U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–242 PDF 2017

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR 

AMERICA: ENABLING INNOVATION IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE 

(115–8) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 4, 2017 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, Vice 

Ranking Member 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan, Vice Chair 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

WITNESSES 

Shelley J. Yak, Director, William J. Hughes Technical Center, Federal Aviation Administration, accompanied by Marke ‘‘Hoot’’ Gibson, Senior Advisor, 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration, Federal Aviation Administration: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo of New Jersey, submitted on behalf of 

Hon. Paul Mitchell of Michigan ............................................................ 57 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon ............................................................. 63 

Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington ............................................................. 66 

Gregory S. McNeal, J.D., Ph.D., Cofounder, AirMap: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington ............................................................................................................. 82 

Sean Cassidy, Director, Safety and Regulatory Affairs, Amazon Prime Air: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington ............................................................................................................. 92 

Calvin Clifford ‘‘Trey’’ Fayard III, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, 

FLYGLO LLC: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 93 

Brian Whiteside, President, VDOS Global: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 98 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington ............................................................................................................. 102 

Michael P. Moses, President, Virgin Galactic: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 103 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Statement of Air Line Pilots Association, International, submitted by Hon. 

Rick Larsen of Washington ................................................................................. 108 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 25242.001

~Hl i9IJtt5ter 

i£1J.1itlllilll 

MatbewM.Smrges 

StaffDrre.::tor 

<!Committee on l!rra~portation anb 3lnfra~trurture 

<M.~. ~on~e of l\epre~entatihe~ 

Wa~bington iiB<!C 20515 

March31,2017 

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER 

TO: 

FROM: 

Members, Subcommittee on Aviation 

Staff, Subcommittee on Aviation 

~etcr ~L ErJfa?IO 

31\anlituq .:ffl.rmbcr 

K::ttherlneW,O.,.drlck 

Dcmocra!lcStaffDirector 

RE: Subcommittee Hearing on "Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: 

Enabling Innovation in the National Airspace" 

PURPOSE 

The Subcommittee on Aviation will hold a series of hearings to receive testimony from 

representatives of different segments of new aviation technologies in order to help prepare for 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill. This memo will serve as the 

Summary of Subject Matter for these hearings. 

The Subcommittee will meet for the fourth hearing on Tuesday, April4, 2017, at 10:00 

a.m. in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building. The Subcommittee will hear about new aviation 

and aerospace technologies, users, and business models; innovation and its role in building a 2151 

Century aviation transportation system; and any potential challenges operators may face when 

trying to integrate new technology into the National Airspace System (NAS). The Subcommittee 

will receive testimony from representatives of the FAA, Amazon Prime Air, FlyGLO, Air Map, 

Virgin Galactic, and VDOS. 

BACKGROUND 

Federal Aviation Administration 

The primary mission of the FAA is ensuring aviation safety. The FAA has the 

responsibility to certify, monitor, and regulate the safety and operation of the civil aviation 

sector, including airlines, general aviation, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), airports, 

commercial space transportation, repair stations, and aircraft manufacturers, as well as to 

establish licensing and training requirements for pilots and other aviation-related professionals. 

One of the most visible functions of the FAA is the operation of the air traffic control system. 

The FAA provides air traffic control services in the continental United States airspace and also 

vast areas of international airspace over the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, and Pacific Ocean. 
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 25242.002

On February 14,2012, President Obama signed into law the Federal Aviation 

Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) (P.L. 112-95). This law includes 

significant changes to FAA programs and policies. It also provided nearly $16 billion annually 

from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015 for FAA programs, projects, and operations.1 

On July 15,2016, President Obama signed into law the FAA Extension, Safety, and 

Security Act of2016 (P.L. 114-190). This law extends expiring authorities and taxes included in 

the FMRA through September 30, 2017. It also authorizes certain critical, time-sensitive safety 

reforms. 

Civil Aviation 

The United States civil aviation industry is a major economic driver, contributing roughly 

$1.6 trillion in total economic activity and supporting roughly II millionjobs.2 Our civil aviation 

system accounts for more than five percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product.3 Air 

transportation accounts for a significant part by safely and efficiently moving passengers and 

cargo around the United States and connecting our country to the rest of the world. 

This industry supports a diverse and essential aviation system comprised of connnercial 

aviation, general aviation, unmanned aircraft, airports, connnercial space transportation, and 

other users. Commercial and general aviation help transport millions of passengers and move 

billions in revenue ton-miles of freight safely and securely all across the country. Impacts are 

also seen state-by-state, where airports and air operators help connect large and small 

communities, create jobs, and increase economic output.4 

Manufacturing 

Aviation manufacturing is the "seventh leading contributor to national productivity 

growth." s The United States is the home of several major aviation manufacturers, including one 

of the two major global manufacturers of wide-body aircraft, and a number of the world's major 

general aviation manufacturers for business jets.6 While the Nation experienced a severe 

economic downturn in 2007, civil aviation manufacturing has recovered and has increased its 

production over the past several years. In 2014, civil aircraft manufacturing's total output was 

roughly$147.7 billion, an increase from 2012's total output of$122.7 billion. Further, in 2014, 

1 The FAA's authorities and taxes authorized in FMRA were extended through March 31,2016 in P.L. 114-55, and 

again through July 15, 2016 in P.L. 114-141. 

' Federal Aviation Administration. "The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy." November 

2016. Pg. 3. 

3 Federal Aviation Administration. "The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy." November 

2016. Pg. 3. https:/iwww.faa.gov/air traffic/publicationsimedia!2016-economic-impact-repm1 FJNAL.pdf 

4 Federal Aviation Administration. "General Aviation Airports Reports." 

http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning capacity/ga study! 

5 Federal Aviation Administration. "The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy." November 

20!6. Pg. 3. https:f/www.faa.gov/air traffic/publicationsimedia/20!6-economic-impact-repo!1 FINAL.pdf 

6 United States International Trade Commission. "Business Jet Aircraft Industry: Structure and Factors Affecting 

Competitiveness." April20I2. http://www.usitc.govipress room/news release/2012/er0530kk2.htm 

2 
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 25242.003

general aviation manufacturing's total output was over $29 billion, which was roughly a nine 

billion dollar increase from 2012.7 

While American aviation manufacturing has continued to grow, the industry has also 

faced a number of global and domestic challenges. In the United States, the FAA is responsible 

for developing certification standards to ensure the safety of design and production of aircraft, 

aircraft components, and other avionics. To meet this responsibility, the FAA has a system of 

processes and compliance reviews that certify the design and production of aircraft and aircraft 

components to specific safety standards. However, these processes can often be lengthy and 

costly for aviation manufacturers.s FMRA directed the FAA to fmd ways to improve and 

streamline certification processes, reduce delays, and harmonize regulatory standards both 

domestically and internationally.9 As a result of this mandate, working groups consisting of 

industry, FAA, and labor representatives made a number of recommendations to streamline 

aircraft certifications and address inconsistent regulatory interpretations across the Agency. 

The United States has over 19,400 airports providing important services to our aviation 

system, and in many communities, they are key economic drivers. The current National Plan of 

Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) identifies 3,332 commercial service and general aviation 

airports that are significant to national air transportation and thus eligible to receive federal 

grants under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). It also includes estimates of the amount of 

funding needed to complete infrastructure development projects bringing these airports up to 

current design standards and adding capacity at congested airports.IO The current NPIAS 

estimates there are $32.5 billion in AlP-eligible projects between 2017 and 2021. 

There are 382 airports in the NPIAS classified as primary airports because they support 

scheduled commercial air service at a certain volume, and 2,950 non-primary airports supporting 

low-level commercial service and general aviation operations. II 

Aimort Revenue 

To finance daily operations, airports generate and rely on both aeronautical and nonaeronautical revenue. The primary sources of aeronautical (or airside) revenue are various fees 

paid by airlines and other airport users for the lease of terminal space, landing fees, and use of 

other airport facilities, such as jet bridges. Non-aeronautical (or landside) revenue sources 

include airport terminal concessions, parking, rental car operations, and rental fees. 

Aimort Capital 

7 Federal Aviation Administration. "The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy." November 

2016, p. 28. 

s 14 C.F.R Parts 21, 23, and 25. 

9 Sections 312 and 313 of the FAA Modernization and Refonn Act o/2012. (P.L. 112-95.) 

10 Federal Aviation Administration. "National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS)" 

http :/.:\V\VW. faa. gov /airports/planning capaci tvinQ.@§l 

11ld. at4. 

3 
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 25242.004

To finance capital needs, airports use a combination of federal grants, federallyauthorized local airport charges, state and local grants, and airport revenues.12 The primary 

Federal grant program funding for airport development and planning is the AIP. AIP funds are 

primarily used for improvements related to enhancing airport safety, capacity, security, and 

environmental concerns. Airport sponsors can also use AIP funds, in most cases, on airfield 

capital improvements or repairs and, in some specific situations, for terminals and hangars. The 

AIP is currently authorized at $3.35 billion. 

Because the AlP does not cover all airport capital needs, Congress has authorized airports 

to collect a fee on passengers called the passenger facility charge (PFC). A PFC is approved by 

the federal government, collected by the airlines, and paid directly to the airport without going 

through the federal Treasury. The PFC is intended to supplement, not replace, AIP funds. 

Airports can use PFCs to build critical infrastructure projects at their facilities. However, unlike 

AIP funds, airports can use PFC revenue for gates, airline ticket areas, and debt service on bonds 

that airports issue to finance airport infrastructure projects. In 2016, the FAA estimated that 

airports collected approximately $3.1 billion from PFCs. 

Civil Aviation Operators 

Airlines and Charters 

The air transportation industry includes major airlines, regional airlines, all-cargo 

airlines, and charter operators that serve the widely varying needs of American consumers and 

businesses. 

In 2015, approximately 2 million passengers flew on domestic and international flights 

operated by U.S. airlines each day.B Foreign carriers serving the United States carried additional 

passengers to and from the United States. The transportation of air freight is also substantial: in 

2014, over 64 billion ton-miles of freight passed through U.S. airportS.l4 Charter operators are a 

diverse group of approximately 2,000 companies operating over I 0,000 aircraft of various sizes 

and types serving the largest cities and also rural communities lacking scheduled service.1s In 

addition to direct economic impacts, air transportation enables substantial economic activity 

outside of the transportation sector. 

In recent years, the U.S. airline industry has shown sustained profitability. However, this 

stability comes after decades of fmancial volatility that resulted in mergers and acquisitions, the 

disappearance of some airlines, and the emergence of others. Major U.S. passenger airlines often 

partner with other airlines to complement their services. Domestically, they partner with regional 

airlines operating smaller aircraft to fly routes or during times-of-day that cannot be 

n Tang, Rachel Y., Kirk, Robert S., "Financing Airports Improvements", Congressional Research Service. 

December 4, 2013. 

13 Bureau of Transportation Statistics. "2015 U.S.-Based Airline Traffic Data." 

https:.'/www.rita.dot.gov/bts/prcss releases/btsO 18 16 

14 Federal Aviation Administration. "The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy." Pg. 4. 

https:1/www.faa.gov1air trafftc/publications/media!2016-economic-impact-report F!Ni\Lpdf 

l5 Study of Operators Regulated Under Part 135, April2016. Available at: 

http:lfnata.aero/dataifilesiQia/4656 OOl.pdf (p. ES-2) 

4 
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 25242.005

economically served with other, larger aircraft. Internationally, they also form alliances with 

foreign airlines to mutually expand their reach of their global networks. U.S. all-cargo airlines 

are part of larger integrated logistics companies that operate hubs around the U.S. and the globe. 

The FAA conducts comprehensive safety oversight of the airline industry. In 1978, the 

Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA) eliminated most economic regulation of the industry in 

favor of allowing market forces to determine domestic airfares, routes, and levels of service. The 

legislation included the Essential Air Service program to protect air service in smaller 

communities. Since enactment of the ADA, airfares have fallen dramatically in real terms.16 In 

1992, the United States entered into its first "Open Skies" agreement which eliminated most 

governmental limits on international services. Since that time, the United States has entered 

Open Skies agreements with 1 00 countries around the world.11 

General Aviation 

The general aviation segment consists of flight activity for personal and business use. 

This activity includes recreational aviation, flight training, and other private uses. Aircraft used 

in general aviation range from helicopters and piston-engine aircraft to large transport aircraft 

capable of intercontinental flight. 

According to the FAA, " ... the long term outlook for general aviation is favorable, led by 

gains in turbine aircraft activity. While steady growth in both GOP and corporate profits results 

in continued growth of the turbine and rotorcraft fleets, the largest segment of the fleet-fixed 

wing piston aircraft-continues to shrink over the forecast." 18 In addition, FAA forecasts that 

" ... the number of active general aviation pilots (excluding ATPs) is projected to decrease about 

5,000 (down 0.1 percent yearly) ... " between 2016-2036.19 

New Aviation Technologies and New Operators 

Air Traffic Control Modernization or "NextGen" 

In order to meet anticipated growth in air traffic, Congress directed FAA to undertake a 

series of initiatives to revamp the Nation's Air Traffic Control System known as ''NextGen". The 

goal ofNextGen is to transition from ground-based navigation and surveillance systems to a 

satellite-based system in order to increase the efficiency, capacity, and flexibility of our airspace. 

Specifically, NextGen initiatives should reduce the required separation between aircraft, result in 

more efficient routes, and decrease congestion. Together, these initiatives should provide a better 

experience for the travelling public.zo NextGen consists of specific programs to realize these 

benefits, including Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), System-Wide 

16 Thompson, Derek. "How Airline Ticket Prices Fell 50% in 30 Years (and Why Nobody Noticed)." The Atlantic. 

Feb. 23, 2013. http:f/www.theatlantic.combusinessiarchive/20 13/02ihow-airline-tickct-prices-fell-50-in-30-vearsand-why-nobody-noticed/273506' 

17 U.S. Department of State. "Open Skies Agreements." https:/ www.state.govleicbitra/atai 

18 FAA Aerospace Forecast, 2016-2036, p. 2. 

19 !d. at 25. 

20 GAO "Next Generation Air Transportation System: Information on Expenditures. Schedule, and Cost Estimates, 

Fiscal Years 2004-2030. •· November 17,2016, p. 1. 

5 
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 25242.006

Information Management (SWIM), and Data Communications (Data Comm). The goal at the 

inception ofNextGen was to achieve transformation of our National Airspace System (NAS) by 

2025.21 

According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, FAA has spent 

approximately $7.4 billion on programs identified as NextGen.22 In order to ensure timely 

completion, FMRA established a ChiefNextGen Officer within the FAA to oversee the 

implementation and management ofNextGen and created NextGen metrics. However, the 

NextGen programs have been consistently fraught with delays and cost-overruns. According to a 

November 2016 GAO report, six NextGen activities with completion dates in 2025 have been 

delayed to 2030.23 According to Inspector General of the Department of Transportation (DOT 

IG) Calvin Scovel during the February 5, 2014 hearing entitled "The FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of2012: Two Years Later'', the total expenditures ofNextGen look to be two to three 

times greater than the initial $40 billion estimate.24 

Remote Air Traffic Control Towers 

Technology could enable some airports to provide air traffic services remotely. Remote 

air traffic control towers include cameras, microphones, meteorological sensors, and other 

monitoring equipment installed at the airport. Controllers are located at facilities that receive 

real-time data and video from these sensors and equipment. A controller at the remote location 

operates traffic at the airport the same way he or she would in a normal tower. This technology 

was tested at Leesburg Airport in Virginia in 2015. This technology could provide air traffic 

services to airports located in rural and remote areas, thereby greatly improving safety and 

increasing access to the NAS. 

Unmanned Aircraft Svstems 

UAS, or drones, are an important innovation in aviation technology. There is significant 

demand for UAS in the United States. From 2005-2014, the number of countries using UAS for 

commercial and military purposes nearly doubled.2s Since the early 1990s, UAS have operated in 

the national airspace mostly in support of governmental functions, such as military and border 

security operations.26 In recent years, the private sector has developed a sweeping range of uses 

for UAS including aerial photography, surveying, agriculture, communications, environmental 

monitoring, and infrastructure inspection.21 Certain companies have announced plans for small 

package delivery using UAS. 

21 !d. at3 

oo ld. at 2 

n !d. at 2 

"GAO "The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012: Two Years Later" Hearing before the Subcommittee on 

Aviation- Hearing Transcript, February 5, 2014, p. 22. 

15 GAO "Key Issues: Unmanned Aerial Systems (Drones)." February I, 2016 

http://\.vww.gao.gov/key issues/unmanned aerial svstems/issue summarv 

26 Federal Aviation Administration, "Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the National 

Airspace System (NAS) Roadmap" https:!iwww.faa.gov/uas/media:UAS Roadmap 2013.pdf(p. 4) 

21 !d. at 6 

6 
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 25242.007

The emergence ofUAS offers substantial opportunities and also raises important policy 

issues such airspace rules, privacy concerns, and aviation safety. Since 2014, the FAA has 

promulgated regulations authorizing use of small UAS on a routine basis, requiring registration 

of certain UAS, and has also authorized use of certain advanced technologies through waivers 

and other regulatory means. 

Commercial Space Transportation 

For decades, private industry, with the support of National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) and the FAA, have worked to develop new and innovative methods to 

transport passengers and cargo safely and efficiently into space. Under the Commercial Space 

Launch Act of 1984 and subsequent amendments, the Secretary of Transportation has the 

responsibility and authority to facilitate, regulate, and promote the commercial space 

transportation industry. This responsibility has been assigned to the FAA's Office of 

Commercial Space Transportation (AST). According to the FAA, the AST's mission '"is to 

ensure protection of the public, property, and the national security and foreign policy interests of 

the United States during commercial launch or reentry activities, and to encourage, facilitate, and 

promote U.S. commercial space transportation." 

AST issues launch and reentry licenses for commercial space launches, permits for 

experimental launches, and launch site licenses for commercial spaceports. AST licensed ll 

commercial launches, permitted four experimental launches, and supervised I 0 active spaceport 

licenses in 2016. As the pace and complexity of commercial space transportation operations 

continues to increase, AST' s role in regulating and facilitating the industry will continue to 

evolve. 

Other issues. 

In addition to the issues discussed above, the hearings may also touch on the following 

subjects: 

Safety Oversight: The U.S. commercial aviation system has an impressive safety record, 

but accidents, including the crash of Colgan Flight 3407, the disappearance of Indonesia 

Air Asia Flight 8501 and the intentional crashing of Germanwings Flight 9525, are stark 

reminders to be ever vigilant. Aviation safety is reliant on excellent training, the sharing 

of safety critical data and information, and strong oversight. 

Essential Air Service (EAS) program: The EAS program was created in 1978 to ensure 

continuity of air service to small communities following enactment of the ADA. The 

program provides subsidies to airlines to provide service to small communities where 

there are not enough passengers to operate profitably. Recent Congresses have enacted 

reforms limiting program participation and subsidy levels. 

FAA Contract Tower Program: Federal contractors provide air traffic control services at 

visual flight rule airports. FAA oversees the safe operation of these towers. As of 

February 2016, there are 252 contract towers in the NAS. 

7 
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 25242.008

- Cybersecurity: As aviation has evolved and newer technologies have been adopted and 

integrated cybersecurity concerns have arisen. In July 2016, the President signed into law 

the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of2016 that directed the FAA to implement a 

strategic framework for cybersecurity. 

WITNESS LIST 

Ms. Shelly J. Yak 

Director, William J. Hughes Technical Center 

Federal Aviation Administration 

(Accompanied by: Mr. Marke "Hoot" Gibson 

Senior Advisor, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration, FAA) 

Mr. Gregory McNeal 

Executive Vice President and Co-Founder 

Air Map 

Mr. Sean Cassidy 

Director, Safety and Regulatory Affairs 

Amazon Prime Air 

Mr. Calvin Clifford "Trey" Fayard, III 

Chief Executive Officer 

FlyGLOLLC 

Mr. Brian Whiteside 

President 

VDOS Global 

Mr. Michael P. Moses 

President 

Virgin Galactic 

8 
(1) 

BUILDING A 21ST-CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: ENABLING INNOVATION IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE 

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning, everyone. The subcommittee will 

come to order. I would like to thank you all for being here. 

Today the Aviation Subcommittee is holding the fourth hearing 

in preparation for the FAA reauthorization. This hearing will examine our continuously changing aviation system, which evolves 

with the introduction and growth of new technologies, innovative 

business models, and nontraditional users. 

Before we begin, I want to encourage all stakeholders and members of the public to send your ideas, thoughts, and/or questions on 

innovation in the aviation industry and FAA reauthorization to our 

dedicated email. 

It is transportfeedback@mail.house.gov. Transportfeedback@mail. 

house.gov. We have had a number of people who have emailed in, 

and it is helpful for us to know what is on your mind. 

Since the turn of the millennium our aviation system has rapidly 

changed with the invention of new aviation technologies and new 

business ideas. For example, when Congress deregulated the airline industry in the late 1970s, the now familiar overnight delivery 

industry barely existed. The aviation industry of today is vastly different from what we saw even in the year 2000. Ten years from 

now, it will certainly look even a lot more different. 

The development of unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, has 

been underway for more than a century, but only recently have 

UAS become widely and inexpensively available, thanks to rapid 

advances in technology. The sheer volume of UAS now operating in 

the national airspace—more than 750,000 units are registered, and 

they are just the ones that are registered—is redefining how aircraft operate in low-altitude airspace. 

Commercial space transportation has existed since 1989, but only 

in the last few years has it begun to evolve from a niche industry 

to a self-sustaining economic engine. Changes in the airline industry have altered the ways in which the traveling public gets from 

2 

point A to point B. While many of these changes have been for the 

better, some communities have seen service decline or disappear altogether. 

In the wake of these changes, new companies are beginning to 

emerge to fill the void and restore connectivity between regional 

communities. As many members of this subcommittee represent 

small communities and rural areas, I am sure new business models 

that can better connect their districts to the air transportation system will be of particular interest. Such new business models, which 

fill the gap, have the potential to greatly affect the aviation system 

of the future. 

Maintaining American leadership in aerospace is a top priority 

for this subcommittee. Let me repeat that. Keeping American leadership is a top priority. As we all know, we cannot rest on our laurels. The benefits of technological advancement and the cost of 

complacency are too great. 

Cooperation between industry and Government is critical to 

maintaining the rapid pace of innovation necessary in aviation, and 

it is vital to building a 21st-century infrastructure to support users, 

new technologies, and new innovations in how to deliver air services and connectivity. 

The witnesses on our panel today represent the hundreds of 

thousands of talented Americans who push the boundaries of aviation technology and innovation and make the system far better for 

everyone. 

I am extremely proud to represent thousands of individuals who 

work at the FAA’s Technical Center, the flagship for the FAA, 

which plays a critical and important role in the partnership between Government and industry. They are the cutting edge on research and development, safety, and security for the entire Nation. 

The Technical Center is a one-stop shop for the best and brightest 

to research, develop, demonstrate, and validate new aviation technologies and data sources. 

Just down the road, groundbreaking will soon take place on a 

new technology park on the grounds of the FAA that will allow private companies to leverage Technical Center resources and expertise, something we think will be a great advantage to all. This exciting project will greatly benefit the mission of the Technical Center and the Nation as a whole. 

We all know that innovation and change involve challenges. As 

the subcommittee is charged with ensuring the safety of aviation, 

we must take care that the innovation in airspace is achieved while 

ensuring the continued safety of that airspace. 

I look forward to hearing from our panel today about how Congress can enable continued innovation, ensure aviation safety, and 

build a 21st-century aviation infrastructure supporting both important goals. 

Before recognizing Ranking Member Larsen for his remarks, I 

would like to ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s 

hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in 

writing and unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 

days for additional comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

3 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would now like to yield to Mr. Larsen for any remarks he may 

make. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing on enabling innovation in the national airspace. 

This morning we are here to discuss the integration of new users, 

aerospace technologies, and business operations into the U.S. airspace. From modifying how business is conducted to creating new 

and previously unthinkable technologies that are changing how the 

airspace is used, innovation in aviation is pressing forward at a 

pretty rapid rate. 

Chairman LoBiondo and I have ensured that the topics we will 

explore today, such as unmanned aircraft and commercial space 

transportation, have been the focus of this subcommittee’s oversight work in recent years. I look forward to hearing our witnesses’ 

perspectives on how this panel can address these and other innovation-related topics in a long-term and comprehensive FAA reauthorization bill this year. 

There is no denying the extensive public and commercial benefits 

of unmanned aircraft. This industry is particularly important to my 

home State of Washington, which is a thriving hub of aviation 

R&D. And as drones proliferate, so too do their applications. 

Drones are used to respond to natural disasters, for search and rescue, and for wildfire mitigation. They also complete safety-related 

work that manned aircraft cannot, such as the BNSF Railway 

drone that I had a chance to witness last year in Everett, Washington, which the company uses to inspect seawall integrity and 

railways. 

The drone industry has a massive potential to drive economic 

growth and create jobs here in the U.S. Industry groups estimate 

that by 2025, the industry may generate more than 100,000 jobs 

and billions of dollars in direct and indirect economic activity. 

A few weeks ago, the FAA released its latest aerospace forecast, 

projecting that the hobbyist drone fleet will triple in size from 1.1 

million to 3.5 million units in the next 5 years. Meanwhile, the 

commercial drone fleet is likely to multiply tenfold. 

Now, while the number of drones in the U.S. airspace grows it 

is critical that both commercial and recreational users operate 

these aircraft safely. Each month the FAA receives more than 100 

reports of drone sightings, and the risks of collisions with manned 

aircraft, incursions with critical infrastructure, and mishaps over 

populated areas remain serious concerns. So I am pleased that last 

year’s short-term FAA extension included a number of provisions 

on drone safety. 

Still, more must be done to match the pace of industry growth, 

and this panel has an enormous opportunity to move that ball 

down the field with the upcoming FAA reauthorization. 

I also look forward to hearing more about the progress in the 

area of commercial space transportation. This subcommittee held a 

long overdue hearing last summer on FAA’s oversight of the burgeoning U.S. industry, which in 2015 was about $126 billion, according to the FAA. The commercial launch of satellites is particularly important because of the range of capabilities offered from television and radio broadcasts to high-speed internet and weather 

4 

forecasts. Additionally, space tourism is on the horizon and is expected to become a billion-dollar market in the coming years. 

For American national security, among other reasons, it is critical that U.S. leadership in space transportation and exploration 

remain second to none. Now, if the pace of commercial space transportation and tourism increases as forecasted, the FAA will need 

adequate resources to oversee safe integration of these new technologies into the national airspace. 

So in closing, I hope to hear today about what Congress and the 

FAA can do to foster innovation in the use of the national airspace 

and to support the good ideas, while ensuring the U.S. airspace remains the safest and most efficient in the world. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. 

I would now like to turn to Chairman Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for holding this 

hearing today. 

The United States is the birthplace of aviation. We paved the 

way in modern aviation. We have innovated. The whole world follows our lead. And we need to ensure that we continue to hold that 

leadership in the world. 

New technologies have led to new airspace operations, such as 

unmanned aircraft and commercial space transportation operations, and these changes in the aviation industry pose both opportunity and challenges for aviation infrastructure. We must enable 

innovation and its integration while also maintaining a credible 

aviation safety record. 

Companies like Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, and Blue Origin are 

ramping up operations to make commercial space a regular part of 

our National Transportation System. SpaceX, in particular, is targeting 70 launches through 2019, a cadence of one launch every 2 

or 3 weeks, and I have been told that somewhere into the 2020s, 

they are looking at going to a launch every day. We are quickly approaching what was once science fiction, which was once a science 

experiment—Mr. Larsen—which was once a science experiment. 

Mr. LARSEN. I will write the rest of your speech. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Commercial space launches nearly every day, as I 

said. 

Currently, these launches and reentries take up massive 

amounts of airspace. With new technology, we can narrow those 

amounts that take up international airspace, and we must do that. 

Our aviation system and infrastructure cannot support these 21stcentury innovations in commercial space and unmanned aircraft 

that we see likely coming. 

Amazon, for example, I have been told, and nobody will go on the 

record, I read somewhere the estimates were that Amazon was 

going to spend somewhere near $1 billion to help develop drones 

and test packages being delivered. Instead of them doing those 

tests here, they have gone to the U.K. because of our inefficient 

and burdensome regulatory process. 

And again, they won’t give me an exact number, but I have got 

to believe it is in the millions of dollars that they are spending in 

the U.K., not in the U.S., because of the system we have here, the 

burdensome regulatory process which makes it very difficult, these 

5 

research dollars and jobs that could have been here in the United 

States. We have to make sure we don’t miss this opportunity going 

forward. 

So I look forward to today’s hearing and hearing from our witnesses. We are now talking in Congress about building a 21st-century infrastructure system, and one of the key parts of that is in 

aviation infrastructure that can support the innovation that is coming to us faster than we ever thought possible. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. This is an important hearing, and I think it will help instruct the committee as we move forward with the FAA reauthorization this year and provide further 

direction to the FAA on some of these matters. 

I am particularly pleased to have Mr. Brian Whiteside, president 

of VDOS Global, headquartered in Corvallis, Oregon, in my congressional district. He has a company that operates drones in support of a number of areas, including wildlife, monitoring emergency 

response. He also has put together a company that has a program 

called Drone Complier, which helps other commercial drone operators manage their fleets and comply with the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Mr. Whiteside, I look forward to your testimony. Thanks for traveling all the way out here. I am doing the trip almost weekly. I 

know it is not fun, so not easy to get to the Fourth Congressional 

District. 

We need to maintain America’s lead in aviation and aerospace, 

and that is going to require a much more nimble and proactive 

FAA. It is going to require some specific direction from Congress. 

And I am looking forward to hearing interesting ideas here today 

on how we will do better and help keep our lead by not ceding the 

development of these new industries to our overseas competitors. 

I am also concerned that the—you know, I asked the FAA quite 

some time ago now, I said, ‘‘What happens if you ingest a 

quadcopter into a jet engine.’’ And they said, ‘‘Gee, that is a good 

question. We don’t know.’’ So they went through a process. They 

hired a consultant. We were going to have the report in November. 

