to an emergency, to prevent it in the first place. >> sure, you can understand that if there's a person who has been in a seat for 20,000 hours telling us one thing and you're representing an organization you would think that maybe we might lean a little bit towards the experience? >> but i could ask you to look at the data. >> i understand that, but i'm a pilot, too so i understand. and there's no disrespect, but we're going to be leaning that direction, probably, a little bit more. sorry. my time is up. i'm so sorry, madam chairman. >> we might forgive you this time. thank you. i would like to call on senator fischer. thank you. >> thank you, madam chairman. ms. gilligan, you noted in your testimony that between 1998 and 2008, the fatality risk for commercial aviation in the united states fell by 83%. and i commend the faa and the aviation industry for this tremendous accomplishment.

can you provide the committee details on how the faa is cooperated with industry and other sfaekholders to reach this goal and what has the role of technology been in reaching this goal? >> thank you senator. we believe that the commercial aviation safety team, which is a partnership between faa, nasa dod, and the commercial aviation industry, had a large role to play in the safety improvements we've seen. it's always very hard to say as an industry we implemented x and because of that, we saved this many accidents. you can't make that direct correlation. but we do know that voluntarily we and the industry implemented a number of safety enhancements in that time period and we believe the record speaks for itself, that kind of partnership where you look at the data, you understand where the hazards are, you agree on what will mitigate the risks and implement and measure that implementation is what accounts for the improvements we have seen. many of those safety

enhancements included technology improvements. technology does allow the opportunity for the pilot to be better informed have better situational awareness and even oftentimes provides additional time for the pilot to respond to the hazardous event that's occurring. so that's been important. but pilot training standard operating procedures, all of those pieces of the system have helped to reach that record. >> thank you. mr. baker, in your written testimony, you mentioned one of the major causes of general aviation accidents is loss of control. which represents nearly 40% of all general aviation accidents. how is general aviation community, how are you working to address the loss of control accidents? and what specific challenges would you face in that? >> as ms. gilligan mentioned early on one of the great devices that came out of the first test to make sure you move

to the path, angle the tap, which i have flown a number of complex jets, is a simple device that tells you if you're about to lose control of the aircraft. it's never been required in light aircraft. they have invented and madetle for a couple thousand dollars, you can put it in an airplane if you're getting close to a stall, electronically or physically, a device that we have been waiting for a long time to get the approvals, and we think our role is also continued training and reminding people that stall training is really important fundamental to aviation and we had over 2 million hits on our site to make sure we're really at the fore front of the training and that's the number one issue. >> thank you. ms. black, we've heard about the challenges for regional airlines and recruiting pilots. i hear that all the time from my airports in nebraska. what are some of the ways that the regional airlines are

working to recruit and retain pilots who are returning from military service? have you focused on that as all? are you looking at trying to bring those military people into jobs within the industry? >> we have. and the first step towards -- >> i guess i would ask you, if you're doing it, what do we need to do and how congress can help and maybe what changes need to happen within the faa on that as well. >> well, certainly the rule and congress reflects the importance and the great structure of military training. by giving it the 750 hours credit, and so i think that has been helpful. unfortunately, there are fewer military pilots coming out. i think there are more of those who are there that are staying in the military for longer and just fewer military pilot operations in general. so we're seeing that. in terms of our efforts as an industry looking at ways to get

more military pilots, the first step is identifying where our carriers are hiring the pilots, and so we're in that process now. and we'll reach back out to you as we get a little further along. again, i think with all pathways to have certainty for it just so the aviator knows coming out of a structured training program that they can go into the right seat of an airline and flow through is very important. we talked earlier just a little bit about some of the flow-through programs we have. we're proud of them. they're effective. but we need a little bit more help with the pathway. >> i hope you'll be in contact with my office and let us know if we can help you in any way in getting the former military personnel into that. thank you. >> we certainly will. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you madam chair. mr. baker i'm a sponsor of the pilots bill of rights, too, and i believe the third class medical reform will help reverse this trend of a declining general aviation pilot population, while also maintaining the appropriate

level of safety of pilots flying for both private and recreational purposes. your testimony mentions that medical reform has a potential to improve safety by keeping pilots in the airplanes they're most familiar with. could you expand on that a little further? >> yes, the faa about a dozen years ago started down this path with light sport aircraft. the aircraft that are designed to be flown at under 15,300 pounds and in some cases, some qualify as a loit sport aircraft and they evolved into aircraft companies built with that purpose in mind, to be under 1300 pounds. in many cases those airplane are fine, but in bigger wind, it's harder to control those aircraft. we're forcing the pilot population of the number one most popular airplane if a

person choses not to go down the medical path, they move downstream into an aircraft they're not as familiar with, and not as capable of an airplane to fly in conditions. >> that helps. do you think this will help prevent the decline of the pilot population which i believe is averaging about 6,000 pilots per year? >> i do. there's over 350,000 pilots under age 75 that are on the sidelines today, and there are a number of reasons. could be economic could be family, all kinds of them, but we believe a significant percentage would stay in the game and play longer if they weren't burdened with this outdated regulatory issue. >> ms. gilligan, i'm going to shift gears and go to eastern montana. we had a man here recently and we were discussing the ongoing safety concerns from our general aviation pilots, really in expansion of the powder river training complex in eastern montana, the moa there, parts of elsworth. as administrator in charge of

safety in the faa, i would like to discuss the safety of the air space surrounding the baker airport in montana. originally, that idea was launched years ago. it's a sleep aey part of southeast montana. well, it's been waking up with the energy boom, the keystone pipeline in the middle of it, the baker on-ramp right there near the baker airport. the faa, said they're taking this adaptive management approach to the implementation of the air space. could you describe what adaptive management means? maybe that's described by the faa, what does adaptive management look like? >> well, sir, i'm not fully familiar with all of the details of this particular project and we can provide that to you and your staff to make your you have a full understanding of it, but what we're looking at is how we can best manage the air space to accommodate both growth and assure the appropriate levels of safety at the same time.

growth is a risk factor. we need to understand how the air space, air traffic, whatever, can manage that growth. to assure an appropriate level of safety in the air traffic organization does a safety risk analysis to make sure that's properly handled. >> that baker airport has over 7,000 annual operations and i guess the concern is where it's all headed here with the growth. and would radar coverage, would realtime communication between air traffic control military and civilian aircraft, would that help reduce some of the risk as you think of the adaptive management approach? >> it may well. that's what the safety risk analysis would have to address. i believe the safety risk analysis has been completed or is under way for that particular project. and through that we'll identify if risk or hazards are being introduced and what the mitigations would be required to address it. >> then, along the lines here

your testimony highlights the faa's proactive nature in identifying identifying risks. is part of the flowing public i thank you for that. in specifically the successful aviation safety team the cast model, which uses data development and understanding of the best actions or interventions to prevent accidents. do you know and this may be getting in the weeds here with the powder river but do you know if the cast model has been used in active military operation areas? >> well, the department of defense is a member of the commercial aviation safety team, but again, sir, we tend in that group to look at systemic broader issues that perhaps individual members of the team can't really address on their own. that particular type of issue is not something the commercial aviation safety team has taken on. >> not taking that methodology

and not using it that you're aware of? >> yment i'm not awar they are. >> i used to fly f-4 phantoms out of the range complex, and while it was often restricted areas, i think realtime traffic that was provided, the realtime use statistics of the air space often made it available to the civilians. the range complex would be a model that you might want to consider taking a look at. >> thank you for that. by the way, i texted my son and said i was in a hearing with you, and he texted me back and said a true american hero. >> thank you. >> thank you, captain. >> senator sullivan. >> thank you, madam chair. i would oakecho the senator's comments. this is a great panel. really appreciate everybody's testimony. very, very informative. i really appreciate what you're doing. i think we're all in agreement on the importance of safety for

our citizens, for the flying public. you have made some very important contributions already. i want to talk about kind of the issue of regulations with regard to how we do this in a way that's most effective. and ms. gilligan i want to start with you. we had a hearing last week with regard to infrastructure in terms of raveiation. as you know the key part of safety is aviation insfru chukker whether it's up dates to runways and things. one of things that has been, i think, for many americans many members of congress, a frustration is just how long infrastructure projects now take. we had the manager of the seattle tacoma airport testifying last week. it took 15 years to permit an additional runway at that airport. not to build it. took three years to build it.

