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

91–735 PDF 2015

U.S. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS: 

INTEGRATION, OVERSIGHT, AND 

COMPETITIVENESS 

(113–84) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 10, 2014 

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 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice Chair 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... v 

TESTIMONY 

Margaret Gilligan, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration .............................................................................................. 19 

Matthew E. Hampton, assistant inspector general for aviation, U.S. Department of Transportation ........................................................................................ 19 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office ...................................................................... 19 

Captain Lee Moak, president, Air Line Pilots Association, International .......... 19 

Jesse Kallman, head of business development and regulatory affairs, Airware 19 

Nicholas Roy, Ph.D., associate professor of aeronautics and astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ..................................................................... 19 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Margaret Gilligan: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Answers to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, of New Jersey ................................................. 64 

Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., of Tennessee .................................................. 66 

Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick’’ Crawford, of Arkansas ............................................. 68 

Hon. Richard L. Hanna, of New York ..................................................... 69 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, of the District of Columbia .................... 71 

Matthew E. Hampton: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey ....................... 86 

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 88 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey ....................... 110 

Captain Lee Moak, prepared statement ................................................................ 114 

Jesse Kallman: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 124 

Answer to question for the record from Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey ....................... 128 

Nicholas Roy, Ph.D.: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 133 

Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey ....................... 137 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Hon Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, 

request to submit the written statement of Lillian Z. Ryals, senior vice 

president, The MITRE Corporation, and general manager, MITRE’s Center 

for Advanced Aviation System Development ..................................................... 5 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, written statement of Mark Baker, 

president ............................................................................................................... 140 

Modovolate Aviation, LLC, joint written statement of Henry H. Perritt, Jr., 

chief executive officer, and Eliot O. Sprague, chief operating officer .............. 144 

Page

IV 

National Agricultural Aviation Association, written statement of Andrew D. 

Moore, executive director ..................................................................................... 149 

v 


Insert offset folio 1 here 91735.001
vi 


Insert offset folio 2 here 91735.002
vii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 91735.003
viii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 91735.004
ix 


Insert offset folio 5 here 91735.005
x 


Insert offset folio 6 here 91735.006
xi 


Insert offset folio 7 here 91735.007
(1) 

U.S. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS: 

INTEGRATION, OVERSIGHT, AND 

COMPETITIVENESS 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

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

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The committee will come to order. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent that members not on the 

committee, in addition to members not on the subcommittee, be 

permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today’s hearing—there 

is a great deal of interest—and offer testimony and ask questions. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank all of you for being here. The United States 

has been the global leader in aviation. We are all very proud of 

that. And American leadership in aerospace, manufacturing, air 

transportation, flight safety and technological innovation is tremendous. The aviation industry contributes billions of dollars to our 

economy, supports millions of jobs throughout our country, and is 

a source of pride for all Americans. 

Unmanned aerial systems, or UAS, have been increasingly in the 

news, but they’re not truly new. It has been almost 100 years since 

the U.S. military began developing the first UAS. Like other new 

technologies, UAS offers both exciting opportunities and daunting 

challenges. 

The previous FAA reauthorization law contained provisions directing the FAA to take steps towards safely integrating UAS into 

our Nation’s airspace by September 2015. Among other things, we 

directed the FAA to create test sites and regulations for UAS. The 

results so far appear to be mixed, and I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses today on the FAA’s efforts. 

There are many issues surrounding UAS we need to consider; 

first and foremost, and has always been, safety. Our Nation’s safety record is the result of decades of hard work by thousands and 

also some hard lessons learned. Safety is the cornerstone of the 

U.S. aviation industry, and without it, the UAS industry cannot 

succeed, period. Thus, I am very concerned when I read in the 

Washington Post that the FAA is receiving about 25 reports each 

2 

month from pilots about UAS flying too close to their aircraft, 

sometimes even near major airports. 

Protecting privacy is equally important as we further integrate 

and deploy UAS, whether by individual hobbyists or in commercial 

applications. I know the FAA and aviation industry are taking the 

issue very seriously, and Congress will continue to be actively engaged. 

We can all agree that UAS represents a tremendous economic opportunity. The FAA estimates that $89 billion to $90 billion will be 

invested globally in UAS over the next 10 years and major U.S. 

companies have begun investing in UAS technology in a major way. 