Now I hear maybe we will have it in April or June. It is pretty critical we know what is going to happen. 

I am very concerned about the abuse by some people. These are 

generally very casual recreational users who are operating outside 

the law. They have interfered with firefighting operations. We have 

had to ground planes because it is dangerous to be operating helicopters and small planes fighting fires when some idiot is taking 

videos with their drone. And we have had a number of reports from 

pilots. 

There was a provision that I got in the short-term authorization 

requiring the FAA to go forward with a pilot project, I hope to hear 

about that, to intercept or otherwise disable drones that are operating in controlled airspace. I know the technology exists. I have 

met with a company who has done it in a classified form for the 

military. We need to move forward with that. 

6 

So, Mr. Chairman, thanks again for the hearing. I look forward 

to hearing from the witnesses. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you Mr. DeFazio. 

I know we have a unanimous consent request from Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent 

that the written statement prepared by the Air Line Pilots Association, International, be entered into the record. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The statement is on pages 108–111.] 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I am very pleased today to welcome our witnesses. We have Ms. Shelley Yak, who is the Director of the FAA’s 

Technical Center, which is in the Second Congressional District of 

New Jersey, my district. Ms. Yak is accompanied by Marke ‘‘Hoot’’ 

Gibson, senior advisor on unmanned aircraft systems integration, 

who has extensive experience with both military and domestic. 

We are pleased to have you both here today. 

Mr. Gregory McNeal, executive vice president and cofounder of 

AirMap. Mr. Sean Cassidy, director of safety and regulatory affairs 

for Amazon Prime Air. Mr. Calvin Clifford Fayard III, chief executive officer of FLYGLO. Mr. Brian Whiteside, president of VDOS 

Global. And Mr. Michael Moses, president of Virgin Galactic. 

I would like to remind all witnesses to do their best to limit their 

opening remarks to 5 minutes. 

Ms. Yak, you are recognized for your opening statement. 

TESTIMONY OF SHELLEY J. YAK, DIRECTOR, WILLIAM J. 

HUGHES TECHNICAL CENTER, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY MARKE ‘‘HOOT’’ GIBSON, SENIOR ADVISOR, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; GREGORY S. 

MCNEAL, J.D., PH.D., COFOUNDER, AIRMAP; SEAN CASSIDY, 

DIRECTOR, SAFETY AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, AMAZON 

PRIME AIR; CALVIN CLIFFORD ‘‘TREY’’ FAYARD III, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FLYGLO LLC; BRIAN 

WHITESIDE, PRESIDENT, VDOS GLOBAL; AND MICHAEL P. 

MOSES, PRESIDENT, VIRGIN GALACTIC 

Ms. YAK. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, 

Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the work of the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center 

and the work of our 3,000 employees and contractors who facilitate 

new entrants, new users, and new technologies into the National 

Airspace System. 

The Technical Center is located in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and 

is the home of FAA’s premier air transportation system Federal 

laboratory. My name is Shelley Yak. I am the Director of the Technical Center, and I also serve as FAA’s Director of Research. Accompanying me today is Marke ‘‘Hoot’’ Gibson, FAA’s senior advisor for UAS integration. 

Aviation is a vital resource for the United States. Civil aviation 

accounts for $1.6 trillion in total economic activity and supports 

10.6 million jobs. To maximize the opportunities that the aviation 

7 

industry provides while running the safest and most efficient airspace in the world, the FAA must not only maintain but continually improve the National Airspace System, or the NAS. 

In delivery of NextGen’s operational capabilities and the 

sustainment of the NAS, the Technical Center’s highly technical 

workforce conducts research, system development, and test solutions, and performs integration of FAA’s spectrum of aviation systems. In other words, we keep the national airspace running while 

also building our future. 

The Technical Center is committed to ensuring that the United 

States continues to lead the world in embracing, implementing, and 

integrating new technology into the NAS safely and efficiently. We 

do this by engaging a workforce made up of world-class scientists, 

researchers, engineers, and computer scientists, and through collaboration and partnership with industry, academia, and other 

Government agencies. 

The work conducted at the Technical Center contributes to making aviation safer both at home and abroad. In addition to making 

aviation safer, we also make aviation more efficient. Key programs, 

such as traffic flow management, Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, and Data Communications, have all been developed, tested, or have begun their nationwide deployment at the 

Technical Center. 

Collectively, these programs are already producing operational 

efficiencies in the NAS. For example, DataComm has changed the 

way that air traffic controllers and pilots communicate. It supplements voice communications between air traffic controllers and pilots with digital text-based messages. DataComm is now operational in 55 air traffic control towers nationwide and is installed 

in 31 different types of aircraft. 

Greater efficiency also reduces the environmental impact of aviation. Aviation gas, or avgas, is the only remaining lead-containing 

transportation fuel. To help get the lead out, the FAA is supporting 

the research of alternate fuels at the Technical Center. Testing of 

these fuels will culminate at the end of 2018 after flight testing is 

performed utilizing these fuels under a full range of atmospheric 

conditions. 

Aviation is constantly evolving, and today it is an especially exciting time with so many new applications being imagined and realized. This shows us that there will always be a need for applied 

research to respond to these changing needs. That is why we are 

conducting robust research around new entrants in the airspace, 

such as unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, and more frequent 

commercial space operations. 

The FAA is working closely with its partners in Government and 

industry to evaluate UAS detection technologies. As directed in the 

2016 FAA extension, the FAA has established a pilot program to 

evaluate some of these technologies, which has been tested in airport environments such as New York, Atlantic City, Denver, and 

we plan future testing in the Dallas Fort Worth Airport later this 

year. 

As we add new technologies into the NAS, we know that we must 

also be vigilant about cybersecurity. The FAA’s Cybersecurity Test 

Facility at the Technical Center serves as a research and developVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Oct 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\4-4-20~1\25242.TXT JEAN
8 

ment lab for finding new ways to protect the NAS and the Nation’s 

critical infrastructure from cyber risks and threats, and we are 

working with our national security partners, researching the protection of aircraft from these threats. 

As I mentioned earlier, it is through our collaboration with industry, academia, and other Government agencies that future aviation concepts are explored, and that is why I will conclude my remarks with an invitation to you to come visit us at the Technical 

Center. On May 15th and 16th we will be hosting a symposium in 

partnership with the Air Traffic Control Association and NASA. 

Our laboratory capabilities will be on display demonstrating the 

work that we do for NextGen, UAS, and commercial space. 

This is a great opportunity for you to see our technology, the 

work that we do, and to meet our employees, and see firsthand 

their commitment to ensuring the United States continues to lead 

the world in the development and implementation of aviation technology while operating the safest and most efficient aviation system in the world. 

Thank you. I will be happy to answer your questions at this time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Shelley. 

And let me just emphasize the invitation. The FAA Tech Center 

is unique in all the world. It is a national asset and a jewel of our 

aviation industry because of the laboratories and facilities that are 

there, but most importantly, because of the men and women who 

have unmatched dedication and skills that they put to keeping our 

aviation system the best in the world. So I would encourage all of 

you to see it firsthand. 

Mr. McNeal, you are recognized. 

Mr. MCNEAL. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, 

members of the committee, it is a pleasure to speak with you about 

the future of innovation in our National Airspace System. I am the 

cofounder of an aviation startup called AirMap that has grown 

from 2 employees in 2015 to 55 employees today. AirMap has offices in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. We are focused on developing technology solutions to today’s most pressing issues facing 

the integration of drones in the national airspace. 

We provide airspace information and geofencing solutions to 

manufacturers, safety solutions for over 125 airports, and UTM 

[unmanned traffic management] solutions for ANSPs [air navigation service providers], and we are just getting started. I am very 

optimistic about the tremendous opportunity this committee has to 

foster innovation. It can do so by making clear what it expects from 

the FAA, when it expects it, and then providing the resources and 

support to allow the FAA to figure out how to achieve those goals. 

Each time Congress has done this, success has followed. Consider 

the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which many of 

you participated in drafting. There, congressional action, with clear 

direction and mandatory deadlines, ensured that our infrastructure 

and agencies kept pace with innovation. It required an exemption 

process and ultimately set the stage for part 107. 

More recently, in the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 

2016, Congress directed industry and the FAA to work together to 

create remote identification standards and a UTM pilot program, 

and we have seen work already begun on those initiatives. 

9 

The trend line is clear. When Congress acts and directs outcomes 

with dates certain for their delivery, innovation takes flight. I am 

confident this policy approach works because I have witnessed 

firsthand how change agents within the FAA are making innovation happen. Specifically, the UAS Integration Office, under the 

leadership of Earl Lawrence, has a defined and understandable 

roadmap and has shown a willingness to collaborate with industry. 

The Air Traffic Organization PMO [Project Management Organization] is rolling up their sleeves in working to move the LAANC 

[Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability] program 

forward. NASA and the FAA’s Research Transition Team are enormously collaborative and are providing a construct for the future, 

and General ‘‘Hoot’’ Gibson has been a true leader and facilitator 

of constructive dialogue. 

So what can Congress do to ensure innovation continues to support these change agents at the FAA? 

First, Congress must make clear that issues of innovation and 

safety are intertwined. We will oftentimes hear officials speak 

about how other nations can move faster because their airspace is 

not as complex as America’s, but other nations are moving faster 

in the area of automation, and automation is the answer to complexity. Without automation, the existing system cannot handle the 

present volume of users, let alone the projections for the future. 

Second, sustained attention from Congress is necessary because 

Government, both on the Hill and in agencies, is not good at predicting the future. Recognizing this reality will lead this body to 

regularly adjust and sometimes accelerate agency timelines. 

Third, we must recognize that rapid change will be a regular feature of the next 100 years of transportation policy. That reality will 

require rapid adjustments from Congress and sustained direction 

in oversight of agencies. What was correct 2 years ago may no 

longer be correct today. 

In light of this reality, what are some concrete steps for Congress 

to take? 

First, Congress must expand on section 2208 of the FAA extension to ensure that the FAA operationalize a multivendor UTM system by 2020. 

Second, Congress should take a federalism approach to low-risk 

operations in the very low-altitude airspace. This will encourage 

competition and innovation amongst the States. 

Third, Congress should continue to direct the agency to work 

with industry standards bodies rather than through rulemaking. 

Industry standards are fast, flexible, and take account of the most 

recent advances in technology. 

Fourth, Congress should make clear an altitude below which 

States can assist in the regulation of low-altitude operations with 

reasonable time, manner, and place conditions in the same way we 

regulate constitutionally protected speech, with operations above 

that line being the exclusive domain of the FAA. 

Similarly, Congress should declare training and aircraft certification falls within the exclusive domain of the FAA. A failure to 

clarify this dividing line will result in a patchwork of judicial decisions that will doom the industry and State and local governments 

to decades of litigation. 

10 

Only congressional action with clear direction, deadlines, and resources has ensured that our infrastructure and agencies keep pace 

with technology. To that end, Congress must make clear that 

issues of innovation, automation, and safety are intertwined. Congressional action can ensure that America’s infrastructure keeps 

pace with advances in industry and the globally competitive marketplace. 

We look forward to continuing to support your work and the 

work of the FAA. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. McNeal. 

Mr. Cassidy, you are recognized. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Good morning, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, Chairman LoBiondo, and Ranking Member Larsen, 

and the subcommittee members. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Sean Cassidy, and I am the 

director of safety and regulatory affairs at Amazon Prime Air, 

which is our drone delivery service. 

As a commercial pilot for nearly 20 years and a former first vice 

president and national security coordinator for the Air Line Pilots 

Association, I am very familiar with the complexity of the National 

Airspace System and the responsibility all stakeholders have when 

it comes to safely integrating unmanned aircraft systems, otherwise known as UAS or drones. 

UAS has the potential to revolutionize the way businesses operate across a broad range of industries, including package delivery. 

We appreciate this committee’s commitment to ensuring the United 

States realizes the tremendous benefits of this technology in a safe, 

secure, and expeditious manner. 

Amazon Prime Air is a service designed to safely and efficiently 

deliver packages to customers in 30 minutes or less using drones. 

Flying below 400 feet and generally above 200 feet, except for takeoff and landing, our electrically powered drones are environmentally friendly, and most importantly, they are safe. They utilize 

sophisticated equipment, including automated onboard sense-andavoid technologies to ensure safe operations at distances well beyond the visual line of sight of the operators, or to use your term, 

Mr. Larsen, we take the unthinkable and we make it thinkable and 

we make it safe. 

We have test and development centers in multiple countries, and 

we began private customer trials in the U.K. last year where we 

conducted our first drone delivery in December of 2016. And with 

the assistance of the FAA, I am proud to announce that in March 

2017, we conducted our first Amazon Prime Air delivery demonstration in the United States. 

We have also committed to join NASA, the FAA, and the Nevada 

Institute for Autonomous Systems in the upcoming unmanned traffic management demonstration in Reno later this spring. 

The United States is a leader in UAS technology, and if we want 

to remain at the forefront, there are three actions that we recommend Congress and the committee and the FAA take. 

First, expedite the building blocks necessary to address the safety and security concerns that are delaying rulemaking. 

Second, introduce the means by which commercial operations can 

be conducted beyond line of sight to include package deliveries. 

11 

And third, to create an expedited performance-based airworthiness and certification pathway for commercial UAS. 

Let me briefly touch on these recommendations. 

To start off, the safety and security of the airspace and people 

on the ground is paramount, which is why Amazon is working with 

NASA, the FAA, and industry to create a highly automated unmanned traffic management, or UTM system. 

While the FAA retains safety and policy oversight, industry can 

help build and manage the system at minimal cost to the Government. In the near term, there is an urgent need to quickly implement Remote ID and tracking technologies to address the security 

concerns that have stalled FAA’s UAS rulemaking. Amazon supports these efforts, and we look forward to helping the FAA identify 

inexpensive and readily available solutions, such as WiFi and cellular communications. They can be quickly and effectively implemented. 

It is also important that Congress and the FAA advance regulations that provide national uniformity. Hundreds of drone bills 

have been introduced around the United States, and many conflict 

with the FAA’s ability to regulate aviation safety. 

Secondly, although the FAA’s part 107 rules were an important 

first step in enabling commercial UAS operations, they also came 

with significant restrictions. In fact, the rule specifically prohibits 

beyond-line-of-sight package delivery in air carrier operations. We 

are eager to work with Congress and the FAA to enable beyondline-of-sight commercial operations in the U.S. similar to the customer trials we have in the United Kingdom. This will help us 

demonstrate they be conducted safely and inform future regulatory 

activities. 

This brings to me to my final points. Given the dramatic growth 

of this new commercial sector of aviation, the drone industry needs 

a regulatory pathway specific to UAS commercial operations and 

airworthiness certification. Therefore, we would like the committee 

to once again include language in the FAA reauthorization bill calling for a drone air carrier certification process for commercial beyond-line-of-sight operations. 

In conclusion, we applaud Administrator Huerta for recognizing 

that when it comes to this exciting new industry we need regulation at the pace of innovation. We look forward to following 

through with that commitment. We look forward to working with 

Congress and the FAA and all stakeholders to address these important issues. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Cassidy. 

Mr. Fayard, you are recognized. 

Mr. FAYARD. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, 

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the 

Aviation Subcommittee, my name is Trey Fayard, and I am the 

founder and CEO of FLYGLO LLC, based in New Orleans, Louisiana. On behalf of myself and my company, thank you for the opportunity to come before you today and testify. 

I come before you today to present what we believe is an innovative model of air service for the consumer and business traveler 

12 

that is meant to complement current existing air carrier operations. 

GLO launched In November 2015 as an indirect air carrier to 

provide air transportation services to inadequately served cities in 

the gulf and Midsouth region. Currently, GLO flies regularly scheduled nonstop service to Shreveport, Louisiana; Memphis, Tennessee; Huntsville, Alabama; Little Rock, Arkansas; and Fort Walton Beach, Florida. 

As the members of the committee likely may know, in the late 

1990s legacy airlines largely shifted from flying from smaller cities 

to major hub cities and formed partnerships with regional carriers 

for short-haul operations. Though profitable, this left a gap in nonstop services between mid-market cities. Granted, there are small 

airlines that currently operate to small communities; however, they 

are often subsidized via the EAS program as an example. 

GLO, however, is different. First, unlike other commercial air 

programs, our model does not rely on Government subsidies. We 

are 100 percent free-market driven, and revenue is 100 percent 

based on passenger demand. 

Second, we have been able to create very good paying jobs in 

communities that often struggle to do so. We currently support approximately 70 employees with an average salary of $43,000 a 

year, with some, like our more skilled mechanics, making almost 

six figures. 

Third, the demand is there. Not only do we believe the gap in 

service to these mid-markets has huge potential, we know that it 

fosters economic development in the regions that we serve. 

Importantly, our small but growing route network will carry almost 4,000 passengers this month alone. By way of comparison, I 

would ask the committee to please keep in mind we started with 

zero. 

You may be wondering why aren’t there more GLOs or GLO-type 

service providers in the United States, or how can my community 

attract GLO or its own GLO type of service. Like all industries, 

barriers to entry exist, but in the aviation services industry, as you 

likely well know, those barriers are extremely high. 

To that end, in this age of consolidation of legacy carriers, we 

would ask the committee to consider the hurdles and challenges of 

gaining entry into the world of commercial aviation and air travel 

and how easing these barriers of entry can not only make new 

service providers like GLO more complementary to existing operations, but also serve the American public. 

First, access to capital is critical and venture capital is expensive. Aviation is a complex business, including tremendous working 

capital requirements, unique payment terms, and constant battle 

to right-size cost structures and fare offerings to appropriately 

match the demand. 

GLO currently occupies a sort of hybrid model between mega 

charter broker and direct air carrier. We are technically a public 

charter operator. Our flights are regularly scheduled, and our fleet 

is dedicated to our exclusive use. 

Currently, GLO is in the process of seeking our own part 135 certification to operate as a direct air carrier. However, despite our 

13 

unique and proven model, regulatory structures are not favorable 

to new entrants. 

GLO is a very small entrepreneurial startup. Accordingly, in our 

first year of operations, GLO’s early investors and GLO’s team 

have invested substantial cash and sweat equity into proving the 

founding concept and preparing GLO for future growth. We do not 

have the backing of a parent company and thus we are exposed to 

tremendous financial risk as we move towards certification. 

We would ask the committee to consider streamlining the certification process if we are to continue promoting investment in aviation, such as keeping fees and taxes low. Any increase in tax or 

fees, such as the passenger security fee, necessarily increases the 

total cost of tickets. These changes disproportionately affect smaller 

carriers like GLO. This is something we wish to avoid so as to encourage air travel versus other means of transportation in these 

underserved areas. 

In conclusion, we would ask the committee to consider these 

challenges and create legislation that will encourage new entrants 

like GLO to the aviation services industry, thereby creating highquality, good-paying jobs, bring innovation to the sector, and promoting free market and choice for the consumer. 

We need your help. We are very honored to have been able to be 

here today to provide you with some of our thoughts in your mission to bring safe, affordable, quality air service to the American 

public. I am happy to take any questions on how you all can support efforts to remove barriers to entry, increase access to capital, 

along with streamlining the certification process, and also, as well, 

keeping the fees and taxes low for the consumer. 

On behalf of my entire company, thank you again for your time. 

It has been an honor to testify. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Fayard. 

Mr. Whiteside, you are recognized. 

Mr. WHITESIDE. Good morning. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify before 

you today. My name is Brian Whiteside. I am the COO of Complier 

Enterprise and the president of VDOS Global. 

The goal of my testimony today is maybe to bring a little perspective to what a drone operator actually looks like. We have 

heard a lot about companies and corporations, but I would like to 

share with you a little bit more about the details of what it means 

to be an actual operator using drones and this technology in today’s 

environment. And I would also like to bring to you maybe a little 

perspective on where we are today and why this technology is so 

important to us and the community and to our future as a Nation. 

First, our company. We provide basically three tiers to the stool 

of what we operate. We have software, which is our drone complier 

and safety compliance management system; we have our services; 

and we have our training. 

As a company, we have 23 employees, we are based in Oregon, 

and we are split between the United States and Australia. We have 

trained over 1,000 pilots and certified them through the CASA certification program in Australia, and our software was just selected 

as the official compliance app for the sub 2-kilogram class of UAV 

operators in Australia. 

14 

As an operating company, we work mostly in the energy and environment sectors. We work with energy producers, such as Shell 

Oil, Exxon. And then on the environmental side, we support operations in wildlife monitoring for entities such as World Wildlife 

Fund and other companies that are pursuing interesting operations 

such as wildlife tracking and against animal poaching. One of the 

most interesting programs that we worked was actually testing a 

payload that has helped defeat elephant poachers in Africa. 

Use of our software includes numerous universities and corporations who are standing up their operations and don’t quite understand the complicated Federal aviation regulations and how do 

they need to comply with and be ensured that they are not going 

to be in violation of the law. 

The world that we live in today is changing dramatically. I know 

that we have all talked about the technical side, but there is a 

human side to this as well. And I have brought with us four images 

that I would like to share with you about what actual drones do 

and what they can supply. So if we can bring the images up. 

So that first image there, that is Seth Johnson. He is our chief 

pilot, and that is a drone operator. He is a former Horizon Airline 

pilot. He has got his ATP. He is also our chief instructor. He is 

holding in his hand a drone that is called the Aeryon SkyRanger. 

The Aeryon SkyRanger is built in Canada. Unfortunately, we don’t 

have any U.S. systems that can meet our demand. 

Next slide. 

That is a flare stack. That is an image of what drones do when 

we are out there doing flare stack inspections offshore in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Our company was the first company to be legally authorized to fly commercially in the U.S. to do flare stack inspections 

and actually to do refinery inspections. 

The drone itself allows us to get close to that flare stack and take 

the images and do the inspections on corrosion and other material 

deformities that may occur when you do those inspections. 

To give you an example of the value that brings, when you do 

a flare stack inspection, a production platform has to shut down for 

about 3 days to let that stack cool if you are going to do an inspection by a human. That is a loss of $16 million to $18 million a day 

in production revenue when they have to shut down that flare. 

With a drone we can do it, obviously, live while the flare is burning. So it is a significant value to that company as we are doing 

those inspections. 

Next slide. 

That is up in the Arctic. Our first actual commercial work began 

up in the Arctic Ocean where we were doing some cetacean research in trying to detect whales and could drones be used in that 

environment to help do the research necessary to build new offshore oil production in the Arctic. 

And the last slide. 

And that is a bowhead whale. Bowhead whales are a species up 

in the Arctic that are very dependent upon—or actually the climate 

is significantly affected and impacted by what is going on in the 

world today. The bowhead whale is a significant source of resources 

and food for the Arctic native cultures, and this is an area where 

15 

we are doing a lot of research and support, and the drone provides 

a great technology to actually go out and study these animals. 

But more important to the point now as we conclude is why is 

this important. The children of today are looking at technology in 

ways that are radically different than anybody in this room can understand. We are closer now to the year 2030 than we are to 9/11, 

and if you think of in terms of what does that mean from a technological advance or change standpoint, we are going to go through 

radical revolutions in the next 10 to 15 years. 

I have an 8-year-old and a 10-year-old. By the time they are 16, 

driverless cars will be a reality, and they are going to look at technology radically different than any one of us in the room can appreciate. They will trust technology and look to technology as a safety 

enhancement more so than they will look at their own skills and 

capabilities. 

That radical mind shift is something that all of us in this room 

really don’t appreciate, and that is only about 3 to 4 years away. 

We have to make sure that the laws that we create today understand the radical change that is coming and how we as a culture 

and a society are going to depend upon technology going forward, 

and that technology and that shift will happen in this next generation. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Whiteside. 

Mr. Moses, you are recognized. 

Mr. MOSES. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, 

Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio, members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and 

provide some information on our company’s activities, particularly 

our particular use of the national airspace, and as you consider this 

very important topic of enabling innovation and revolutionizing the 

airspace and the infrastructure supporting it. 

I am the president of Virgin Galactic, and our company will operate a suborbital spacecraft for the purpose of space tourism and research to be based at Spaceport America in New Mexico. But I also 

am here representing our two sister companies. The spaceship company is based in Mojave, California, and is our manufacturing arm, 

building and testing this suborbital space transportation system; 

and Virgin Orbit, based in Long Beach, California, is developing 

and manufacturing a dedicated launch platform to place satellites 

into orbit. 

We have over 700 employees, but all 3 of our companies share 

a common vision: to open space to change the world for good. 

Next slide. 

So our system consists of two vehicles. The WhiteKnightTwo is 

our mother ship. It is a four-engine dual-fuselage jet aircraft capable of very high attitude, very heavy lift missions. And our suborbital space plane is called SpaceShipTwo, designed to safely and 

routinely transport people and payloads to space and back. 

SpaceShipTwo will carry two pilots and as many as six space flight 

participants to space altitudes where they can float about the cabin 

in zero gravity and see the Earth from space. In its research configuration, SpaceShipTwo can carry about 1,000 pounds of science 

and technology payloads. 

16 

Next slide. 

Our vehicles form what is called a hybrid launch system involving both an aircraft and a rocket-powered vehicle. Virgin Galactic 

was pleased to receive its operator’s license for this system from 

the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, AST, last 

year. This award was the culmination of years of interaction with 

the FAA and required indepth reviews of vehicle safety, design, 

flight trajectories, and operations plans. The leadership and commitment of AST was very vital to our success and our continued 

future in this space. 

Virgin Galactic coordinated heavily with ATO, the Air Traffic Organization, and local air traffic control centers to receive letters of 

agreement in order to define our operations in the airspace. That 

coordination will continue prior to every flight to ensure minimal 

disruptions. 

Specifically, WhiteKnightTwo will climb to a release altitude of 

near 50,000 feet in under 50 minutes, following preplanned routes 

and under the direction of local air traffic control. 

Next slide. 

At that altitude, SpaceShipTwo is then released—next slide— 

lights the rocket motor, and turns straight up, accelerating to Mach 

3 on the way to space. This flight trajectory of SpaceShipTwo occurs completely within the restricted airspace, both Mojave and at 

Spaceport America, and takes about 20 minutes from release back 

to landing—next slide—landing back at the same airfield we took 

off from earlier. 

In addition to the human space flight program, Virgin Galactic’s 

sister company, Virgin Orbit, is aiming to provide dedicated, responsive, affordable launch services for small satellites. 

Next slide. 

The small satellite market is experiencing remarkable growth 

around the world, and to help this revolution, Virgin Orbit is developing the LauncherOne platform dedicated to lowering the cost and 

increasing the frequency of launch for payloads under 1,100 

pounds. 

Next slide. 

Similar to the spaceship program, this system is air launched, 

carried aloft under the wing of a modified 747–400 aircraft, and 

will also operate under an AST license using similar protocols with 

ATO and ATC on the way to the launch point. 

Next slide. 

As you all know, the commercial space industry is not a future 

market. It is a present and thriving industry and will only continue 

to grow, as your opening remarks so elegantly stated. While this 

hearing is about new entrants into the airspace, and our airlaunched space vehicles do indeed represent a very new approach 

to launch, I am reminded that the space industry has been sharing 

airspace with the commercial aviation industry for over 50 years 

without incident and ideally with very little impact. 

The number of commercial launches will continue to grow as the 

industry does, and this drives the need for very efficient and very 

well-defined processes, as well as the advancement of tools and 

technologies to help streamline the integration of commercial space 

with other users. 

17 

One example is the current process used to get a letter of agreement, a LOA, through the FAA. With multiple launch points, that 

process for us can become exceedingly lengthy, sometimes involving 

multiple conversations with multiple elements of multiple FAA centers. A streamlined process with a simplified one-stop-shop interaction would be a very great improvement. 

An example of technology development can be highlighted by the 

collaboration of Virgin Galactic, the FAA, AST, and Embry-Riddle 

Aeronautical University to test the ADS–B transmitters on our 

ShaceShipTwo, to demonstrate the applicability of this technology 

for tracking commercial spacecraft returning from space to help 

seamlessly integrate with air traffic control and the tracking tools 

already under existence. 

So in closing, I think we encourage the FAA to continue to develop the NextGen tools with an eye towards the future that helps 

minimize airspace impact and access as routine space access expands. So I look forward to working with the committee and the 

FAA, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. Look 

forward to your questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

I don’t know, Mr. Larsen, if I am allowed to say this, but you 

have one of the first seats reserved on Virgin Galactic space mission. 

Mr. LARSEN. Is that right? 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Representing the committee. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I can’t wait till he goes. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Whoa. 

With that, Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. LARSEN. I object. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, you know, you are the only other guy from 

the town of Everett in Congress, so we have got to bond. 

I thank all of you for being here. I appreciate hearing your testimony, although it is a bit dismaying to hear all the problems that 

you face and the FAA is not able—the Federal Government and the 

agencies are slowing what you are doing, what you are trying to 

develop down. 

Mr. Fayard, my question is to you. I represent a rural district, 

and I have one airport, the Altoona-Blair County Airport. It is a 

town of about 56,000 people and it probably services about 200,000 

people. So I am always concerned about—we have, I think, three 

flights a day in and out of there. It is an EAS operation. And I 

have been talking to another company similar to yours, OneJet. 

Mr. FAYARD. Sure. 

Mr. SHUSTER. It is operating out of Pittsburgh. And their business model sounds very similar to yours. 

So you talked about it in your testimony about what Congress 

can do. You talked about access to capital. Can you talk a little bit 

about that? And can you talk about the other things specifically 

that we in Congress can do to help people, companies like yours 

and OneJet, to be able to service those communities that have seen 

diminished air service over the past decade? 

Mr. FAYARD. Sure. Again, thanks for the questions. 

18 

You know, access to capital, I think, is not unique just to the airline business. Any startup business is going to have that issue to 

try to bridge that gap. 

Local buy-in, local participation from the communities is very, 

very important, for example, in your district. We look at some rural 

markets like Little Rock. They have completely bought into our 

service. Not only do they use it and support it, but they are very 

supportive of that service. And of course, at the end of the day, if 

people don’t show up, the service will go away if it is not sometimes 

subsidized. 

So from our perspective, the more GLO-type operations there are, 

the better. I do know the folks at OneJet very well, and they are 

providing a similar but yet a little bit different model than ours. 