15 years to permit it simply permit it. do you think the aviation infrastructure delivery process needs reform, on the regulatory side, and would you be willing to work with this committee on suggested streamlining particularly of infrastructure projects that relate to aviation? we need those out there, yet we have a system that pretty much inhibits the ability to do that. >> well sir, as you're aware we have an office of airports which is responsible for setting those design and safety standards. but i can assure you that the faa is willing to work with this committee and with your staff on any initiatives you believe are important to consider in the reauthorization proposal. i'm not as familiar with what some of those safety and design standards are, as our airports organization but certainly, we'd be willing to work with the committee on those kinds of

questions. >> great thank you. i had a follow-up question for you and mr. baker. it's relating to the adsd plan and that is something particularly many ways pioneered in alaska, and right now leaves approximately one third of alaska without coverage. with regard to altitudes that our general aviation pilots fly. i know it's not practical to have full coverage, but do you believe that there is a minimum operational network that we could have with regard to the coverage in the state that is something that would provide safety and also a target to shoot for given again how important safety is and also obviously how large the state of alaska is? i welcome comments for either of you. >> yeah, i have flown alaska a

number of times myself in small airplanes and seen the advantages where it works with traffic and other things in the weather that you can now see. i'm a big supporter of adsb. we want to get down the path and we have started to encourage our members start equipping in the lower 48 significantly. we also want to work with the faa in pockets and places down the line that really need attention, but we're fully onboard with supporting the growth of adsb and whatever it takes to fill in the last pieces, we'll be pushing for that. >> great. do you think there is? that we could get to a minimum operational network in a place like alaska where obviously you're not going to have coverage over the entire state but shooting for that kind of minimum that's helpful in terms of safety? >> well, senator, as you point out, alaska has been a leader in adsb and other technologies to enhance the level of safety in those very difficult environments like alaska. i don't know that we've committed to a particular level of network service, and we

certainly can provide that information back to the committee. but again, we're always willing to work with any initiatives that will enhance safety and make the system more efficient as well. >> we would like to work on that. and with our pilots on that initiative. finally, mr. baker, you mentioned in your testimony a lot, you talk a lot about the importance and success of the industry working with the faa to address many of the safety issues. one of the things that struck me is that you're doing that in a way that i think is very useful but also doesn't go through the rather formal and cumbersome rule process that can take, again, back to my original question years. can you highlight some of the examples where you've been working on a more informal basis with the faa to make progress on some of the safety issues that get proper input from industry? >> we have worked together well on a number of issues as it

relates to covered as a device. we'll show you if you're near or close to the stall of your aircraft. but i always look forward. we have over 40,000, almost 20% of our total airplanes built before 1965. so we need to think further ahead. safety devices like inexpensive auto pilots should be part of the thinking. ipads have changed the way we think about navigational situational awareness and how we're using them has completely changed unfolding maps. as we work in the future, we have to think of the inventory of the planes out there that are very important transportation devices in many cases and important recreation. we have a number of meetings how do we equip further down the line after adsb. >> thank you, madam chair, and i want to thank the panel again for your excellent testimony. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to call on sorcantenator cantwell. >> we're trying to wrap up and i

want today get in a few things i wanted to be clear on. mr. hart, you believe that we should close the loophole as it relates to cargo pilots on the sleep rule. is that correct? >> that's correct. we have medical fitness is one of our most wanted items and a huge part of medical fitness is fuatigue fatigue, and fatigue applies to everybody operating complex equipment. >> and the faa did make this requirement and it didn't get through the process. >> the notice that proposed the change did inform the cargo community, but as we completed the process for that rule it was determined that we could not sustain that requirement. but as i pointed out, we do believe there are other ways that risk is being fully addressed and that our inspectors are working with the cargo carriers to make sure that through their safety management systems, the cargo carriers are looking at their schedules to determine whether in fact

fatigue is an element and if so, that they -- >> made the recommendation before, right? it's a matter we have ntsb who made the recommendation believes we should make all pilots under the same fatigue rules and the faa you're saying is looking at this, previously looked at closing this loophole. >> we had proposed it that way. as i said, we could not sustain that proposal through the final rule. but again safety management systems require that the carrier look for risk. they have to identify if they have any part of their operation where there's a hazard, and when they find that they must address it and they'll do that in conjunction with our inspectors. >> what are we supposed to think about this issue that popped up in seattle. a man falling asleep in the -- you know the issue of outsourcing maintenance and possibly, you know, saving dollars or something of that nature, and finding somebody who falls asleep in the cargo hold. should we look at the entire maintenance crew and their operations and systems? >> again, through the safety --

i'm sorry, ma'am. >> mr. hart? >> our fatigue applications are broad. it's not only pilots. it's maintenance, air traffic controllers, it's everybody in the system. >> okay, thank you. >> again with the safety management system, the new rule we have that's going into place, the carriers will have that responsibility. they need to analyze where they have hazards in their system whether it's a specific rule or it is some operating procedure or process that they have which is introducing a hazard. so if there is fatigue in how they're scheduling their maintenance workers or how the maintenance work is completed they will need to analyze that and correct it. >> certainly a wake-up call, and people, i think we need to ask these questions, and faa just recently said to united airlines, we have concerns about what you're doing. i think we have to make sure that everybody is complying with what we believe are the best conditions for flying.

captain sullenberger, did you want to add a comment to that? >> i certainly do. sms and fatigue risk management systems are important, but they're additional safeguards. what we need to do is close the loophole, solve the problem, insure that cargo carriers have to build schedules that comply with federal aviation regulation, which is fatigue rule that the passenger airlines have to comply with, and not try to fix it later with quite frankly a band-aid approach. we need to solve the problem. fatigue is futeal, whether you're carrying passengers or packages. >> and maintenance. >> and maintenance. >> thank you. >> thank you i would like to call on senator peters. >> thank you madam chair and thank you, member cantwell for holding the hearing and certainly it's been a fascinating hearing and i enjoy the conversation from the panelists. there's been quite a bit of discussion on the required hours and pilot experience prior to being a co-pilot.