There are many valuable applications in real estate, agriculture, 

medical transport, and infrastructure maintenance, with many 

more on the horizon. 

It is not hard to imagine UAS making existing industries more 

efficient and giving rise to entirely new ones. All of this could mean 

new jobs and vast economic opportunities for the American people 

if we do this right. So it also concerns me when I read in The Wall 

Street Journal about major U.S. companies taking their UAS research and development activities to foreign countries, such as 

Canada and Australia, because FAA regulations are too burdensome and too slow. 

It also concerns me that the road builders in Germany and farmers in France today are enjoying economic benefits from UAS because safety regulators there have found ways to permit such 

flights. 

I can’t help but wonder that if the Germans, the French and the 

Canadians do some of these things today, then why can’t we also 

be doing them? Are they smarter than us? I don’t think so. Are 

they better than us? I don’t think so. So we really need these questions answered. I hope to get a better understanding of this issue 

during today’s hearing. 

As I said earlier, safety is paramount and the challenges are difficult, but if there is a country that is up to the challenge of safe 

UAS integration, it is certainly the United States of America. We 

have the very best engineers, the smartest inventors, the most creative minds, and the knowledgeable regulators to ensure American 

leadership in aviation in the decades ahead. I know this, because 

many of our best and brightest minds in aviation work at the 

FAA’s Technical Center flagship, which is in my district. The FAA 

Tech Center is a one-stop shop for the best and brightest to research, develop, demonstrate, and validate new aviation technologies and data sources. It has had a role in many advances in 

flight safety, including air traffic control, which is key to safe UAS 

integration. It is a place where new ideas are developed and old 

ones are improved. Work on UAS is underway there already, and 

I fully expect their contributions will continue and they will be invaluable. 

I am interested in hearing today where we are in terms of the 

UAS industry and what lies ahead, what progress the Government 

has or hasn’t made, and what industry and FAA need, and how we 

in Congress can help as we consider the next FAA reauthorization 

bill. 

3 

And I talked with Mr. Larsen and members of the committee and 

Chairman Shuster, we are really looking at this very closely, because as we prepare the next FAA authorization bill, we are going 

to be looking for substantial improvements and advancements in 

this particular area, and we will be looking at specific language, if 

necessary, if we don’t see these advances in a timely way. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on these topics and 

thank them for joining us today. 

Before I recognize my colleague, Mr. Larsen, for his comments, 

I would like to ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 

legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material for the record for this hearing. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

I would now like to yield to Mr. Larsen for his opening remarks. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for calling today’s 

hearing on the U.S. unmanned aircraft systems integration oversight and competitiveness. I appreciate you holding this hearing at 

my request. And safety is and must be the FAA’s number one priority, certainly is mine, I know it is yours as well. 

We have looked at unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, twice 

earlier this year, but last week’s report of numerous near collisions 

between UAS and manned aircraft are a stark reminder that the 

FAA must be prepared to ensure UAS operations are safe, both for 

those in the air and people on the ground, so this hearing is timely. 

The UAS industry has great potential to drive economic growth 

and create jobs, including in Washington State, where I am from, 

and which is an epicenter of aviation R&D; however, there is no 

doubt there are some near-term challenges. For example, the FAA 

says it receives about 25 reports each month from pilots who’ve 

seen unmanned aircraft or model aircraft operating near their aircraft, including some near collisions. 

But we rise to challenges; we do not shrink from them. And I 

want you to consider these headlines with cautionary tales. ‘‘Planes 

crash in air, man killed.’’ That is from the Wyoming State Tribune. 

‘‘Two killed in a crash in air,’’ Trenton Evening Times. ‘‘Crash in 

air kills two.’’ ‘‘Pilots die when two machines collide in practice 

flight.’’ That is the Oregonian. All these headlines are from 1917, 

1917 and 1920. I found more than 80 stories of this kind alone all 

written before 1921. 

These reports could have caused the American public to give up 

on developing things that fly, what they used to call machines, now 

we call airplanes, but we didn’t. Had we given up on commercial 

air travel then, we would not have the safe and efficient passenger 

airline system that we have today. So while near collision headlines reflect undeniable challenges that must be addressed, we 

have to keep moving forward to ensure progress and competitiveness, but let’s be clear: integration of UAS must never come at the 

expense of safety. So to help guide this effort, the last authorization set forth specific requirements and milestones for the FAA to 

safely integrate UAS into the national airspace. We have heard a 

number of concerns from industry that FAA’s not moving quickly 

enough. 