As the legacies have consolidated, they are creating a very large 

underbrush of opportunity, and what we believe for our model is 

it is perfect. 

We would like, as you mentioned about receiving our own certification, let me just be clear that the FAA and the DOT are really 

good folks, they are good friends, they are good partners. They really do try to help us. 

They are hamstrung lots of time by resources not being available. 

They are hamstrung by lack of personnel to help us complete the 

processes which we have to go through. And I am not suggesting 

that it is their fault. It is not. They need to be properly funded so 

they actually execute what they need to do in order to help a company like GLO. 

We look at the smaller markets as really, as I mentioned, a really good opportunity for growth for us because the average gauge of 

an aircraft has gone to almost 100 seats now, and we fly 30-seat 

aircraft. 

Mr. SHUSTER. You fly 100-seat aircraft? 

Mr. FAYARD. We fly 30-seat aircraft. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I am sorry? 

Mr. FAYARD. Thirty, 3–0. The average gauge of a commercial aircraft is approaching 100 seats. So when you look at markets that 

couldn’t support, say, a 50-seat regional jet 3 or 4 times a day to 

a hub, as those jets get larger and larger, you can see how the air 

service is going to get worse and worse in our estimation. I should 

say more opportunity for us because those markets are all going to 

increase. We think there are about 400 markets out there right 

now that could support a GLO-type of service. 

Mr. SHUSTER. What size of market would that be? What service 

area, population-wise, would be something you would look as a 

sweet spot for you? 

Mr. FAYARD. Forget the actual confines of the metro—of the city. 

If you look at a metro area of 200,000—150,000, 200,000 people, 

that is sort of where you start looking at where a regional model 

service starts to make some sense. That being said, we are in 

smaller markets than that sometimes. I mean, Huntsville, if you 

look at the actual city, Huntsville, Alabama, is a couple of hundred 

thousand folks, but the actual city is quite small. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Let me ask you this specifically, as my time is running out. So when you fly—give me, do you fly from Little Rock 

to—— 

19 

Mr. FAYARD. New Orleans and Fort Walton Beach. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So if somebody wants to connect to American or 

whoever services New Orleans, is that easy, is that an easy transition to connect from you to get on an American flight if they want 

to go to L.A.? 

Mr. FAYARD. Yeah, absolutely. In fact, we have several customers 

that self-connect, make their own connections, frankly. There is a 

flier in Shreveport I met the other day that flies down every week 

to New Orleans and hops onto Southwest to Tampa. That is where 

she works. 

So we do do some of that. At the moment we do not have 

codeshare agreements in place with other air carriers. But it is 

quite simple. If you were to, you know, wish to come to New Orleans, which has fairly decent air service, as opposed to Shreveport, 

Little Rock, which does not, yes, those opportunities exist. In fact, 

we just got another customer self-connected themselves to our new 

London Heathrow from British Airways. They flew in from Little 

Rock, hopped on the BA to London. So that is occurring. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And final question to you. Is your business 

model—I know OneJet, they want to franchise to different cities. 

Is that your model or do you want to—— 

Mr. FAYARD. I think it is similar. You know, if you look at New 

Orleans as our current home base, if you will, there are only so 

many opportunities that exist with the gauge limitation of the aircraft, because all aircraft have limitations, right? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sure. 

Mr. FAYARD. And so as you kind of build out New Orleans, yes, 

the next logical step is to march this model—I call it the starburst 

pattern of service—to Little Rock, or is it Birmingham or is it 

Charleston, is it Huntsville, you know, those types of markets that 

really have the need for that service. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FAYARD. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Yak, thanks for coming today to testify. And I want to echo 

my colleague’s comments about the people he represents and just 

say how thankful we are that the Technical Center is there and 

they are doing great work, and please extend that onto them on my 

behalf as well. 

So either for you or Mr. Gibson, if you can help me out a little 

bit and explain how the FAA’s current lines of business coordinate 

together in our quest to integrate drones safely into the airspace. 

How does that currently work? 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you, Congressman. If I understood your question, across lines of business within the FAA? 

Mr. LARSEN. Right, within the FAA, yeah. 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir. I think it works well. We can always improve things. But when I first arrived in September of 2015, at that 

time the Deputy Administrator, Mr. Whitaker, and myself sat 

down after I had observed for a couple of months and I thought 

there could be better balance within the headquarters as far as 

moving the technology forward. We had been focused on the vehicle 

20 

and the designs, and we needed to bring the operators and folks 

on board to include training and awareness. 

So we have since established what we call a UAS board, which 

is attended by all the lines of business and the senior folks and 

conducted by the Deputy Administrator, sometimes the Administrator himself, to tee up key issues and focus just on UAS. So I 

think we made a lot of progress over the last 12 months. 

Mr. LARSEN. So what would be the next step then? 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, I think we continue that process of awareness 

and integration across the headquarters. I think the other piece 

that we are doing—really two—one is Federal integration. So I actually chair an activity called the UAS EXCOM. It was established 

in 2009 language. And it is quite robust now. We have added a 

number of memberships, to include the National Security Council, 

Office of Science and Technology Policy, but also the industry. And 

we have pushed out, as you may or may not know, the DAC, the 

Drone Advisory Committee, to engage with that portion. 

So that gives us a pretty good balance both within the building, 

if you will, the headquarters, across our Federal partnerships, and 

then engaged heavily with industry—not just industry, but private 

sector. 

Mr. LARSEN. So what would be, in that sense then, what have 

been the products of that work? In other words, if you were to ask 

folks here at the other end of the table, what would they point to 

as the product of that work? 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, the product within the building, of course, has 

been part 107, and the work that we have begun with Ops Over 

People, originally known as the micro rule, many of the waivers, 

exemptions. So we have stepped across boundaries within the 

headquarters. 

I think on the Federal side, I am also heading up the counterUAS, or the 2206 effort, and there have been countless efforts 

made there with DHS and DOD. And I know I have multiple meetings again next week. Our next meeting is June 9th on that. So 

there has been a clear engagement on that. 

And then the DAC is now past its first two initial meetings and 

the subcommittee has been established and we have three working 

groups that are working on many of the issues that no doubt interest the committee. 

Mr. LARSEN. So, Ms. Yak, I understand that the Technical Center has been involved in testing for two—probably several—but two 

key NextGen programs, DataComm and ADS–B. Can you share 

what this testing has revealed? 

Ms. YAK. Thank you for the question. 

NextGen—you had talked about ADS–B and DataComm, were 

the two? 

Mr. LARSEN. That is right. 

Ms. YAK. We are very proud of being involved in both of those 

programs. DataComm, we do have a laboratory. We have been responsible for developing the testing procedures on DataComm, 

which is in what we would call an end-to-end process. DataComm 

interfaces with many, many different systems, including the aircraft itself, as well as ERAM, for example. 

21 

So the laboratory integrates at the Technical Center with these 

systems, and we were able to, using antennas on our roof, simulate 

the end-to-end testing with DataComm. So that is exciting. The 

rollout has been going out wonderful. 

ADS–B we started many, many years ago, about 2014 or so. We 

were involved in the research as well as the testing. Our own aircraft tested the capability. And we were part of the rollout, and 

that has been a very successful rollout and is operational for quite 

a while now. 

Mr. LARSEN. Good. Thank you. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So for Ms. Yak and Mr. Gibson, can you please 

describe the work that is being done at the Tech Center to support 

and validate the unmanned efforts by your fellow panelists? And 

to the other panelists, could you give us some comments on what 

your experience is in working with the Tech Center with UAS experts and how that is all integrating into what you are doing? 

Ms. YAK. OK. I will go first and then I will hand it off to Mr. 

Gibson. 

So the work at the Technical Center for UAS integration has 

been on both small and large vehicles. And it includes operational 

concepts, developing system requirements, integration and field 

testing, as well as establishing laboratory capabilities. 

For instance, the Tech Center has a UAS laboratory, and we 

have it linked with our DOD and our NASA labs, and this is where 

we conduct human-in-the-loop simulation. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Excuse me. Did you say DOD and NASA? 

Ms. YAK. NASA. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. NASA. OK. 

Ms. YAK. That is correct. 

And we have done human-in-the-loop simulations that have integrated UAS data in with our NAS systems. We are also very much 

involved in the UTM research. We have members on our Research 

Transition Team for UTM—it is UAS traffic management—and 

they are involved in concept development as well as data exchange 

and information architecture, communication and navigation, as 

well as sense and avoid. 

Our research performers are also working on UAS detection at 

the airport. We will probably talk about that a little bit more. And 

we are developing the test suite for the final certifications of new 

systems in regards to command and control and data link. So those 

are a lot of the technical sides of what we are doing. 

And, Mr. Gibson, if you can take it from there. 

Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am involved, as I 

mentioned, in a lot of the counter-UAS work that has been underway. We started through the Tech Center at Atlantic City and expanded on that. They have been the program managers for me and 

they have been deeply involved in all the planning, setup, and soon 

to be all the data deconstruction so that we can come out with 

some minimum performance standards. So that includes—Denver 

has been in that. We worked with the FBI at JFK. And our next 

test will be at DFW towards the end of the month. That will be 

our last large test of those systems, the airport protection systems. 

22 

And they have been wonderful to work with in that and provided 

a lot of the engineering background. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Any of our other panelists, have you had experience in working with the Tech Center and could you talk a little 

bit about that? 

Mr. CASSIDY. Yes, sir. Thanks for the question. 

I am glad you mentioned the RTT [Research Transition Team], 

because that is one of those fundamental building blocks that we 

have been working with, in partnership with the FAA, on especially programs such as data exchange, which allow for the exchange of information between aircraft, which then can be a form 

of managing safe airspace access and also being aware of, you 

know, where the other vehicles are in the same kind of volume of 

airspace. So it is a great activity that is hosted by the FAA. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Anyone else? 

Mr. MOSES. No. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So timing-wise, I don’t have enough time for my 

next question on cybersecurity, but we will come back to it. 

So now, Mr. DeFazio, are you ready? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. Whiteside, I am particularly interested in your description of 

the length of time it took to get certified to monitor the platforms 

in the gulf. As you say here, well offshore, no population, no VFR, 

and obviously, you know, a critical mission, it saves a tremendous 

amount of money and it is also, you know, for public safety. 

So you are saying that there is still a question whether you can 

do this under part 107 or under the waiver authority with the 333? 

Why is there still a question? 

Mr. WHITESIDE. That is correct. The challenge that we face in a 

lot of these regulations is that there is no clear defined answer. 

When you talk to the FAA, you often get an interpretation of a rule 

and you don’t get a hard set requirement or a defined answer. 

So with regards specifically to offshore, we are operating outside 

the ADIZ, which is the Air Defense Identification Zone. And there 

are some differences, depending upon who you speak with within 

the FAA, about who has the controlling authority in that airspace 

and whether or not the rule that you are operating under is the 

standard Federal rules or under the new exemption. 

And that is the problem that we face oftentimes within the space 

that we are operating. It is not that the people that we are dealing 

with within the FAA aren’t knowledgeable or they are not caring. 

You know, they are pretty attentive when you ask a question. But 

much of what we do relies on interpretation. And that is where the 

delays often come in, in the rulemaking or in trying to get the approvals, is that you are dealing with a construct that happens oftentimes behind closed doors within the lawyers and the legal 

realms of the FAA, and there is not a defined process by which answers can be driven. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Then, Mr. Gibson, can you address, how can 

we make that process work better? I mean, it shouldn’t take that 

long. 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir. We endeavor to improve on things. I think 

he touched on a key point here, and I am not familiar with the specifics of that case, but we are breaking new ground. I call this the 

23 

most fundamental change in aviation in our lifetimes, and so many 

of these don’t map directly to what preexisted with our traditional 

aviation. 

So some of them take quite a bit of thought to make sure, even 

though you are out over the ocean, of course, you have helo traffic 

out there, you have the safety of the platform itself. But I can take 

that for an additional question if need be, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. It just seems to me that we ought to be able to categorically establish some of these things. Like, OK, if we have got 

certified one platform now, it should be a much more routine process in the future for either his company or another certified operator to do these sorts of things. 

I mean, we need to have some standardization here. I mean, I 

know it is an issue of first impression, but once you have dealt with 

it once, then it is no longer an issue of first impression, and we 

ought to be able to move more quickly. And if you need direction 

from Congress or you think you lack authority, then tell us, because we would like to fix that. 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I would like to go to Mr. Fayard, because, obviously, you are dealing with an issue that is becoming more and 

more critical to many communities. And I am curious about this 18 

months to get one aircraft onto a certificate. Why would it take 

that long? 

Mr. FAYARD. Well, that is more of a kind of what you have to 

plan for, if you will. And, you know, the certification process itself 

is relatively straightforwardly laid out, saying, these are the steps 

you need to do. 

The problem that we have, and it ties back into the access to capital and funds, is the uncertainty. There are gates to walk through, 

but that doesn’t mean it is going to happen in 18 months. And so 

when you go to an investor group and say, listen, we are starting 

this aviation business, we are going to get our own certification, 

you can’t tell them reliably to say, well, it could be a year, it could 

be 2 years, it could be 3 years, because there is no—even if we do 

all the correct things on our side, and I am not saying that is always the case, but if you go forth in that endeavor, there is no way 

to be able to tell or plan that you will be able to receive a certification to operate in a sum period of time. It is all best guess. 

And that is very difficult, obviously, on the financing side. That 

is very difficult on the operational side. It is very frustrating to our 

cities and partners, saying, well, we can get there when we can get 

there. It is very difficult to kind of forecast your business as well. 

So if you have an enterprising group that says, we are going to 

start another GLO, they could not reliably tell you—if they are, 

they are lying—that yes, we are going to have our own certification 

in 18 months and we will be flying 18 months plus a day. It is not 

possible. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. But the steps in this case, you know, things 

weren’t really defined that Mr. Whiteside is dealing with, but this 

is a routine process—— 

Mr. FAYARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO [continuing]. Obviously. So, I mean, you know what 

the steps are. They are defined, known. But why does it take that 

24 

long? I mean, is it because they are not—I mean, they are sequential, but you have to finish one? I don’t quite understand. 

Mr. FAYARD. Well, I mean, without going too deep into it, you 

know, you submit your manuals, et cetera, to the FAA, and they 

have a review period where they go through them. So the steps 

themselves are relatively straightforward, you know, 1 to 10 let’s 

just call it. But you get into, you know, what they refer to as a lack 

of resources in certain FAA offices of which you have to deal with. 

And, again, they are being very helpful. I mean, we have a really 

good relationship with the FAA. We have had a really good relationship with the DOT. But they are, frankly, hamstrung with resources to get a warm body in there and to be able to review and 

do these things. 

And just one example, when we launched this business, we were 

slap in the middle of sequester. And whether that was used improperly by some of the agencies we had to deal with, everyone 

throws their hands up and says, we are under sequester, we don’t 

have the money and the resources to—we will get to you when we 

can. And, you know, I have got a lot of respect for the other gentlemen and ladies at the table with this new frontier, no pun intended, with space and drones, et cetera. And you are right, that 

is an issue of first impression. But airline certification, whether it 

be part 135 or part 121, is not, and it should be relatively—I don’t 

want to see you go to the store and pull one off the shelf, but it 

should be a little more streamlined. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. My time is expired. I am sorry the chairman left. But I would point out one of the deficiencies. You are 

talking again about certification, which we have heard from manufacturers, now we are hearing from you is one of the most critical 

things that needs, you know, streamlining, reform, and it also 

needs adequate personnel. 

And in the chairman’s version of privatization of air traffic control, certification stays over there with the Government; the new 

corporation doesn’t have that authority. And, of course, it is subject 

to sequestration. You could create a Government corporation where 

you wouldn’t have that problem, cleaving the agency in half, but 

that is for another day. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Gibbs. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to explore a little bit about the drone technology. You 

know, we talk about beyond line of sight and line of sight. It seems 

to me agricultural applications, maybe real estate applications, 

checking utility lines, you know, if you get out of line of sight, your 

skills aren’t in the parameters of their scope of where they are operating, say it is, you know, 100 feet, 200 feet, wherever. 

Then I look at Amazon. Mr. Cassidy, it seems to me that for that 

to work right, you are going to have to—I don’t know what the 

technology is. Let me back up for a second. 

I think I saw on ‘‘60 Minutes’’ a couple of months ago they 

dropped drones out of an airplane—it must be a DOD deal—hundreds of them. And they could interact in milliseconds. They didn’t 

collide. So that tells me the technology must be pretty sophisticated. 

25 

So for like an Amazon, is it possible, is technology there where 

you could punch in my address and deliver that package that is 

coming to me today by drone and it would work like, you know, autonomously? Can you, you know, expound on what the technology 

is? Because it seems to me like there are two different things going 

on here. You got the technology where somebody is controlling it 

like, for example, one person used looking at the well site. OK. Obviously, that person is probably controlling that drone more manually. But is the technology there to where the drones can actually 

be what I would call smart drones? 

Mr. CASSIDY. That is a great question. Thank you very much for 

that. So let me just start out by saying that it is Amazon’s commitment that we are not going to launch Prime Air until we are absolutely convinced that we can do so safely. 

And the way that we do that is a couple ways. One is that we 

invest in technologies that we talked about before, such as sense 

and avoid, where you equip your machines with very smart kind 

of mechanisms that help establish the awareness of other vehicles, 

both unmanned and manned, within the airspace. 

And the other thing, in terms of technology, is we invest in this 

system of operations that we are calling the unmanned traffic management system. And so what we are moving towards is—and we 

talked about that a little bit in our opening comments—is that if 

we are allowed to understand what required levels of safety are 

with regard to performance standards and design standards, the 

technology can actually be fleeted up to meet those marks. And 

then we can take the next step and start demonstrating safe innovative operations that not only benefit Amazon but benefit everybody, because we all benefit from this technology. 

So, yes, I think that we can certainly get there, based upon some 

of the stuff that is already available right now, in terms of cellular 

and WiFi-enabled tools to establish the presence of each other, and 

also some of the other things that we are heavily investing in in 

terms of sense-and-avoid technologies. 

Mr. GIBBS. So the challenge for us policymakers is to try to keep 

up, which we never will, but that is the challenge, because I think 

the technology is coming. 

And so it is safe to say that there are really kind of two things 

happening here. You have got the drone technology for like farmers 

might use versus what you use for long distance for delivering 

packages. That is true to say that? It is really two things happening here in the drone technology? 

Mr. CASSIDY. Yes, sir. I think there are different applications, 

but there are different applications sometimes of similar technologies. And so I think that—you know, my background is in 

manned aviation. I was an airline pilot for a number of years. And 

different planes and different pilots have access to different types 

of airspace and airports, depending on the level of equipage. And 

so I think that when you think about technology, it is not kind of 

an either/or situation. I think there could be derivatives of the 

technology that we are talking about and developing that can be 

applied in fairly modest cases very locally, but then can also be applied very safely and innovatively across, you know, longer distances, like beyond-line-of-sight delivery operations. 

26 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Mr. Moses, I am really intrigued at the discussion in your presentation on going up in outer space with returnable vehicles. Kind 

of like the space shuttle, I guess. I guess it is always good. If the 

private sector can do it, the public sector shouldn’t be doing it. You 

got permits, but you haven’t really started that, or what is the status of that? 

Mr. MOSES. So we operate under a dual licensing technology. We 

were doing flights, because we are a hybrid system using an aircraft. If we don’t intend to fire the rocket motor, we operate under 

part 91 experimental rules under the FAA. And so we are permitted to do those activities right now. Those tests are underway 

currently. 

This summer, we will start rocket-powered flights. And when we 

fire the rocket motor, we operate under part 400 of the commercial 

space flight rules. And those rules regulate us, and we do have that 

license awarded to us for test flights. The final step of that is basically to gather the data of how the systems perform for the people 

on board, provide that data back to the FAA, and then they will 

remove that last restriction on us, which opens us up for commercial. 

Mr. GIBBS. Just a quick followup. On the permits you got, were 

you satisfied in a timely fashion, or was there any, you know, frustration, or how did it go? 

Mr. MOSES. No. I think, in general, they went fairly well. Obviously, a lot of things that can be improved. We were one of the first 

ones through to get a human-rated version of this license. I think 

we have found a few things that will help streamline it in the future. But in general, a pretty straightforward approach. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Chairman. Out of time. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Yak and Mr. Gibson, I represent New Jersey, portions of 

Essex, Hudson, and Union Counties, and these areas are part of 

some of the busiest airspace in the country. As the FAA created 

rules regarding drones, was your rulemaking one size fits all for 

the country or did you give consideration to unique airspaces surrounding major cities? 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you for the question, sir. The part 107 rule 

was built really around class G airspace, which is uncontrolled, 

with the ability then, with exception, to authorize flight into controlled air as well. 

So in those dense airspaces, I assume most of the cases that you 

are referring to are class B or better as far as control and how the 

equipage is to enter there. But there are avenues, through approval 

with the FAA, for them to be able to operate. 

Mr. PAYNE. So there are different rules for the densely populated 

areas as opposed to rural? 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Thank you. And, you know, I understand a big 

concern of citizens and regulators at the FAA is the use of drones 

by bad actors invading the privacy of others. However, what consideration has the FAA given to drones used by terrorists? Should 

27 

Congress and the American people be concerned about this other 

type of bad actor as well? 

Mr. GIBSON. Again, thanks for the question. Clearly, we are concerned and we are involved with our Federal partners. I think if 

one thinks of a continuum from one end, which is aviation safety, 

which is what we deal with routinely within the FAA, though; but 

as we cross that continuum, we begin to drift into security concerns, specifically counterterrorism. And so our other Federal partners—DHS, FBI, DOD—we are heavily involved with them in regards to those concerns. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. Homeland, I would assume as well. 

Mr. GIBSON. Indeed. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. And the FAA’s regulations have set limitations 

on the age of drone operators, the size of drones, and how far an 

operator of a drone—how far an operator of a drone may be operated. However, the FAA permits waivers of these requirements. 

Can you describe the considerations that go into granting or denying of waivers? 

Mr. GIBSON. Sir, as you mentioned, the part 107 rule, when it 

was established, had some particular areas that were waiverable. 

And when we go to the waiverable process, it is looked at by our 

flight standards folks and mitigations that the operator proposes 

that they would take to achieve an equivalent level of safety in operations in a different environment. 

So it is usually relatively straightforward. I think already we 

have issued over 700 waivers for nighttime and a couple for beyond 

visual line of sight. We have also considered a lot of airspace authorizations, your earlier subject as well. But each one right now 

gets an individual look. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. Webster. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this committee 

meeting. I think it is a very important one. 

What a mass of information we are getting on all kinds of areas. 

It is hard to put a lasso around it. I would like to focus in, though, 

Ms. Shelley, on the cybersecurity issue. I heard in another committee that even Barbie dolls have IP addresses. I just think it is 

like this flood, not just for certain, as I say, military operations or 

business operations or whatever. It is just it is so big and it is flying at us. 

Is there anything that you are doing through your technical operations to monitor that or keep up with that, or is there anything 

that there needs to be done legislatively to help you do that? 

Ms. YAK. Thank you for the question. There are a number of 

things that we are doing. From the agency’s perspective, we do 

have a committee, a cybersecurity committee in place, and they set 

policy and standards for all our systems and domain areas. 

Our domain areas are the National Airspace Systems or the air 

traffic management systems, our mission support systems, which 

are our IT systems, and our R&D domain area, which is where we 

do our test and evaluation of research. 

28 

We have the cybersecurity test facility at the Technical Center, 

and this is where we start looking for the tools to help us monitor 

the health and security of these systems. So we will look at tools, 

procedures, policies. We will assess for vulnerabilities. We will validate what risks are out there. And then we will look for mitigation 

solutions using this laboratory. 

We also have continuous monitoring capabilities in place for 

these domain areas. And another portion of what we use the cyber 

test facility for is to conduct simulations or what I would call, you 

know, evaluations of our procedures. And what we do is we set up 

an environment that uses the exact tools that our incident responders are using. And we will start then pretty much attacking the 

system in a very safe way, so that they can use their procedures, 

see how the tools work, make decisions in realtime. So it is a very 

good exercise for trying out our security posture. 

Mr. WEBSTER. So I could see how a drone could be used for some 

sort of mischief in all kinds of ways. But is there also the possibility of drone hijacking, where you use someone else’s drone to do 

injury, harm, or create some sort of chaos in our country? 

Ms. YAK. So from a research perspective, we are looking at the 

command and control link for drones as well as our detect and 

avoid. So we are doing the research on the technology. 

And, Mr. Gibson, do you want to talk a little bit about how we 

are applying that? 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, sir, I think you are limited by your creativity 

on some of the scenarios that you can walk through on this. Clearly, the bigger vehicles, all UAS are controlled via link, which is vulnerable, could be vulnerable. As we get into the smaller aircraft, 

I am not sure that cyber would be the first choice, because they are 

relatively inexpensive and currently can mask some of the capabilities or the identification. 

So we are all very concerned about that. There are a number of 

measures. I would offer that the Remote ID Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee that we are standing up very soon with industry and 

our stakeholders is going to go a long way towards clearing up 

some of the anonymity that is involved in the smalls. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I only ask you, because of traceability of some 

sort, that it is a different owner, it wasn’t the person that actually 

did the damage. Yeah. 

Mr. MCNEAL. Congressman, just piggyback on the point that 

General Gibson made. In Appendix H of my testimony, I provide 

a little bit of information about remote identification and security 

measures for securing this uplink. And I believe committee staff 

has a lengthier paper from us on this. 

One simple already deployed technology mechanism that could 

be used are SSL/TLS certificates, which are used to secure Internet 

of Things devices as well as securing the web pages that we visit 

on the internet, and that is one way of ensuring that the communication is encrypted, because if a person were to hijack a drone, 

we might face a circumstance where some day a CNN drone is flying over a crowd and a person takes control of that and brings it 

down into the crowd, and the first blame becomes blame of CNN 

instead of actually that malicious actor. So securing that uplink I 

29 

think is a really important initiative that we need to focus on and 

one that I believe we plan to talk about on the remote iDR. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Chairman 

LoBiondo and Ranking Member Larsen, for having this fourth 

hearing in a series of meetings to discuss the state of transportation in America. 

As ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I really understand the importance of innovative approaches to problems. As with any innovative approach, however, 

new challenges and obstacles await. As Congress considers making 

sweeping reforms to air transportation and upcoming FAA reorganization, safety, of course, must remain a major consideration. Our 

panel is dominated this morning by individuals from the unmanned aerial vehicle industry, and there is no doubt that drones 

are already integrating into our airspace at a rapid pace. 

So, Mr. McNeal, in your testimony, you spoke of some of the institutional challenges in Government the aviation industry is facing when it comes to safe implementation of innovative technologies such as drones. Can you elaborate on the structural, financial, and regulatory and any other obstacles that are preventing 

agencies such as FAA from rapidly adopting new rules that are 

conducive to this innovative approach with this technology? 

Mr. MCNEAL. Yes, Congresswoman, thank you for the question. 

I think the structural challenges—and General Gibson alluded to 

this—are that we have witnessed a rapid change in aviation. It is 

an entirely new type of industry than previously existed. And so we 

have an agency filled with tens of thousands of hardworking people 

who are accustomed to working in a certain way, and now we are 

asking them to do things in a different way at a much more rapid 

pace. 

And so I think there are a few ways to empower those individuals. And so what we find are some of the folks that I mentioned 

in my testimony are agents of change within the agency. But they 

run up on some of the things that Mr. Whiteside and others spoke 

about, which are existing old forms of regulation and rules that 

now have to be interpreted for new circumstances. 

So I think one key thing that Congress can do to help ameliorate 

this structural challenge is to set dates certain by which certain 

outcomes have to occur. The best example of this most recently was 

the date certain that was set in the extension last year, both for 

implementing a NASA UTM program as well as the remote identification process. Clear direction from Congress, this is a priority to 

work on, and it must be delivered by a certain date. And that allows those change agents within the agency to say, listen, there is 

no negotiating on timelines here. We must implement this in a 

given period of time because Congress has told us we must do that. 

And oftentimes then, if Congress follows on on the approps side 

with the resources to make it happen, it really helps those change 

agents be able to act and understand what the priorities are. Otherwise, what we have are, you know, the entire forest is on fire and 

the question is, which bush do we put out first or which tree do 

30 

we put out first? This prioritization from this body, I think, is extremely helpful to the agency in knowing what the direction is and 

what the expectations of this committee are. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Moses, the idea of commercial space flight also has a really 

kind of exciting and thrilling type of spirit toward it. Can you 

speak more to the balance that FAA’s Office of Commercial Space 

Transportation has achieved when regulating your industry for ensuring safety while also allowing room for innovation? 

Mr. MOSES. Yeah, that is a fantastic question. And I think, you 

know, I would wholeheartedly agree the innovation of space and 

the dream of it is the reason why we are doing this, right, is to 

allow that opportunity to others to experience that. 

In terms of how the AST office has worked through licensing 

technology—or licensing process, sorry, you know, it is like my colleagues here at the table, right, it comes down to a matter of interpretation. And the rules are written, at least part 400 is fairly new, 

so it is written for this industry, but it was very much written for 

an expendable launch vehicle type rocket stacked on a pad, launching from the coast, flying out over the ocean. And so an approach 

like ours where we are launching rockets from an airplane or companies that are launching rockets from balloons or using just balloons themselves, those rules don’t directly apply. 

So I think the language in the AST’s mandate to help the industry allow them to kind of look for those solutions that allow you 

to kind of right-size an equivalent level of safety. An example for 

us might be in smoke detection systems, right. A rule that is written for a system that has a manned vehicle mated to the space station for months at a time needs an automated system. We are in 

space for 10 minutes, and an automated system is probably not applicable. So having that flexibility in the regulations is extremely 

helpful to innovate our approach. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

My time has expired. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Perry. 

Mr. PERRY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Yak or Mr. Gibson, the short-term extension directed the 

FAA to establish a pilot program for the UTM. And I am just wondering, I think it is supposed to begin this month. Is it on schedule 

to begin this month? 

Ms. YAK. There has been quite a bit of work on this program and 

we do have a plan in place. 

