an shared system of values. >> israeli ambassador to the united states says mr. netanyahu would cancel the trip? >> a committee hearing on the commercial use of drones. witnesses include representatives from nasa and the federal 80 aviation administration. this is one hour. >> the science committee will reconvene and we were now begin our questioning. let me direct my first question to you all. what is a realistic deadline for integrating the drones into the national airspace system? i mentioned in my opening statement that it appears the deadline has flipped.

what can drone users and the american people -- what is a realistic deadline for that integration? >> i would answer that right now we do have a level of integration. for public aircraft, they are flying every day. nasa does research. we have unmanned aircraft. for civil applications, we are working closely with the faa to verify and validate these key technology barriers, the radio communications, the displays for the ground control stations to allow the faa to determine minimal operation standards. >> when can we expect the faa to propose some roles? >> the faa is working closely with our administration partners

in the rulemaking process. we are doing everything we can to get that small unmanned aircraft rule out. our main focus is to get it right. the role -- rulemaking process is deliberative. >> when you think you can get that out? >> i can i give you a firm deadline. >> do you have a goal in mind? you have a lot of people across the united states waiting. do you have any kind of working deadline or goal? >> our goals are to get it out as quickly as we can as long as we get it out right. >> will likely be this your next year? >> i can't speculate. my own personal hope is that we get it out as soon as possible. it has got to go through the regulatory process that has been put in place by congress.

we are working away through that. >> i'm going to push you one more time. you are slipping off my question here. how long does the regulatory process normally take? >> this is a complex -- >> never mind. i can tell i'm not going to get the answer i was hoping for. we will take your word that you are asked by -- expediting the process is much as you can. >> what you need to prioritize before the nas integration question mark --? >> i referred to what some of the other witnesses also mentioned, the need for technology that provides the equivalence of sense and avoid technology. it needs to be an place for a full integration of a wide range of these vehicles into the aviation system.

that would be the highs. >> thank you. what is the private sector contributing to this integration process? we have the government on one side -- as part of the process and the private sector as part of the process as well. what have been the contributions of the private sector to the integration? >> i believe that the industry will bring the lions share of the technology solutions, as it should. companies like 3-d robotics will -- they are constructing the devices. they are developing the software. not just directly in the industry, microprocessing speeds are getting faster, so this was really the spirit of my testimony. industry should be doing the lion's share of this trait we should be -- the lions share of

this. we should be proving the concepts. >> these companies are integrating and innovating these technologies. 3-d robotics is doing -- if i fly my drone outside, you can login to drone share.com and watch my flight. every single time you fly, that log file is uploaded automatically from your smart fries into the cloud to drone share.com, and we are now able to collect hundreds of thousands of hours of data on the fringe cases. that is what we have to figure out. when you actually start integrating hundreds of thousands of the systems into the airspace.

>> it was a fairly sophisticated devices. what does it cost? what's its range? with its use? >> that is more of a hobby grade drone. it is advanced and that it has a full high definition camera that displays on your smart advice. you can either fly with a smart advice or long-range controller. it's got accelerometers, gyroscopes, and a full computer that is a flake control system on board. it is $499. >> what is the range? >> it depends. if you using a smart phone, you are restricted to wi-fi range. if you're using a controller, you can get up to one kilometer. >> thank you. you mentioned during your testimony that your students are working on something in the classroom. i was wondering if we could expect any kind of breakthroughs

and you might give some examples of what they are working on is well. you see it from a hands-on approach. >> just to give you a couple of quick examples. one vehicle that our students prototype three years ago is a small uav that can do it one hour surveillance mission, which is launched out of a antimissile canister on an aircraft. this was a concept that nobody in the air force thought would work. the students actually demonstrated it. it is now and the developmental program where the vehicles they developed. >> i hope is not classified information. no. >> intriguing. thank you for your answers. i will recognize the gentleman from oregon. >> thank you to our very

accomplished panel of witnesses. as you heard in the opening remarks, oregon does have three test sites. we've talked a lot about the benefits of the technology. one of the concerns that i have heard from constituents in oregon who are working in the developing industry is that there are still some problems with advancing the testing of their products especially for small companies that don't have a solid revenue stream, test ranges. test ranges, despite being set up to provide a base where the development can take place may be prohibitively expensive for small companies and prevent them with logistical barriers. can you expand a little bit on how the faa can work with the test ranges to address these concerns. >> really quickly there is not