i wanted to explore that a little further if i may. ms. black, you talked about the pay structure of regional airlines in the $22,000 to $24,000 starting salary. how does it compare to one of our major airlines, what do thaw may their pilots? >> i'm not as familiar with the mainline pay scales. i have one airline that is paying more than some mainline counterparts, but at both regionals and mainlines, that first year pay is often lower. it jumps in both cases, at least in a regional case, by 32% by year two and 50% by year five. >> for most of these folks coming out because as we have talked about earlier we don't have as many military pilots as we once had which was a source of pilots with significant hours. we have folks who are training themselves in the fact they have to seek out training and pay for it on their own dime. do you have numbers as to amount

of dent the average student has when they come out? >> i don't but i know our university partners do so i would like to get that back to you. >> i would like to know that. captain suler brglenbergersullenberger, do you have an idea in the differential in pay between a regional airline and one of the carriers? >> i would imagine a minimum of 50%, and i would add that this widespread perception that jobs entry-level jobs at the regional carriers are not good ones is deserved. and it's become more widely known. and i think to the extent that there are people who are making other life choices for thelselves and for their families, it's because of that. this is something that they have done to themselves. and it's easily reconcilable if they simply offer starting wages and working conditions that will attract qualified candidates which are out there. who are currently doing other

things. >> ms. black, it looks like you want to respond. >> regional airlines are part of the natural career progression. i think that's a natural fact. first-year, first officer wages in particular are lower for a number of reasons. first of all the marketplace. second as you know in many cases, they are collectively bargains. we have several examples of regional airlines who attempted to unilaterally raise first year first entrance pay and they were rejected by the uniwherein. we talk about pay, and i think we should, we do need our label partners to acknowledge there's a role in the process too. we agree it's important to raise those salaries. the good news is we have raised the salaries. the marketplace is reacting naturally, i think, and so as part of the natural career progression, that jumps again and again. and it's meant to be a seamless progression from regionals to mainlines. >> still the reason why a young person is going to question whether or not to go into the

career, it's it's not because they wouldn't love to go into flying, i would have loved to, but it's because of the economics. that's a very expensive process. you have to pay for the structured flight training, and what is the number of hours you come out of structured flight training? >> between 350 and 550. >> then you need to get another 1,000 hours of flying time. if you are flying a different aircraft, you're probably not flying a jet. you're probably an instructor. does that impact, captain sullenberger, even though someone may have 1500 hours if they're paying for it on their own dime and they have to minimize their costs does that alter the aircraft choice or the job opportunities for them and is that really adequate training when you step 234 to the cockpit of a jet? >> there are several things i want to make clear here. first is that pilot passion will only carry you so far. the same as passion for any profession will. at some point like everyone

else, like all of us, we're going to want to be abel to buy a car or have a family or eventually buy a house and have a life. and we need have a career path that's going to enable us to do that. that's why the regional airlines have had so much trouble. because they have been offering for so many years a substandard set of wages and working conditions to try to continue to make fit in the real world of broken economic model. so simply by correcting that, all that follows from it will be much better. let me also set the record straight. a lot has been talked about structured versus unstructured training. they make it seem there are two things out there that exist that really don't. and one thing that doesn't exist that doesn't matter. first of all, the regional airlines as compared to the majors, in spite of the improvements they have made that have been essentially forced on them by airline safety act of 2010 still are not up to the

same level as the large major airlines in terms of their training. they just don't have the same kind of environment that the majors do. the majors also depend upon having pilots show up who will up who have the qualifications. again, it's important that everyone to get in the first seat of a regional airliner or a major airline as a pilot is fully qualified from the outset. the other thing i want to clear up is that there's somehow something wrong with having other flying jobs and having real world experience. let me explain to you the difference between the structured, you know, hand holding training environment and the often ambiguous and messy real world of operational flying. in the real world of operational flying you have to develop the judgment, you have to have the skills you have to have the knowledge to do the job and that is something that's built over a period of time.

that's as important as having the training environment, which is really a much more sterile environment. when you aren't as able to make those judgments, aren't as able to develop that skill. so both are important. again, we're back to that false dichotomy that they're trying to impose on this gate of quality versus quantity and of course we need, we must, we can have both. >> thank you. i think my time has expired. thank you. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you. i appreciated your comment just now, captain sullenberger about the difference between the real world and the training environment and the qualities that are necessary to deal with the real world as they are in many endeavors and challenges, which are different from what can be experienced in the artificial environment in training.

you mentioned those skills and experience and the passion for flying, and i think you know one quality that sort of pervades all of them is mental health and i don't know whether you have given thought and i would invite the rest of the panelists as well -- to whether there should be better screening for mental health periodically, just as we do for physical health because mental health can impact those qualities of readiness and skill and even fatigue fatigue. we're here today in part because in 2009 the tragic crash of flight 3407 in buffalo was the

result of, in part fatigue, but fatigue often masks mental health issues. so my sort of open-ended question to you -- and, by the way, i appreciate that beverly eckerd's sister, nancy, is here today from beverly eckerd of san ford parish in that crash. my question to you and maybe the other panelists approximate if they wish to answer is whether mental health should be a subject of screening. whether it should be not only an issue that's put to the pilot or co-pilot co-pilot, but also to his fellow pilots and co-pilots because they are the ones that are likely to get to know him or her and see whether that person continues to have a passion for his or her work, a focus and concentration, a real ability to

function in those it demanding circumstances when the challenges are greatest. so i invite you to address that topic. >> senator, thank you. i'd be glad to. this obviously is something i have not only thought about but i have recently written about. in fact, the germanwings crash, a shocking, horrific event that's unimaginable to professional pilots it flies in the face of everything that we stand for, everything that we believe so is illustrative in several ways. first of all, this this particular pilot who had just over 600 hours i believe, probably an npl pilot, could not under current standards have been an airline pilot in the united states. he didn't is have the requisite experience. and the down side of not having had had the security experience is that he wasn't vetted repeatedly by a series of

different employers and a series of different flying jobs. he wasn't observed for a longer period of time and the 149 people on that airplane paid a horrific price for those failures. it's also important that we realize that in any domain, and we've known now for 40 years in having a history of using aviation safety self-reporting systems that there are some critical safety information that can only be gleaned by self-reporting and from no other source. so whatever choices we make, whatever improvements we suggest based upon whatever the findings are ultimately of this crash, we need to be careful that we do not decrease receive-reporting because my understanding of medical knowledge is that it doesn't quite yet enable us to predict when some one person may have a break.

in spite of the fact that we to screening, we have regular medical examinations and we're required on a regular basis as part of our recurring training o demonstrate our knowledge, skill, judgment and in spite of how close the working relationship is in a cockpit where you're literally elbow's length from each other you spend sometimes 14 or more hours a day locked in it this little cockpit closet where no interaction goes unnoticed, it's really difficult to know exactly who that other person is in spite of the fact that we have professional center committees at our pilots unions where we can go to our pierce who are trained to inter so screen in cases like this we can go to the chief pilot, the faa can pull someone in for a special evaluation. really self-reporting is one of the most powerful ways whether it's the pilot or family member or whether it's the person themselves. >> so self-reporting really has to be preserved and encouraged. >> so --

>> the consequences for self-reporting should not deter that self-reporting. >> yes, sir. yes, senator. so what that means is we have to create and maintain a just culture and not a punitive one. there needs to be a clear pathway for the pilot to say, i need help to get the help they need when the condition is resolved, to then be able to to get recertified and come back to work, but pilots who are not fit to three should not fly. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator blumenthal and thank you to the panel's witnesses for being here today. the record will stay open for two weeks, my colleagues are free to submit written questions and we hope you will comply in answering them in that time period. i know i plan to submit a couple to the faa and mr. hart. so, again, thank you to all the witnesses. i know you will continue to follow our work on this issue. we're adjourned.