And, Mr. Gibson. 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir. We work closely with NASA and have for 

a number of years now. They just recently completed phase 2 of a 

4-phase effort, but also, about I guess almost 6 months ago, got together with our NextGen organization and established a research 

transfer team, a process that has enabled a lot of the NextGen 

technology to come forward over tests. So yes, it is on track. 

And—— 

Mr. PERRY. So it will start this month, right? 

Ms. YAK. So in April, what is due—and I didn’t want to steal Mr. 

Gibson’s thunder here, but what is due is the plan for the pilot. 

And yes, we are. 

31 

Mr. PERRY. The plan. The plan is due in April. 

Ms. YAK. Yes. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. So when—— 

Ms. YAK. The program will be defined this month, yes. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. So when will actual testing, so to speak, where 

you are actually flying vehicles, based on the technology that you 

are considering and—you know, when will a pilot where most people would view—pardon the pun because of the subject—when will 

that be happening? When can we expect to see something? 

Mr. GIBSON. Sir, we have already done two of those major tests 

with NASA. The first one was out in California, and most recently, 

a few months ago at Reno. And it both includes live flying, virtual 

flying, and constructive flying, via a simulation. So they are continuing to load up the system. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. So just to inform me, because I don’t know, is 

this based on GPS technology, or what is the basis of the technology that they are using for the UTM? Do you know? 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes. For the location; but in many ways, it is ITbased, as far as the vehicles, being able to track where they are 

at and predict their locations. 

Mr. PERRY. And the reason I am asking some of the questions 

is, is that people, because they know I am on the committee, they 

come into the office and they have a lot of ideas, right? And I see 

some of these things. And they blow your head apart, right? But, 

you know, I don’t know the technical specifics of it. Those are the 

people that come in that they do. 

But I am wondering, how are those things integrated? How are 

they considered in any pilot? How do those people get their ideas 

vetted? How are they considered? Are they ever incorporated or is 

this—you know, per my notes, it was in conjunction with industry. 

So how does industry, including a guy that is really smart who has 

got an idea that came up with it out in his garage, how does he 

get involved? Is he involved? 

Mr. GIBSON. Sir, we have kind of an open door policy on the technology for folks. I have companies coming to me constantly. Our integration office I know entertains things. I am sure the Tech Center does as well. So there are a number of avenues open to those 

folks. 

Mr. PERRY. Are you the name—who is the name at the Tech Center where people—because they ask me, like how do we—how do 

we get into this field? Like, how are our ideas vetted? Who is the 

person? Is there a name associated with this? 

Ms. YAK. So to answer first, I am the person to contact, or any 

of my staff. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. Great. 

Ms. YAK. And Mr. Gibson is correct. We have the Drone Advisory 

Committee that can be used as a point of entry. We have a grants 

program for research. We have CRADAs, Cooperative Research and 

Development Agreements, that we can partner with industry and 

overlapping—— 

Mr. PERRY. I just want to make sure that the FAA is considering 

all the ideas, because technology is changing very quickly. And 

some of the things I see—and I lived in a GPS-based world or less, 

you know, a map and a finger-based world. And I just hate to see 

32 

us hamstring ourselves. I am concerned that the Government is 

standing in the way in many respects of this industry and that 

overseas operations and competitors are ahead of us because of our 

regulatory environment. 

Let me ask Mr. Whiteside, because you haven’t been involved in 

the conversation a whole lot, what is the number one thing Congress can do, in your opinion, to enable innovation in this industry 

that you are involved in? What is the number one thing we can do? 

Or in helping the FAA or directing the FAA? 

Mr. WHITESIDE. Direct the FAA to understand not only the safety 

case but the business case behind the rules that they are making. 

And I say that because when rules are enacted or when you submit 

for a waiver request, there is only the safety case considered as to 

whether or not that should be approved. 

And like you just mentioned, with the loss of jobs in America 

going overseas, there is no consideration of the impact of those 

rules and how that is going to impact the applicant or the business 

that is trying to get that waiver. And the end result is small businesses often can’t survive that timeline, and then the larger companies with the resources and the capital can make that happen. 

So there is a real disconnect between implementation or requests 

for an approval and the business who is submitting it and what the 

implications are to that business. And if that could be connected 

somehow, that would be pretty valuable. 

Mr. PERRY. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fascinating hearing. 

Ms. Yak, I was interested in—actually, I have two questions 

which come from your written testimony. One had to do with a 

pilot project involving what you call critical infrastructure. Because 

I represent the District of Columbia, where you can’t fly these 

drones yet, not only here but parts of Maryland and Virginia, 

which are part of the National Capital region, as far as I know, and 

because a drone a couple years ago flew into the White House 

grounds, I am interested in hearing more about your pilot project 

on critical infrastructure and what it means, whether or not the 

Nation’s Capital would be like every other place when it came to— 

when it came to flying drones. 

Ms. YAK. Thank you very much for the question. We are doing 

a lot of research in that area, but Mr. Gibson keeps poking me, 

saying, I want to take this one. So I am going to turn it over to 

Mr. Gibson and then I will follow up. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. We do 

have that section of language and we have begun, actually, a good 

bit of that research. 

Specifically, the first part, we were able to use existing regulation, I think as a fallout of 9/11, to aid our Federal partners. We 

are currently standing up airspace protection measures for over 

130 sites with DOD. We have another 10 coming in from the Department of the Interior and we have 8 with the Department of Energy. So we continue to work very closely with the partners. 

33 

The other part that you are probably also alluding to then, especially with the nature of this aircraft now, that we have to consider 

a lot of private sites, private utilities, refineries, ballparks. 

Ms. NORTON. Airports, yes. 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, ma’am. 2206 is focused on the airports, and we 

have a whole separate effort ongoing there. But currently, the 2209 

really gets down to the airspace. Of course, the vehicles can penetrate that airspace if they so choose, but we will have the word out 

that will enable those trying to protect it. 

It is not just active measures, though. Manufacturing has worked 

very closely with us. They put in geofencing and things of that nature. So, to your point, unless somebody really works hard flying 

in and around the Capitol or the White House, the vehicle won’t 

even start now with geofencing. 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah. It is going to be difficult, but I am sure you 

can do it. 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Yak, here’s one for you. On page 7 of your testimony, you talk about aviation gas, and you are very candid about 

it. You say it is the only remaining lead-containing transportation 

fuel. Very controversial. You speak about in your testimony how 

toxic it is when it is inhaled. But what gave me some optimism is 

that you go on to describe some progress with the research and 

even with flight test activities, even saying the year 2018. 

I guess my question is, when will nonlead aviation gas be ready 

for wide use in commercial aviation? 

Ms. YAK. Thank you for the question. And that was a great summary. We have been working very closely with aircraft and engine 

manufacturers, as well as fuel producers, so that we can do this 

evaluation. And just as you summarized, we just finished phase 1 

in March of last year, 2016, where we now have two sample fuels 

that we are testing. And we will be testing them in 19 different engine setups and performing at least 10 tests with aircraft. 

The results of our research will be done in the 2018 timeframe. 

That is when the assessment of the research results will begin. 

And then we will start the process for certification and validating 

of the use of fuels and the output there. So it will be in the 2018 

timeframe. 

Ms. NORTON. But will it be required? 

Ms. YAK. Will it be required? 

Ms. NORTON. To use nonlead—I mean, we got lead out of everything else, paints and—— 

Ms. YAK. It is definitely desired, but we have to find out what 

the research says and where we can go from there. 

Ms. NORTON. Is it going to be more expensive, do you believe? 

Ms. YAK. It is way too soon to know any of that information. 

Sorry. 

Ms. NORTON. I hope you are evaluating that so there is no excuse 

once we have it. It looks like the science is almost there. The question is, given the toxic nature of aviation gas, which surrounds us— 

I can’t imagine what harm it is doing—we need to understand 

when it is going to be ready and whether it will be required or 

whether it will be one of those innovations that we are very 

pleased to see. But then the excuse—and not always invalid—is 

34 

that it costs too much and the public will have to pay too much. 

So I hope that we are working on both those measures at the same 

time. 

Ms. YAK. Thank you for your input. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Although I don’t have a question for Mr. Cassidy, thank you, 

Amazon, for investing in Edwardsville, Illinois, in my district. We 

would love to see you grow even more, so please think about that, 

especially since I didn’t ask you a tough question today. So remember that next time you are thinking about expansions. 

Ms. Yak and Mr. Gibson, I have got three questions. The first 

two, please answer quickly or I will have to cut you off, because 

the third one I got to get to. First off, I want to ask you about the 

implementation of the part 107 final rule, and specifically about 

the implementation process to request waivers for operations under 

that rule. As of yesterday, April 3, the last issuance of a waiver 

was on January 23, 2017. Is there a reason we haven’t had a waiver in nearly 2 months? 

Mr. GIBSON. Sir, I haven’t heard that number. Every time I 

check with them, it is increasing constantly, but I will have to take 

that one for the record. 

Mr. DAVIS. Please get back to my office on that. 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. 

It seems to me the vast majority of waivers issued by the FAA 

have been to allow nighttime operation, which leads me to believe 

that the FAA has a relatively streamlined process considering 

waiver requests of that nature. 

Are you guys at the FAA working to develop a streamlined litmus test to consider greater numbers of waivers for other operational restrictions under part 107, such as the operational line of 

sight? 

Mr. GIBSON. Sir, not to simplify the problem, but I think the 

large number of waivers at night was most enabling and we probably got the most requests in that area. Beyond visual line of sight 

is much more complex. It is open for waiver and we have done a 

few. But the mitigations are significant. Where they are going to 

operate and those kind of things are considered each time. 

Where we can, we pass those lessons learned back to the community. In other words, these are the ones that were approved. Here 

are the things we look at. We are trying to continue to inform as 

we work through the process. 

Mr. DAVIS. Great, great. I mean, keep in mind, as we look at 

technology and we look at disaster relief, obviously, these are 

things that need to be taken into consideration on that rule. 

One concern raised to me by a constituent actually relates to the 

operation of UAS in controlled airspace. Under part 107, that permission was to come from the air traffic control tower. According 

from the rule summary, as published in the Federal Register on 

June 28 of 2016, in considering whether to grant permission to a 

small UAS to fly in controlled airspace, ATC will consider the specific nature of the small UAS operation and the risk the operation 

poses to other air traffic in that controlled airspace. ATC facilities 

35 

have the authority to approve or deny aircraft operations, based on 

traffic density, controller workload, communications issues, or any 

other type of operation that would potentially impact the safe and 

expeditious flow of air traffic. 

However, on October 23 of this past year, a new FAA order, JO 

7200.23, was issued, instructing local ATC personnel how to handle 

UAS calls to their facilities, including both hobbyists and commercial operators. And what this states is, in the event a part 107 operator contacts an ATC facility directly for authorization, the facility must not issue authorization. The facility must direct the operator to the FAA UAS website, faa.gov/uas. 

Now, Ms. Yak and Mr. Gibson, this order seems to contradict 

what the initial intent under part 107 was, as it relates to requests 

for operators of UAS to operate in controlled airspace, and has discouraged many operators. Can you explain why this step was taken 

and why the FAA doesn’t believe local personnel are prepared to 

make this determination on a case-by-case basis when it was clearly our intent to do that? 

Mr. GIBSON. Sir, I probably should be more informed on that 

wording, but I have not heard it before this, so I have to take that 

one for the record as well. 

I will comment that we are in the process of gridding out all the 

airspace around our airports, working with Mr. McNeal here and 

his peers to automate many, if not all, of those approvals over time. 

We hope to have an initial capability by the end of the year. 

So the operator comes up and uses an app, basically, that is near 

realtime, and can then text the local authority and get approval 

within seconds, hopefully. 

Mr. DAVIS. And I appreciate your comments, Mr. Gibson, but you 

can understand our frustrations as policymakers. When we have an 

intent to allow for operators, especially in rural areas—I represent 

many regional airports. And there is usually a pretty easy way to 

contact the ATC tower. And why can’t, on a case-by-case basis, 

these things be offered as approved? 

I mean, people are trying to do the right thing to implement this 

technology, be it a hobbyist or be it for commercial reasons. And 

at some point, we got to get Government off their backs, and this 

rule specifically seems to be contradicting what we needed. So, 

please, I do want a specific answer as to why this has happened 

and why this rule is contradictory and what the FAA is going to 

do to fix it. So I appreciate your time. 

Thank you, everybody, for being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Excuse me, Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. Lawrence. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Whiteside, can you tell the subcommittee how drones are 

producing jobs around the country? I had someone at a forum tell 

me that a growing industry is going to be drone operators. I don’t 

know if that is a reality or not. How do you see the unmanned aircraft sector expanding in the future, and what kind of jobs should 

we expect from it? 

36 

Mr. WHITESIDE. Sure. Thank you for the question. I think the official forecast is 1.3 million new operators by 2020. And if you look 

at what is happening now, I think we are well on the way to that 

sort of a forecast. 

The drone of the future or the operator of the future is probably 

not going to be a specialty service company like VDOS. It is probably going to become more of a routine tool that the operators are 

going to use. So the insurance adjuster of today is going to go to 

his site with a ladder and a drone, and the first thing he will do 

is fly the roof when he is doing a roof inspection to look to see if 

he needs to get on the ladder to get on the roof. Roofing contractors 

will do inspections. We know that farming and agriculture will expand the use of technology. 

So right now, we are at the beginning stages of this, and the specialization is really important, but as the technology improves, as 

it becomes more reliable, as the legal issues become solved, we will 

see the expansion quite rapidly into more and more routine daily 

operations with less and less specialization. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. That is interesting. Mr. Whiteside, in your written testimony, you mentioned your company’s work in Australia. 

And you note that Australia has permitted drone operations beyond 

the operator’s visual line of sight for a few years now. How would 

you compare the regulatory framework in the United States with 

that of Australia? 

Mr. WHITESIDE. Australia is a great example of how certification 

compliance can work. The industry is several years ahead of the 

U.S. in terms of how the technology is being used and what the 

laws allow. There is a pretty straightforward certification process 

that somebody has to go through to become licensed, and that goes 

all the way through to beyond-line-of-sight operations. 

We are stuck right now in the U.S. with a lot of interpretation 

of the rules, whereas in Australia we have got the benefit of actually having a path to get certified. And if that key or that element 

were to be enacted here, that would dramatically change this industry and how the technology is going to be used. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Ms. Yak, can you comment on that too? 

Ms. YAK. The FAA is looking at everything that is involved with 

integrating drones safely into our airspace and working hard with 

the rulings that we have just put out that Mr. Gibson has talked 

about and working with industry to develop the concept and the operations for integrating it. So it is ongoing work, and it is through 

our partners that are at this table that we are actually going to be 

successful. So we appreciate that. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Any other comments from the panel? 

Mr. GIBSON. Ma’am, I would just recommend that we remind 

folks that our airspace challenge is the most dense, most complex 

in the world. We already fly some beyond visual line of sight. Alaska, with science and research up there, is beyond, BNSF Rail. We 

are doing it where we can and we continue to grow that. And, as 

we mentioned, the Drone Advisory Committee, we are working 

with industry. And our stakeholders Task Group 2 under the DAC 

and the subcommittee are working specifically on access to airspace, which are the things you just spoke about. 

37 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I want to say that young people, when I meet 

with them, drones are probably the most exciting thing to them. 

And it is in that meeting with young people, like they see being a 

drone operator as a cool job to have. I want to say that we, as we 

move this industry forward or as the industry moves us forward, 

having a committed set of rules and regulations is extremely important. 

And my last question is, we talked about drones as it relates to 

travel into the galaxies. I don’t understand how a drone is related 

to us getting to the moon. So can someone drill down on that for 

me? Mr. Moses? 

Mr. MOSES. Yes, sure. So it is an interesting question, right. So, 

effectively, if you look at the unmanned, you know, uncrewed space 

program, the robotic probes, those are effectively drone technologies, right. It is a remote probe operated from—— 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. So we are using it now. 

Mr. MOSES. Yeah. And then as you go further and further away, 

that link signal becomes longer and longer. To the moon, it is about 

a minute delay. To Mars, it would be a 6- to 10-minute delay. And 

so you need an autonomous system at that point as well so that 

it operates by itself. So it is a natural progression. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. OK. You are the exciting group before us. 

Thank you so much for being here. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Before we turn to Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Fayard, before I forget, if 

you ever think of moving into the Northeast, Atlantic City is a 

great market for you. 

Mr. FAYARD. We will get right on it, absolutely. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. We would be just right for you. 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. I just want to say Detroit, we know how to build 

things. 

Mr. FAYARD. I like Detroit as well. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Northern California has lots of nice open space 

too, since we are doing that. 

Thank you, panelists, for being here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will just get right to it on this for Director Yak and Mr. Gibson 

as well. My question is on the advisory committees on the drone 

situation, and maybe this was touched on in a different way. But 

the advisory committees, by and large, my understanding, are 

made up more of manufacturers of drones and have not as much 

representation by end users, maybe. You know, my primary focus 

in our area is resources with agriculture, timber, things of that nature. So drone technology is a very burgeoning, you know, great 

new tool that will be available for us. 

And so for those that would be on those advisory committees, is 

there really any cross-representation of end users or buyers of this 

technology, of this equipment here? Because, again, it can be very, 

very useful in agriculture, in forestry, in whatever, you know, utilities, where they fly the power lines near my home all the time with 

big helicopters and such. So what was the makeup or what is the 

intention of the makeup of those advisory committees to have a 

broad input on that? 

38 

Mr. GIBSON. Sir, thank you for the question. When we began putting the DAC together, I think there were over 400 applicants all 

at the C suite level, very strong in the industry, but also in many 

cases outside, as you alluded to. End users communities. Mayor 

Lee from San Francisco sits on the committee. We tried to balance 

academia and the various aspects of UAS all the way down to the 

communities that might be affected. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Not much farming in San Francisco. 

Mr. GIBSON. Pardon? 

Mr. LAMALFA. Not much farming in San Francisco. 

Mr. GIBSON. Oh, yes, sir. To your point, PrecisionHawk I know 

is involved in that industry heavily. There will be a—I will get you 

the specifics of the current DAC. And then we have membership 

below that, at the subcommittee and all the way down to the working groups. And we will address the agriculture and forestry concerns. I know I just met with another company that has begun 

work in the forestry industry. So we do stay open to that, but I will 

get you the specifics. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I appreciate that. But there really is no requirement or direct intent to have those representatives directly on 

those advisory committees then. Is that pretty fair then? 

Mr. GIBSON. Sir, we tried to balance as best we could. It wasn’t 

that we omitted anybody. We just did the best with what we had 

at the time. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, talk a little more about the balance. What 

are—you know, how many are on—how many members on that 

and what have you been looking for so far to provide this balance? 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, again, sir, you know, I probably can provide 

the answer better in detail, but there are manufacturers, there are 

operators, there are communities, there is academia. And we took 

400 down to about 35 representatives on the DAC itself. The subcommittee is much larger and probably balanced maybe a little bit 

differently, but we opened it up. Essentially, there are over 70 

members of the subcommittee that do a lot of the work. And then 

there are now three task groups organized: Rules and responsibilities, access to airspace, and the last one is funding. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. Well, I understand how if subcommittees or 

committees get too large, it is hard to have a lot of input here. But 

I look forward to that information from you on that, on the criteria 

for the makeup as well as the makeup of the committees and subcommittees. 

One more question too. We would want to see the possibility, 

what would it take for beyond-line-of-sight applications? Again, 

where we are talking about in these very rural areas with agriculture and timber, especially timber management. So you are talking mountainous areas here, and we have other issues going on 

with being able to have them fire safe, where we need to do cleanup work around utility lines, have the, you know, buffer zone between trees and other foliage. So that would be a very important 

and very usable technology for maintaining those transmission 

lines, as well as other agriculture, ranching, remote areas. 

So what do you see on being able to improve that situation, not 

have it just be visual line of sight in operating the drone equipment? 

39 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir. Well, we are continuing to lean forward in 

that area. I know, as I mentioned, I won’t advertise a company 

name necessarily, but they are with a number of the forestry companies now and are out there for blight inspection initially and 

then application of herbicides, insecticides. So there are companies 

that are beginning to penetrate that market, if you will, with us, 

and I am sure we will see more in the future. 

Mr. LAMALFA. I mean regulatorily, though, there are restrictions 

on things being more than line of sight. 

And I need to go here, Mr. Chairman. 

But if you could get—do you have like just 5 seconds on that? 

Because line of sight is a restriction. 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir. Certainly, rural is less risk for considerations, but any time it leaves your line of sight, you need to have 

other mitigation factors, like we said, sense and avoid and those 

kind of things. It gets a little bit more complex. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just following up on that point. We hear a lot about the need to 

do regulation for flying beyond line of sight too. I hear it from the 

power company wanting to look at power lines, for delivery, for 

firefighting. So I would encourage you to keep us posted and let us 

know how we can move forward more expeditiously with that as 

well. 

I would like to ask Ms. Yak and Mr. Gibson too some more about 

the test sites. We fought very hard for Nevada to be one of the test 

sites, and I know a lot of the work there with NASA is going on. 

But what I am curious to know is how much you are using data 

that is gathered by what is happening at the test site to inform the 

regulatory or decisionmaking process at the Federal level. Are we 

really taking advantage of that data that is being generated or is 

it just going on a shelf somewhere? 

Ms. YAK. Thank you for that question. 

At the Technical Center we manage the agreements with the test 

sites, and there are a number of things that we have in place. 

For instance, on a quarterly basis and annually, they provide us 

the research, the research results that they have accomplished in 

that quarter and for the year. Twice a year we also have technical 

interchange meetings where they come and present what they have 

done. 

We too are using the test sites for a lot of our work, such as the 

UAS detection at airports work, and what the test sites are doing 

are collecting the flight data information as well as the research 

data and providing that information to the Technical Center. We 

pull it together. Like, for instance, there have been 8,000 flights 

since we started collecting that data, which was in 2015. 

So the areas of research have been from noise to detect-and-avoid 

and quite a few critical infrastructure inspections, we talked about 

that. What we are doing with the research results is that we are 

pulling them together and making them available, particularly for 

the other test sites to be able to use it as a point of reference as 

they start doing their research. 

40 

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Gibson. 

Mr. GIBSON. I concur with what Shelley stated. We continue, I 

think, to firm up our work with the test sites. And as she mentioned, I know in the counter-UAS piece that I have been working 

on, they have done all the support for that. 

Ms. TITUS. Great. So I am glad to hear that. 

My other question that would just go to the panel generally is 

that the current administration seems to have the position that 

regulation is hurting innovation. They have this new policy that 

sounds like a happy hour special in my district of Las Vegas, two 

for one, you know, for every one new one, you have got to get rid 

of two of the old ones. 

So I am wondering if that is really a good policy when it comes 

to the kind of things that you all are working on as we try to move 

this industry forward. It is an arbitrary rule. Does that really make 

any sense? Can anybody comment on that? 

Mr. CASSIDY. Ma’am, that is a very good question. And I think 

that is when we look at what the net result of these regulations 

and for beyond visual line of sight that we were just talking about 

and other things, it is safe integration. And so I am not really so 

much focused on two in, one out or anything else. I am more focused on what are smart and sound enabling regulations that can 

be implemented right now and how do we get there. 

And I think that the way we do is what we were talking about 

before, is let’s take the things that are most pressing immediate 

needs, such as dealing with the safety and security issues, beyond 

line of sight—I am sorry, drone identification and tracking—and 

let’s kind of solve for that, and that will take care of us unlocking 

the next regulation, which is overflight over people. And then once 

we get that done, then we can start moving a little bit forward on 

future regulations. 

So I don’t really see this as kind of an arithmetic formula as 

much as us staying kind of tight and connected and focusing on the 

most effective near-term enabling regulations. 

Ms. TITUS. Anybody else want to comment? 

OK. Well, that is so much for the two for one then. Let’s see if 

we can do it in a more rational way. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for the panel today, for the interesting information that you have shared. 

I probably have a little different view of unmanned aircraft systems. I see them more as a delivery mechanism for remote sensing 

equipment. I come from an engineering and forestry background, 

and I have seen the evolution of remote sensing over time. I saw 

us going from having to have field crews on the ground to do topographic surveys to being able to do flyovers with airplanes and take 

aerial surveys to do topographic mapping. I have seen us use satellite imagery to pick up on information in forestry stands. And 

really, as the remote sensing has improved, UAS has become a vehicle to deliver that remote sensing technology. 

And I also understand there are other commercial uses for it, 

like with Amazon with deliveries. But still remote sensing plays a 

41 

critical role in that because you have got to determine the 

geolocation of the vehicle and also you have got to avoid things as 

you are flying to deliver packages. 

So in rural areas and in parts of industry there is just a huge 

upper limit of where these things can be used. But, Mr. Cassidy, 

in your testimony, you mentioned the need for Federal and State 

and local governments to work together and ensuring that UAS are 

not overregulated to create a patchwork. Can you explain how that 

would be detrimental to your business and also to some of these 

other businesses that are located in more rural areas? 

Mr. CASSIDY. Certainly. And thank you for that question. 

I think it really just comes down to one word, and that is uniformity. And if we were to have to conduct operations, whether 

block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, the access rules 

changed, you can imagine how complicated that would be. 

And so that is why, as part of the statement, we basically pointed towards the FAA and said the FAA manages the airspace and 

operations and aircraft in a very uniform manner right now in 

manned aviation. There should be that equivalent kind of level of 

management and oversight for unmanned aviation. And that is 

something that will not only actually help safety, but it is also 

something that will keep from blocking the absolute potential massive growth for this industry. 

And that applies for everybody here. It is not just about drones. 

It is about commercial space. It is about all kinds of different applications. We need one consistent application of the way that airspace is managed. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Let me follow up with Mr. Cassidy. You advocated for no-fly zones over sensitive fixed-site facilities, which I totally understand that. There are a lot of places, even in rural 

areas, where you would want no-fly zones. But how do you suggest 

that you have no-fly zones yet you don’t create this patchwork of 

regulations that you discussed? Is it possible to do that with technology where you just block out the vehicles from certain areas? 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you for the follow-on question. 

I think the answer to that is yes. And a little bit of it is kind 

of rooted in what we just talked about before, and that is working 

with the airspace authority, the FAA, who has the responsibility 

over navigable airspace. But the other part is about performancebased standards and safety regulations that dictate, look, if you 

have a very complex operation and you are going to be working 

around a city and that city has certain sensitive places, you have 

to have a demonstrated level of system performance that can assure that you won’t stray too far from where you are telling people 

that you are going to be. 

So I think part of it is kind of regulatory authority, but also certainly part of it is technology and defining clear standards that tell 

us what level of accuracy, what level of precision do we have to 

have to conduct safe operations, especially around those sensitive 

areas. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Whiteside, did you have a comment? 

Mr. WHITESIDE. Yes, thank you. 

One item that we really haven’t talked to today is along these 

lines of standardization. Right now in the United States, I think 

42 

when I tracked the laws, we are tracking something like 315 laws 

throughout the United States that have some sort of potential 

State-level implication on drone regulations. And we get into real 

issues when I speak to constituents in Oregon about: What am I 

going to do with a drone over my backyard? Where does my privacy 

or where does my airspace begin? 

So we really have to deal with the idea and the concept of Federal preemption and get that very clearly defined for the State legislatures and the communities that are out there that are wondering what is this all going to mean too from a standardization 

and implementation standpoint, which is real in the eyes of the 

people that are around this country. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. And just a few seconds left. 

Mr. Fayard, thank you for being in Little Rock. I would like to 

be able to see you get into even some smaller cities. Maybe I can 

follow up with you later on that. 

And, Ms. Yak, just a quick question. Can you describe where the 

Tech Center’s role begins and ends in research and development 

and at what point technology or programs are handed over to the 

FAA’s operation? You may have to answer that off the record and 

submit it. My time has expired. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Go ahead. 

Ms. YAK. OK, because it is my favorite topic. 

Our research begins at the ground, looking at pavement. It 

moves into the air, through air traffic management, new entrants, 

like UAS, commercial space. It works on the aircraft from flier 

safety to the structural. It affects weather forecasting. We do 

weather. We do icing. We do human factors research. 

So we do research across the whole gamut of the air industry, 

and our goal is to understand it better and get it out there working 

as quickly as we can. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thanks. 

Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I was very interested in all the testimony. 

To the witnesses, I have a district that includes the San Gabriel 

Mountains in L.A. County. We have had tremendous issues with 

drought, and we had a very heavy forest fire threatened homes and 

evacuated thousands of people. 

The Los Angeles County Fire Department was forced to stop aerial firefighting due to presence of private air drones. What can you 

say about that? What is being done or can be done to prevent or 

stop the drones from emergency sites where they cause interference? 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, ma’am, if you were talking specifically firefighting, we work very closely with the Department of the Interior. 

Mr. Mark Bathrick is a good friend of mine. He runs their aviation 

section. And in fact we are working on a challenge that they have 

now. But we work with them. I know AirMap also has worked with 

them to put out airspace warnings much more quickly than it has 

been done in the past to tell everybody to stay clear. 

43 

And then also, if you are even alluding to law enforcement and 

first responders and those kind of things, we are also pursuing 

ways of getting notification out through air traffic. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It would be nice in California. We have the 

public access television channels, all cities have them, that you 

might be able to send a message about how it should be operating 

under circumstances that might threaten other folks. 

Then I recognize the use of unmanned systems by first responders provides an effective opportunity to help them, the firefighters, 

police, and emergency personnel. Has the Federal Government 

helped or hindered the ability of local and State agencies to use unmanned systems? 

Mr. GIBSON. I am sorry, ma’am, what was the question? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Has the Federal Government helped or hindered the ability of local and State agencies to use unmanned systems? 

Mr. GIBSON. Ma’am, I think we have continued to work to improve the ability of first responders to use the vehicles as a necessary tool. We know the value involved. Behind me is Andy Nahle, 

who is one of my new detailees. Besides FAA, he is a Reserve police 

officer, and I have asked him over the next year of his detail to me 

to improve our ability to support them. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Every State has their own laws, so are you 

finding it helpful to work with the States? 

Mr. GIBSON. Oh, yes, ma’am, clearly. We have extended information through our counsel’s office on some of the preemption issues 

that were mentioned, and we are working additionally some of 

those issues, I think, through our stakeholder engagement, like the 

DAC. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. One of the questions that I usually ask is, 

what is your budget? And do you have an adequate budget to be 

able to look at the technology coming in and all the things that you 

are tasked to do? 