a set understanding of how you even schedule the time to go to the range. there is no way to log into a system and say when is the next available date. it's not a matter of them being too busy, because there's not a lot of laces companies using a test range. it's more a matter of what is the process. there is a lot of bureaucracy surrounding getting the approval to go to a test range. you don't know if will be 30 days or two months. >> first i want to ask a question, thanks for your association work and what you been doing. i want to accu -- echo of comments that have been made about the rulemaking. somebody made a comment about the proposed rulemaking is expected. we are encouraged to hear that news. there was a letter to secretary fox concerned about the timeline. of course, we want this to be

done right. we don't want to jeopardize safety grade were not concerned only with workforce development in those challenges of recruiting people into this industry and we don't have that certainty, but also for these new companies attracting private investment. have you noticed some particular challenges because of the lack of certainty and venture capital to the industry? >> absolutely. thank you for your question. if i'm investing money and a project like this, i want to know what the go to market strategy is. i don't know when i can fly them when i can pursue some of the commercial opportunities out there. it is a big barrier. there is tremendous product being developed. it says that this is a great investment opportunity and

business opportunity and job creator, which is something we need to be paying attention to. while we want to get this right we want to do this once for the various levels. we are on a certain trajectory here. we think there are opportunities immediately that require little regulation. some of the countries have demonstrated this. >> thank you. i know he talked about that. you heard him talk about some of the possible ways of moving forward. of course it's not a one size fits all because of the various sizes and capabilities and ranges. but i wanted to ask you first about the testing sites. some companies have suggested maybe performing initial tests where their safety can be demonstrated and performing additional tests to home can that outline potential changes and can you taub about potential changes that could allow for more flexibility especially for the small developers and then i also wanted you to respond to

the concern about the small companies having access and being able to test. >> so first, the small companies have access to our experimental awareness approval process which goes back to the manned aircraft process. it's the same regulations that are applied. we're in the process to make it more friendly for unmanned operators to get through the process. on the test side front, we have set up a program to enable them with all the test sites to have the opportunity to issue experimental certifies on behalf of the faa thereby stream lining the process so we think that's a significant benefit that the test sites can offer to the industry. we're constantly looking at ways to stream line our processes and work to enable these new

companies to test their aircraft in a safe and by the rules way. >> thank you. i see my time has expired. i will submit my section 333 exemption question for the record. thank you mr. chairman. >> thanks. the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would direct my question to dr. wagoner and mr. gwnyy and mr. hanson. in recent years, agriculture has been one of the bright spots in our economy. can you talk about the benefits that these might provide to for both producers and consumers. whoever. >> i have a little. what we saw high school students this year who had the challenge of developing an unmanned aircraft to surveille a large farm of corn.

these kids, incredible kids from all over the country came up with a number of different solutions. but they showed that there were viable solutions that were affordable, usable for the farmer for precision agriculture where they could precisely locate where there were issues either with fertilizer or pesticide where they needed to be applied and could precisely do that. so we saw that as an opportunity that shows that it's -- there's a market out there for that work. that was -- that's part of what is behind our more midterm work on this uas traffic management. so allowing a farmer or a commercial operation to go into a farm and do that kind of surveillance operations at low altitudes very safely and in a way that would be very cost affective.

>> ag adpplications are already ongoing in other parts the world. in japan for example where you have very small rice patties we're seeing applications there. it's considered one of the number one applications. there's significant interest on the part of agricultural departments to use these vehicles. if they are they are frustrate by the rule like everybody else. it's difficult for them to get exemptions to go do experiments. its one of the big opportunity spaces. >> if i can maybe provide maybe a specific example of a way that even one of these very small lightweight systems can provide real benefit to the farmer. so we had one of the top private vineyards in napa valley contact us and say we've been hearing about these drones. what can we do with them? everybody talks about the high

spectral imagery and water damage and pesticide. if you take it to a simple level. most of these farmers have never done a high yard resolution pictures of their vineyards. so we went out and we did and allowed him to see a high resolution image of the crop and for the generations of the vineyard and he looked over and said wow, see how this is actually more darker green than this whole area because you can't see that when you're walking the rows the yin of the vineyard. you can't see the minute differences when you're up close. this means that there must be an elevation change and we need to harvest these grapes two to three weeks earlier than the rest of the vineyard.