this weekend the c-span cities tour has partnered with cox communications to learn about the history and literally life of topeka, kansas. >> when the kansas nebraska act was signed in 1854 the very act of signing it of just signing that piece of paper was viewed by missourians as an act of war. so when northerners decided that if popular sovereignty will decide the fate of kansas we are going to send people to settle, that was viewed as an act of war by many missourians who had just assumed this would all be theirs. there are raids back and forth across the kansas border almost immediately. in may of 1856 john brown, his sons and a couple of other

followers drag five men from their cabins along the mosquito and pad watt me creeks an they are shot and hacked to death with broad swords. that effectively cleared that area of southern settlers. >> here in topeka it if you looked at the schools just standing outside you would be hard pressed to determine whether white students or african-american students attended because the school board really did provide all of the same materials that the white schools offered. and what is even more interesting for host people when they come to visit is they find out that after graduating from elementary school african-american students attended integrated middle an high schools. while they certainly were no supporters of segregation and obviously saw the injustice of having to attend separate elementary schools the african-american community also was very proud of their schools because these were excellent facilities. so while there was support for the idea of integration there

was also some resistance, especially from the teachers and the local chapter of the naacp who feared the loss of these institutions and the loss of those jobs. >> watch all of our events from topeka saturday on c-span 2's book tv and sunday morning at 10:00 on american history tv on c-span 3. here is the lineup on c-span 3 tonight. the head of the faa testified about the safety of airspace in washington, d.c. then a discussion on the challenges black men face in the u.s. navy secretary ray mavus gives his take on the future of the navy and we hear about efforts to strengthen work force skills an training from commerce secretary penny pritzger. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2 here on c-span 3 we complement that

coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. and then on weekends c-span 3 is the home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's story, including six unique series, the civil war's 150th anniversary visiting battle fields and key events, american artifacts touring museums and historic sites to discover what art facts reveal about america's past history bookshelf with a best known american history writers, the presidency, looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief, lectures in history, what top college professors delving into america's past and our new series real america featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span 3 created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. we see here in the new york daily news that the aerial contraption a florida mailman

flew through miles of restricted airspace before landing at the u.s. capitol a couple weeks ago was indistinguishable from a flock of birds a kite or a balloon. that came from testimony by michael huerta the head of the federal aviation administration before the house oversight committee yesterday. during the two-hour hearing the chairman of the panel republican jason chaffetz said the gyrocopter should have been blown out of the air.

committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. without objection the chair is who authorized to declare a recess at any time. as we get going i need to first express my thoughts and prayers to my league elijah cummings and what the people of baltimore are going through, our hearts and prayers and thoughts are with you and your neighbors and

your friends and your community the police officers and we're roud of you and the way you're conducting this and getting through it and you are a true leader. i would hope the people of baltimore, maryland, would listen to your message and -- but know that our thoughts and prayers are with you. >> mr. chairman, i wanted to take this moment to not only thank you but thank the members of our committee and who have expressed their concern about baltimore. and you, mr. chairman, have a kind of unique perspective because you had a chance to visit baltimore with me before you even became chairman. so you had a chance to see what -- what the issues are in our city. so i'm looking forward to working with you and others to try to you know, heal some of that pain. i do appreciate you and i will never forget your visit and

people in my city will not forget your visit. thank you for your comments. >> well thank you. we will be conducting this hearing a little differently today. i'm going to ask unanimous consent that we're going to change the order here. that they will recognize our panel, allow them to give their opening statements and then we will go into recess. we will reconvene we will give our opening statements and then we will get into questions. but given that we have the very historic presence of the japanese prime minister here to address a joint session of congress we're particularly sensitive that, for instance, one of our witnesses the house sergeant of arms mr. paul irving, has to leave us early in order to fulfill his duties and to accommodate his schedule i would ask unanimous consent to forego opening statements for us. we will come back and give them later. and swear in the witnesses and begin their testimony. without objections, so ordered. we will get as far as we can and recess so members can join the joint session, we will reconvene

30 minutes after the conclusion of the joint session to continue our hearing. without oaks so ordered. so we will now recognize our panel of witnesses first we have the honorable paul irving sergeant of articles at the u.s. house of representatives essay company by tom loji tempt deputy sergeant of arms. we also have admiral william gortney, commander of norad the u.s. north come mr. robert -- help me with the pronunciation salesses deputy secretary of defense for homeland integration and defense support of civil authorities at the united states department of defense, the honorable michael huerta administrator of the faa, the federal aviation administration, the honorable joseph clancy director of the united states secret service, mr. robert maclean chief of the united states park police and mr. kim dine chief of the united states

capitol police. we welcome you all. approximate you are sunt to committee rules all witnesses are to be sworn before they testify. mr. blojet you are included as well. we would can:that all members -- or all of the panel please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. you may be seated. let the record reflect that all the witnesses answered in the affirmative. >> all of your written statements will be entered into the record. we would ask that you would limit your verbal comments to five minutes. we're going to recognize mr. irving first. at the conclusion of those remarks we are going to excuse him so he can tend to the duties of escorting the prime minister into the house of representatives. mr. irving you are now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. good morning mr. chairman mr. cummings and member of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.

as sergeant in arms and chief law enforcement officer of the house of are representatives i'm fully dedicated to ensuring the safety of the entire capitol complex, a permission formed in close consultation with the capitol business board and capitol police. before i begin i'd like to extend my thanks to all the men and women of the u.s. capitol police for their professional response to the incident on april 15th. u.s. capitol police officers and officials romtly sobbed to the west frond and arrested the individual and ensured the craft was harmless. we're currently working closely about with our partners in federal law enforcement, the department of defense, transportation and homeland security to maintain robust airspace security within the challenging on fines of the urban environment of the national capitol region. working with our partners to ensure the most efficient and robust early detection, tracking and warning systems, ensuring there is consistent and constant interagency communication and early warning communicated in realtime.

improving and ensuring immediate an onis going communicationsen alerts to members and staff during a security incident and honing the counter measures and policies consistent with those counter measures. since the event i have ordered the chief of the capitol police to utilize the house notification system to alert members, staff and to the extent possible visitors in as timely a manner as possible, to alert regarding all life safety and potentially threatening events that affect the capitol community. the incident on april 15th reminds us all the greatest asset of the capitol can at times be one of our greatest challenges, however every incident allows you to refine our capability enhance our training and be better prepared for every event actuality. i'm happy to answer questions. thank you, lk. >> i thank you. please be excused and tend to your duties. we thank you and we look forward to seeing you back at the conclusion of that event. >> admiral, you are now recognized for five minutes.

>> chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings and distinguished members of the committee i'm honored to be here today. from a national security perspective i want to emphasize the sensitivity of these discussions in an unclassified environment. an open discussion of each unclassified information could be pieced together to pose a risk to our national security, therefore, i cannot go into many of the specific tails i deem sensitive in an unclassified environment, however, this a closed session i'm ready and able to talk to you in much detail as you need. norad's role is to provide airspace warning and control, to defend the united states and canada, including the national capitol region from all potential air threats. airspace surrounding the national capitol region known as the washington, d.c. special flights rules area is upon toward by a sophisticated integrated air defense system which is a vast network of radars cameras and other detection warning devices. each system is designed to detect, track and monitor specific parameters. the integrated air defense system was implemented following and in direct response to the

terrorist attacks of 9/11 and has continued to evolve with the threat over time. we are extremely capable of identifying attracting potential threats to the national capitol region anything from commercial aviation down to single propeller aircraft, however, a small manned gyrocopter or similar low altitude low speed aerial vehicles despite its assessed low threat presents a technical challenge. this is an interagency effort that collectively understands the technical challenges associated with these types of threats and vehicle and with our partners here at the table we will continue to implement technical and procedural solutions to close any seams. i know the committee has questions and i look toward to talking to you -- with you today. >> thank you. appreciate it. mr. salesses. >> thank you, chairman chaffetz ranking member cummings and distinguished members of the committee. i'd like to thank you for the opportunity to address the department of defenses role in securing the airspace of

washington, d.c. i'd like to acknowledge that aspects of this issue are sensitive to the department of defense from a national security standpoint. i look forward to continuing this discussion in a classified setting. because i know there is much to discuss i will be brief. to this end there are four points i would like to emphasize today. number one defending the stwat is the department of defense's highest priority. number two the department of defense is well post toured to defend the united states, number three, the department works very closely with its federal partners and law enforcement to protect the national capitol airspace. and last, the department continually pursues opportunities to enhance our homeland defense capabilities. the national security strategy makes it clear the united states government has no greater responsibility than protecting the american people. our national defense strategy makes protecting and defending the homeland the department's first priority. to the men and women of the department of defense, military and civilian, these specific