Mr. GIBSON. Ma’am, thanks for that question. 

I can’t imagine any organization that says they have enough resources. But to our discussion today, we have the safest aviation 

operation probably in the world, again, the density, we have been 

doing that for decades. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, but this is a growing industry. 

Mr. GIBSON. Exactly. But we have had to take the same resources we had for traditional aviation, no one has relieved us of 

those duties and obligations, and yet now we have a whole new—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Precisely. Do you have enough budget? 

Mr. GIBSON. It is not just money. I think we need help in IT because everything is going to digital. We do need assistance in that 

area. But I am not prepared to walk through the dollars and cents 

or manpower at this time, ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. In the industry, I assume the industry 

gives you information as to what their findings have been so you 

can have more information on them. 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, ma’am. Yes. We work closely. I think it is an 

interesting balance, public-private partnerships. There is a lot of 

money that is coming with this in the sense of private equity and 

44 

venture. But we still have to partner with them, so we need to 

move along quickly as well. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And to the rest of the witnesses, do you have 

any training programs so people know if they are interested in joining the industry? Classes? Schooling? 

Mr. CASSIDY. Yes. Go ahead, Brian. 

Mr. WHITESIDE. Yes. We have a program that we have stood up 

in the U.S. We have already trained over 1,000 pilots in Australia. 

And then we are working with universities, high schools, insurance 

providers, et cetera, in training people on how to do drone operations safely and comply. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you, gentlemen, ma’am. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Chairman. 

I am intrigued by a couple of things I have heard and read here. 

First of all, Dr. McNeal, with the idea of Federal preemption and 

letting municipalities play a larger or lead role in UTM, we get into 

all sorts of issues here. We get into interstate commerce clause 

issues and where the Federal Government nexus is. You can go 

back to Lopez or Rapanos, pick your favorite Supreme Court precedent. And if you live in a community like I do, Minneapolis-St. 

Paul, where you are right next to another State, you are going to 

have cross-border jurisdiction. 

You know, in your testimony you mentioned the explosive growth 

of the unmanned aerial aircraft systems, and it is true in my community as everyplace else. 

Is your point that the local governments could do a better job or 

is it a legal point, I guess? 

Mr. MCNEAL. Thank you, Congressman. And it sounds like you 

are a lawyer, all the references there. 

Mr. LEWIS. No, but I played around on the radio for a number 

of years. 

Mr. MCNEAL. You do a great job, Congressman. 

So the point is a very simple one. I think that as unmanned aircraft continue to proliferate, the FAA will be unable to know the 

constantly changing conditions in local environments. And so we 

need a mechanism to draw from the resources of State and local 

officials who know best what is going on in their communities. But 

then I also share Mr. Cassidy’s concern that we need a way to 

make sure that is uniform and understandable. 

So I start from the premise that the future that we will look at 

will be one of UTM and that State and local officials should have 

the ability to make reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions 

that they input into that system. 

The reason for that is very simple. We take Congresswoman 

Napolitano’s point about local fires. When we think in our local 

communities, we go to Minneapolis-St. Paul, the Minneapolis-St. 

Paul police departments know about that vehicle fire, they know 

about the fact that the local county fair has come to town. The Federal Government does not know about that. In fact, there are 

70,000 wildfires a year of which the FAA only puts up 7,000 TFRs. 

They know nothing about local first responder activity. They know 

nothing about county fairs and amusement parks and whatnot. 

45 

Mr. LEWIS. So your view, to use a crude analogy, is if, for one 

reason or another, States actually build interstates, they probably 

would get them to meet at the border. 

Mr. MCNEAL. I think the easier analogy, Congressman, I like 

that one, though, is that if we expected the Federal Department of 

Transportation to make rules about which street corners got stop 

signs and which ones got yield signs, we would move nowhere. 

Mr. LEWIS. OK. Yeah. I have got to move on. I am certain Mr. 

Cassidy wants some sort of uniformity there as well. 

But I also am intrigued with Mr. Fayard’s service to these underserved markets without some direct EAS funding in some cases. I 

am intrigued by this, and it certainly sounds like a wonderful business plan. The first question that pops into my mind, though, is 

why haven’t the legacy carriers done this? Why leave it to 

FLYGLO? 

Mr. FAYARD. Well, I think, if you look at the legacy carriers, like 

a decade ago the legacy carriers decided to focus on making money 

and not so much market share. So when you look at the communities and the way the model legacy carrier operators with the very 

large aircraft that are—you know, there is some labor relation situations thrown in there as well. 

But if you look at—again, I made this point earlier—the gauge 

of aircraft is consistently going up. So you are approaching 100 

seats as the average gauge of an airplane. These markets that we 

are in, we fly 30-seat aircraft, so these markets were not necessarily able to operate under a 50-seat aircraft, they are certainly 

not capable of a 100-seat aircraft, of making that a profit. 

Mr. LEWIS. So you are saying it wasn’t a case of market failure, 

but as long as there was no great market discipline for the legacy 

carriers to field smaller aircraft if they were—— 

Mr. FAYARD. That is correct. And there is a market, and I will 

give you as one example quickly, before we started our flight from 

Shreveport to New Orleans, the average O&D per day on that market was something like 1.2 people. Our first flight, we had 13 people. So statistics can only take you so far, and in this business, 

until you put the aircraft into the market, it is hard to say how 

big that market really is. 

And if you want to look at—I can tell you, you can look and say, 

well, New York to L.A., we know what that is because they have 

O&D, et cetera. Most of our routes have been unserved for, in some 

cases, over a decade. So we are going back into a behavioral changing pattern where people say, well, shoot, it is that drive, 7 hours, 

I guess I am just going to make or I just won’t go. And obviously, 

MSP, where you are, it is a very large operation, a very large hub, 

your options are almost endless. 

Mr. LEWIS. Yeah. But there is a number of rural airports in midmarket and very small airports in the Midwest that might have an 

interest in this. 

Thank you so much. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

I know you have been here almost 21⁄2 hours. Thank you for your 

testimony. I will try to make this pretty quick. 

46 

Mrs. Napolitano talked about issues and problems that UAS 

could cause in disasters, but they can also be very helpful when 

there is a disaster. But in order to make UAS a viable technology 

to fill these roles of being helpful, being that aerial coverage to see 

what is going on, there are some situations where operators need 

to quickly obtain temporary waivers from certain restrictions for 

flight rules. 

So in the Extension Act, section 2207 directed FAA to publish 

guidance and procedures for processing of exemptions to allow both 

public and civil operators to operate UAS in response to emergencies. The FAA had 180 days to develop this guidance, but it has 

not yet been issued. 

So, Ms. Yak, can you give us a timeline for producing the process 

and guidance to operators? 

Ms. YAK. I am sorry. That is not an area that I am responsible 

for. I do the research. 

Mr. Gibson, do you have any information on that? 

Mr. GIBSON. Sir, I would probably prefer to take it for the record. 

But we have worked on that. I think we were better placed than 

we were before. But in reference to the report, I will have to get 

back to you, sir. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Well, I certainly appreciate it. This is not the first 

time I have raised this. And as I said, it is overdue, and I think 

it is something we really need to—FAA really needs to get moving 

on, so—— 

Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. The other question I had, Mr. LaMalfa brought 

this up, others have brought it up, the issue of somehow fencing 

off certain areas from where UAS can go. And I know AirMap has 

your geofencing. I want to throw another possibility out there and 

see what the possibilities are. 

A fixed counter-drone technology, something ground-based, 

maybe a radio frequency that could disrupt the communication, is 

that a possibility? Is that something that can work along with 

geofencing? Where does that fit into fencing off certain areas from 

UAS? 

Mr. GIBSON. Sir, that falls in line, to some extent, with a number 

of the security issues that we are taking, 2209 with the airspace, 

2206 in and around airports. And, yes, we have seen a number of 

technologies, a number of folks who have come to us. It is, in my 

mind, not going to be one silver bullet. It is going to be a layered 

approach. The more opportunities you have, the safer we will be. 

But our report will be done probably early fall, late summer on 

some of those standards, but we have looked at radar, RF, EO as 

well, geofencing, and the other manufacturing technologies to help 

keep folks out. We have seen everything from jamming to WiFi 

interception of the signal. 

So there are a number of technologies, and that is why we are 

working closely with DOD, which has had this problem for some 

time, and DHS, as far as making sure we are talking across each 

front in our exercises that we are doing. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. So you are looking at all those and you will—— 

47 

Mr. GIBSON. We already have in many cases, yes, sir, and I know 

DHS even has another large exercise or test, if you will, coming up, 

partnered with the Army in New Orleans mid-month. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And when do you expect—— 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, our report, we are going to conclude Dallas at 

the end of the month. Then we have a lot of composition and review that we have to do on the data. We are hoping by early fall 

that that will be ready for submission. I think our timeline for 2206 

is the end of December, but I think we will be a few months ahead 

of that. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. All right. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Coming back to the Tech Center, Ms. Yak, we talked about 

cybersecurity a little bit today, and it certainly has become a growing risk affecting businesses and consumers. We receive daily reports of cyber attacks being carried out by both individuals and 

state actors. 

Very fortunately, up to this point in time, the aviation industry 

has yet to experience a cyber catastrophe. In this unclassified setting, could you tell us anything about how the FAA and the work 

being performed at the Tech Center is addressing cybersecurity 

threats in the National Airspace System, and what do you think is 

required to stay ahead of the problem of hostile actors? 

Ms. YAK. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. 

I would divide that question into two parts in how we are addressing it. Earlier I mentioned the cybersecurity test facility and 

some of the work that we do in support of our information-monitoring capabilities as well as evaluating the tools and procedures 

for vulnerability assessments on our National Airspace System and 

our information systems, our mission support system. 

So we have a process in place that, utilizing those labs, we will 

check for vulnerabilities, we will assess risk against those 

vulnerabilities, and then we will start testing what the mitigation 

solutions are from a system perspective, and then we will test that 

out in the laboratories. 

Now, if we move over to the aircraft itself, we are looking at the 

aircraft because that is becoming more and more IP-based also, and 

we are looking to put the same type of structure in place for the 

aircraft system. Again, assessing vulnerabilities, looking at the 

risk, and doing mitigation for protection. 

We have partnered up with the Department of Homeland Security on their cybersecurity initiative on the aircraft, and we are 

sharing resources, tools. And DHS has actually gotten us a Boeing 

757, which is located on our ramp and is now a test article for that 

type of testing. So we look at it from an aircraft perspective and 

we also look at it from a system perspective. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

We got everybody? Mr. Webster, you OK? OK. 

So this was extremely informative and helpful, I believe. To all 

of our witnesses, thank you for being here. Thank you for your expertise and what you bring to help solve the problems. 

And the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

48 


Insert offset folio 9 here 25242.009

STATEMENT OF SHELLEY J. YAK, DIRECTOR, WILLIAM J. HUGHES TECHNICAL 

CENTER, BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

BUILDING A 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: ENABLING 

INNOVATION IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE, APRIL 4, 2017. 

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the role of the William J. 

Hughes Technical Center in facilitating new entrants, new users, and new technologies in the 

National Airspace System (NAS). My name is Shelley Yak; I am the Director of the William J. 

Hughes Technical Center. I also serve as the FAA's Director of Research. In that capacity, I am 

responsible for managing the FAA's aviation research program. 

Aviation is a vital resource for the United States because of its strategic, economic, and 

social importance. In order to maintain our position as a global leader in aviation, the FAA must 

respond quickly to changing and expanding transportation needs. The Technical Center supports 

the integration of new users into the NAS and the delivery of improvements to current NAS 

users through the introduction of new technologies and procedures, policies, and practices that 

accomplish this goal while promoting safety and sustainability. Today, I would like to highlight 

for you some examples of our work. 

William J. Hughes Technical Center 

The Technical Center has served as the core facility for sustaining and modernizing the 

air traffic management system, and for advancing programs to enhance aviation safety, 

efficiency, and capacity since 1958. It is the nation's premier air transportation system federal 

laboratory. The Technical Center's highly technical and diverse workforce carry out activities 

that support the full system/service development lifecycle -from conducting the research and 
49 


Insert offset folio 10 here 25242.010

development, testing and evaluation, verification and validation, to operational sustainment and 

decommissioning. The Technical Center's staff develops scientific solutions to current and future 

air transportation safety, efficiency, and capacity challenges. Our engineers, scientists, 

mathematicians, and technical experts utilize a robust, one-of-a-kind, world-class laboratory 

environment to identifY integrated system solutions for the modernization and sustainment of the 

NAS. Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), En Route Automation 

Modernization (ERAM) and Data Communications (Data Comm) were all developed, tested and 

began their nationwide deployment at the Technical Center through its engineering, testing, 

evaluation, and deployment platforms. 

The Technical Center replicates the entire NAS, with the capability to support not only 

NextGen, but all aviation systems through their complete life cycle. The Technical Center's 

areas of focus include air traffic management, communications, navigation, surveillance, 

aeronautical information, weather, human factors, airports and aircraft safety. More recently, the 

Technical Center has been instrumental in the FAA's efforts to facilitate new entrants and users 

to the NAS; particularly, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or drones) and commercial space 

operations. 

The Technical Center has a number of unique laboratories engaged in research that 

contributes to aviation system development: air traffic management laboratories, simulation 

facilities, a human factors laboratory, the NextGcn Integration and Evaluation Capability, a 

Cockpit Simulation Facility, a fleet of specially-instrumented in-flight test aircraft, the world's 

largest full-scale aviation fire test facility, a chemistry laboratory for analyzing the toxicity of 

materials involved in a fire, surveillance test laboratories, a full-scale aircraft structural test 

2 
50 


Insert offset folio 11 here 25242.011

evaluation and research facility, the National Airport Pavement Test Facility, and a UAS 

research and development simulation laboratory. 

Much of the work performed at the Technical Center is in partnership with private 

industry, academic institutions, other agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense, and international organizations. The 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and military entities also use facilities on the 

Technical Center campus. It is the home of the Federal Air Marshals Service training program 

and the DHS Transportation Security Laboratory, which includes specialized explosive storage 

and handling areas and a multi-laboratory infrastructure designed for applied research, and test 

evaluation. The U.S. Coast Guard Group Air Station Atlantic City, the U.S. Marshals Service, 

and the New Jersey Air National Guard !77th Fighter Wing are also based at the Technical 

Center. The Atlantic City International Airport is also on the Center's 5,000-acre campus. These 

other entities help to create a synergistic aviation-centered site that is without rival anywhere in 

the world. 

Leveraging Partnerships 

The Technical Center leverages the nation's significant investment in basic and applied 

research and helps to cultivate the next generation of aerospace engineers, managers, and 

operators through the Center of Excellence (COE) program. Authorized in 1990, COEs promote 

collaboration between government, academia and industry to advance aviation technologies and 

expand FAA's research investment through required non-federal matching contributions. 

The FAA established 12 COEs in critical topic areas focusing on: unmanned aircraft 

systems, alternative jet fuels and environment, general aviation safety, commercial space 

transportation, airliner cabin environment, aircraft noise and aviation emissions mitigation, 

3 
51 


Insert offset folio 12 here 25242.012

advanced materials, general aviation research, airworthiness assurance, operations research, 

airport pavement and technology, and computational modeling of aircraft structures., Through 

the COE program, the FAA has made a major commitment to support multi-year and multimillion dollar research efforts, ensuring coordination and innovation across the university teams 

that make up the various COEs. This investment has resulted in significant advancements in 

aviation science, technologies, and technology transfer. The COE program has included over 70 

institutions of higher learning and over 200 industry and government affiliates. Through their 

collaborative efforts, they have conducted research in areas which are critical to the FAA and the 

flying public. 

Research Areas 

Cyber security 

FAA recognizes that cyber security is one of our greatest challenges because threats 

change continuously. We know that the agency must be vigilant, particularly as we add new 

technologies and procedures into the NAS. It is important to incorporate cyber protection into 

everything that we do and to test and validate the effectiveness of those protections. 

The FAA's Cyber security Test Facility at the Technical Center serves as a research and 

development lab for finding new ways to protect the NAS from cyber risks and threats. This 

facility provides an open test bed for customers with security testing and prototyping needs. It 

also provides a way to test cyber scenarios without interfering with continuous operations of our 

actual air transportation system. 

FAA also is working with its national security partners to protect aircraft from cyber risks 

and threats. The Technical Center plays a vital role in the Aviation Cyber Initiative Research 

and Development (ACI R&D) program, which is utilizing a Boeing 757 aircraft at the Technical 

4 
52 


Insert offset folio 13 here 25242.013

Center as a test vehicle. The Technical Center is also supporting the Aircraft Systems 

Information Security Protection program to conduct research into vulnerabilities of information 

systems on aircraft. 

UAS Integration 

FAA is working with NASA and industry to develop a UAS Traffic Management (UTM) 

System. NASA's research concept specifically considers small UAS operations below 400 feet, 

in airspace that contains low-density manned aircraft operations. NASA developed a phased 

approach for its UTM concept, building from rural to urban and from low to high-density 

airspace. In April 2016, NASA coordinated with the six FAA-selected test sites to perform phase 

one testing of the UTM research platform. A Research Transition Team (RTT) has been 

established between the FAA and NASA to coordinate the UTM initiative, as the concept 

introduces policy, regulatory, and infrastructure implications that must be addressed as this 

technology moves forward. Additionally, the UTM work with NASA will inform our efforts 

with respect to UAS operating in proximity to airports. The UTM initiative focuses on operations 

in low altitude airspace. A second RTT has also been established with NASA to focus on UAS 

operating in higher altitude and controlled airspace. 

FAA is also working closely with its partners in government and industry to evaluate 

UAS-detection technologies. As directed in Section 2206 ofthc 2016 FAA Extension, the FAA 

has established a pilot program to evaluate some of these technologies, which have been tested in 

airport environments at New Y ark's JFK Airport, Atlantic City International Airport, and Denver 

International Airport. Further testing will take place at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport later this year. 

5 
53 


Insert offset folio 14 here 25242.014

Commercial Space 

Space transportation is no longer the exclusive domain of the government. A number of 

history-making achievements occurred in the last year, including the launch and landing of 

reusable rockets and progress toward the first commercial human orbital launches to ferry 

astronauts to and from the International Space Station. 

As the number of commercial space launches increases, FAA is focused on how we 

integrate these operations into the NAS. Currently, we accommodate these launches by blocking 

off a significant amount of airspace. We know this is not sustainable or affordable in the long 

term. The Technical Center is conducting research to develop approaches that will safely reduce 

the amount of airspace that must be closed to other stakeholders for launch and reentry 

operations; develop timely response capabilities to launch scenarios that do not proceed 

according to plan; and quickly release to other users airspace that is no longer affected. Part of 

this research includes prototyping a tool called the Space Data Integrator (SDI). The SDI 

receives time-accurate data directly from the launch or reentry vehicle, formats it, and routes it to 

the FAA's air traffic systems for use by air traffic controllers. FAA tested the SDI at a launch in 

December 2016 and plans to conduct tests at all of the upcoming launches at Cape Canaveral, 

Florida. 

Lithium Batteries 

FAA continues to be actively engaged in research and testing to develop technologies and 

procedures to improve the safe transportation of lithium batteries. In addition to their presence 

onboard aircraft as both cargo and in personal electronic devices carried by passengers, lithium 

batteries are increasingly installed in aircraft equipment. 

6 
54 


Insert offset folio 15 here 25242.015

The Technical Center's Fire Safety Branch conducted extensive testing to document the 

hazards from a variety of lithium battery types and sizes as well as the ability of existing aircraft 

fire protection features to mitigate or control fires involving lithium batteries. These tests 

demonstrated that the current fire suppression systems in passenger airplane cargo compartments 

cannot protect against a fire involving a bulk shipment oflithium batteries. Largely because of 

the FAA's test findings, a large number of airlines throughout the world voluntarily ceased 

shipping lithium batteries on passenger carrying aircraft, and Boeing, Airbus, and ICAO have 

recommended that airlines cease shipping lithium batteries until safer shipping methods are 

developed and implemented. 

New Aviation Fuels 

Avgas is the only remaining lead-containing transportation fuel. Lead in Avgas prevents 

damaging engine knock, or detonation that can result in a sudden engine failure. However, it is a 

toxic substance that can be inhaled or absorbed in the bloodstream. To help "get the lead out," 

the FAA is supporting the research of general aviation alternate fuels at the Technical Center. 

The Technical Center is working with the general aviation aircraft and engine manufacturers, 

fuel producers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and industry associations to 

overcome technical and logistical challenges in developing and deploying a new, unleaded fuel 

through the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI). 

In March 2016, FAA selected two unleaded fuels for Phase 2 engine and aircraft testing. 

In the near term, this effort will continue with the ground testing of 19 different engine models 

on proposed replacement unleaded fuels. Within months, the research will continue with the 

initiation of flight test activities. Testing will culminate at the end of2018 subsequent to the 

7 
55 


Insert offset folio 16 here 25242.016

operational flight test activities of 10 unique aircraft models under the full range of atmospheric 

conditions (e.g., hot and cold weather) on proposed replacement unleaded fuels. 

Airport Pavement 

With the implementation of new procedures from NextGen research, the role of airports 

will be to accommodate increased traffic safely. This is especially critical during aircraft 

operations in inclement weather. Increased traffic will necessitate efficient inspection and 

maintenance of our runways and taxiways. This will require development of technologies to 

heat airport pavements, reliable methods to assess the braking performance of aircraft, 

development of lighting and marking materials providing higher visibility, and development of 

new lighting technologies. 

In 2015, the Technical Center opened the National Airport Pavement and Materials 

Research Center (NAPMRC), which allows us to research environmentally-friendly pavement 

technologies that are more durable and locally available. This will help airport operators to save 

money by lowering the costs of initial construction, maintenance, and repairs, as well as by 

providing a longer pavement life. The NAPMRC is also capable of supporting the testing of 

materials other than pavement, such as marking paint technologies and rumble strips for 

preventing runway incursions. 

NextGen 

The Technical Center supports the advancement ofNextGen by providing the gateway 

for NAS system upgrades, improvements, and delivering of new operational capabilities. A 

number ofNextGen technologies were tested, validated, and began their nationwide deployment 

at the Technical Center. One example of the Technical Center's many contributions to 

modernizing our air traffic control system is Data Comm. Data Comm has changed the way that 

8 
56 


Insert offset folio 17 here 25242.017

air traffic controllers and pilots communicate. It supplements voice communications between air 

traffic controllers and pilots with digital text-based messages. 

Voice communications can be time consuming and labor intensive. For example, when 

planes are awaiting takeoff, controllers must use a two-way radio to issue new routes to pilots to 

help them avoid bad weather. This process can take 30 minutes or more, depending on how 

many aircraft are in line for departure. It also introduces the potential for 

miscommunication known as "readback/hearback" error. Data Comm dramatically reduces 

communications time, which results in faster taxi outs and reduced delays. Data Comm also 

enhances safety by virtually eliminating the chance of the flight crew misunderstanding the 

message from air traffic control. Data Comm is now operational at 56 air traffic control towers 

nationwide and is installed in 31 different types of aircraft. Expanded Data Comm services at all 

FAA en route air traffic control centers are planned beginning in 2019. 

Conclusion 

Aviation is marked by constant evolution. There will always be a need for research and 

evolving technology to meet new aviation needs. The Technical Center will continue to play a 

critical role in supporting the FAA's commitment to ensure that the United States continues to 

lead the world in the development of aviation technology while operating the safest and most 

efficient aviation system in the world. 

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer your questions at this time. 

9 
57 


Insert offset folio 18 here 25242.018

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

HEARING ON 

BUILDING A 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: ENABLING 

INNOVATION IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE 

TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017 

Questions for Ms. Shelley J. Yak, Director, William J. Hughes Technical Center, 

Federal Aviation Administration 

From Chairman LoBiondo Submitted On Behalf Of Congressman Paul Mitchell (MI-l 0) 

In your written statement, you note one of the biggest challenges the opportunities of 21st 

century aviation create are cyber security threats. You also note that at the Technical Center 

the FAA is working on these issues: 

QUESTION LoBiondo/Mitchell#l: Can you speak to the nature of some ofthe threats and 

scenarios the FAA is modeling at the Cyber security Test Facility? 

RESPONSE: The FAA Cybersecurity Test Facility (CyTF) provides a test environment that 

emulates the FAA operational infrastructure and systems and is used to perform 

cybersecurity testing in a laboratory environment. The nature of these tests focus on 

validating the effectiveness of the FAA cybersccurity controls against the cybersecurity 

vulnerabilities known or discovered; testing mitigation strategies and countermeasures 

solutions implemented within the FAA with a focus on the FAA critical infrastructure and 

systems. 

The objectives are to identify and/or validate the cybersccurity risk of the FAA ground-toground and air-to-ground infrastructure, resources and systems that are directly managed, 

leased or operated to support the mission requirements of the FAA. Current testing and 

future plauning includes end-to-end modeling of specific FAA services identified in the 

National Airspace System (NAS) Enterprise architecture. The nature of these tests are to 

validate specific known cybersecurity threats of the existing FAA mission services, measure 

the effectiveness of FAA cybersecurity controls and continue to evaluate new threats as they 

evolve over time. 

Scenarios such as evaluating the effectiveness of security controls for the FAA boundary 

gateways, potential vulnerabilities with exchanging information between external users, and 

validating the internal security of the FAA network are examples of the types of testing being 

performed. 

1 
58 


Insert offset folio 19 here 25242.019

The CyTF is also being used to assess the FAA's Cybersecurity Incident Response Process 

(IRP) and Procedures. Human-in-the-loop exercises are conducted in the CyTF operating 

environment that contains subsets of the FAA's operating domains and critical infrastructure. 

The FAA IRP exercises are conducted annually at the CyTF so that FAA cyber-attack 

defenders can assess their security defense processes and procedures. Various cyber-attack 

scenarios are developed that employ common attacks such as spear phishing, malware 

injection, insider threats, distributed denial of service, zero-day attacks and advanced 

persistent threats. 

The FAA will leverage the CyTF to further develop its threat modeling process and include 

future testing. This process will become integrated into the system development lifecycle as 

part of a broader FAA effort to incorporate cybersecurity into the development and 

acquisition of new technologies for the NAS and across the agency. Specific near-term test 

scenarios include end-to-end testing of FAA resources required for exchanging flight 

planning and traffic management information. 

QUESTION LoBiondo/Mitchell#2: Since threats are always occurring and constantly 

evolving, what is the FAA doing to ensure protections and countermeasures evolve as well? 

RESPONSE: The FAA is actively involved in a number of efforts focused on cybersecurity 

threat awareness, protection, and countermeasures. For example, the FAA is enhancing its 

agency-wide cybersecurity threat model to further enable the agency's understanding of 

cybersecurity threats. The cyber threat model is a risk-based management method that 

utilizes defined, repeatable processes to determine the Agency's cybersecurity threat 

susceptibility, operational impacts, risk and corresponding countermeasures. This includes 

identifying methods for improving cybersecurity analyses, strategic and tactical responses, 

and cybersecurity information sharing, internally and externally. As cybersecurity threats 

evolve, the FAA continues to review and validate the effectiveness of its protections and 

controls through system level and broader end-to-end testing, advanced tools for penetration 

testing and cybersecurity best practices. 

The FAA has also developed internal cybersecurity exercises and participates with external 

organizations such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense 

(DOD), and industry partners such as the Aviation Information Sharing and Analysis Centers 

(A-ISAC) to ensure that not only the FAA has effective technical controls in place but to also 

validate the effectiveness of the agencies' processes and procedures in responding to events. 

The FAA model includes: 

• Improved threat collection, threat analyses, and threat coordination and fusion to 

create actionable information; 

2 
59 


Insert offset folio 20 here 25242.020

• Boundary Protection: Enhancement of secure access gateways that support 

communications between the FAA and external entities; 

• Cybersecurity Operations: Enhancement of data flow, behavioral analytics, 

situational awareness and cyber event monitoring capabilities across all FAA 

operating domains; 

• Public/Private Partnership: Expanded integration with Industry and Other 

Government Agencies (OGA) to promote cybersecurity information sharing. 

FAA also tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Aircraft Systems 

Information Security Protection (ASISP) Working Group to leverage industry expertise for 

recommending policy, guidance, regulations, and international harmonization actions to 

secure and protect information systems onboard aircraft and rotorcraft. And the FAA is 

participating in the interagency Aviation Cyber Evaluation (ACE) effort to assess potential 

cybersecurity vulnerabilities to commercial aircraft. 

To ensure coordination and communication across the FAA, our Office of National Security 

Programs and Incident Response (AEO) chairs an Aviation Systems Vulnerability Working 

Group designed to rapidly coordinate response to suspected or potential cybersecurity 

vulnerabilities to aircraft or aviation operations and develop remediation plans to quickly 

address them. 

QUESTION LoBiondo/Mitchell#3: Assuming the worst happens and a cyber-attack is 

successful, what fail safes and redundancies are, could, and should be built into the current 

system and NextGen? In that same vein, immediately after a successful attack, what 

response plans and remedies would the FAA have at its disposal? Please be as specific as 

possible; I want to ensure there is a specific, actionable plan to protect our systems and 

airspace. 

RESPONSE: 

What fail safes and redundancies are, could, and should be built into the current system 

and NextGen? 

The FAA's critical infrastructure that provides the Mission Critical Functions is a close and 

tightly controlled operating environment that was designed to provide secure operational 

availability of services and ensure the safety of the flying public. These design concepts 

include a safety and security requirement of assuming that at some point and time there will 

be a disruption. The FAA's operational design of its critical infrastructure identifies the 

critical functions and services that are required within each of the regional airspaces and are 

replicated across all 22 regions, or customized as appropriate. If there is an operational 

disruption, adjacent regions provide support through a distribution of airspace, workload and 

functions until normal operations are achieved. 

3 
60 


Insert offset folio 21 here 25242.021

To further support these design and operational concepts of redundancy and failsafe, the 

FAA has implemented regional automation and manual controls for each of the 22 regional 

airspaces to prevent or limit widespread outages. Other critical functions and systems 

operated by the FAA follow similar concepts to ensure resiliency of the mission functions 

and systems that support those functions. 