he then walked us out took some grapes from that area and grapes from the rest of the vineyard and you could clearly taste the difference between the two sets. he said before today we never knew that existed and that happened in two hours. >> congressman, thank you for the question. the numbers that auv si put together in 2013, the $82 billion in the first ten years we think as high as 80% could be agriculture. >> absolutely. >> dr. williams, i come from a state where the chamber of commerce likes for us to use the phrase significant weather events occur on a common place in a common way. my home state is making a lot of investments in weather related research. one of the things that i understand is that challenge is this requirement to obtain a certificate of authorization coa or a section 33 exemption which can be kind of challenging and cumbersome. what's the faa doing to expedite the approval process for this

kind of thing? >> we're actually working in both areas to approve the processing of the approvals. most of the -- understand that section 333 approvals are for the aircraft. the coa process is for the airspace. in order to operate an unmanned aircraft, you can't really comply with the see and avoid rules so we have to give you either a waiver or authorization to do that. that's the coa process. that process is undergoing a revamp inside of the faa. we're in the process of building a new software to interact with the folks using it. we think that's going to be a major step forward. we have achieved tremendous amount of progress with our public partners in accelerating their approvals. we've reduced the amount of overhead for many of the frequent users like nasa. they have a much easier way forward. on the 333 side we're also

working hard to streamline that process. we put together a team that's in the process of developing a streamlined and more efficient process to move it quickly. it was never intended as an approval mechanism. it was intended to deal with exceptions and special cases. so we're trying to make that up as we go to figure out how to accelerate it, but it's a regulatory process. there are rules that have to be met as we go through it so we are trying to fine the right balance. >> thank you mr. chairman. the gentlemen from illinois is recognized for his questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. something we're all very interested in. it's critical that we get a handle on this. we don't want to -- on the one hand, we want innovation to move forward in all the opportunities that are brought out for

business purposes and other purposes from uas, but we know there's a lot of issues also that need to be dealt with. so i wanted to ask mr. williams and anyone else can jump in if they have anything else to have. i want to talk about the concern about the number being reported. my district includes midway airport so it's especially important to me also louis university airport in my district. so given the rapid increase in number of small uas in use for hobby and commercial purposes. what's being done to understand the risk of uas collision and what's being done to track near misses? >> so we're in the process of building a tracking system modeled on the way we track the laser incidents that have been going on. we are also working hard on an education campaign to try to -- we believe that most of the

people that are flying these aircraft near airports just don't understand the area they are flying in and the rules about where they can and can't fly. so we have -- we're in partnership with the small uav coalition. the unmanned aircraft vehicles international uvasi and academy of model aeronautics we have a campaign going on called know before you fly. we're working to find any means we can to educate the public about before they fly. primarily the faa is interested in compliance with our rules. and we believe the best way to achieve that compliance is through education, so we're working hard to make that happen. on the research side -- i'm sorry. you had another question about the research. >> what's being done to understand the risks of uas collision. >> right. so we actually have started this

year a research initiative to look into what the potential is for -- what we're really assessing the risk of an unmanned aircraft to an aircraft. that project is just getting off the ground and we're accelerating and thanks to the additional funding congress provided. we should be able to accelerate it more rapidly than we were able to. >> anything else that witnesses should be done that are not being done. >> we just want to emphasize that we thank the faa with their help with this campaign to educate. i think in some instances it is an education challenge. obviously commercial operations are not allowed at this stage until we get a rolerule, but the education campaign is really about keeping the uas under 400 feet, five miles from an heir

sport. within line of site. stay away from crowds. it's basic common sense. we think in many instances, it's just a question of education. we've had tremendous response from the aviation community on it this. we've got new partners in nbaa, eaa, et cetera, many of the os organizations are stepping in and helping us get that word out. >> thank you. one other thing i wanted to onto before my time runs out about test sites. the faa established six test sites to enable research. they are operating an on on an agreement to restrict the faa's role on directing research. i wanted to ask mr. williams, what steps is the f a, aa taking to address the nation's top research priorities and are there any barriers that need to be addressed? >> back in the fall we released two of the test sites and listed over 100 research areas that we believe could benefit from having them look into. i think the -- there's been a lot of misunderstanding about

what they can and can't do at our behest. our only rule is through the procurement rules, we have to, if we're going to direct one of our contractors and the other transaction agreements we have with them amount to a contract between them and us. if we're going to direct work. we have to pay for it. but we can also agree to work together with in-kind resources through these agreements. but the bottom line is to all of it, all we have to do is document it in these agreements and we can work together on any research project that is of interest to those test sites. i believe we've communicated that to them, and we believe that they understand the situation pretty well at this point. >> thank you. i have other questions we will submit for the record. i yield back. >> thank you commissioner. on behalf of a new member

without objection i'd like to , put a letter from a michael chronmiller in the record. without any objection that is so entered. the gentleman from california is now recognized. >> thank you very much. let me see if i am getting all of this straight now. the faa actually will approve mr. gwynn's drones, their design and their capabilities and aproof approve them to actually go in the air before we are permitted to fly them. who can answer that? >> sir, two processes run in parallel, so that when the approval to fly the aircraft without an unworthiness certificate that's done through the certification 333 exemption process -- >> that's done on the approval of the design and capabilities is that right. >> yes, and the operations and they come in and say we want to operate it in this particular area and our air traffic organization assesses whether or not it's safe for them to

operate. so they are looking for, you know, conflicts with manned aircraft. >> so this is both the faa in both cases. one is the safety of the equipment itself and then the safety of the actual instance that they want to use this specific situation. and we're -- are we having any trouble, mr. gwynn with the actual approval of the system itself? their crafts that you can bring forth for approval. am i understanding -- do you think that should be stream lined if somebody wants to use a system for looking at photo mowsfoet system mosaics where photo system mosaics where the faa determines is this aircraft -- >> once you've gotten that -- >> first you have to get that. so far of all the companies .