The Department of Transportation inspector general reported in 

June that FAA had completed work toward nine of the milestones 

4 

in the act, but that agency was—but that the agency was behind 

schedule on remaining milestones. The bill required the FAA to 

publish a rule on small UAS by August, August 14th of this year. 

We expect that rule soon. The bill also required the FAA to establish six test ranges for UAS research; however, while these test 

ranges are up and running, we continue to hear from stakeholders 

that those test ranges are not being utilized as much as they can 

be. 

However, given the magnitude of the safety implications of incorporating this technology into our sophisticated and crowded airspace, we have to give credit where credit is due, and the FAA is 

proceeding with caution and is making some progress. For example, section 333 of the act gave the FAA authority to authorize certain UAS operations on an interim basis in advance of the final 

rule on small UAS. The FAA is just beginning using this authority 

and has granted several exemptions, including some this morning. 

We must ensure, though, that the agency allows prudent testing 

and operations to begin safely, even if on a limited basis. 

We have also heard concerns from other countries—that other 

countries afford more flexible environments to test and operate 

UAS. So while we must hold safety paramount, we do not want to 

fall needlessly behind. 

Privacy is another major concern that must be addressed, and I 

share the public’s concern about implications of aerial surveillance 

from UAS operators, and work to ensure these concerns are addressed through the proper channels. 

Within the past 2 years, we have seen the FAA make progress 

on implementing NextGen capabilities, with the strong bipartisan 

support of this subcommittee and the leadership of Chairman 

LoBiondo. Our work on NextGen shows us the absolute necessity 

of FAA’s collaboration with stakeholders, especially pilots and air 

traffic controllers, who will be directly affected by new technologies. 

Our goal with regard to UAS integration should be to keep safe 

integration on track so that we are not here in 2024 talking about 

a plan to integrate UAS into the airspace. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask unanimous consent to enter the written remarks from MITRE into the record. 

MITRE is engaged in research and development for the FAA, and 

its input is critical as we look towards reauthorization. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

5 


Insert offset folio 8 here 91735.008
6 


Insert offset folio 10 here 91735.010
7 


Insert offset folio 11 here 91735.011
8 


Insert offset folio 12 here 91735.012
9 


Insert offset folio 13 here 91735.013
10 


Insert offset folio 14 here 91735.014
11 


Insert offset folio 15 here 91735.015
12 


Insert offset folio 16 here 91735.016
13 


Insert offset folio 17 here 91735.017
14 


Insert offset folio 18 here 91735.018
15 


Insert offset folio 19 here 91735.019
16 


Insert offset folio 20 here 91735.020
17 


Insert offset folio 21 here 91735.021
18 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from all our panelists about why we are here today, what we 

can do to keep the integration of UAS on track and to ensure safety. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Very pleased to welcome the chairman of the full 

committee, Mr. Bill Shuster, and thank him for his tremendous interest and involvement in this issue and the FAA authorization 

bill. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to start 

off by saying welcome to our panelists here today. We are interested in hearing your testimony and your views on this issue, but 

I share Mr. Lobiondo’s views on safety. Safety in our skies is simply paramount. That has to be first and foremost to us. So we in 

Congress are very interested in UAS. 

In the last FAA bill, we directed the FAA to safely integrate that 

into our airspace by September 2015, but the UAS industry cannot 

develop unless it is proven safe. And based on the opening statements by the chairman and the ranking member, Republicans and 

Democrats are united in our views about the priority and importance of safety. 

We also understand that UAS are an exciting technology with 

the potential to transform parts of our economy. I am intrigued by 

how UAS might improve our modes of transportation. For example, 

the UAS might be used for certain kinds of bridge inspections without closing lanes, for traffic stopping, or requiring workers to have 

to climb up to high places to do inspection. And the UAS, I am told, 

can survey 180 acres of land in less than an hour during construction projects. 

UAS can safely help us get more bang out of the taxpayers’ buck 

on infrastructure projects, and with that in mind, it is our responsibility to look at this and take a close look at this technology. 