words are the reason they serve and the very core for their professional lives -- of their professional lives. every day these fine men and women whether serving here at home or some far off location across the globe dedicate themselves to protecting the american people and defending the united states. due to the leadership of the president, the secretary of defense and the congresses stead fast support dod is well postured with the authorities and capabilities necessary to defend the homeland. under admiral fwort knee's leadership and command the men and women of norad execute monitoring the u.s. airspace conducting military operations to dissuade, deter and if necessary defeat airborne threats. in this effort to secure the skies over our nation's capital the men and women of the department of defense do not survey loan. they are joined by the counterparts at the department of homeland security department of transportation, the

department of justice and our law enforcement partners in a whole of government approach to protecting the national airspace. working together we have built a network of barriers to protect the national airspace system against any and all threats. we have improved our threat detection capabilities, i object greeted our threat responses and refined our procedures to optimize response effectiveness. we continually look for opportunities to improve our defenses. we understand that no matter how good we are the adversary remains committed and we can always be better. to this end we're dedicated to continual improvement of our policies, procedures and operational capabilities. working with our federal partners we test we plan, we exercise to improve our effectiveness. this is what the nation expects, we are committed to meeting this expectation and this is our

obligation. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. we appreciate your leadership mr. chairman, and members of the committee and your support of the men and women of the department of defense. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. mr. huerta. >> thank you, chairman chaffetz, ranking member cummings, members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today. i'd like to address your questions about the recent gyrocopter incident by explaining the faa's role in airspace security and how we coordinate with other agencies. first and foremost, the faa's mission is aircraft and airspace safety. we operate the nation's air traffic control system in order to separate aircraft. our primary focus is on getting aircraft safely to their destinations and managing the throw of thousands of aircraft and their passengers around the country every day. in addition to the faa safety mission, we also work very crowsly with the departments of defense and homeland security on a daily basis to support their aviation security missions.

particularly here in the capitol region. as part of that support we provide them a raw air traffic radar feed so they have situational awareness of what is happening in our national airspace system. to enable our controllers to safely control air traffic the first thing we have to do is distinguish the aircraft that are communicating with controllers from all other objects in the air that are not aircraft. these other objects that the radar defects could be things like vehicles on nearby roadways, flocks of birds weather events or occasional kites and balloons. air traffic controllers could not do their jobs if they had to work with an unfiltered radar feed. they would not bl able to distinguish the aircraft from other elements on their radar scopes. we require aircraft that fly in the airspace around washington, d.c. and other large cities across the country to use transponders that broadcast basic information such as the type of aircraft its speed, direction and altitude. when radar defects those aircraft it picks up the

transponder information and it displays it on an air traffic controller's radar screen. controllers can see all the flights in a specific area along with the i had buying information from each aircraft. anything that doesn't have a transponder shows up as an emergency representing a simple small dot on the radar screen and there are typically' many of them across a controller's radar screen. to assist controllers in focusing on safely managing air traffic we apply filters to the controller's radar to eliminate the vast majority of those small dots. safely managing air traffic is a controller's mission and they that without distraction. now, to support national and homeland security the paa shares a realtime unfiltered radar feed with our partners at the department of defense and several other agencies. we do that so they have the same information that we have and so they can apply the appropriate filters for their own mission, to protect the airspace. we also embed technical air traffic staff at a number of

north american airspace defense command facilities around the country to provide additional operating expertise and support. on april 15 mr. hughes' gyrocopter appeared on our radar as one of those small unidentified elements. indistinguishable from all other non-aircraft radar tracks. the national capitol region coordination center called the faa at 1:24 p.m. that afternoon to alert us to the flight based on information they received from the u.s. capitol police. after the incident we conducted a forensic radar analysis and looked for an image that might match mr. mousse's gyrocopter. we understood he had taken off from a small airport in gettysburg, pennsylvania and we had an approximate approximate time. so we looked at unfiltered radar at that time at that. a trained radar analyst identified a slow moving image that traveled from gettysburg toward the capitol and vanished from radar about the time mr. hughes landed on the west lawn. we now believe that unidentified

radar element was mr. hughes' gyrocopter, but the dot appeared only intermittently throughout that flight. when we got the call from the capitol police we immediately note tied our interagency partners on the domestic events network or den, a 24-hour, seven days a week uh-huh and huh-uh case line we operate to support a shared situational awareness among our agencies partners. we initiated the den more than a decade ago to quickly share information about activity in the airspace with multiple agencies. it now includes more than 130 federal and local agencies as well as major faa air traffic facilities arne the country. the den has played a critical role in dis sem information to other agencies as quickly as possible. each agency has a responsibility to announce an airspace incident on the den as soon as they know about it. we're committed it to our safety mission at the faa and we're dedicated to working closely with all of our airspace security partners to support protection of our air space.

we're assisting the department of homeland security in its ongoing interagency review and this ns in addition to our own internal review to ensure that faa employees followed all the proper procedures and protocols during the event. if we immediate to make changes as a result of these efforts we will and i will keep the committee informed. i would be happy to take your questions. >> thank you. director clancy. >> good morning chairman chaffetz, ranking member couple i think so am and distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to be here to discuss the secret service's role within the broader effort to secure the airspace of the national capitol region or the ncr, the long standing relationships between interagency partners many of which are represented here today, are critical to ensuring the security of people and places given protection by the secret service and others. the secret service must be prepared to confront and defeat evolving threats, including those from small manned and unsmand aircraft systems as these technologies become both more advanced and more widely

available the secret service will continue to work aggressively with our partners to address existing threats and anticipate those to come. existing faa flight restrictions and the ncr were enhanced following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. the faa implemented the special rights -- i'm sorry, special flight rules area which includes within its boundaries the flight restricted zone and prohibited area p 56 or area 56. the white house, the vice president's residence and the u.s. capitol are located within the p 56. the secret service's role in the administration of the restricted airspace is limited to issuing waivers for access to the p 56 in consultation with the capitol police and park police. airspace security for the ncr is coordinated by the interagency national capitol region coordination center. the center was created after the september 11th 2001 terrorist attacks to provide realtime information sharing and tactical coordination to address potential airborne threats in

and around the washington, d.c. area. it is staffed at all times with personally trained personnel assigned to the secret service airspace security branch, in addition to representatives from the military, the faa and selected federal civilian law enforcement agencies. the mission of the secret service airspace security branch is to give early notification to the protective details and uniform division and provide realtime information to allow appropriate time to make i believe formed decisions about actions to take to ensure the security of our protect tease and protected sites. given the pace at which events can unfold in an air incursion mabs piesing the time to react is critical. presently the airspace security branch combines radar feeds from a number of so rss to create an image of the airspace. this image is monitored by the detection system specialist who have military or civilian radar backgrounds. with respect to the history between the secret service and douglas mark hughes, the pilot from the april 15th incident,

hughes first came to the attention of the secret service on october 4th 2013. at that time the secret service obtained information at that houston tended to fly a single seat aircraft on to the grounds of the capitol or the white house with no specific time frame provided. that same day the secret service relayed the information to our law enforcement partners at the capitol police. the following day special agents from the secret service interviewed hughes who denied owning an aircraft or having plans to fly one to washington, d.c. however, subsequent crab testify interviews revealed differently. purt, the investigation revealed no evidence of an interest in persons or places protected by the secret service and information regarding hughes was made available to other interested law enforcement agencies in the national capitol region. regarding events leading up to the april 15th incident i want to be clear. at no time did the secret service receive actionable advanced notice or any information that was -- that

this event was taking place. while the secret service received telephone calls on the date of the incident at no time was information provided in the calls that would have alerted our personnel to the fact that hughes was piloting his air raft to the capitol. as a gyrocopter flew in the direction of the capitol it was observed by secret service personnel in the area of the white house complex. these individuals subsequently real laid that information through their chain of command. while in the process of making the appropriate notifications the aircraft landed and the incident was acknowledged on the faa domestic events network effectively notifying all relevant parties. that day and the days that followed the secret service field offices gathered information regarding hughes and his activities leading up to the event. while the capitol police are the lead investigative agency in this matter, the secret service stands ready to continue to contribute any resources necessary and to work collectively with our partners. protection of the president, his family and the white house is paramount to this agency.