for the section 333. so far 14 have been granted. >> out of how many? >> is that correct 14? >> out of how many requests. out of everyone in the country of everyone that wants to fly their drones. >> 14? >> right, but the process is being improved and they are going to be coming out a little more frequently. >> so it's difficult first to get it. 14 out of however many thousand and once you have a section 333 you have to get the certificate of authorization to fly in a specific area. >> what we have here is technology and the capabilities are first of passing the ability of making decisions about standards and rule making -- general rule making. that's what we have to catch-up with. this isn't the first time that that has happened in history. i hope that -- can you tell me -- can anyone here tell me which is more dangerous? a small privately owned airplane flying from here to there or a drone flying from here to there? >> i've had several friends that

have been in helicopter crashes, actually specifically going out the side of the door, taking pictures of power lines. so i can't speak to the actual evidence, but in my estimation having a two or three pound drone flying over a power line taking photos if it were to fail in any way, shape, form it doesn't have to worky about auto rotating down the ground when they are already flying outside the chart. all it does is bounce out of the power line, fall to the ground. you take another one out of the truck and you keep expecting. my guess that would be much more safe and it would allow us to saving lives today. >> we have done an analysis on this. it actually depends on the size of the drone. for small drones, the risk is much lower for people on the air and ground. >> has anybody ever been hurt from a crashing drone on the ground.

>> there's been ouch you hit me in the head with that drone. >> all right. let me ask you about how the faa is planning to do this with testing areas test sites that have been established that help you try to determine whether or not these pieces of equipment should be approved. can somebody tell me what they do at those test sites? >> well, the primary intention for the test sites is to provide an opportunity for manufactures to do their developmental tests and evaluations in support of moving forward toward approval. >> that's what the -- that's what we had spent $11 million on that providing that to you last year and now that budget has been increased. is that right. >> no, sir. there hasn't been any appropriation to the faa to support those test sites. we funded it out of our existing appropriation. >> is it possible if when we have these company that's are seeking profit which is a good

thing and thank god they have technology which is a good opportunity, do you think that in order to facilitate and to move the process along that maybe it would be good to have the companies reimburse the government for the specific tests or be able to certify certain people to conduct these tests other than government employees? >> i believe that's the actual intent of the test sites. the cost for running the test sites is currently being born by the states who sponsor them and they are getting compensation from the individual -- the companies who come to them for testing or the government and in a couple of cases, there have been government testing there. the faa doesn't fund the test site operating cost. they are independently funded. >> we've only had 14 of these things approved, so i can't imagine we've had much revenue so far but i would hope -- >> so there's a small number of companies covering that cost

which is why it is prohibitively expensive to go to the sites to test versus going to canada or mexico, our neighbors. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. just to note, my family just happened to be coming in at the time that drone was flying around and i guess they -- my son got an interesting opinion of what his father does for a living. >> it kind of shows you how this vehicles actually stimulate the interest of this sort of next generation. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman and to the ranking member for having this hearing today and thank you all for your testimony. unmanned aircraft systems have already significantly impacted as we've discussed today particularly in the field of agriculture. changing the way farmers do business and increasing yields and decreasing the use of pesticides. this is all a very good thing. coming from the state of connecticut where we've been long time leaders in aviation and aerospace we're very excited

, about these opportunities. but we also live in an incredibly congested airspace. for some of us that includes myself and others who sit on the transportation and infrastructure committee are having the same issue. i'd like to turn to you and get us to understand what are the risks that we should be looking at? what should be the research priorities to avoid those issues which are a little different than the agricultural setting. those are what do you deal with laguardia to logan issues particularly as we follow-up on the exciting possibilities of improving our infrastructure the grid looking at lines. these are very important opportunities but again they do pose risks particularly in the congested air space. anyone who wants to jump in and help guide us through research capabilities, what are the risks that we face, and on the r&b