NextGen brings new capabilities to the NAS to support resiliency and continuity objectives. 

While the capabilities aren't specifically to address cyber attacks, they are to make the NAS 

more resilient in the event of outages for any reason. Capabilities in some cases provide 

redundancy, in some cases provide for more efficient and flexible rerouting of airspace and 

NAS resources, and in some cases remove the risk associated with point-point connections 

through network solutions. 

Immediately after a successful attack, what response plans and remedies would the FAA 

have at its disposal? 

The plans for failure and recovery of critical resources are well documented and established 

for the FAA NAS operating environment which include the FAA Administrators goal to 

ensure each regional airspace can be restored to 90% capacity based on Airport and terminal 

airspace arrival rates within a 24 hour period and En Route services to be restored to 90% 

operational effectiveness within 96 hours. 

The FAA Cybersecurity Incident Response Process (IRP) and FAA Order 1370.121, FAA 

Information Security and Privacy Program & Policy, documents the FAA's cybersecurity 

incident management and response processes and creates a standard framework for FAA 

stakeholders to follow for cybersecurity incident response. Procedures outlined in the IRP 

govern all information systems controlled or owned by the FAA and collective customers 

associated with the FAA. It provides the process for identifying, protecting, detecting, 

responding to, and recovering from a security event. It ensures the proper protocol is 

followed in order to contain the threat and recover from it when a breach is detected. 

FAA's IRP is tested annually through simulations and exercises conducted at the 

Cybersecurity Test Facility (CyTF). Through these exercises, operators are able to 

experience an event in a realistic setting using their tools and procedures. The IRP applies to 

all FAA employees, contract personnel, and other persons who have authorized access to 

FAA information systems, as well as any organization or entity that has a memorandum of 

agreement (MOA) with the Security Operations Center (SOC) involving cybersecurity 

incident management. The IRP also aligns with the incident response recommendations in 

NIST SP 800-61, Revision 2, and Computer Security Incident Handling Guide. 

4 
61 


Insert offset folio 22 here 25242.022

QUESTION LoBiondo/Mitchell#4: How does the FAA interact with air carriers and other 

users of the system? What is the process for the private sector to report attacks or suspected 

attacks? What kind of support and training does the FAA provide when attacks occur? I 

would like to know more about how the FAA interacts with users of the system on cyber 

security and cyber-attack issues. 

RESPONSE: 

How does the FAA interact with air carriers and other users of the system? 

Internally, the FAA follows FAA Order 1370.12, FAA Information Security and Privacy 

Program & Policy, in the coordination and reporting of cybersecurity events. Externally, the 

FAA's Office of Security and Hazardous Materials Safety (ASH) and FAA Security 

Operations Center established processes and multiple forums to exchange cybersecurity 

information with public and private sector entities. The FAA is continuing engagement on 

cybersecurity information sharing with the Aviation Information Sharing and Analysis 

Center (A-ISAC), a private industry information security group; Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), through the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center 

(NCCIC), to include the US-CERT and the ICS-CERT; and partners in the Intelligence 

Community (I C). 

Additionally, the FAA routinely communicates with air carriers on aviation security and 

safety concerns during scheduled meetings with cleared air carrier security directors and 

other air carriers via the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The FAA has also 

been regularly engaged with air carriers on purposeful cybersecurity concerns and incident 

analysis. 

What is the process for the private sector to report attacks or suspected attacks? 

Currently, there is no requirement for the private sector to report cyber-attacks or suspected 

cyber-attacks to the FAA or the U.S. Government. The private sector may voluntarily report 

to DHS, or the Aviation Information Sharing and Analysis Center (A-ISAC) or Multi-State 

Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC), which arc private industry supported 

and funding cybersccurity information sharing and collaboration organizations. DHS may 

provide cyber support in the event of a cyber-attack or intrusion, if requested, in accordance 

with Presidential Policy Directivc/PPD-41, U.S. Cyber Incident Coordination. DHS also 

provides training to both public sectors and other government agencies if requested. 

In the event of a cyber-attack, the FAA would take appropriate action to protect the FAA 

infrastructure and services it provides to maintain Air Traffic Operations. If there is an attack 

that the FAA cannot handle directly, the FAA works with other government organizations 

such as Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Bureau ofinvestigations (FBI) 

and other organizations as appropriate to help resolve problems and follows national policy 

to coordinate with the DHS organizations as appropriate. 

5 
62 


Insert offset folio 23 here 25242.023

What kind of support and training does the FAA provide when attacks occur? 

To further enhance cybersecurity for the aviation industry as a whole, the FAA is 

undertaking an effort to identify cybersecurity risks across the aviation ecosystem. The 

aviation ecosystem is Comprised of Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP), Air lines, 

airport authorities, airline and avionics manufactures, Department of Defense (DOD) and 

other key stakeholders. The FAA is working with government, public and private sector 

entities within the aviation ecosystem to develop and identify a common understanding of 

functions, roles and responsibilities as they relate to the phases of flight. This effort 

facilitates identification of those cybersecurity risks that may impact safety and cause 

disruption to the efficient operation of the NAS. The results of this effort will be the 

identification of appropriate mitigation strategies to reduce cybersecurity risks across the 

aviation ecosystem. Execution of tasks in support of this effort requires collaboration across 

the aviation ecosystem, domestically and internationally. 

As a charter member of the Aviation Cybersecurity Initiative (ACI), an interagency 

partnership including DHS, Department of Defense (DoD), FBI, and Office of the Director of 

National Intelligence (ODNI), the FAA is engaged in testing efforts to explore cybcrsecurity 

vulnerabilities of aircraft systems. Under the auspices of the FAA Cyber Steering Committee 

(CSC), the Aviation Systems Cyber Vulnerability Working Group comprised of 

representatives across FAA organizations, has been established to address reported aviation 

systems cybersecurity issues and coordinate the agency response to these issues. 

Training includes FAA's participation in the National Intelligence Management (NIM) 

Aviation cyber-related working group and in table top exercises where cleared private 

industry representatives are invited to participate. As well as annually testing FAA's 

Cybersecurity Incident Response Process through simulations and table top exercises with 

system operator involvement. 

6 
63 


Insert offset folio 24 here 25242.024

Marke "Hoot" Gibson, Senior Advisor, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration, 

Federal Aviation Administration, responses to minority-side questions for the record 

Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Oregon 

QUESTION: 

Mr. Gibson, I understand that the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) UAS Integration 

Office coordinates frequently with other lines of business within the agency in its work to 

integrate unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace. Please describe what this 

coordination entails. Additionally, please provide a couple of specific examples of collaboration 

between the UAS Integration Office and other FAA offices and benefits or successes that have 

resulted from such collaboration. 

ANSWER: 

The UAS Integration Office (AUS) collaborates regularly with other lines of business and staff 

offices throughout the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as it works to safely integrate 

UAS into the most complex airspace system in the world. AUS leads regular executive-level 

cross-agency meetings to coordinate across policy stakeholders and discuss and resolve issues. 

Examples include: 

• Weekly "Hot Topics" meetings to review events and hot issues for the week. 

• UAS Budget "Tiger Team" meetings to coordinate funding for UAS activities and 

resolve budget issues. 

• UAS Board meetings between the Deputy Administrator and Associate and Assistant 

Administrators to communicate and coordinate UAS policy issues and provide strategic 

Agency direction on UAS integration. 

AUS also works with other FAA Lines of Business and Staff Offices on overarching initiatives, 

such as rulemaking, legislative mandates, and strategic agency-wide planning. Examples of 

cross-agency collaboration include: 

• Air Traffic Organization (ATO) - ATO is responsible for managing safe and efficient air 

traffic in the National Airspace System (NAS). This includes facilitating airspace access 

for all users, including commercial manned aviation, general aviation, UAS, and 

commercial space. 

o Example of collaboration: In addition to approving and authorizing airspace 

access for all UAS operations, ATO works with AUS to support the Focus Area 

Pathfinder Program. A TO provided the framework and technical assistance for 

the Safety Risk Management Panels (SRMP) needed to authorize airspace access 

for both Pathfinder 2 (PrecisionHawk) and Pathfinder 3 (BNSF). The SRMP, 

which is a necessary component to determine risk, facilitated UAS operations that 

had never before been conducted under FAA regulations. This also required 

coordination and technical expertise from the Flight Standards Service (AFS). 
64 


Insert offset folio 25 here 25242.025

Marke "Hoot" Gibson, Senior Advisor, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration, 

Federal Aviation Administration, responses to minority-side questions for the record 

• Office of Airports (ARP)- ARP is responsible for ensuring that the national airport 

system is safe, efficient, and environmentally responsible. As part of the FAA efforts to 

integrate UAS, ARP is assessing the impact UAS operations will have on traditional 

airport activities. 

o Example of collaboration: AUS and ARP are collaborating to enable airport 

operators to use UAS on an airfield when appropriate. Increasingly, airports are 

requesting means to utilize U AS at airports to assist in emergency response, to 

maintain the integrity of the airports operations areas, and for aerial surveying and 

imagery. In January 2017, the FAA granted the Hartsfield-} ackson International 

Airport authorization to operate in Class B airspace for the purposes of 

construction site inspection surveys. This authorization allows the airport to save 

time and money while further enhancing its facilities. This required coordination 

between ARP, ATO, and AUS. 

• Aviation Safety (A VS)- A VS is responsible for the certification and approval process 

for airmen and aircraft, and is further responsible for developing regulations to ensure the 

safety of the people and parts of the aerospace system. While AUS falls under AVS, there 

are many opportunities for collaboration with other A VS offices, including Flight 

Standards (AFS), Rulemaking (ARM), and Aircraft Certification (AIR). 

o Example of collaboration: While the different offices within A VS are 

continuously cooperating to facilitate UAS integration, one of the most prominent 

examples is the creation ofUAS regulations. The small UAS rule, Title 14 CFR 

Part 107, was the result of extensive and long-term collaboration between 

numerous offices throughout the FAA, spearheaded by A VS offices working in 

tandem. A VS offices are currently working on the next regulatory steps for UAS 

operations, including rules that will provide a path for beyond visual line-of-sight 

operations. 

• Office ofNextGen (ANG) In addition to planning and developing the Next Generation 

Air Transportation System, ANG oversees the William J. Hughes Technical Center and 

directs the research of the FAA Centers of Excellence (COE). Both the Technical Center 

and the COE perform research critical to FAA's UAS integration goals. 

o Example of collaboration: AUS works closely with ANG to ensure appropriate 

execution of research by the Technical Center and the UAS Center of Excellence, 

both of which are managed by ANG. AUS coordinates the definition of research 

requirements, and AN G ensures proper research execution, providing the FAA 

with results to develop rules and standards that enable safe operations. Recently, 

the UAS COE released the first in a series of research reports on UAS collisions 
65 


Insert offset folio 26 here 25242.026

Marke "Hoot" Gibson, Senior Advisor, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration, 

Federal Aviation Administration, responses to minority-side questions for the record 

with people on the ground. These reports are an important component to inform 

the next phase of regulations. 

• Office of Finance and Management (AFN)- AFN, which includes the Office of 

Information and Technology (AIT), provides critical operational support to the FAA, 

including budget and IT services. 

o Example of collaboration: In the interest of providing a streamlined experience 

for UAS operators, AUS is working closely with ATO, AFS, and AFN, 

specifically AIT, to establish an integrated online UAS portal for all UAS 

applications. This portal will combine UAS registration, Part 107 airspace 

authorization and waiver requests, and airmen certification and training under one 

platform. 

• Office of Security and Hazardous Materials Safety (ASH)- ASH is the FAA office 

responsible for protecting the integrity and security of those who work in or support the 

National Airspace System. It is the agency liaison with federal, state and local law 

enforcement communities who have an interest in aviation safety. 

o Example of collaboration: ASH leads the Law Enforcement Assistance Program, 

which supports federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to investigate 

unsafe or unauthorized UAS operations and facilitate information sharing 

between these agencies and the FAA. AUS regularly works with ASH and AFS to 

provide the most up-to-date information to law enforcement agencies on UAS 

regulations and policies, as well as facilitate investigations into unsafe or 

unauthorized UAS use. 

o Additionally, AUS works very closely with ASH and other Federal partners to 

evaluate UAS detection technologies in airport environments, in support of the 

U.S. Government's counter-UAS activities. Recent evaluations were performed at 

DIA and DFW, which involved a team of FAA support staff from AUS, ATO, 

ASH, and ANG. 

The examples listed above are a snapshot of the many ways in which the FAA is working 

together to safely integrate UAS. As the number ofUAS in operation grows, and requests for 

more complex operations and more automation increase, the FAA is working diligently to meet 

the demand. The pace at which this technology evolves is a unique challenge for the FAA, and 

we recognize that consistent internal communication and cooperation will ensure continued 

progress. 
66 


Insert offset folio 27 here 25242.027

Marke "Hoot" Gibson, Senior Advisor, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration, 

Federal Aviation Administration, responses to minority-side questions for the record 

Question from Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington 

QUESTION: 

Mr. Gibson, as you know, last December, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) placed a 

hold on its notice of proposed rulemaking for commercial UAS operations over people and 

operations that go beyond the operator's line of sight. According to industry stakeholders, this 

rulemaking will be vital to the full integration ofUAS into the national airspace. Can you please 

update us as to what the FAA is doing now to resolve any issues with this rulemaking and to 

move it forward in an expeditious manner? 

ANSWER: 

The FAA recognizes the interest in expanding operations so that unmanned aircraft may be 

flown over people and beyond visual line of sight, and is working to ensure these types 

operations are conducted safely. In addition, the FAA recognizes there are also security concerns 

that must be addressed. To this end the FAA will: (1) bring the industry and national security 

leadership together later this year to discuss and address these concerns, and; (2) establish an 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), comprised of a diverse group of stakeholders, to 

recommend standards for remotely identifying and tracking unmanned aircraft, which is one of 

the law enforcement community's top concerns. We anticipate the ARC's recommendations will 

pave the way for expanded drone operations. 
67 


Insert offset folio 28 here 25242.028

Testimony of 

Gregory S. McNeal, JD/PhD 

Co-Founder, AirMap 

Professor, Pepperdine University 
68 


Insert offset folio 29 here 25242.029

Mr. Chairman LoBiondo. ranking member Larsen. members of the committee. It's a pleasure 

to speak with you about the future of innovation in our national airspace system. To look forward 

and understand the challenges ahead of us, I think it's important to look back to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA 2012). which many of you participated in drafting. A mere five 

years ago, Congress directed the FAA to make plans for integrating drones into the National Airspace 

System. At the time, the drones many of us were thinking about were Predators and Reapers, flying 

above far off battlefields. In the 5 years since then, we've witnessed millions of small unmanned 

aircraft enter the national airspace system, a system that is struggling to handle this volume of new 

entrants. The drone ecosystem is growing exponentially: already, twice as many unmanned aircraft 

than manned aircraft are registered with the FAA, and we expect the trend to continue. 

Without significant changes, two things are likely: first, America will no longer hold a preeminent place as a world leader in aviation, and our most innovative businesses will take their technology abroad. Second, the safety of the flying public will be jeopardized. 

These issues of innovation and safety are closely intertwined. We cannot properly manage the 

complexity of unmanned aircraft sharing our skies without airspace automation and modernization. 

Because our airspace is one of the busiest and most complex in the world, our need for innovation 

and automation is most pressing. And yet, we are already seeing other nations move more quickly 

to develop infrastructure to automate traffic management and clear the way for unmanned aircraft, 

drone delivery, and the growth of the commercial drone industry. Japan will begin drone delivery 

in 2018 (Appendix A), while Europe expects to implement Unmanned Traffic Management, or UTM 

(Appendix B), in 2019 or 2020. The American UTM system will not be fully implemented until2025, 

according to the latest NASA/FAA timelines (Appendix C). 

Let's consider an example that illustrates the current system's inability to predict and anticipate future challenges. In 2015, the FAA published their proposed rule for Small Unmanned Aircraft 

(the rule that eventually became Part 1 07). In that proposed rule, the FAA declared that small unmanned aircraft could not operate in controlled airspace without prior authorization from Air Traffic 

Control. Despite writing a rule that required unmanned aircraft operators to obtain authorization for 

flights in controlled airspace, the FAA did not create a system to handle such requests. In fact, such 

a system will not be deployed until 2018 (See Appendix D, Appendix C), more than three years after 

the proposed rule was announced. This might not be a problem if the lack of systems for authorizing 

flights discouraged drones from flying in controlled airspace. But senior FAA officials have publicly 

admitted that they know or believe that individuals are already operating in controlled airspace, even 

without a system in place to ensure those individuals are accountable. 

That system is not in place, but the technology to implement it already exists. Fourteen 

companies are participating in the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) 

process (See Appendix D, E. F, G) and have told the FAA they are ready to deploy at no cost to the government. Many more want to do the same. If companies are ready to work with the FAA to deploy 
69 


Insert offset folio 30 here 25242.030

automation at no charge to the agency, what accounts for the delays? First the agency understands 

that they may need to rethink the way they do business- transitioning from their role as an acquirer 

of systems at a cost to the taxpayer, to a new one as the creator of frameworks, processes and standards that companies must meet, spurring competition and delivery of services by approved vendors. 

Second, numerous organizational problems hamper progress, including a lack of automation at ATC 

facilities (some of which even lack the internet), reliance on outdated modes of mapping (sometimes 

requiring facilities to hand draw grids with pen and paper and fax them back to headquarters), and a 

lack of coordination across business units within the agency. The FAA is an agency filled with hard 

working people who are doing their best to deal with 21" century challenges with outdated, 20'h 

century ways of doing business. 

If it sounds like I'm blaming FAA leadership or employees, let me make clear that I am not; 

these are organizational challenges that are inherent in a system that presumes that a government 

agency can move at the speed of innovation. The FAA was caught off guard by the pace of innovation 

and the rapid proliferation of this technology. In fact in the FAtls economic analysis accompanying 

Part 107 regulations, published in February 2015, the FAA stated that "The FAA estimates that approximately 7,550 commercial small UAS would be operating at the end of five years after the effective date of the final rule." That estimate was wildly off. By the time Part 107 was finalized, there 

were already 5,521 commercial operators, and within 5 days of the rule being finalized an additional 

2,570 people took the Part 107 test. Assuming there is no double counting in those numbers, the 

FAtls prediction of 5 years to reach 7,550 operators was off by 4 years and 360 days and the volume 

of users has continued to increase.1 In short, returning to the theme of this hearing, our government 

cannot always predict the future. When these predictions are wrong, they are difficult to remedy, 

because of the nature of budget planning and the challenges of keeping up with advances in technology. 

At first blush, it may sound like these are structural problems that are extraordinarily hard to 

solve, and some are. But there is substantial room to make improvements. Looking back five years, 

we've learned an important lesson: that only Congressional action with clear direction and mandatory deadlines has ensured that our infrastructure and agencies keep pace with innovation. For 

example: 

0 In Section 332 of FMRA 2012, Congress called for UAS operations in the Arctic, operations 

that take place today. 

0 In Section 333 of FMRA 2012, Congress created an exemption process, which was implemented soon after. 

0 In Section 334 of FMRA 2012, Congress directed that public safety officials may operate unmanned aircraft weighing 4.41bs and below, operations that take place across America today. 

0 In Section 336 of FMRA 2012, Congress carved out protections for hobby and recreational use 

1 Even if we set aside the 333 exempted operators, the number of Part 107 commercial operators exceeded the FAAs 7,550 esti- mate in a mere 33 days, 4 years and 332 days early. 
70 


Insert offset folio 31 here 25242.031

of unmanned aircraft weighing up to 55 pounds, flights that also happen every day. 

D In Section 2202 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016, Congress directed 

industry and the FAA to work together to create remote identification standards (appendix 

remote 10). Now, work has begun on that initiative. 

The trend line is clear: when Congress directs outcomes and provides concrete dates for 

when they must be achieved, innovation takes flight. So, what can Congress do to ensure innovation 

continues? 

1) Congress must expand on Section 2208 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 

2016 and ensure that the FAA operationalize and fully implement a UTM system by 2020. 

Otherwise, America will fall behind other nations and businesses will cast their eyes 

abroad. (See Appendix B, Appendix A, Appendix C, Appendix 1.) 

2) Congress should direct the agency to move beyond UAS test sites that move only at the 

pace of the FAA, and instead encourage the states to act as laboratories of democracy. A 

federalism approach to low risk operations in the very low altitude airspace will encourage competition and innovation amongst the states. 

3) When Congress seeks to mandate a certain outcome from the FAA, Congress should continue to direct the agency to work with industry standards bodies, rather than through 

rulemaking. Industry standards are fast, flexible, and take account of the most recent 

advances in technology. 

4) Congress should make clear the dividing line between reasonable time, manner and place 

restrictions that states may impose on unmanned aircraft and those areas that are the 

exclusive domain of the FAA. A failure to clarify this dividing line will result in a patchwork of judicial decisions that will doom the industry and state and local governments to 

a decade or more of litigation. 

5) Congress should look to the success of the U.S. commercial space industry and the legislative frameworks that have worked for that industry, and adopt similar presumptions 

for advances in unmanned aircraft technology, especially for operations involving BVLOS 

flight (Appendix J). swarms, package delivery, autonomous passenger carrying VTOL aircraft, and electric aircraft. 

American entrepreneurs, and the flying public have benefited from Congressional direction. 

History has proven that the best way to foster innovation is for Congress to take action to empower 

innovation and help the FAA hit key milestones. Now is the time for Congress to act again to keep 

the nation on track. 
71 


Insert offset folio 32 here 25242.032

Appendix A: Rakuten Air Map, Inc. 

BVLOS Flights 

Solutions to help Japan's regulators open the skies for 

drones, even in "densely inhabited districts" where 

drone flight is currently prohibited. Rakuten AirMap 

helps commercial drone operators fiy safely and securely beyond visual line of sight- from automating waiver 

processes to providing tools for UTM and real-time flight 

planning and navigation. 

Drone Delivery 

Rakuten launched its Sora Raku Rakuten Drone delivery 

service in April 2016, including a successful LTE-powered delivery to the mayor of Chiba City, Toshihito 

Kumagai, from over 40km away Rakuten AirMap's UTM 

platform will support airspace managers seeking to 

open surrounding airspace for drones and innovations 

like drone delivery by 2018. 

Airspace Authorization 

Designate sensitive areas requiring authorization before 

flight. Airspace managers- which in Japan includes 

owners of critical infrastructure, universities, airports, 

municipal governments, and other stakeholders- can 

specify digital authorization requirements, accept digital 

flight notices, and communicate safety-critical information directly to drones and drone operators in real time. 

Situational Awareness 

Delivering real-time airspace intelligence to recreational 

and commercial drone operators in Japan. Drone pilots 

use the Rakuten AirMap UTM platform to learn about 

the rules and conditions in their flight area, create flight 

plans, and share them with nearby airports and authorities. 

AIRMAP 

www.airrnap.com/rakuten 
72 


Insert offset folio 33 here 25242.033

Appendix B: Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) 

Real-Time Deconfliction 

AirMap partners with the FAA and others for RTCA 

D0-200A data and PASSUR, the aviation intelligence 

provider to airlines and airports worldwide, to deliver 

real-time collision avoidance capabilities to drones 

Situational Awareness 

The AirMap UTM platform allows drone manufacturers 

like DJI, Sensefly, and Intel to deliver AirMap's airspace 

information and services to their end users directly from 

the drone's flight control software. 

Remote Identification 

The AirMap platform includes a suite of security solutions for remote identification, encrypted communications, and the protection of critical infrastructure lor the 

safe integration of drones worldwide 

Route Optimization 

Today, millions of drones rely on AirMap's airspace data 

to navigate safe and efficient routes, including controlled airspace, nearby traffic, temporary flight restrictions, local weather, and more. 

Automated Airspace Authorization 

AirMap's notice and authorization technology empowers 

airspace authorities to automate authorization when 

conditional requirements are met and to interact directly 

with operators in real time. 

Dynamic Geofencing 

AirMap makes it easy for drone manufacturers to 

incorporate geofencing and authorized unlocking directly 

into a drone's firmware. For example, the OJI GEO flight 

control app is powered by AirMap to provide the safest 

operating environment possible. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com 
73 


Insert offset folio 34 here 25242.034

Appendix C: Timeline 

The diagram above outlines NASA and the FAAs proposed timeline for the full development and implementation of 

Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM), with complete UTM implementation planned for 2025. 

Important progress has been made towards critical UTM milestones, and AirMap continues to be a partner in the 

NASA-FAA UTM project. testing UTM technologies and participating in the development of UTM standards. 

Airbus is projected to begin flying car trials in 2017 and companies across the drone ecosystem. including AirMap, are 

already offering technologies for UTM. U.S regulators have the opportunity to harness innovation to realize a tully 

operational UTM system in alignment with progress industry-wide. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com 
74 


Insert offset folio 35 here 25242.035

Appendix D: Low-Altitude Authorization & Navigation Capability (LAANC) 

Low-Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) describes a digital system that allows for 

the instant authorization of drone operations in controlled airspace by third party UTM Service Suppliers 

(USS) like AirMap. The system is based on contextual airspace rules designated by the Federal Aviation 

Administration. LAANC authorizes commercial flight plans taking place in controlled airspace that match 

up to ATC-approved airspace grids that are identified as low-risk or pre-approved for drone flight 

LAANC streamlines and digitizes the current authorization process for drone operations in controlled airspace. Today. FAA authorization is a manual process that takes up to 90 days. With LAANC, authorization 

is automatic and instantaneous. LAANC drives efficiency while removing the need for administrative work 

by human resources. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com 
75 


Insert offset folio 36 here 25242.036

Appendix E: Airports 

Airspace Authorization 

Designate sensitive areas requiring airspace authorization before flight. Specify digital authorization 

requirements to streamline flight planning and approval 

protocol. Communicate safety-critical airspace information directly to drones and drone operators in real-time. 

Flight logs Archive 

AirMap facilitates easy and automated record-keeping 

for current and past drone operations in authorized 

airspace. Access details including path, altitude, speed, 

distances. and duration. 

Digital Notification 

A drone operator files an encrypted digital flight notice. 

which is shared on the airport's secure dashboard of ongoing operations in that airspace. Airspace authorities 

can choose to automate responses or interact directly 

with the operator in the event of authorization requests. 

Situational Awareness 

The AirMap platform allows drone manufacturers like 

DJI, Sensefly, and Intel to deliver AirMap's airspace 

information and services to their end users directly from 

the drone's flight control software. 

Deployed at 125 airports, including: 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com/stakeholders 
76 


Insert offset folio 37 here 25242.037

Appendix F: Manufacturer Integrations 

Situational Awareness 

The AirMap platform allows drone manufacturers 

like OJ I, Sensefly, Intel, and others, to make AirMap's 

airspace information and services, including RTCA D0-

200A data, available to end users. 

Real-Time Deconfliction 

AirMap has partnered with the FAA, PASSU A, and 

uAviomx to deliver location-based information of nearby 

aircraft directly to drone operators and drones for 

real-time collisiOn avoidance. 

Remote Identification 

The AirMap platform includes a suite of security solutions for remote rdentification, encrypted communicatrons, and the protection of critical infrastructure lor the 

safe integration of drones worldwide. 

Dynamic Geofencing 

AirMap makes it easy for drone manufacturers to use 

AirMap's airspace services to prevent drones from 

inadvertently operating amid hazards like wildfires or 

temporary flight restrictions. 

User Authentication 

AirMap and OigiCert partnered to deliver Drone 10, 

a publrcly-trusted SSL!flS certificate that facilitates 

instant verification of a drone's identity via digital certificate for drone authentication and encryption. 

Notice and Authorization 

AirMap's notice and authorization technology enables 

drone operators to send encrypted digital flight notices 

or requests for authorization from an AirMap-integrated 

drone directly to airspace authorities. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com/manufacturers 
77 


Insert offset folio 38 here 25242.038

Appendix G: Developer Platform 

Status API 

Is it safe to fly? Integrate AirMap's low-altitude airspace 

intelligence platform into third party software to inform 

end users of airspace requirements, including advisories, and notice requirements. 

Airspace API 

Bring AirMap's robust, trustworthy, and accurate low-altitude airspace intelligence to your software. Includes 

RTCA 00-ZOOA data as well as information about critical infrastructure, obstacles, weather. TFRs, and more. 

Flight API 

Empower end users to create and query flights, verify 

that flight requirements are met, and provide digital 

notice to or request authorization from designated 

airspace authorities. 

Pilot API 

Let end users manage their pilot profile, including contact details, registration number, and preferences, and 

verify pilot identity for added security. 

Aircraft API 

Includes metadata about a pilot's drone, including manufacturer. model. weight. speed, performance, and type 

Maps API 

Customize the look/style of your AirMap-powered applicatron with a TrleJSON spec for use with Mapbox Gl. 

Platform SDKs 

AirMap makes it easy for software developers to get up 

and running with interactive airspace data for applications built for Javascript, Android, iOS, & Apple Watch. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com/developers 
78 


Insert offset folio 39 here 25242.039

Appendix H: Remote Identification 

SSL(fLS certificates are a digital technology commonly used to secure communications on the internet and 

in the Internet of Things (loT} ecosystem. Today, a competitive ecosystem of more than 1.480 certificate 

authorities provides SSL(fLS certificates to millions of web sites and loT devices. Each SSL(fLS certificate 

establishes a pair of digital "keys" that are used to encrypt and/or digitally sign information shared with 

others. On the Internet. this is information shared between websites and their users (for example. your data 

is protected by a SSL(fLS certificate when you use an online banking site}. When an individual sends data 

to a website with https. it is encrypted with a public key. designated by a lock next to web link in the address 

bar. Only the web page visited has the private key needed to decipher the message. 

Certificates can be used to provide a range of benefits to drones. If a drone broadcasts information about 

itself or its flight without a digital signature. that information is unverified, and the recipient cannot tell if 

this information has been modified or spoofed. If this information is "digitally signed" by an SSL(fLS certificate. the authenticity and integrity of the message can be verified, and it can be confirmed as belonging 

to a specific drone. The SSL(fLS certificate helps to ensure that the drone's identity can be trusted and has 

not been spoofed or hacked. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com 
79 


Insert offset folio 40 here 25242.040

Appendix H: Remote Identification (cont.) 