the partnerships represented here today are critical to the success of our mission as it relates to effectively addressing airborne threats. continued interagency coordination is vital to ensuring safety and security in the airspace of the ncr. chairman chaffetz ranking member cummings and members of the committee this concludes my testimony and i welcome any questions you may have. >> thanks. director. chief mcclain you are now recognized. >> mr. chairman, ranking member cummings and member of the committee, hugh for the opportunity to discuss the united states park police involvement in the april 15th 2015 gyrocopter incident in washington, d.c. my name is robert mclain, i am the leave of the united states park police. united states park police established in 1791 is the oldest uniform federal law enforcement agency in the it united states. the park police which is primarily responsible for safety and prime revenge this park lands administered by the national park service has enjoyed a long history of

partnership and koord nation with the numerous public safety protection aviation and defense agencies within the national capitol region. in the district of columbia the park police has primary jurisdiction over federal park land which comprises approximately 22% of the district of columbia. including the national mall east and west potomac parks rock creek park, anticostia park and many of the small triangle parks in the district. the park police officers who proudly and diligently patrol federal park land every day are trained to identify, report and investigate violations of law and suspicious or unusual activity. although the park police has an aviation unit that flies law enforcement, medevac and search and rescue missions within the national capitol region the park police does not have primary responsibility of airspace defense. as such the park police did you see duz not have radar detection

capability nor does it have the appropriate tools to engage or defend against an aircraft in the airspace above these parks. those primary responsibilities and capabilities rest with other federal agencies. on wednesday, april 15th, 2015 at approximately 1:20 p.m. a park police officer observed and reported an aircraft later identified as a gyrocopter operated by mr. doug hughes. it was operating near the lincoln memorial and estimated it to be approximately 100 feet off the ground and traveling eastbound towards the united states capitol. the officer made a request to the park police dispatch center to contact the united states capitol police. a patrol supervisor confirmed the observation and requested the park police dispatch center notify the park police aviation union which in turn contacted the national capitol region coordination center to report an aircraft in restricted airspace. another park police officer observed and followed the

aircraft eastbound in his patrol vehicle. to where the aircraft landed on the west grounds of the united states capitol. the park police officer arrived at the capitol grounds and observed the u.s. capitol police arresting mr. hughes. at that point the park police became an assisting agency to the united states capitol police on the scene and at their command post. mr. chairman, this concludes my statement. i will be pleased to respond to any questions you and other members may have. >> thank you, chief dine. you are now recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman ranking member couple i think so am members of the committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to squus the event that occurred on wednesday, april 15th and the actions taken by the united states capitol police. i will begin by providing a timeline of the events and will gladly answer any questions that you may have. it it is important to note that this is an ongoing criminal investigation. on wednesday, april 15th at 12:59 p.m. an individual from the tampa bay times sent an e-mail to the u.s. capitol police public information

officer stating that a local man was planning on flying a gyrocopter as part of a protest and was -- would be attempt to go land on the west front. this individual inquired if the uscp was aware of the flight and if permission had been obtained. no time or date information was provided regarding this flight. at 1:00 p.m. the same individual called the uscp command center and stated to an officer that he had information about a man who was planning to fly a drone on to the maul and on to the west front of the capitol. he stated that he had called the u.s. secret service and they advised had him to call the united states capitol police. he also stated that this man who he identified as douglas hughes had received permission from the u.s. secret service and the uscp and he was calling to confirm that permission was granted. no time or date or actionable information was provided regarding the flight during this telephone, either. the officer advised this individual had a she was not aware of any approvals to land a drone, they were transferred to a sergeant in the command center and this individual repeated

that he had told the officer, except now he referred to the aircraft as a gyrocopter. the sergeant advised that no approval existed for a gyrocopter to land on the capitol grounds, the caller advised the sergeant that hughes live feed to be seen on hughes website which he provided. at this point in the conversation the conversation concluded and during the conversation no mention was made that the landing was imminent. at 1:07 p.m. the u.s. capitol police public information officer responded to this e-mail by immediately forwarding it to the investigations division currently the command center personnel went into the provided website -- when to the provided website but did not find the live feed noted by the individual by the tampa bay times. the command center notified the investigations division and the public information officer. as the command center was attempted to validate any air flight information with the uscp staff at the national capitol coordination center the gyrocopter landed at approximately 1:23 p.m.

at 1:21 p.m. just prior to the landing an officer posted on the pennsylvania avenue walkway in the west front was approached by a reporter who asked if he had seen a helicopter yet. the officer stated he had not seen a helicopter and con ult issed with another officer to determine if they were aware of it any prohibited airspace overflights. during this discussion the officers observed the inbound gyrocopter over union square nearly atop the grant memorial. the officers immediately notified the communications sent is ter and subsequently reported the landing of the gyrocopter. this information was immediately broadcast over the radio for situational awareness and response. the uscp officers immediately assessed the threat in accordance with department policy and training as the suchlt cp personnel quickly facilitated the movement of the public on the west front away from the gyrocopter. once the gyrocopter rotor stopped, uscp officers quickly approached the subject and took him into custody. the sub did not resist and was compliant with police direction. a k-9 unit immediately approached and swept the gyrocopter and showed interest in the area of the engine and

fuel compartment, which was expected. incident command was established at 1:26 p.m., the west front was closed and vehicular traffic restricted on first street between constitution and independence avenues along with maryland and pennsylvania avenues to third street. as this was occurring the investigations division provided the commanders in the command center with information about the subject from the internet video publicizes the subject's own sip of the gyrocopter his intentions to deliver a box of letters to congress if in reference to campaign finance reform and his investigative history with both the uscp and u.s. secret service. the command center notified the ncrcc of the situation. while a k-9 sweep was occurring a capitol division commander directed a brief lock down of the capitol and cvc. when the lock down was announced the uniformed services commander who was in the command center consulted with the incident commander. usb commander decided to lift the lockdown of the capitol based on the following facts the k-9 had not alerted to the body of the gyrocopter but had

shown interest only in the area of the engine and fuel compartment, the subject was in this custody and compliant with directions, the size of the small package area of the gyrocopter was limited to two backpack size boxes, information provided by the investigations division that the intent of the pilot was clearly expressed in his video and the uscp had established a strong perimeter from the gyrocopter with distance from the capitol. the exterior of the perimeter stayed in effect due to the extremely short time frame between the lockdown order and the direction to ift will the lockdown no messages were sent to the congressional community advising of the lock down. the uscp as douse devices section responded to this incident and utilized a robot to investigate the gyrocopter. since the robot could not access the two boxes in the gyrocopter 2:21 p.m. the personnel dawned protective gear gear and took x-rays. the gyrocopter was determined to be clear of any hazards. traffic was subsequently released and the crime seen pros

sd. it is important to note while suchlt scp does not control prohibited airspace over washington, d.c. we do monitor this airspace and we are directly linked to other federal agencies related it this this controlled airspace. on april 15th this gyrocopter did not register on radar as a threat and therefore was not raised as a concern among our federal partners. we take the monitoring of ro hibted airspace very seriously which is why we have a designated airspace coordinator and have assigned liaisons to provide immediate linkage to critical information regarding identified airspace threats. information about identified airspace threats allows you to make inn tormd decisions regarding the safety of our stakeholders, congressional community and the capitol complex. thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this event which occurred on wednesday, april 18th 2015. i am very proud of the professional and immediate actions taking by members of the u.s. capitol police in addressing this incident. i would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have at this time. >> thank you.