side what should be we prioritizing to address the risks outside of regulation actually understanding? >> go ahead. so from a risk standpoint if you look at uav operations, two risk areas ground impact hazard people being hurt by drones coming out of the sky or mid air collision risks. the ground impact hazard, you can do the analysis -- it really scales significantly by vehicle mass. studies have been done and you can look at the risk versus the reliability required to compared compare those with manned airplanes in said standards there. from the air born collision risk standpoint it also scales with size so for very small uavs we design airplanes so they can take bird strikes so an interesting question is what is the threshold mass for a uav for which the existing regulatory guidance on bird striking criteria would allow you to work there. above that size, you need some

method to separate airplanes. the easiest thing is to do segregation. that's where we're working now. the hard is to come up as i said before, concepts of operation that would allow you to operate in the same air space and be coordinated in some way. that's where we really need to work is the concepts. >> i would agree with that. that's why countries have less if it's less than a 2 kg, it's less than capable of handling a bird strike. the other thing we need to do is going to test sites with a team of ph.d. flying a perfectly assembled drone, we're not finding out what the fringe cases are when you integrate thousands of systems. the concept of integrating thousands of systems far beyond what would be considered a bird strike is extremely scary.

to me, starting with those lightweight systems so that we can collect all of that data and start figuring out. ok. here are the fringe cases, here fear of the failure points. here are the risks. how do we infiltrate those for our aircraft? >> i said that the highest priority most difficult research studies that i identified had to do with issues, the question of verification valuation and certification and how you go about setting appropriate standards of risk that apply to these light, small systems in a world that was meant to deal with manned large aircraft systems of mass. it's a very different world and demands very high priority in our view. >> as dr. hanson mentioned, the harder problem of inoperability particularly with the larger aircraft. so that's something that nasa

has taken on. we're doing that research. so the sense and avoid work. but also, as you, the sense and avoid systems work, how you display that information to the pilots so that they can make informed decisions and we're doing research in both of those areas in up isority of the support of the faas standard development. >> thank you that's all helpful. those whoa have thoughts honw to integrate as we're addressing next jen systems and if there are issues around the integration i would appreciate that. >> thank you very much. >> the gentleman from california, mr. knight is recognized for his questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for having this team esteemed panel. i have just a couple statements maybe, a quick question. you know, the uas systems have

helped quite a bit. i know that these aren't something new. they've been around for 50 or 60 years. i can remember the program which helped us get into the fourth and fifth generation fighters that we have today and also, i appreciate what they do to help pilots have a safer flight. the gcas system that we're working on right now with the united states airforce and the navy. we put that on a uas system because flying an airplane into the ground was not what a pilot wanted to do. so you put that on a uas and hopefully the software work and hopefully the plane didn't crash and you might get a test pilot to do that. my questions are more in line with privacy and how congress is going to move forward in the next 20 years especially when it comes to law enforce. law enforcement has been part of the ua asterisk us in over the last 10 years. if you have a helicopter that's

chasing a bad guy and he flirs that area, we've decided that's ok. but if you use a uas, we've decided that that's probably not ok. so the discussion is going to go and i can already see, you probably won't answer this is how do we go about that? how is the rule making going to be when we talk about uass in the law enforcement arena. >> i think that's a great question, thank you. i think for law enforcement it's probably the easiest to solve because you simply say these are the rules for whether or not you can engage with a uas and whether or not that evidence can be, admitted into a hearing because obviously the point of law enforcement is to stop crime and the only way to stop crime is to be able to convict and the only way to convict is to be able to use admissible evidence. i think that one is simple. this is what a lot is allowed. this is what is not allowed.

you have notice of proposed rule making. people vote and decide. i think the stickier point is the guy that's not being regulated. the hobbyist who's using these systems to peek into somebody's window. there's a lot of people who have those concerns. they are valid concerns. i would harken this back to when phone manufacturers started putting cameras in cell phones. people were very concerned about this. samsung as a matter of fact, it was a rule that you could not have a camera equipped phone on the campus of samsung. now obviously every single employee has a camera in their pocket. i think that people realize with this technology that there's not tens of thousands of perfect would be criminals waiting on this technology to supply on each other. it is just the question of these that can be set up silently and noticeable in somebody's house versus a loud, blinkly hit up drone flying out the window. i think it's a matter of education and a matter of saying, let's leverage existing

anti-invasion of privacy laws and make sure that those laws are, you know, applied to whatever technology is being used to invade somebody's privacy. and there should be consequences. >> i guess what i would follow-up on is that we already have an existing technology that does this, that chases bad guys from the air. so i guess mr. williams, you can answer this, would the faa decide that they would follow the exact rules as maybe an air unit does in today's law enforcement. would they follow the same rules or would they be able to do different things? you know because a helicopter , can't fly like a uas can. a helicopter can't do the same things that a small uas can do . so that's, i think will be a question for congress is are we going to lax those rules to make it more available for the troops on the ground. the cops on the ground to use it in a different manner. >> one of the initiatives we took back in 2012 was to set up a special process called for in