SSL/TLS certificates can also enable three steps of trusted remote identification for drones: 

1. Verification 

A Certificate Authority validates the drone operator's email address. phone number, name. and address and issues 

a x509 certificate SSL/TLS certificate. The certificate includes a unique identifying number for the drone. akin to a 

car's license plate. and a Remote ID URL. where authorities can learn how to access more detailed information in 

the case of an investigation. 

2. Broadcast 

The drone securely broadcasts its identifying number and Remote ID URL to those on the ground. Broadcast is 

available via technologies already on board most drones. or that require a firmware upgrade. such as WiFi Aware 

or Bluetooth Smart An internet connection. such as LTE. can also be used, but local broadcast allows for data 

exchange in areas with limited or no data coverage. 

3. Access 

Authorities and others on the ground v·1ew the drone's 10 number and Remote ID URL via a mobile app on their 

smartphone. tablet. or other device. The drone's position is visualized on a map; users tap to view the drone's 10 

number and Remote ID URL Members of the public can use the drone's ID number to report issues to authorities. 

but cannot access personally identifying operator details. 

·--~------·-------.. _______ , _________ _ AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com 
80 


Insert offset folio 41 here 25242.041

Appendix I: First Responder Activity 

Wildfires 

AirMap makes FM-published temporary ftight restrictions available to millions of drone operators. However, 

the vast majority of wildfires start and spread faster 

than the time it takes to communicate and post the 

hazard. 

In July 2016, the US Department of the Interior 

partnered with AirMap to publish wildfire information 

from the Department's s incident command system as it 

happens and immediately push it to drone pilots through 

AirMap's iOS, Android and web apps, AirMap's API, and 

the GEO geofencing system in the OJI GO flight control 

software application. 

First Responder Activity 

AirMap also enhances situational awareness for drone 

pilots and safety for everyone through the availability 

of First Responder Activity, which provides data about 

fires. electrical and gas hazards, medical emergencies, 

tornados, tsunamis, rescue operations, and more. 

Drone operators can see first responder activity from 

more than 2,100 U.S. communities. For safety and security of first responders, the exact location and category 

of emergency is not disclosed to drone pilots. Drone 

operators use this information to plan safer routes that 

won't interfere with the efforts of firefighters and emergency responders- prohibited by law in most states. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com/first-responder-activity 
81 


Insert offset folio 42 here 25242.042

Appendix J: Beyond Visual Line-of-Sight (BVLOS) 

NASA-FAA UTM BVLOS Trials 

In the future, millions of drones will fly billions of flights. 

These drones will need a complex universe of data to 

understand the environment around them- and tools 

to communicate and deconflict with others in low-altitude airspace. The majority of drone operations will be 

beyond the visual line-of-sight of an operator, or without 

an operator at all in the case of autonomous drones 

AirMap is a partner in the NASA-FAA UTM project. a 

collaboration between regulators and private industry 

that is testing and harmonizing technologies needed to 

realize UTM in the United States. 

Rakuten AirMap,lnc. 

E-commerce company Rakuten leads the way in efforts 

to realize BVLOS drone delivery in Japan. Rakuten 

launched Sora Raku drone delivery service in April2016. 

Since then, Rakuten has flown several ground-breaking 

test flights. including a successful LTE delivery flight to 

the mayor of Chiba City. Toshihito Kumagai, over 40km 

away. 

Rakuten AirMap, Inc. is a joint venture with the goal of 

bringing AirMap's technology solutions for Unmanned 

Traffic Management IUTM) to Japan for BVLOS operations at scale. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com/rakuten 
82 


Insert offset folio 43 here 25242.043

Gregory S. McNeal, J.D., Ph.D., Cofounder, AirMap and Professor, Pepperdine University, 

response to question for the record 

Question from Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington 

QUESTION: 

Mr. McNeal, in your written testimony, you urged Congress to clarifY the "dividing line" 

between restrictions that the Federal government may impose on UAS operations, and those that 

State or local governments may impose. To this point, in your oral testimony, you described how 

the Federal Aviation Administration does not know the constantly changing conditions in local 

environments and therefore would be unable to make appropriate rules regarding UAS 

operations in those areas. In your opinion, where should Congress draw this "dividing line"? 

Please specifically identity any factual examples involving actual or proposed UAS operations in 

or around localities or other political subdivisions of States that may have led you to this 

conclusion. 

ANSWER: 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), state, tribal, and local governments, as well as 

industry, are each working hard to determine the most efficient integration of drones into the 

national airspace. Each of these players play a unique role in drone integration. Unless all 

players work together, drone integration will be delayed. For drones to safely and efficiently 

integrate into the airspace over America's local communities, our laws must evolve, and we must 

recognize that while drones are aircraft, they are a fundamentally new type of aircraft that 

operates in areas where manned aircraft have rarely, if ever, flown. 

Congress plays an important role in helping establish the appropriate role of each player. Right 

now, there is uncertainty regarding who has jurisdiction over low-altitude drone operations. 

Uncertainty slows innovation. Congress can help industry thrive by creating clear dividing lines 

between the roles of FAA and state, tribal, and local governments for low-altitude operations. A 

failure to do so will result in a decade or more oflitigation with wasted resources on the part of 

industry, state and local governments and the FAA. Drawing a line above which state and local 

governments may not make rules will help minimize the potential for litigation, and prevent 

unnecessary conflicts. 

At the March 2017 FAA UAS Symposium, FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety 

Peggy Gilligan recommended that anyone with concerns about drones operating unsafely should 

contact local law enforcement. Ms. Gilligan also recommended that when a drone is disabled 

during flight, the operator should also contact local law enforcement. However, there is 

currently no legal framework for local law enforcement to participate in the regulation of 

unmanned aircraft at low altitude. Local law enforcement in many states cannot enforce Federal 

law, and in most instances, they are not interested in enforcing Federal law. Based on feedback 

I've received from state, tribal and local government partners, they are interested in making 

reasonable rules about the time, manner, and place of drone operations. 

If local officials are to make such reasonable time, manner, and place rules, where should their 

authority end? We've seen state and local officials attempt to regulate up to 500ft, and there is a 

clear appetite amongst some local stakeholders to push the envelope. While their concerns are 
83 


Insert offset folio 44 here 25242.044

Gregory S. McNeal, J.D., Ph.D., Cofounder, AirMap and Professor, Pepperdine University, 

response to question for the record 

honestly held, a compromise should be sought. The most logical approach is to place a 200ft 

altitude restriction on the authority of state and local governments to make reasonable rules. 

There are a few reasons for this. First, the FAA requires only obstacles 200 feet or higher to 

appear on navigational charts. For decades the agency has ignored obstacles below 200ft (with a 

few limited exceptions). This is because the agency lacks insight and resources to effectively 

regulate airspace below 200 feet. However, state, tribal, and local governments know their 

community and low altitude airspace, these are the areas between buildings, adjacent to 

residences, and above city streets. The closer an operation gets to the ground, the more it 

impacts areas that are the traditional focus of state and local governments. 

For example, local governments know when emergency medevac helicopter operations are 

taking place, they know that the courthouse parking lot is closed on Saturdays from 9:00 am12:00 noon because it hosts a farmers market, they know that the high school football stadium is 

filled with people every other Friday night when there is a home football game, they are 

coordinating and aware oflow altitude manned aviation agricultural operations, and tribal lands 

are aware of and manage sacred ceremonies. Drone operators likely do not know that safety 

dictates they should avoid those areas during those times and enjoy their operations in other 

areas. A system where the FAA has exclusive jurisdiction for interstate commerce above a 

dividing line (perhaps 200 feet) and shares jurisdiction under that dividing line with state, tribal 

and local governments for reasonable time marmer and place conditions on drone use will help 

expedite drone integration by marshalling the resources of our federalist system. 

Drones will bring considerable benefits to both the private and public sector. These operations 

are likely to occur near airports, high wind areas, parades, and large gatherings of people areas 

where manned aircraft have rarely if ever flown. Leveraging the input from FAA, and through a 

framework developed by Congress, state, tribal, and local governments and industry will help 

ensure that drone integration happens more quickly. 

2 

#50907621_v3 
84 


Insert offset folio 45 here 25242.045

amazon ~ 

Hearing on 

"Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Enabling Innovation in the National Airspace" 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

United States House of Representatives 

April4, 2017 

Testimony of 

Sean Cassidy 

Director, Safety and Regulatory Affairs 

Amazon Prime Air 

Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking Member Larsen, thank you for inviting me to testify. My name 

is Sean Cassidy, and I am the Director of Safety and Regulatory Affairs for Amazon Prime Air. Unmanned 

aircraft systems (UAS), or drones, have the potential to revolutionize the way that businesses operate 

across a broad range of industries, delivering immense safety, utility, economic, environmental, and 

humanitarian benefits. I appreciate this Committee's commitment to ensuring the United States realizes 

the tremendous benefits of this technology in a safe and secure manner. As a commercial airline pilot for 

nearly 20 years and previously First Vice President and National Safety Coordinator of the Air Line Pilots 

Association (ALPA), I am intimately familiar with the complexity of the National Airspace System (NAS) 

and the responsibility that all stakeholders have when it comes to safely integrating UAS. 

I'd like to first provide a brief overview of the technology and safety systems behind Amazon 

Prime Air. 

Page 1 
85 


Insert offset folio 46 here 25242.046

Testimony of Sean Cassidy 

Apri/4, 2017 

Page2 

Amazon Prime Air 

Amazon Prime Air is a service designed to safely deliver packages to customers in 30 minutes or 

less using drones. Flying below 400 feet, and generally above 200 feet, except for takeoff and landing, 

Prime Air UAS will utilize sophisticated equipment, including automated, on-board sense-and-avoid 

technologies, to ensure safe operations at distances well beyond the visual line of sight (BVLOS) of the 

operator. 

We have Prime Air development centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Austria, and 

Israel, and we are testing in multiple countries. In July 2016, we received permission from the UK 

government to conduct package delivery tests oriented around BVlOS operations. And as part of an 

ongoing customer delivery trial in the UK, in December 2016, we successfully completed our first Prime 

Air delivery near Cambridge- just 13 minutes after the customer placed the order. From the point that 

the package was loaded onto the drone, the operation was fully autonomous. 

I am also pleased to announce that with the assistance of the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), we performed ourfirst U.S. delivery demonstration last month in Palm Springs, California. We have 

also committed to join NASA, the FAA, and the Nevada Institute for Autonomous Systems (NIAS} in an 

Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) technical capabilities demonstration in May 2017, at the Reno test 

site. 

The United States, through the hard work of the FAA, NASA, Congress, and industry stakeholders, 

has been a leader in the development of UAS technology. However, if the United States wants to maintain 

a leadership position - and keep the thousands of technical jobs associated with UAS development, 

deployment, and operations- there are three actions that this Committee and the FAA can take: 
86 


Insert offset folio 47 here 25242.047

Testimony of Sean Cassidy 

Apri/4, 2017 

Page3 

1) Enacting enabling regulations that establish the structural building blocks for safe and 

secure UAS integration into the NAS; 

2) Allowing commercial operators to conduct BVLOS customer package delivery trials; 

and 

3) Creating an expedited, performance-based, operator certification pathway for 

commercial UAS. 

I. Structural Building Blocks for Safe and Secure Integration 

Just as the introduction of traffic signals heralded a new era of safety and efficiency at the dawn 

of the 20'h century, a critical component of a safe and successful commercial UAS industry in the United 

States is a UTM system that will facilitate operations of highly automated- and in some cases, 

completely autonomous- UAS, in low altitude airspace, BVLOS, and over people. UTM is an automated 

traffic management system that is separate from, but complementary to, the existing air traffic control 

system. Industry stakeholders, NASA, and the FAA are all working collaboratively to establish a UTM 

system that will allow UAS to safely and seamlessly integrate into the NASby introducing protocols for 

real-time identification and separation of airborne traffic, which will be enabled by an interoperable and 

overlapping system of multiple service suppliers. 

Operators will be able to access this cloud-based internet UTM system in a number of ways, 

including cellular or satellite connections that ensure reliability of communications. As we develop this 

UTM system, we should also look at leveraging automotive vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-toinfrastructure technologies. While the UTM system will be subject to FAA safety and policy oversight, it 

could be built and managed by operators without placing a significant cost burden on the government. 

Amazon has been a NASA UTM research and development partner for years, and we were 

pleased to see Congress embrace the need for UTM in the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 
87 


Insert offset folio 48 here 25242.048

Testimony of Sean Cassidy 

Apri/4, 2017 

Page4 

2016 (FAA Extension Act), which directs the FAA to develop a UTM research plan and establish a twoyear pilot program beginning April2017. This is a welcome first step, yet the FAA Extension Act does not 

require implementation upon conclusion of the pilot program. Without an implementation 

requirement, this and other complementary efforts, such as the FAA Drone Advisory Committee's 

airspace integration work, may be lost. 

Similarly, security and accountability are top priorities for government and the UAS industry 

alike. FAA's current UAS registration requirement mandates an on board registration number for 

vehicles weighing more than 250 grams. This is a good first step, but it is incomplete insofar as it only 

provides for identification after an undesired event occurs. We agree with Congress that, with some 

exceptions, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies should be able to easily and quickly 

identify UAS - both commercial and recreational - in a remote manner (Remote ID), as contemplated 

in section 2202 of the FAA Extension Act. This is similar to how cars can be linked to drivers via license 

plates and registration records. 

As a part of a standardized Remote ID system, we assume the existence of a database, subject 

to FAA oversight, that contains one unique ID per registered UAS- commercial and recreational. This 

database would link this unique vehicle ID to a specific owner/operator. The details of this database 

would not be publically accessible, but the ability to confirm whether or not a given ID is valid- and 

that the operator is authorized to fly in a certain area (but not who the operator is) - would be 

viewable to all. Amazon does not support anonymous operations of UAS, with limited exceptions such 

as for those conducted in pre-approved model aircraft/hobbyist flying fields. 

We were pleased to see the FAA Administrator's recent announcement that the FAA will 

establish a Remote Identification Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to develop standards for 

remotely identifying and tracking UAS. There are inexpensive and readily available solutions that 
88 


Insert offset folio 49 here 25242.049

Testimony of Sean Cassidy 

Apri/4, 2017 

PageS 

leverage technologies such as Wi-Fi and cellular communications that can be quickly and effectively 

implemented, and we look forward to participating in the ARC process. 

Remote identification and the other aforementioned safety and security efforts are critically 

important, but if this industry is to succeed, these activities must move in parallel with the development 

of a forward-leaning regulatory framework for commercial UAS. Further, we believe the industry can 

provide critical assistance in developing mechanisms to mitigate security risks. The FAA was scheduled 

to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for commercial UAS operations over people at the 

end of 2016, but the rulemaking process has been put on hold indefinitely until security concerns that 

were expressed by one or more agencies that sit on the UAS Executive Committee (ExCom) can be 

addressed. Therefore, we respectfully ask Congress to direct the ExCom to resolve these issues with 

industry stakeholders and move the NPRM forward expeditiously. 

To further promote safe and secure UAS operations, a process should be established to 

designate no-fly zones above sensitive fixed site facilities and a pilot project should be created for 

airport safety and hazard mitigation, both of which would meet requirements in the FAA Extension Act. 

We also believe education and training requirements are critical to ensuring the safety of our skies and 

of people and structures on the ground. 

Lastly, it is important that these structures provide national uniformity. There are a number of 

state and local UAS laws and ordinances that jeopardize safety and inhibit innovation. As noted by the 

FAA, a "patchwork quilt of different restrictions could severely limit the flexibility of FAA in controlling 

the airspace and flight patterns, and ensuring safety and an efficient air traffic flow." (FAA Fact Sheet on 

State and Local UAS Regulation, December 2015.) National standards will prevent duplicative and 

burdensome restrictions on the UAS industry- just as they have for the broader aviation industry. 

There are already dozens of state and local drone laws in effect, and hundreds more that have been 

considered, which intrude on the FAA's safety authority and may stifle the development of the UAS 
89 


Insert offset folio 50 here 25242.050

Testimony of Sean Cassidy 

Apri/4, 2017 

Page6 

industry. The industry is eager to work with the FAA, alongside state and local governments, to preserve 

traditional police powers and privacy rights; however, all state and local governments must recognize 

the FAA's authority over pilots, aircraft, and the navigable airspace. 

II. Customer Package Delivery Trials 

As we look back, 2016 was a productive yearforthe nascent commercial UAS industry. The 

implementation of FAA's rule for the Operation and Certification of Small UAS, otherwise known as Part 

107, was a positive initial step that enabled basic commercial UAS operations. However, to realize the 

full potential of this technology, the regulatory framework must continue to evolve. Part 107 focused 

predominately on operations within the operator's line of sight, and contained specific provisions that 

prohibited commercial delivery via BVLOS operations. BVLOS operations under current rules are 

permitted only by waiver, and not allowed in any respect when the flights involve carriage of property 

for compensation or hire. Similarly, operations directly over people are only permitted by waiver. To 

date, only one such waiver has been granted and its operational limitations would not permit delivery 

operations. For Amazon Prime Air, the collective effect of these restrictions greatly limits our ability to 

perform private customer delivery trials and expanded testing in the United States - similar to what 

we're already doing in the UK- that would provide a bridge to full commercial operations. 

FAA reauthorization bills passed in 2016 by the Senate and the House Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee, as well as sections 2207 and 2210 of the Extension Act, recognized the value 

of BVLOS operations; however, to date, only a few BVLOS waivers have been granted by the FAA. 

Delivery operations are contingent upon the ability to reach consumers and businesses that are located 

beyond the immediate vicinity of the operator. UAS must also be able to fly in populated areas to 

efficiently conduct a variety of operations beyond delivery, such as building structural inspections and 

land surveys, which underscores the need to move forward with the FAA's NPRM for operations over 
90 


Insert offset folio 51 here 25242.051

Testimony of Sean Cassidy 

Apri/4, 2017 

Page 7 

people. A regulatory structure that relies upon time consuming and complex processes for waivers and 

exemptions will not adequately support the development of this industry. 

Ill. Expedited Operator Certification Pathway for Commercial UAS Delivery Providers 

While we have been encouraged by the level of responsiveness shown by the FAA's UAS 

Integration Office, Air Traffic Organization and Flight Standards and Certification branches, significant 

challenges still exist in making the transition to commercial operations. 

Since Part 107 was created to provide operating approvals absent formal underlying 

airworthiness certifications for UAS, a regulatory gap exists between the operations permitted by the 

rule and more complex commercial BVLOS operations. Currently, there is no difference between the 

operating certificate and airworthiness requirements for manned cargo aircraft, and those for any UAS 

operation not covered by Part 107, which includes commercial delivery operations. They fall into the 

same category, yet their risk profiles could not be more different. This demonstrates the need for a 

more clearly defined regulatory pathway that establishes required safety and performance standards 

specific to commercial BVLOS operations. We have had collaborative discussions with the FAA regarding 

the certification pathway for package delivery operations; but in the absence of a specific regulatory 

framework, the process could take several years. 

Enacting comprehensive FAA reauthorization legislation in 2017 represents a major opportunity 

to support and expedite the continued growth of the U.S. commercial UAS industry by providing for 

safe, routine, and widespread UAS operations, including delivery. 

The 2016 FAA reauthorization bill that passed out of this Committee included a bipartisan 

provision directing the Department of Transportation {DOT) to establish a new class of air carrier for 

UAS package delivery providers. In order to prevent regulatory delay and ensure a path forward for 

operational approvals, we respectfully request that Congress again direct the DOT and the FAA to 
91 


Insert offset folio 52 here 25242.052

Testimony of Sean Cassidy 

Apri/4, 2017 

PageB 

quickly establish a streamlined and risk-based air carrier certification process specifically tailored to UAS 

package delivery operations. 

The success of the UAS industry and its ability to provide services such as package delivery to 

customers is contingent upon a regulatory framework that does not require operators to go through a 

complex waiver and exemption process for what will eventually become routine operations. 

Requirements for UAS research and development testing, obtaining operational permissions, and 

establishing the FAA rulemaking processes necessary to support safety and innovation, should be 

streamlined to ensure the United States keeps pace with this technology. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, while Prime Air is driven by our desire to meet customer's demand for safe, rapid 

and efficient delivery capabilities, we are also incredibly excited about the benefits such a service will have 

on the overall transportation system. Not only will it increase the overall safety and efficiency of the 

current transportation system, Prime Air's commitment to reducing overall carbon footprint through the 

use of electrically-powered UAS will also make a positive overall environmental impact. 

We applaud Administrator Huerta for recognizing the urgency of the situation in stating that, with 

regards to UAS, we need "regulation at the pace of innovation." We agree with this sentiment and look 

forward to continuing to work with Congress, the FAA, and all stakeholders to establish the structural 

building blocks for safe and secure UAS integration, to enable commercial operators to conduct customer 

package delivery trials, and to create an expedited operator certification pathway for UAS delivery 

providers. We are committed to ensuring that important commercial UAS services become available in 

the United States safely and soon. I am happy to answer any questions. 

******* 
92 


Insert offset folio 53 here 25242.053

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION HEARING ON 

"BUILDING A 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: 

ENABLING INNOVATION IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE" 

APRIL 4, 2017 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Responses from Sean Cassidy, Amazon Prime Air, to Rep. Rick Larsen: 

Question 1. Mr. Cassidy, why will the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) rule making for commercial 

UAS operations over people and operations that go beyond the operator's line of sight be important to your 

company? 

Response: Amazon Prime Air is a future service that will deliver packages to customers in 30 minutes or less 

using small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). This service is dependent on the ability to reach consumers 

and businesses that are located beyond the line of sight of the operator and, in many cases, in areas that will 

require operations over people. However, current regulations effectively prohibit these types of operations 

for package deliveries, which is why we support continued rulemaking to allow for expanded operations. 

Question 2. Mr. Cassidy, in your written testimony, you describe the "regulatory gap" that exists between 

commercial operations permitted under the FAA's small UAS rule and more complex operations that go 

beyond the operator's line of sight. Please elaborate. 

Response: While the FAA's Part 107 small UAS rule allows for some limited beyond line of sight operations 

through waivers, it specifically prohibits beyond line of sight delivery operations. Therefore, conducting 

beyond line of sight delivery operations via drone would currently require going through same air carrier 

certification process that applies to commercial airlines or obtaining an equivalent exemption from 

regulations that were designed for manned aircraft. Neither option is practical or carries any level of 

certainty. 

Therefore, we would like to see the Department of Transportation and FAA develop an air carrier 

certification program specific to commercial UAS operations. These safety requirements would be 

performance-based and parallel those for on-demand air carriers/air taxi operators of manned aircraft. This 

certification program is similar to what was proposed in last year's House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee and Senate-passed FAA reauthorization bills. Establishing a new certification program will ensure 

commercial UAS operators have a dedicated pathway to demonstrate they can safely conduct operations. 

Question 3. Mr. Cassidy, on January 20, 2017, the Trump administration issued a memo titled "Regulatory 

Freeze Pending Review," which, among other things, put a hold on all Federal regulations until they are 

reviewed and approved by a Presidential appointee. As you know, this could prevent an agency like the FAA 

from issuing timely regulations aimed at efficiently integrating UAS into the national airspace. What do you 

believe the consequences of such a Federal "regulatory freeze" would be on companies like Amazon? 

Response: In order for the drone industry to grow and meet consumer demand for new and innovative 

services, we need regulations that keep pace with the safety, security, and privacy concerns raised by this 

rapidly evolving technology, which is why we would like to see regulations on remote identification and 

tracking implemented as soon as possible. 
93 


Insert offset folio 54 here 25242.054

Testimony before 

United States House Transportation 

Subcommittee on Aviation1 

"Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: 

Enabling Innovation in the National Airspace" 

4 April2017 

Statement of 

Calvin C. "Trey" Fayard1 Ill 

Founder and CE01 Fl YGLO LLC 
94 


Insert offset folio 55 here 25242.055

Introduction 

Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, Chairman loBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen and 

members of the Aviation Subcommittee, my name is Trey Fayard and I am Founder and CEO of 

FLYGLO LLC, based in New Orleans, LA. On behalf of myself and my company, thank you for the 

opportunity to come before you today and testify. 

I come before you today to present to you what we believe is an innovative model of air service 

for the consumer and business traveler that is meant to complement current existing air carrier 

operations. 

History of GLO 

First a bit about GLO. GLO was established in 2013 as in indirect air carrier whose mission is to 

provide air transportation services to inadequately served cities in the Southeastern United 

States, particularly the Gulf and Mid-South region. GLO is based in New Orleans, LA (MSY) and 

currently flies regularly scheduled non-stop service to Shreveport, LA, Memphis, TN, Huntsville, 

AL, little Rock, AR. We also operate seasonal service into Fort Walton Beach, Fl (VPS) from 

both New Orleans and Little Rock, AR. 

Our first flights launched in November 2015. Our flights are offered under GLO's DOT Part 380 

indirect air carrier authority, with GLO flights operated on GLO's behalf by a partner operator 

holding FAA Part 135 commuter air carrier authority, an authority GLO itself is now seeking. 

The Idea for GLO began when, in my former life as a practicing attorney, I was spending hours 

on the road driving between mid-market cities. Many of my clients and colleagues were also 

disappointed with the lack of convenient, reasonably priced air service between smaller cities in 

South and Midwest. For example, before GLO, there were three options for one-way travel 

between New Orleans, LA and little Rock, AR: 1) Drive six and a half hours on 2 tanks of gas (13 

hours roundtrip); 2) Fly commercial with connections in either Dallas or Atlanta for an average 

cost of $750.00 (round trip), and a door-to-door time of 4 hours; or 3) fly privately for $5,000, 

also round trip. 

Additionally, as the members of the committee likely know, in the late 90's legacy airlines 

largely shifted flying from smaller cities to major hub cities and formed partnerships with 

regional carriers for short haul operations with fifty (50) to seventy (70) seat airplanes. Under 

the legacy model, increasing the volume of passengers became more profitable than servicing 

smaller communities, and this left a gap in non-stop services between mid-market cities. 

Granted there are small airlines that operate to small communities, often subsidized via the EAS 

program. 

However, GLO is different. 
95 


Insert offset folio 56 here 25242.056

First, GLO seeks to fill the niche between overserved larger markets and existing small market 

programs. 

Second, unlike other commercial air programs, our model does not rely on any governmental 

subsidies. We are 100% free-market driven and our revenue is 100% based on passenger 

demand.1 

Third, we have been able to create good paying jobs in communities that often struggle to do 

so. Our fleet currently consists of 3 Saab-340b Aircraft, capable of seating 30 passengers, 

equipped with a lavatory, galley and flight deck. Our flights are staffed by a captain, co-pilot and 

flight attendant. We believe our service levels rival or exceed that of any of the major carriers. 

We currently have around seventy (70) employees with an average salary of $43,000/year with 

some, like our more skilled mechanics, making almost six figures. 

Fourth, the demand is there. Not only do we believe the gap in service to these mid-markets 

has huge potential, we know that it fosters economic development in the regions we serve. 

For instance, as I was traveling on our New Orleans to little Rock Flight last week, I met two 

medical device salesmen whose region encompasses the ARK-LA-TEX region. A weekly flight on 

GLO has replaced what was a weekly conference call, with hotel rooms, entertainment, meals 

and other dollars being infused into those communities as a result. Importantly our small but 

growing route network will carry almost 4,000 passengers this month alone. 

By way of comparison I would ask the committee to please keep in mind that we started with 

zero. 

Barriers to entry 

Given the rosy picture I have painted you may be wondering, 'why aren't there more GLOs or 

GLO-type service providers?' Or perhaps even more importantly, how can my community, 

district, or region, attract GLOor its own GLO-type service? 

Well, like all industries, barriers to entry exist; but in the aviation services industry as you all 

likely know, those barriers indeed can be quite high. To the extent these barriers can be 

streamlined the likelihood of successful repetition of our model goes up. 

To that end, in this age of consolidation and legacy carriers, we would ask the committee to 

consider the hurdles and challenges of gaining entry to the world of commercial air travel, and 

how easing these barriers of entry can not only make new service providers like GLO more 

complementary to existing options, but also serve the American public well. 

1 GLO has been awarded various tourism and marketing grants administered by the local airports in markets in 

which we operate, and are profoundly grateful for the generosity and support provided to us by these 

communities. 
96 


Insert offset folio 57 here 25242.057

Increased access to investment capital and streamlined certification process 

First, access to capital is crucial, and venture capital is expensive. Aviation is a complex 

business, with atypical metrics compared to other industries, including tremendous working 

capital requirements, unique payment terms and timing challenges, as well as a constant battle 

to right-size cost structures, fare offerings, and appropriately match demand. And of course, 

there's always bad weather. 

Additionally, despite our unique model and proven demand current regulatory structures do 

not seem able to accommodate new entrants. Specifically, due to existing federal regulations, 

there is a period of about eighteen (18) months on average that it takes to get one aircraft on a 

Part 135 or Part 121 certificate. Without this certificate, you may not fly. 

Until full certification is achieved, GLO currently occupies a sort of hybrid space between mega 

charter broker and a direct air carrier. We are technically a public charter operator, working 

diligently to try and obtain certification, and our flights are regularly scheduled and our fleet is 

dedicated to our exclusive use. 

GLO is a small, entrepreneurial start-up. We do not have the backing of a parent company and 

thus we are exposed to tremendous financial risk as we struggle to prove our model and move 

towards certification. Accordingly, in our first year of operations, GLO's early investors and the 

GLO team have invested substantial cash and sweat equity into proving the founding concept 

and preparing GLO for future growth. 

We would ask the committee to consider streamlining this certification process and for it to 

continue promoting investment into aviation. To the extent both this certification process can 

be streamlined or expedited, and the universe of investors-aviation specific and otherwisecan be educated on the economic benefits of regional air travel, service providers like GLO can 

flourish. 

Keeping fees and taxes low 

Additionally, after procuring initial start-up funding and securing the required regulatory 

approvals, New Entrant Regional Carriers like GLO face significant challenges in terms of their 

cost structures and their ability to attract customers. 