as previously announced, the committee is going to recess so that we can -- members will be allowed to hear the prime minister of japan as he addresses the joint session of congress. we will reconvene approximately 30 minutes after the conclusion of that. we appreciate your patience, the committee is in recess. the committee will come to

order. thank you for your patience. i know you're all very busy. the chair would like to notify members, remind members, that no subcommittee will start until the full committee is finished. we do have two subkpes that plan to meet at 2:00 we also have votes tall happen in 45 minutes. we will try to do this as swiftly as possible but i wanted to note that for members and those that might be showing up for the 2:00 hearing that is going to occur in this meeting. let's address why we're here today, the gyrocopter incident that happened two weeks ago. the 9/11 commission after that terrible horrific terrorist attack wrote, quote the most important failure was one of imagination imagination. we do not believe leaders understood the gravity of the threat, unquote. we're here today because we need to understand who saw what and when, who communicated what, did

it work, is it we learn those lessons of tragedies of past? on april 15th a pan in a gyrocopter was able to fly through the highly restricted airspace of the national capitol region and land on the west lawn of the capitol. he started off in the north came, went over the lincoln memorial right past -- into the airspace surrounding the white house, right past the washington memorial and landed on the lawn of the capitol. unbelievable. he first told the federal authorities about this, it came on the radar about two years ago and the national capitol region is unique in the department of defense, transportation and homeland security along with the capitol police national park police and the congressional setting of arms all have roles to play in protecting the airspace. as best i can tell in in region there are roughly 32 law enforcement agencies that have some form of jurisdiction in the safety and security of the

washington, d.c. area. but it's still unclear -- unclear who on this panel was ultimately responsible for first identifying this object, entering restricted airspace and then for responding to it. at this point ignorance is no longer an excuse when it comes to drone and small aircraft. in january a drone crash landed on the white house lawn, it's becoming very common throughout the world the gyrocopter incident after -- after the gyrocopter incident a drone with radioactive material landed on the japanese prime minister's residence. dozens of unaccounted drones have flown over the streets of paris since last october and a drone crashed in front of the german chancellor merkel at a rally in this 2013. there have been several instances involving the white house, involving helicopters and small aircraft and this is a pervasive threat it's been there for a long time, it isn't going anywhere and when we show this time of vulnerability i

worry that the shine that it will inevitably be taken down and taken down hard has gone away. someone should have identified that this type of threat -- we aren't prepared to meet or that our enemies would exploit. our defensive technology must be able to prevent and respond to uncoulden vengs nl and emerging threats. we need to have that creativity to understand that the would be terrorist and those people who want to see arm to the united states of america will likely be creative. but in in gyrocopter incident he was loud and clear what he was going to do. in fact, he was live streaming it. and yet none of it, nobody seemed to pick that up. news outlets did they sent staff, they sent reporters down along to watch it. the united states military has researched drones since world war 1, for the last 13 years used them to fight against terrorists yet the primary drone detection technology currently

used by the faa, norad, the secret service and the capitol police is roughly 70 years old. this antiquated technology can't even tell the dwirchs between a bird, a drone, a gyrocopter or just plain old weather, even a my lar balloon sets things off where people are hesitant to do anything because it might just be a balloon. i understand we will hear today about the pentagon's effort to improve our capability to identify and intercept small aerial threats. this is the same technology customs and border control has used on the border for years, long periods of time. they have been dealing with this type of gyrocopters and hang gliders and all sorts of these types of small aircraft on the borders for decades. they have been dealing with this for a long time did we ever learn if i of those lessons? do we need to bring cbp in here to help protect the capitol region? ne seem to figure it out. the stakes are higher interagency intelligence sharing and communications coordination

can never ever fail us. we must make sure all agencies with the role in the national security effectively communicate with each other. so hopefully we will hear today how the agencies represented here have effectively communicated about threats to their counterparts. quite frankly i didn't learn much in your opening statements. that was as bland as we could possibly have been. we're here to address a serious topic, we're not going to just stand here and say well it's classified we can't talk about it because evidently when you have been talking about it hasn't gotten done. i like other members of congress and congressional staff and visitors to the capitol also have concerns about the communication breakdown and alerting the capitol community about this incident. the first capitol wide alert came at 5:03 p.m., several hours after the incident was over. i look forward to hearing about how the sergeant of arms and the capitol police have updated their policies it to prevent a break dunn like this from ever happening again. it certainly shouldn't have ever happened in the first place.

it was very disappointing that three of the agencies here, the faa, the department of defense, for rad and the park police chose not to brief members of congress last week. now, i do appreciate capitol police, the sergeant of arms and the secret service for making themselves available. we had four agents, four committees four committee chairmen, four ranking members ask for your presence to have a behind the scenes closed door briefing on this topic and for whatever reason the faa, the department of defense and the park police refused to brief members of congress. that doesn't give us a whole lot of confidence, folks. and we will yank you up here time and time again until we get answers in the public. we are different than the rest of the world. we are different. we're self-critical. don't take it so personally. understand this is how we make america the greatest country on the face of the planet. we do it this in an open and

transparent way, but when you won't even talk to members in a closed-door meeting, that's not acceptable. it's a waist of our time it's a waste of the other people's time. we need results. because we had some yahoo in a gyrocopter land right over there and it didn't work. and i got these opening statements from you that shed no light other than a timeline and how big a space the park police protects. it didn't work. we need candor. i want to, again, thank director clancy, chief dine and mr. irving for their responsiveness to requests. i can tell you we have had a lot of interactions with the secret service that haven't been the most less ant but i will thank that agency for being so accessible in their communications and particularly mr. clancy he has made himself available on the mobile phone and calling us and making sure that he is available here and i want to publicly thank him for

that even though we have had our differences. we understand that the mission is difficult to fulfill but you are here today because you have been entrusted to accomplish it. we want to help that. we're in the middle of our appropriate appreciations season we can't ever have this mission fail. with that i will now recognize the ranking member mr. cummings for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. unlike previous hearings our committee has held with the secret service and the dea which involved misconduct by individual agents, today's hearing presents a different question. how should our nation deal with the relatively new and evolving threat of unmanned or small manned aerial vehicles entering the airspace over our nation's capital? this is a question of technology and policy, both of which are rapidly evolving.

in this case i do not personally believe the answers to condemn the capitol police for not shooting down the gyrocopter, i also do not believe we should rush to criticize federal agencies charged with responding to this threat. instead i believe the best course of action is to work collaboratively with both the capitol police and these federal agencies to understand the threat, understand it, and to strongly support their swron going efforts to enhance comment technologies, many of which are classified. so i thank the chairman for calling today's hearing on this very critical issue. i completely understand the frustration expressed by the chairman and others about this incident and let me be clear i share the frustration. i said in a meeting the other day so often what happens is that we have a tendonsy to tell each other that everything will be fine when the rubber meets

the road and then when it comes time for the rubber to meet the road we discover there is no road. the airspace around our nation's capital is supposed to be the most restricted in the world, yet a postal worker -- hello -- a postal worker from florida was able to fly his gyrocopter through 30 miles of restricted airspace before finally landing on capitol lawn. in this case the individual was only trying to make a peaceful demonstration, but we might not be so fortunate in the future. it takes almost no effort to imagine what could have been. what if he had weapons? what if he were carrying a bomb? on the flip side it is also my

understanding that based in part on classified briefings we have received that this individual is incredibly lucky to be alive today. the next person who tries something this stupid, and it was stupid hay not be so lucky. i'd like to thank all of the witnesses for testifying here today on such short notice. i also want to thank you for providing briefings last week, both classified and unclassified. your missions are extremely difficult and the lives of people throughout the district depend on your success. i look forward to hearing from each of you in an effort to address this very pressing situation. we all agree that our paramount interest in the continued security of the airspace over the capitol in addressing any possible breaches as effectively and efficiently as possible that's what we're aiming at.