our re-authorization of 2012 for law enforcement. we've been working directly individual law enforcement agencies around the country. there's some that have had spectacular success with their aircraft. it is a priority from my office to continue to support law enforcement use of unmanned aircraft and find ways to approve their operations. i have two individuals who do that as their full time jobs. so we very much support finding ways for law enforcement to use unmanned aircraft safety. >> thank you. >> congressman, i just wanted to point out that avsi in an earlier effort, we did work with the international association of chiefs of police to develop guidelines. i'd be happy to submit those for the record. >> thank you. b thank you mr. >> thank you mr. chairman. the gentleman from washington, i

recognize his question. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i thank you for being here to enlighten us about this exciting and important subject in being in agriculture. i too sure the vision of the future of how we can produce crops more affectively and efficiently. a couple of questions, i think dr. laubon, i might start with you that deal with questions of the unmanned industry both public and privately and also the importance of safety of integrating these unmanned systems into the national air space. so speaking about that and realizing the speed that some of these innovations are happening. it certainly seems that safety should be a primary focus of what we're talking about. so i'm curious about the investment of harmonizing these systems with manned platforms specifically talking about collision avoidance systems in

general, perhaps specifically ads b transponders. those kinds of things. if you could talk a little bit about that, it would bebe i would be appreciative. >> i think you talked about some of the things we brought up in our report in achieving success of integrating these systems into our air space and realizing the potential benefits of these systems, we have to do it in such a way that safety is not impacted. it will not fly so to speak to introduce these things in such a way that it imposes or adds risk to the system. the doctor has already outlined a couple of the key risks that have to be understood, collision with other aircraft and collision with the ground and trying to systematically understand those things is very

important and the faa's effort to undertake a systematic analysis of risk as it applies to these systems, is an equally vital part of this. you know, one of the top four and most difficult research projects that we identified was what we called continuous operation without human intervention. in order for uass to do this basically, a uas must have the capability of doing what any manned aviation system does in the present environment so you've got to make up for all of the missing sensors, taking people's eyeballs out of the vehicle, you have to somehow substitute for that. the ability of humans to make decisions in real time based on unexpected or unanticipated

situations. you have to build that into the technology in order to maintain the levels of rizk that we have now so these are fundamental , importances as far as our study is concerned. >> thank you. just another question. i can't let the faa off the hook totally. in a recent interview on business insider magazine, thezv the ceo of amazon, jeff bezos was asked a question when they , might be possibly delivering packages delivering these systems and maybe you've read that article but it highlights the perhaps, some of the -- i could term overregulation and the r&d in the united states. he answered a long answer that i have time for but the technology is not going to be the long poll. the long poll will be regulation. so as was already talked about with a dozen or 14 approvals

already for commercial uass, could you explain why there may be hundreds or even thousands in other countries that have been approved and here we lag behind so to speak. >> well, i'm not sure i agree that we have lagged behind. yes, we don't have a specific rule for small unmanned aircraft , but we also have the most complex airspace in the world. we have the largest number of general aviation operators in the world. it's a different regulatory and legal framework here than in some of the other countries. part of my job is to interact with my counterparts from around the world and understand what they are doing and benefit from their experience. so we're taking those things into consideration. there are multiple paths for commercial operations. we have two operators approved up in alaska who are using

certificated aircraft that have gone through the manned certification process, adapted for use by and for unmanned aircraft obviously. all of the rules for unmanned aircraft didn't apply to them but there are commercial operations available that way a in addition to this new way we found through the section 333 process that's designed to bridge us through the regulatory environment we're trying to achieve with the small unmanned aircraft rule. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. newhouse. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i don't know where to start. are the permits issued -- there's -- let me understand this. i came in late. so there's been 14 permits

approved, is that right? >> for small, civil aircraft operators, yes. we have two serratedcertifyied certificated aircraft that are operating in alaska and several hundred public operators in other words government operators that we've approved. >> are they based on size mr. williams. category one might be that you could fly up to something that's 200 pounds, 500 pounds or is there a weight limit? >> well, the faa in general takes a risk based approach to all of our approvals. the reason there are different levels of approval is there's different levels of risk. so for these very small ones that we're now approving through an exemption process, because of their size, weight, and operating environments, we're approving, basically waving most the manned uncraft rules so that they don't have to comply. >> what is a small weight? >> under 55 pounds was legislate

legislated in our 2012 re-authorization was defined as small in that legislation. >> are there approved operators that get above 55 pounds? >> yes, sir. they go up to the aircraft that both nasa and dod fly is approximately the same size as a 727. >> are they able to cross into mexico and canada without violating airspace issues? >> i believe the dod flies around the world with their unmanned aircraft and they are following the rules for manned aircraft the same ways they do for -- >> what about private companies? if they cross from in the united states into canada? >> we currently don't have any approved private company that's are operating across the borders. and there is a committee or what they call a panel has been formed to develop the