I know there are some challenges to getting this right. I am confident that the American inventors, engineers and entrepreneurs 

are up to the challenge to ensure the United States retains its lead 

in aviation technology. As we work towards safe integration of 

UAS, we cannot let a few irresponsible individuals jeopardize the 

safety of the many and set back a potentially promising technology. 

So I am glad you are all here today. And thank you for holding 

this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Thank you, Mr. Shuster. 

I want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses today. Our 

first panel will include Ms. Peggy Gilligan, Associate Administrator 

for Aviation Safety to the Federal Aviation Administration, essentially all things UAS; Mr. Matthew Hampton, assistant inspector 

general for aviation for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector General; Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director of 

Physical Infrastructure Issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office; Captain Lee Moak, who is president of Air Line Pilots Association, International; Mr. Jesse Kallman, head of business development and regulatory affairs for Airware; and Dr. Nicholas Roy, associate professor of aeronautics and astronautics at the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

And, Ms. Gilligan, you are recognized. We welcome your remarks. 

19 

TESTIMONY OF MARGARET GILLIGAN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; MATTHEW E. HAMPTON, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR 

GENERAL FOR AVIATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, PH.D., DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; CAPTAIN LEE MOAK, PRESIDENT, 

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; JESSE 

KALLMAN, HEAD OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, AIRWARE; AND NICHOLAS ROY, PH.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Congressman 

Larsen, and Chairman Shuster for the opportunity to appear before 

the subcommittee to discuss unmanned aircraft systems, or what 

we know as UAS. 

In the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Congress 

mandated the safe and efficient integration of UAS into the National Airspace System. Administrator Huerta, in announcing his 

strategic initiatives, identified integration of UAS and commercial 

space operations into the NAS one of his top priorities, and we are 

working hard to meet those mandates. 

In the act, Congress mandated that the Secretary of Transportation consult with Government partners and industry stakeholders to develop a comprehensive plan and 5-year roadmap for 

UAS integration. Both documents have been published, and outline 

the path ahead for UAS. 

As called for in the statute, these documents set out a phased approach that must be carried out thoughtfully to ensure safety is not 

compromised. 

Consistent with congressional direction, we announced six UAS 

sites to aid in UAS integration. As required, we set out to have one 

test site operational within 6 months of selection. We surpassed 

that goal, with the first test site operational within 4 months and 

three more sites operational within 6 months of their selection. 

Now all six UAS sites are fully operational and have established 

their research agendas. The data and information from the test 

sites will help answer key questions about how unmanned aircraft 

systems interface in the airspace as well as with air traffic control. 

The FAA Technical Center in Atlantic City is playing a key role 

in data collection and analysis, and will continue to make significant contributions to UAS integration as we work closely with the 

test sites to identify the data that will be the most useful to the 

FAA. 

We are moving forward with UAS integration through rulemaking. As mandated by the act, the FAA initiated rulemaking to 

permit civil operation of small UAS in the airspace. We all agree 

that that project is taking too long, but I am pleased to say that 

we believe we now have a balanced proposal that is currently 

under executive review. 

In the meantime, and consistent with the act, we are looking at 

activities that do not pose a risk to others who operate in the airspace, to the general public, or to national security, and that can 

be operated safely without an airworthiness certificate. Once the 

20 

Secretary of Transportation is able to make that determination, 

FAA then grants relief from other FAA operating regulations. We 

have authorized 11 operators, including five exemptions that we 

have issued today, to conduct commercial UAS activity in the national airspace, covering activities such as surveying, inspection 

and movie making. 

We continue to facilitate the use of UAS by public entities. For 

more than two decades, FAA has authorized the use of unmanned 

aircraft for important safety missions such as firefighting and border security. Working closely with the Departments of Defense and 

Homeland Security and other agencies, we are taking advantage of 

the extensive Federal investment that has been made in these systems. 

In addition, more than 35 law enforcement agencies now operate 

unmanned aircraft under certificates of authorization, and we are 

also working with law enforcement agencies to address the unauthorized use of UAS, for they are often in the best position to help 

us deter, detect, and investigate such activities. 

We are working hard to educate the public about the requirements for operating UAS in the national airspace, and we believe 

opportunities like this will help us in that endeavor, but that has 

proven to be a challenge. Unlike traditional manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft are widely available for purchase by individuals 

who may not realize that they are entering the National Airspace 

System or that they must comply with FAA regulations. They may 

not appreciate the significant safety risk that is presented by unauthorized or unsafe UAS operations in the national airspace. 