it also a critical moment gentlemen, a very critical moment. by the way, it's wake-up call time. we live in a dangerous world with complex constantly evolving threats so it's imperative that we are prepared to counter them. in addressing these questions today, however the last thing we want to do -- the last thing -- is give a roadmap to those who want to harm us. i hope that you all agree on that. we don't want to do it anything that counters what you do every day and that is try to protect us. so obviously we need to treat this information responsibly and we do not want to highlight security vulnerabilities to would be attackers because you can guarantee your bottom dollar they're watching.

out of an abundance of caution i want to make 100% sure that owl of our witnesses understand that we do not -- we to not want you to discuss any sensitive information this this public forum. i think all of you know what i mean by sensitive. if you don't know, raise your hand now and let me know and we'll try to make sure you're clear what we're talking about. and i'm not trying to be smart, either. many of you have raised concerns about holding a public hearing on this topic and i understand your concerns, the chairman understands your concerns. our committee understands. after discussions with the chairman and his staff, and i want to thank him for this, we have agreed to set up a separate cleared room to address any sensitive issues at that may arise. the bottom line is that you are the experts and we will defer to you on what can be discussed in this public setting.

if our questions call for sensitive information, please let us know and we can reconvene in the closed setting to address those issues. our our sole purpose today is to help you counter the threats we face, not to expose our nation's capitol to greater danger by exposing operational details or security vulnerabilities. let me go back to something that the chairman said. i wholeheartedly agree with them on this. gentlemen, time is of the essence. time is of the essence. and i have not come here to ask you. i have come here to beg you to do whatever you have to do to get the technology, if we don't have it. to speed up the technology if it's in the process. to more effectively and efficiently allow you to do the

job that you are sworn to do. and i want to take this moment again to thank all of the people who work with you they are people who have come out here every day, trying to make sure that we're safe. and i want to publicly thank them on behalf of all of us for what they do every day. i want them to understand, and i know that the chairman agrees with me on this, although there may be criticism, it's about moving to a more effective and efficient system of protection for all of us. and so one of the best ways to do that, of course, is to make sure we have effective oversight, and again, mr. chairman, i want to thank you for calling the hearing, and with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i'll now recognize myself for five minutes. it starts with a simple question. who's in charge? you've got a dude in a gyrocopter 100 feet in the air crossing 30-plus miles of

restricted air space. whose job is it to detect him and whose job is it to take him down? >> sir, as the commander of norad that's my responsibility and i'm accountable for that >> why didn't it happen? >> because we're working against physics, sir. our system is designed to detect, track, identify. we have a decision-making process to decide what to do. and then we engage. and that system is netted sensors, radars, cameras, and other capabilities that are out there, and we employ that system to the best of our ability, mitigate the risk to the best of our ability, but it's only capable down to a particular set of characteristics that the platform that we want to track and defend against is emitting. based on speed and based on size. and i can go into further details in the classified session. >> your spokesperson in an article dated april 16th in "the baltimore sun" -- you had

launched some balloons. it was designed to help officials spot low flying slow-moving targets. was it working? was it operational? >> it is not operational, sir. we put it up in aberdeen to test it. it is not netted into our system. and in the investigation we're goin' to find out was it able to detect that particular traffic. >> it wasn't operational on that day. >> it is not operational. it is in a test process right now. we're using it as a test platform and it is not integrated into our system. should it prove to be effective, our choice is to put it into our system and make it operational but it is not operational today.

>> u.s. customs and border patrol using the tethered system or tars. why aren't you using that. >> we think jlens has more promise. and the reason is i'll have to defer to the next session sir. >> who -- once you detect something whose job and role in responsibility is it to take it down? >> secretary of defense. deputy secretary of defense and if they are not there it is my decision or to my deputies. >> whose decision is it if they see something visually at the capitol hill police chief? >> mr. chairman as officers do every day, if they see something that is a threat to them or anyone else -- >> when did they see it? >> they saw it seconds before it landed as it was above the statue at grand circle. >> what was the decision making

tree at that point? >> they go through their training as far as threat and use of force training and i believe they in this instance made the appropriate decision based on the manner it landed the compliance of the pilot and the distance from the build. >> so we did have guns trained on it and decide not to fire. >> they made a diligent decision. >> as oppose fod shooting it down. >> yes, sir. >> you say in your written statement that the caller from the tampa bay times presumably advised the sergeant that hughes' live feed could be seen on his website which he provided. you later said but did not find the live feed noted by the tampa bay times. we had news organizations sending their reporters down there because they were watching it. >> clearly the media knew about this ahead of time. when we got the call and that

one e-mail we immediately began to investigate. and minutes later he landed. >> you told me last week personally that you would provide to me that e-mail. yet we have not been provided that e-mail. will you provide this committee that e-mail. >> why absolutely yes, sir. >> we have also been asked to meet with the individual, i'd like this committee, certainly myself the ranking member house administration candice miller and her ranking member to meet with the if people who had their guns up ready to fire. will you make those people available us. >> absolutely. >> will chairman yield just a second. when will we get the e-mail that chairman just asked you about? >> i can provide it to you immediately. >> that means right after this hearing? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. last question before i turn it over to the ranking member. you saying your written

statement chief, the due to the short time frame between the order and the effort to lift the lockdown no messages were sent advising the lockdown. the gyro captor landed at 1:23. later it was determined to be clear of any hazards at 2:57 p.m. and yet it was 5:03 p.m. before any notice went out. why did it take so long. >> we needily fixed that. the ned day i put out a directive to put out messages to the entire community that effect the community. no one got a lockdown message. we did send some messages out. but that matter has been fixed. we had an overly complex notification system. and we have immediately fixed that and that will not happen. >> and to the sergeant of arms mr. irving welcome back.

why didn't we get notification there was a potential threat? >> there was a mix up in the command center. lack of communication between my staff and the command -- capitol police command staff. that will not happen again as the chief said. we have fixed that. we vowed that won't happen again. >> they are the same people, they are in the same room correct? >> it is correct. they are all in the same room. and the notification should have gone out. it was an error. and most cases the notifications do go out. we had had incident the prior weekend. they were flawless. in this case they were not. and we assure you that it will not happen again. >> thank you. i'll now recognize the ranking member and the general for maryland for five minutes. >> thank you. chief, i want to ask you about the capitol police and current policies when to use lethal

force. the chairman and others have suggested that you should have shot down the gyro captor but others disagree. you seem to disagree. this incident was not the first time the capitol police have had to make a life or death judgment call in a manner of seconds. 1998 a deranged individual burst through the doors of the capitol and shot and killed two capitol police officers. that was a tragic event and i'm certain that it is on the minds of sever singevery single capitol police officer serving these doors. a do you believe the shooting in 1998 influenced how the capitol police handle threat of this nature and when this accident happened. >> yes, sir. in fact every threat this agency and other agencies face ends up influencing the history of that agency and the policies they put in place. >> well can you please tell us

what impact if any does that shooting have on the policies used by the capitol police today? how did that effect it. >> we changed our security posture. and of course i'd be glad to discuss that more in closed session. but we drastically closed our security posture throughout the capitol in terms of methods and staffing. in this instance today we're talking about today as in any instance where an officer has to make a split second decision to use force or not to save their lives or other lives. that's what officers are up against every day. and in this particular instance given all the ramifications we discussed, i think they made the appropriate decision. but that is a challenge officers face every single day whether on a checkpoint, during a traffic stop. when they are stopping people around the campus, etc. >> without going