international standards and recommended practices for unmanned iraircraft crossing aircraft crossing between countries. that framework is being developed. >> so when a company gets approval it has permitted a license, what do you call it? >> well, we call the pilots getting certificated. >> ok. does that process of certification get reviewed after one year? two years? >> ok. so if one of these units falls out of the sky and hits the car on the ground, liability insurance. do people market insurance for these things? >> yes, there's insurance available through multiple

different insurance companies. >> ok. the little cameras. i know you talked about the high definition camera. are they able to transmit video back on the ground? is that pretty much standard? >> yes. absolutely. even what he was flying today transmit high death video back to your tablet. >> is it captured in a little blackbox? >> there are a married of ways to do it. we can actually a record on the ground. we are actually recording a much higher bit rate stream in the air. >> you said it had a computer on it. does it have the capability of storing that on board? >> absolutely. most of the cameras have their own memory slots. >> are people able -- you think about people hacking into different things, are they going

to be able to commandeer these? >> it's a good question. >> i will add that security is one of the issues that we identify in our report. it needs to be addressed at the outset. >> how many drone manufacturers are there? >> hundreds. >> in the usa? >> much less than anywhere else in the world. >> one final question, you see planes fly over with the number on the bottom of it. are the drones identified? >> they are not today. that is one of the considerations, to have a tail number. >> google has a car that they can drive wherever -- can you program one of these drones to go somewhere and back and never touch it?

>> absolutely, just right from your smartphone. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. posey is recognized. >> i would like to thank the witnesses for showing up today and bringing great testimony. this is one of those days where another committee meeting with both required conflicted with the schedule. some of us did not get to see the demonstration of your vehicle. if the chair would indulge is, i would be interested in seeing that. >> do we still have the vehicle and the pilot? >> we can get it back up in the air and just one minute. >> let's have another quick brief demonstration. perhaps to use more airspace this time.

>> we will do fine haircuts within two feet of someone's head. >> he's going to show you with leaf blower mode with the papers on your desks. >> we did not give you much advance notice here. it will take about 45 seconds to connect to a wi-fi network. did you have any questions in the meantime? >> silence is golden and this committee, too. [laughter] >> another fun fact is that he will be pile lighting -- piloting this drone from his iphone, as well as seeing a live hd feed on his phone that is stabilized. pretty cool for 500 bucks. >> we will all have one by the

next time you come to testify here. >> my kids all got one for christmas. >> and that is your worst-case scenario. >> maybe we won't fly over people. >> as he's lying over just do this, just in case -- as he is flying over, just do this just in case. >> a french case is when you're asked to apply a drone in 60 seconds in front of congress. >> this is the kind of data we need to be collecting out in the world.

>> just to take the pressure off of you -- ok here we go. there were a go. can you head toward mr. posey? [laughter] keep it right out of -- there we go. leaf blower mode. there we go. can i push it around a little

bit to show its stability? do you want to? in a very french and stylish way. thank you. thanks again for that. anything else? the chairman from illinois is recognize. >> thank you all for being here. this is important and interesting. we appreciate the work you're doing and we want to be helpful and make sure we are doing this well. it is certainly crucial we understand the research our government is doing that will affect the rulemaking process the faa is undergoing. from a competitive standpoint, it is crucial we do this right so we're not encouraging businesses to move elsewhere or

denying research for the best and most cost of -- and most cost effective tools to do their work. i find the faa's process to be a little confusing and i agree with the need for public safety. that should always be our top goal. right now, i'm afraid we are stifling innovation and research opportunities by keeping uas's out of the sky. i've trying -- i've tried to get information and i believe we will try to continue to get answers from the faa. in early december 2014, the association of american universities and associations of topic land-grant universities wrote a letter to the of aa stating "there's no timely workable mechanisms for public and private universities to secure faa of ruble to conduct important research utilizing

small unmanned aerial systems." has the faa considered me being a rule -- making a rule to allow universities to research them on their own property below 400 feet? >> we believe our small rule will address the needs of the universities. i have had discussions with several universities about this, that they can move forward using our section 333 process conducting training, research etc. i've had conversations with many universities about the possibility of doing that will stop >> there are some opportunities there but you expect that will give them the ability to do some of the research they are looking to do? how much interest is there in terms of calls, meetings and