Just as you directed in the 2012 Act, FAA can and will take enforcement action against anyone who operates a UAS in a way that 

endangers the safety of the national airspace, but we continue to 

lead with education, because we believe the vast majority of UAS 

operators want to comply with FAA regulation. 

We remain committed to serve as world leaders in this segment 

of the aviation industry. The United States is proud to lead the Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Panel recently formed by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The U.S. will be leading the 

way to establish standards and recommended practices, procedures, 

and guidance materials to facilitate the safe integration of remotely 

piloted aircraft systems around the world. Together with our international partners, we will facilitate integration at the international 

level while continuing to lead the world in aviation safety. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hampton. 

Mr. HAMPTON. Chairman Shuster, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking 

Member Larsen, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

inviting me to testify today on FAA efforts to integrate unmanned 

aircraft systems, or UAS, into the National Airspace System. 

The increasing demand for UAS systems has enormous economic 

and competitive implications for our Nation. As you know, the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act was a catalyst for UAS technology. 

The act directed FAA to take steps to advance UAS integration, 

with the goal of safely integrating UAS technology by 2015. 

21 

In June, we reported on FAA efforts and made 11 recommendations specifically aimed at helping FAA to more effectively meet the 

act’s goals. 

My testimony today will focus on FAA’s progress in implementing the act’s provisions and the challenges the agency faces in 

safely integrating UAS technology. 

To date, FAA has completed more than half of the 17 UAS requirements in the act. This includes selecting the test sites as well 

as publishing a roadmap outlining agency plans. In addition, using 

the authority granted in the act, FAA recently authorized 11 companies to operate UAS in commercial operations. However, FAA is 

behind schedule on the act’s remaining requirements, many of 

which are key to advancing UAS integration. For example, FAA 

missed the act’s August 2014 deadline for issuing a final rule on 

small UAS systems. These are systems weighing less than 55 

pounds. 

While FAA expects to issue a proposed rule soon, it will likely 

generate a significant amount of public comment that the agency 

will need to consider before issuing a final rule. As an result, it is 

uncertain when a final rule will be published. Ultimately, FAA will 

not meet the act’s overarching goal to safely integrate UAS technology by September 2015. 

As FAA works to implement the act’s provisions, the agency also 

faces significant technological, regulatory, and management challenges. On the technological front, the evolution of detect and avoid 

technology is paramount. Also, the risk of loss link scenarios, when 

an operator loses connectivity with an unmanned aircraft, remains 

high. Furthermore, establishing secure radio frequency spectrum to 

support UAS communications has also proven difficult to address. 

FAA, DOD and NASA have several important research projects 

underway, but it remains unclear when the technology will be robust enough to support safe UAS operations. 

Regulatory challenges have also affected progress to date. Also 

FAA has authorized limited UAS operations on a case-by-case 

basis, it is not yet positioned to certify civil UAS operations on a 

large scale. 

FAA has worked with a special advisory committee for more than 

9 years, but has not yet reached consensus with stakeholders on 

minimum performance and design standards for UAS technology. 

Much work remains to set requirements for pilot and crew qualifications, ground control stations, and communication links for 

UAS systems. 

Finally, I would like to turn to challenges in areas that need significant management attention. FAA lacks the training, tools and 

procedures air traffic controllers need to manage UAS operations. 

FAA also lacks standard databases to collect and analyze safety 

data from current UAS operators and a severity-based classification system for incident reporting. Data from FAA’s UAS test sites 

will provide critical information related to certification, air traffic 

control, and detect-avoid technologies I discussed earlier. All of 

these can inform FAA’s decisions and advance progress. 

Other important and much needed steps include publication of 

the small UAS rule and developing an integrated budget document 

22 

that clearly identifies funding requirements in the near and mid 

term. 

In conclusion, UAS will be and remain a front and center issue 

that requires significant management attention. It remains uncertain when and at what pace UAS technology can be fully and safely 

integrated into our airspace. Now is the time for FAA to build on 

the knowledge base to make informed decisions, set priorities, identify critical path issues, and develop the basic regulatory framework for integrating UAS technology into the National Airspace 

System. We will continue to monitor FAA’s progress on these issues 

and keep the subcommittee apprised of our efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be 

happy to answer any questions you or other members of this subcommittee may have. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Hampton. That is—wow. OK. We 

will leave it at that for right now. 