Specifically, passing airport real estate fees and charges across a 30-seat airplane, particularly 

while building a passenger base from zero, can be a daunting proposition. 

New Entrants like GLO rely on shared risk programs with partner airports which generally take 

the form of short term expense relief on some rates and charges plus joint marketing programs 

very often supported by federal grants. 
97 


Insert offset folio 58 here 25242.058

It is also often the case that airport staff will assist new entrants by sharing publicly available 

(albeit expensive) route analysis data. 

In short, new entrants need close partnerships with airports desiring to restore or start nonstop service on thin route segments. We would ask that the committee continue to support 

these sorts of partnerships. 

Additionally, as an all-in solution to air travel needs, GLO prides itself on its pricing structure 

which includes a complete fare price. That is to say when our customers book they see a total 

all-in cost including bags and snacks on board. 

Any increase in tax or fee such as the Passenger Security Fee necessarily increases the total cost 

of tickets. These changes disproportionately affect carriers like GLO with moderate fares. This 

is something GLO wishes to avoid so as to encourage air travel versus other means of 

transportation in these underserved areas. 

As you know the current Passenger Security Fee is $5.60 for each one-way flight, which is 

significant given GLO's fare pricing structure. We would ask that the committee continue to 

work to keep fees and taxes low. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, we would ask the committee to consider these challenges and create legislation 

that will encourage new entrants like GLO to the aviation passenger services industry, thereby 

creating high quality, good paying jobs, bringing innovation to the sector, and promoting freemarket and choice for the consumer. 

After sixteen (16) months of operations we believe we have proven that the demand is there, 

that our vision and model is the right one for these mid-sized cities, and that with the right 

priorities and investment in aviation infrastructure the future is bright for the air travel 

industry. 

We need your help and are honored to have been able to be here today to provide you with 

some of our thoughts in your mission to bring safe, affordable quality air service to the 

American public. I am happy to take any questions and thank you again for your time. 
98 


Insert offset folio 59 here 25242.059

Statement of Brian Whiteside 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Aviation Subcommittee Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for 

America: Enabling Innovation in the National Airspace 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee thank you for allowing me to 

present today, 

My name is Brian Whiteside and I am the COO of Complier Enterprise a 

company based in Corvallis Oregon. We consist of three divisions, VDOS 

Global a company I founded which provides Drone Operations as a service, 

Training for enterprise clients who want to certify their drone operations, and 

Drone Complier our safety and enterprise management software that 

enables companies to comply with federal and corporate polices in a simple 

safety management system. We have 23 employees split between the 

United States and Australia. Some recent milestones include being selected 

as the official compliance app for the sub 2kg class of Drones by CASA (the 

Australian version of the FAA), certifying over 1000 drone operators, 

receiving the nation's first commercial Section 333 waiver for refinery 

inspections and being the first company to legally fly commercial drone 

operations in the Gulf of Mexico. We perform operations as far north as 

inside the Arctic Circle and have performed operations throughout the US 

and Australia. Our clients range from environmental groups such as the 

World Wildlife Fund to large energy producers such as Shell Oil and Exxon 

Mobil. Users of our software include numerous Universities and large 

companies to small start-up operations. 

I support the Drone community in various means, I am the President 

Emeritus of the Cascade Chapter of AUVSI (Association of Unmanned 

Vehicle Systems International), I was appointed by our Governor last year to 

our State Aviation Board, and I am a member of the Helicopter Association 

International UAS Committee. 

I started flying before I could drive, at age 15. I used to bike to the airport 

and finished my manned aviation carrier after serving in the Navy as an F/A18 pilot. My first job as a civilian was as the Director of Operations for the 

Naval Unmanned Systems Integration Activity at the Naval Weapons Station 

China Lake. I helped the Navy stand up flight operations for numerous UAVs 

and wrote the safety plans and airspace integration plans for unmanned 

aircraft. I was tasked with coming up with the method of how to integrate 

Page 1 of4 
99 


Insert offset folio 60 here 25242.060

slow moving unmanned aircraft with tactical aircraft using the same runways. 

The reason I bring this up is that I have some unique experience in airspace 

integration with proven success. In 2009, I started working at Evergreen 

Aviation as the Executive VP of Evergreen Unmanned Systems. We were 

the nation's first commercial UAV company and flew the lnsitu Scan Eagle 

as our workhorse platform. Our first commercial flights were in the Arctic 

performing research on how to study cetaceans using unmanned aircraft. In 

2011, I started my company VDOS and have remained focused on the 

commercial application of unmanned systems. Last year in 2016 we merged 

with RPAS training out of Australia and formed Complier Enterprise the 

company we are today. The reason I chose to get into unmanned systems 

after the Navy was because of some of the work I did as an operational test 

pilot. We were tasked with helping the navy understand the world of 2025 

and beyond. This forecast would help the Navy develop the acquisition 

cycles to counter the future threats. Based upon what I learned, the future 

was clear and I had to find a job that was a part of this new developing 

technology. 

Our world is changing rapidly. The technology that we forecast is coming to 

fruition close to what was anticipated with the caveat that it often happens 

faster than predicted. This pace of change is the same challenge that you 

as legislators have to face with regard to drafting policies and that applies to 

technology changing faster than legislation can be enacted. I know I am 

here to speak to the use of Drones and what we are doing in the employment 

of the technology but I feel it is important to set a foundation of where we are 

in the timeline of change. This applies to drones because the future of this 

technology is one where the physical hardware will cross domains in ways 

we don't use today. The drone of the future will be more of a robot that can 

drive, walk, and fly. When considering the FAA re-authorization act we need 

to understand that this technology has broad reaching implications not only 

in how we live but who we are and what we will become as a species. To 

get far enough ahead of the technologic curve to draft legislation we must 

know where we are going. The airport of the future will not be what we think 

of today, it will be your backyard. 

We also need to appreciate the transformational shift that is about to occur 

with the generation growing up. Today's grade schoolers are going to look 

at technology in a radical new way that none of us in this room can 

appreciate. This new robotic generation will trust automation over their own 

skills. Once this trust is accepted we will never go back to the way we 

Page 2 of4 
100 


Insert offset folio 61 here 25242.061

function today. My children are 8 and 10. By the time they turn 16 we will 

have driverless cars on the road. It will be safer for them to ride in that 

driverless car than it will be for them to sit behind the wheel. They are going 

to have a trust in technology that we in this room don't understand. For the 

first time, we have a generation growing up that will believe that automation 

is safer than not having it. They will trust automation for their cars, buses, 

planes, homes etc. This radical shift in mindset is only a few years away 

from happening. They will expect to have autopilots and automation in all 

aspects of their lives. 

Why is this important to what we are talking about today? It is important 

because the pace at which we pass laws and regulations is way behind what 

is happening in the real world. More jobs and research will continue to leave 

the United States to countries where companies can innovate in a permissive 

environment. I have a brief from the FAA around 2010 that states that drone 

airspace integration will be passed within a year. We are still waiting. We 

are still forced to operate in an environment that makes investment and 

growth incredibly difficult because of the lack of clearly defined rules and 

objectives. The FAA has made tremendous progress from where we were 

in 2009. In one of our early meetings with the FAA we were told we would 

have to prove that we would not hit a skydiver over the Arctic Ocean. Part 

1 07 was a good first step but it has come late. Many other countries around 

the world have allowed licensed commercial drone operations for years and 

the result is a US market that has fallen behind in the development of drone 

technology and utilization. One aspect of drone operations we are still keen 

to see happen is the ability to fly beyond line of sight. Many countries around 

the world allow this and license such operations. In Australia, this has been 

happening for a few years with great success. 

We are currently in the process of two such waiver request one in Oregon 

and one in Texas. For our client in Oregon we are using the Pendleton Test 

Site to help develop technology to fight Elephant Poaching. In Texas, our 

client wants to use drones to detect methane leaks, oil leaks, asses 

infrastructure and power line stability. This client has a very strong safety 

case for why drones will improve their operation, and beyond line of sight 

operations is the key component to contracting this work. 

Because of the way, FAA operations are approved innovation and growth is 

stifled in the US. It is very difficult to invest and commit resources when there 

is no guarantee or any timeline in which that can be achieved. This has two 

Page 3 of4 
101 


Insert offset folio 62 here 25242.062

significant detrimental effects: first, it takes the innovation out of small 

businesses and leaves it to large companies that can afford the lengthy 

timelines required and second, it drive jobs out of America to countries where 

the technology can be developed. If the reauthorization act is going to be 

successful it must cut regulations and focus on how it can create jobs. The 

FAA should also understand not just the safety case but the financial impact 

of a nebulous regulatory environment. I have a strong understanding of 

flight safety and the need to ensure that operations are conducted in a 

compliant and safe manner. Our clients are extremely risk adverse. We 

constantly find ourselves running in circles with the FAA where we are 

expected to define a safety case with a standard that cannot be defined, with 

an approval process that happens behind bureaucratic closed doors. One 

example of this lengthy process was our offshore Section 333 exemption to 

fly small multi-rotor drones within the superstructure of production platforms. 

It took nearly a year of planning and meetings with no guarantee that it would 

be approved. These are operations that occur well off-shore with no 

population, no VFR traffic, and a real safety and environmental mission. To 

this day according to the FAA there is still no clear answer as to whether its 

legal to operate under a Part 107 license or if we must continue to operate 

under our Section 333 waiver for these missions. This is not to point fingers 

at any one person, it is indicative of the process that ties everything together. 

We have great support from individuals within the FAA but under their legal 

authorities they have no power to make decisions or recommendations and 

default back to statutes and sections of the federal regulations. 

The FAA makes it clear that when it comes to drone integration, it is up to 

the operator to prove to the FAA a safety case. That safety case is not 

defined and nearly impossible to achieve. This has been the cloak behind 

which decisions get made. We all believe in safety and ourclients demand 

it. But if the rules are written such that innovation is restricted, jobs will be 

lost and we have only hurt American innovation. Companies will continue to 

develop overseas at the expense of American Jobs. The FAA 

Reauthorization act needs to consider its impact on American jobs and allow 

our incredible innovators to thrive. The world is shifting and the United States 

needs to be the leader in this technologic revolution. This will only occur 

when there is a shift in the accountability coupled with a real understanding 

that the pace of change that is unlike anything the FAA has had to deal with 

before. Orville and Wilbur created manned flight without the FAA or a pilot's 

license. Manned aviation will be a chapter in history books, and that chapter 

is already nearly written. 

Page 4 of 4 
102 


Insert offset folio 63 here 25242.063

Brian Whiteside, President, VDOS Global, responses to questions for the record 

Questions from Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington 

1. Mr. Whiteside, why will the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 

rulemaking for commercial UAS operations over people and operations 

that go beyond the operator's line of sight be important to your company? 

It is important to establish the road map and technologic requirements for beyond line of 

sight and operations over people to enable the safe integration of unmanned systems in 

the national airspace. To be able to fully meet the expectations and value that this 

technology represents integrated operations need to occur which means operations 

beyond what is currently allowed. By taking these steps to allow such operations 

companies will be able to assess critical infrastructure in ways that can only be done 

with manned aircraft. A good example is how pipeline inspections are currently 

performed with manned aircraft. The accident rate for manned aviation when 

performing these missions is several times higher than the accident rate for general 

aviation and it is because of the mission requirements that these mishaps occur. These 

missions can be performed more frequently and with a better assessment of the status 

of the infrastructure using unmanned aircraft all the while not putting the pilots and crew 

at risk. There are numerous examples like this and it starts by establishing the rules to 

integrate this technology. 

2. Mr. Whiteside, on January 20, 2017, the Trump administration issued a 

memo titled "Regulatory Freeze Pending Review," which, among other 

things, put a hold on all Federal regulations until they are reviewed and 

approved by a Presidential appointee. As you know, this could prevent an 

agency like the FAA from issuing timely regulations aimed at efficiently 

integrating UAS into the national airspace. What do you believe the 

consequences of such a Federal "regulatory freeze" would be on 

companies like VOOS? 

It is important that such challenges be overcome so that further delays are not 

encountered. The process by which rules are enacted and passed causes significant 

delays and risk to private companies that are mandated to comply with Federal Law. 

When such delays are encountered regardless of the reason the impact is directly on 

the bottom line of the private company affected by any delay. VDOS is at risk as a 

company if the bureaucratic challenges can not be corrected. 
103 


Insert offset folio 64 here 25242.064

Testimony of Mike Moses 

President, Virgin Galactic 

House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

April4, 2017 

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving 

me the opportunity to provide testimony for your hearing on "Building a 21" Century Infrastructure for 

America: Enabling Innovation in the National Airspace" I am here representing Virgin Galactic and our 

sister company, Virgin Orbit. I will provide an overview of our activities and our thoughts on commercial 

space activities at large and on commercial space operations within the National Airspace System (NAS). 

I came to Virgin Galactic in 2011 from a career at NASA. While at NASA I worked as a flight controller 

on the Shuttle program and as a Flight Director at NASA Johnson Space Center where I Jed teams of flight 

controllers in the plarming, training, and execution of space shuttle missions. Afterwards, I served at the 

Kennedy Space Center as the Launch Integration Manager, leading all space shuttle processing activities 

from landing to launch. My tenure at NASA gives me perspective and insight into the operations planning 

and execution of human spaceflight which carries over to what I am doing today. 

I am currently the President of Virgin Galactic and oversee a team of more than 300 highly qualified 

engineers, technicians, and support staff working to make commercial spaceflight a reality through safe, 

reliable, and frequent access to space. 

As the world's first commercial spaceline, Virgin Galactic is at the forefront of an important emerging 

market that is developing suborbital spaceflight experiences for humans, commonly referred to as "space 

tourism," as well as for research payloads. Founded by Sir Richard Branson and currently based in Mojave, 

California, we are opening access to space to change the world for good. Virgin Galactic's voyages will 

allow people to experience true microgravity, and to see the Earth from space. In addition, Virgin Galactic 

will also provide access to the microgravity environment for research, education and other industrial 

applications to develop and test new applications. 

Based on the historic SpaceShipOne vehicle built by Scaled Composites -which safely carried human 

beings into space in 2004, claiming the Ansari X PRIZE and becoming the only privately-operated human 

spaceflight vehicle to do so to date--Virgin Galactic's vehicles have been designed with the intention of 

opening up frequent access to space while setting new standards for safety, frequency, flexibility, and cost. 

Our suborbital spaceflight system consists of two vehicles: WhiteKnightTwo (pictured in Figure 1 below) 

is a four-engine, dual-fuselage jet aircraft capable of high-altitude heavy lift missions, including but not 

limited to fulfilling its role as a mothership for SpaceShipTwo (shown in Figure 2), a suborbital spaceplane 

designed to safely and routinely transport people and payloads to space and back. SpaceShip Two will carry 

two pilots and as many as six spaceflight participants or about 1 000 pounds of science and technology 

payloads to space altitudes, where they will have exposure to 3-4 minutes of a high-quality microgravity 

environment. 
104 


Insert offset folio 65 here 25242.065

Figure 1: WhiteKnightTwo Carrier Aircraft, VMS EVE 

Figure 2: SpaceShipTwo, VSS Unity 

The current SpaceShip Two, named the VSS Unity, is currently undergoing flight test, and was manufactured 

in Mojave, California by Virgin Galactic's manufacturing wing, The Spaceship Company. Commercial 

operations will be based in New Mexico at Spaceport America, the world's first purpose-built commercial 

spaceport. 

The Commercial Space Launch Act as amended and re-codifed at 51 U.S.C. Ch. 509, §§ 50901-23, 

authorizes the Department of Transportation, and through delegations, the Federal Aviation 
105 


Insert offset folio 66 here 25242.066

Administration's office of Commercial Spaceflight (AST) to oversee, authorize, and regulate commercial 

launch and reentry vehicles. Virgin Galactic received its Operator's License for SpaceShip Two from FAA 

AST in July of 2016. The license was the culmination of years of interaction with the AST and required indepth reviews of the vehicle's system design, safety and flight trajectory. 

Today, FAA AST's regulatory authority over commercial launch & reentry is limited to protecting public 

safety, national security and U.S. foreign policy interests. This is, of course, significantly different than 

how the FAA regulates aviation activities today. However, this light regulatory approach is necessary to 

encourage the emerging commercial space industry while prioritizing safety. Virgin Galactic applies an 

incredibly rigorous approach to the safety of our customers, our vehicles, and our crew. Safety is our North 

Star, and we've been able to draw from our team's extensive experience overseeing safety for NASA, the 

US Air Force, commercial airlines, and other organizations to establish safety protocols and a disciplined 

safety culture. 

Virgin Galactic's vehicles form a hybrid launch system involving both an aircraft and a rocket-powered 

vehicle. As part of the AST license issuance, Virgin Galactic coordinated with the FAA Air Traffic 

Organization (A TO) and the local Air Traffic Control (ATC) to receive Letters of Agreement (LOA) to 

define operations in the national airspace. Coordination continues prior to each flight ensuring minimal 

disruption to commercial and general aviation traffic during launch and reentry. WhiteKnightTwo climbs 

to the release altitude near 50,000 feet in under 50 minutes, following pre-planned routes and under the 

direction of local ATC. The actual SpaceShipTwo flight to space occurs within restricted airspace both in 

Mojave and at Spaceport America and lasts for about 20 minutes. We represent only one of several different 

commercial space launch vehicles operating today and while all are different, commercial space operations 

are not currently a large user nor disrupter of the NAS. Furthermore, because both their speed and their 

direction of flight is so different from an aircraft, rockets and spaceplanes typically occupy the NAS for 

only a few minutes or even seconds per flight, rather than lingering or passing through the airspace for 

hours at a time. However, as the industry's launch cadence increases, it drives the need for efficient and 

streamlined processes for continued seamless integration into the airspace. 

Figure 3: \VhiteKnightTwo and SpaceShipTwo in their mated configuration during a test flight in March 2017 
106 


Insert offset folio 67 here 25242.067

In addition to human spaceflight, Virgin Galactic's sister company, Virgin Orbit, will provide dedicated, 

responsive, and affordable launch services for small satellites. Today, hundreds of companies around the 

world are experimenting with small satellites for everything from communications to remote sensing 

applications. To help this small satellite revolution, Virgin Orbit is developing LauncherOne, a flexible 

launch service for commercial and government-built satellites. The LauncherOne platform is dedicated to 

the task of lowering the cost and increasing the frequency of space access for payloads in the 150 kg- 500 

kg weight range. 

LauncherOne (shown in Figure 4) is a two stage, liquid propulsion (LOXIRP) rocket launched from a 

carrier aircraft. The carrier aircraft is a modified 747-400 (shown in Figure 5) that will carry the launch 

vehicle under the port side wing between the fuselage and inboard engine to the appropriate altitude before 

launch. Once released from the carrier aircraft, LauncherOne will fire its single main stage engine, a 73,500 

lbf, LOX/RP-1 rocket engine. After stage separation, the single upper stage engine, a 5,000 lbfLOXIRP-1 

rocket engine will carry the satellite (or satellites) into orbit. At the end of this sequence, LauncherOne will 

deploy our customers' satellites into their desired orbit. 

Figure 4: LauneherOne vehicle 

Figure 5: Modified Boeing 787-400 carrying the LauncherOne rocket 
107 


Insert offset folio 68 here 25242.068

Currently, Virgin Orbit is working towards initial test flights of the LauncherOne system. Virgin Orbit will 

operate LauncherOne under a FAA AST license and will initially launch from Mojave Air & Space Port, 

but will eventually operate from other licensed sites. Much like WhiteKnightTwo and SpaceShip Two, the 

LauncherOne system operates as an aircraft and a launch vehicle in the various stages of its flight. In 

essence, our 'launch pad' is aircraft based, so 'pad operations' takes on a different meaning and offers a 

much more flexible approach in our flights. In addition, Virgin Orbit, through LOAs, will coordinate with 

A TO and local A TCs to define operations in the NAS to ensure minimal disruption to commercial and 

general aviation traffic during operations. 

Virgin Galactic and Virgin Orbit are a part of a robust and growing domestic commercial space industry. 

This U.S.-based space sector is made up of companies with private financial backing working on a myriad 

of missions from rocket launch, human spaceflight, satellite constellations, to beyond Low-Earth Orbit 

(LEO) operations such as asteroid mining, lunar landers, and in-space habitats. The commercial space 

industry is already well underway and poised to continue its growth. 

Companies are already launching medium and heavy lift rockets to loft large and small payloads to space. 

Satellites that are a part of larger constellations are already being deployed and providing communications 

services and earth imaging data for industrial and government use. In-space habitats are already being tested 

in LEO and development of deep space technologies is already in progress. The commercial space industry 

is not a future market, it is a present and thriving industry and will only continue to grow. 

AST' s mandate is to regulate commercial space launch and reentry to protect public safety which, when 

necessary, will require airspace coordination and closures to protect aircraft against potential hazards. 

Commercial launch vehicle operators are unique users of the airspace. On the one hand, we do travel 

through the NAS on our way to and from our final destination, but we do so infrequently and for brief 

periods of time when compared to traditional users. In addition, a high degree of sensitivity to weather 

conditions, combined with the constraints of t11e dynamics associated with the payload destination, can 

make our launch windows relatively inflexible. The U.S. is currently the leader in commercial space. 

Launch is absolutely critical for a thriving space economy and consideration for these and other elements 

of launch must be taken into place when coordinating use of the NAS for the commercial space industry. 

The number of commercial launches has been increasing over the past few years and will continue to do so 

in the years ahead as the industry continues to grow. This drives the need for an efficient, defined process 

as well as technical tools and process advancements that will streamline integration of commercial space 

operations in the NAS. For example, the current process used to get a LOA- the letter of agreement for the 

use of an airspace - through the FAA is currently a lengthy process involving conversations with multiple 

elements within the FAA. A much more streamlined process should be in place for future operations. In 

addition, some technical efforts to improve efficiency of operations within our airspace are already under 

way at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in New Jersey where work is being done on analysis and 

software tools for commercial space such as visualization and fast-time modeling for launch and eotry to 

better communicate operations in the NAS with other users. Virgin Galactic is also slated to test an 

automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) transmitter developed by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical 

University with the objective to further demonstrate the applicability of ADS-B technology for tracking 

commercial spacecraft to reduce impact to surrounding traffic within the NAS. We recommend increased 

FAA investment in NextGen tools such as these for air space integration with different users of the airspace 

to continually improve the efficiency and integration for future NAS operations. We look forward to 

working with the Committee and with ASTon these future endeavors to continually make our skies a safe 

place to fly. 
108 


Insert offset folio 69 here 25242.069

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL (ALPA) 

TO THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

April 4, 2017 

"BUILDING A 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR AMERICA: 

ENABLING INNOVATION IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE" 

Air Line Pilots Association, International 

1625 Massachusetts A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

(202) 797-4033 
109 


Insert offset folio 70 here 25242.070

Written Statement of 

Air Line Pilots Association, International 

to the Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

"Building a 21" Century Infrastructure for America: 

Enabling Innovation in the National Airspace" 

April4, 2017 

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) is the largest professional association 

representing airline pilots in the world, and represents over 55,000 pilots at 32 U.S. and 

Canadian airlines. "Schedule with Safety" has been the ALPA motto since the birth of our 

Association in 1931. While technology has continued to advance, ALP A's focus on safety has 

remained unchanged, and as we see new entrants into the airspace in the form of unmanned 

aircraft systems (UAS). These UAS includes operation of "drones" that operate completely 

autonomously or aircraft that are remotely piloted (RP A) by a pilot on the ground. ALP A's 

focus is on the safe and secure integration of UAS aircraft into the U.S. national airspace system 

(NAS). 

As a strong proponent for the safe and secure integration of U AS, ALP A has worked with the 

FAA and industry stakeholders to ensure that all new regulations continue to maintain or 

improve the overall safety of our national airspace. The U.S. NAS is the most dynamic and 

diverse airspace system in the world. The safety of the airspace must be maintained in order to 

provide the safest and most efficient air transportation services in the world. 

With the safety and security of the flight crews, passengers, and cargo in mind, ALP A believes 

that the following issues must be considered. 

Registration Must Start At Point Of Sale 

ALPA supports the FAA's implementation of a UAS operator registration requirement for all 

but the smallest unmanned aircraft. Gathering basic information about the identity of the 

individual purchasing the UAS not only allows law enforcement and aviation authorities to 

identify the owner if the UAS were to encounter a problem, but it helps make clear the serious 

nature of operating a UAS in the public airspace and the responsibility to safeguard public 

safety. 

It is clear from the FAA's own statistics that the current registration process has weaknesses and 

many operators are failing to follow the requirement. While registration is required, it is 

effectively voluntary in that it relies on the owner/operator to satisfy the requirement after the 

sale of a UAS. No practical means currently exists to cross-reference sales with registrations to 

ensure compliance. According to the FAA, there have been 770,000 registrations' but they 

estimate 2.5 million UAS were sold in 2016 alone.' It is doubtful that all registrants own more 

1 FAA Administrator Huerta Speech- Unmanned Aircraft Systems Symposium Opening Remarks- March 27, 2017 2 FAA News & Update - FAA Releases 2016 to 2036 Aerospace Forecasthttps://www. faa.gov /news/ updates/?newsld=85227 
110 


Insert offset folio 71 here 25242.071

than 2 drones. ALPA recommends that the FAA immediately modify the registration process 

so that it begins at the point of sale. 

This method will ensure the greatest possible compliance with the registration requirements. 

Requiring the purchaser to provide their name and address at the point of sale, and providing 

the purchaser with instructions on how to complete the registration will allow the FAA to 

follow-up with the purchasers after a specific period of time to remind the purchaser of the 

registration requirement. This would result in increased registrations and close a significant 

loophole in the effort to capture all UAS that need to be registered. 

This registration process is a critical first step in ensuring the safety of the NAS as the FAA uses 

the "registration process to educate users about how to safely operate their UAS in the NAS. 

Prior to completing the process, registrants read and acknowledge safety guidelines, which 

include instructions prohibiting flight near manned aircraft and within visual line-of-sight of 

the operator."3 

FAA Issued the Small UAS Rule (sUAS), But More Work Needed 

The FAA has taken meaningful steps to allow sUAS to begin operating in the airspace with 

multiple restrictions intended to mitigate risk, but additional regulations are needed. In June 

2016, the FAA published 14 CFR Part 107, which established a framework for most commercial 

and recreational operators to operate their sUAS. Unfortunately, the regulations that govern 

many of the small UAS aircraft somewhat missed their mark in ensuring safety. 

Throughout the rulemaking process, ALPA urged the FAA to take a strong stance on training 

and testing, to ensure that those who remotely pilot sU AS for commercial purposes are fully 

trained and are able to demonstrate knowledge via written test and skills via flight test before 

they are issued a commercial pilot certificate for sUAS, just as pilots of manned aircraft 

operated for commercial purposes do. We remain concerned that Part 107 is too weak in the 

requirements for sUAS pilots to learn in-flight skills. There is no requirement to demonstrate 

their skills safely operating a sUAS in the NAS to an examiner. 

While these regulations contain beneficial safety provisions, such as limiting operations to line 

of sight, no night-time operations, and not exceeding 400 feet in altitude, ALPA believes that 

more can be done to further advance the safe integration of sUAS for both commercial operators 

and hobbyists. 

All sUAS Must Be Fully Regulated by the FAA 

The sUAS rule (14 CFR Part 107) formally established the definition of a sUAS, established pilot 

qualifications, and created operational limitations. It specifically addressed commercial small 

UAS operations and those operations that do not fall under an exemption established by 

Congress. By failing to address all drones, the FAA does not capture and fully regulate all 

recreational/hobbyist operators. A key component in helping to strengthen aviation safety 

would be for Congress to give the FAA the ability to fully regulate all hobbyists and 

recreational flyers of sUAS under Part 107, without exception. ALPA has been a strong advocate 

3 Office of Inspector General- Audit Report- AV-2017-018- December 1, 2016 
111 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 72 here 25242.072

for correcting this legislative condition as it is imperative that the FAA is able to consistently 

regulate the safe operation of unmanned aircraft systems for all airspace users. 

Geographical And Altitude Limiting Technology For UAS 

Technology exists to limit the geographical and vertical limits of unmanned aircraft operations, 

independent of the performance capability of the aircraft itself. This feature should be required 

for all UAS that are not intended to operate in airspace occupied by "pilot on board" aircraft or 

in the vicinity of airports and other sensitive areas, regardless of whether the UAS is flown for 

business or recreation. Until the FAA mandates the use of such technology, the effectiveness of 

this solution will be somewhat limited. 

Safety And Security Regulations Must Be Exempt From Executive Order 13771 

On January 20,2017, President Trump signed Executive Order 13771, which requires for every 

one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and, in 

addition, the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, to 

be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero. The executive order makes no provisions for 

important aviation safety and security regulations, especially those that must be promulgated to 

account for new technologies never envisioned in the existing body of regulations. 

For the FAA and UAS, this '2 for 1' executive order has sidelined important safety regulations. 

On Aprill, 2016, the Micro UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) issued its final report 

and recommendations to the FAA on how to safely operate micro UAS over people who are not 

directly participating in the operation of the UAS. The FAA was slated to release a notice of 

proposed rulemaking for 'Operations of Small Unmanned Aircraft Over People', but this 

activity has been delayed indefinitely under the President's '2 for 1' executive order. 

The Administration needs to take action now by exempting aviation safety and security rules 

from Executive Order 13771. 

Conclusions 

ALPA remains dedicated to working with the FAA, industry, and Congress to safely integrate 

UAS into the North American airspace system. However, the integration needs to be done so in 

a way that ensures that aviation safety is not compromised and so that the target level of safety 

for commercial air travel in the NAS is proactively, not reactively, protected. We will continue 

collaborative work to further advance the safe integration of sUAS for both commercial 

operators and hobbyists. ALPA remains steadfast in our commitment to advancing the 

unparalleled safety record of U.S. aviation. 

On behalf of the more than 55,000 pilots whose top priority is safe transportation, we thank the 

Committee for the opportunity to provide a statement on this important subject and look 

forward to working together to ensure the safety of our air transportation system.