websites? how many have actually used the test sites? >> i can get back to you on that. >> that would be terrific. how would you organize the test sites to best accommodate industries? >> we want to get this word out. it's early days for the test site so we've got to make them more accessible. we discussed them earlier and the need for greater transparency getting the cost down, etc.. there is also need to focus the research on the specific areas we all agree need to be advanced. those are the primary elements we are looking at. do you have anything to add? >> i would take the six test

sites and expand it to test sites that might be on your company's private property that have strict regulations around what you're able to do. the geo-fence will not cross that barrier. don't cross the geo-fence or the main line of sight and it can be on your company's own property. >> have you heard if they are open to looking into that? >> i believe we have the ability to monitor that situation. they have been taken advantage of by other companies to do exactly that. that process does remain available to anyone who chooses to use it. >> i hear that a lot and is at

the same airworthiness certificate to which there have been certificates granted to do all the people who want to fly drones? >> we have issued quite a few experiment certificates. >> is that what it requires for a private joe -- private drone operator? >> the experimental process is for experiment we use will stop >> let me ask you this -- how do you see other countries and their openness to doing this? anything a similar openness here and in other countries or do you see a greater challenge? >> i think in other countries, the use a some old proportional risk-based system to say of the drone is very lightweight and being flown low altitude, line of sight, there's a lot less regulation and a heavy drone being flown out of line of sight at head -- at high altitudes. >> hopefully, we can see other

countries and we can do the same thing here will stop >> the gentleman from alabama is recognized for question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was called away to another meeting, so i missed a lot of this. thank you for the demonstration. i might ask for one of those for question -- for christmas myself will stop -- for christmas myself. has anyone done anything on the economic impact and what would it be worth to the economy if we had it done here in the united states, if we do the construction here, the manufacturing -- did you say it is as large as a 727?

you would be doing design, engineering and construction? has anyone looked at what the economic and act might be? >> the numbers my organization put together suggests after we have access, the economic impact amounts to about $82 million and 100,000 plus jobs. we're going to update those numbers because we think they understate the opportunity. >> that is the design engineering construction will stop >> and ancillary. >> that would be the commercial use? >> profitability for other business models. >> are we losing any technological advantage by the delays in approval for testing?

if this goes offshore? >> for the design and test, yes sir. that is an important distinction. the end-user community such as the insurance community and a culture community, they will want to utilize the technology. the question is whether they want to use american-built technology. if during the course of our study, we heard presentations in the industry -- many of them told us they could not conduct the kind of research that they need to do in the u.s. and they were taking their operations offshore and in november, i participated in a meeting sponsored by the national air and space academy in france.

one of the key things that came out of that conference was the fact that the french faa returns to 2012 to issue a risk based set of regulations covering the very small you a esses -- i think two and a half kilos. they put those in place as of the time of the conference in november. there were over a thousand certified operators, more than 1600 vehicles in french air space alone and there were multiple manufacturers and others participating. it was quite interesting to see the industry taking off their. >> france is 90% of the population of texas? we could probably get some interesting economic benefit for the entire country. back to the side of -- going back to the size of these things, do you see a company

like federal express or one of the big commercial materials carrier utilizing these were a high-capacity transport? >> there is interest in the part of federal express and other cargo operators. these capabilities will first come through in the military and the risk issues will be demonstrated. we can do it technically today the issue is to work out the operational details. max and one of those operational details i assume is that the guidance systems cannot be hacked? >> exactly. that's one of the key research areas are the cyber security issues associated with the uplink command uplink. >> the question has to do with utilizing these four high-altitude subspace and a

launching return capability. high altitude subspace for weather evaluations and things like that. is that something that is on the drawing board? >> one of the biggest potential markets is the use of these vehicles for high-altitude relay for out-based internet on the surface so that you can have long persistence vehicles at high altitude that can act effectively as satellite and be doing broadband activity next to the ground. >> my last part of the question would be for instance, an unmanned flight to the international space station. do you foresee having the capability for launch in return for a mission like that? >> we have unmanned vehicles

flying cargo missions to the space station today. next thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me thank all of our witnesses today. this has been a particularly informative panel. with that possible exception, we appreciate all of your contributions. this has been helpful to members of the science committee and we look forward to hearing from you all in the future and waiting watching to see what goes on with the use of drones in the private sector and commercial sector as well. thank you all for being here. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> members of congress return

tomorrow for legislative business. the houses and at noon eastern for general speeches and legislative is this at 2:00. they will consider a series of measures that address human trafficking. later in the week, house is expected to debate a border security bill aimed at securing the mexican border. majority leader mitch mcconnell filed a motion last week to limit debate on the bill. the senate meets tomorrow afternoon at 4:30 eastern. for more on the week's agenda we talked to a congressional reporter. >> she covers congress for "the los angeles times." you tweeted that the gop's tough security bill is