Dr. Dillingham. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Larsen, Chairman Shuster, members of the subcommittee. 

My statement this morning is based on our ongoing work for this 

subcommittee and focuses on three areas: First, FAA’s progress towards meeting the unmanned aerial systems provisions of the 2012 

FAA Reauthorization Act; second, key research and development 

activities needed to support unmanned systems integration; and 

third, how other countries have progressed towards integrating unmanned systems into their airspace. 

Regarding the provisions of the 2012 Act, the act included 17 

specific provisions for FAA to achieve safe unmanned systems integration by September 2015. While FAA has completed most of 

these provisions, key ones remain and additional actions are needed to effectively leverage the completed provisions for the integration effort. For example, a critical step for allowing commercial operations is the publication of a final rule. To develop the rule, FAA 

must publish a notice of proposed rulemaking; however, as you 

have heard, the NPRM has been significantly delayed. Given the 

time that is generally required for rulemaking and the tens of 

thousands of comments expected on this NPRM, the consensus of 

opinion is that the integration of unmanned system will likely slip 

from the mandated deadline of September 2015 until 2017 or even 

later. 

The delay in the final rule, which will establish operational and 

certification requirements, could contribute to unmanned systems 

continuing to operate unsafely and illegally, and lead to additional 

enforcement activities for FAA’s scarce resources. Additionally, 

without a small unmanned systems rule, U.S. businesses may continue to take their testing and research and development activities 

outside of the U.S. 

Regarding research and development activities, the key technology issues remain essentially the same as they have been since 

the beginning of the unmanned systems era, including detect and 

avoid, command and control, air worthiness, and spectrum issues. 

There are a wide range of stakeholders involved in addressing 

these issues and there has been some notable progress, including 

the establishment of the test sites; however, in spite of the progress 

23 

in research and development, the role of the six test sites remains 

unclear. 

The designation and operational startup of the six test sites, 

viewed by many as a major step forward in acquiring the necessary 

data to address the technological and operational challenges associated with integration. Our preliminary work suggests that this development has not lived up to its promise. The test site operators 

told us that they were significantly underutilized by FAA and the 

private sector and that they were unclear as to what research and 

development and operational data was needed by FAA to support 

the integration initiatives. 

However, our preliminary work suggests that FAA has provided 

some guidance to the test sites regarding the needed research and 

development and data needs. FAA officials said that Federal law 

prevents them from asking the test sites for specific data. According to FAA, the law does not allow the agency to give directions 

to the site or accept voluntary services without payment. As we 

continue our study, we will be trying to better understand the relationship between the test sites, FAA, and the needed research and 

development and how the test sites can achieve their highest and 

best use. 

Regarding developments in foreign countries, as is the case in 

the U.S., many countries around the world allow commercial operations under some restrictions. Also similar to the U.S., foreign 

countries are experiencing problems with illegal and unsafe unmanned systems operations; however, a 2014 MITRE study and 

our preliminary observations have revealed that several countries, 

including Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada have 

progressed farther than the United States with regulations supporting commercial operations for small unmanned vehicles, but 

the regulations governing unmanned systems are not consistent 

worldwide. Some countries, such as Canada, are easing operating 

restrictions through a risk management approach, while other 

countries, such as India, are increasing unmanned systems restrictions. Our ongoing study for this subcommittee will look further at 

the experiences of other countries for potential lessons learned for 

the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you 

today. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham. 

Captain Moak. 

Mr. MOAK. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member 

Larsen, and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to 

provide our perspectives on the critical importance of safely integrating unmanned aircraft systems into the National Airspace System. 

Our country’s national airspace is the most dynamic and diverse 

on the planet, and also I want to underscore this, the safest. We 

need to protect it and maintain it to deliver the safest, most efficient air transportation possible. 

UAS and remotely piloted aircraft systems include aircraft ranging in the size from a small bird to as large as an airliner. Some 

UAS aircraft are operating completely autonomously. Their flight 

24 

route is computer-programmed and the device operates without a 

pilot. Other UAS aircraft are flown remotely by pilots from an 

operational center or control stations that can be located at the 

launch and recovery site or perhaps thousands of miles away. 

ALPA supports the safe use of unmanned aircraft systems. We 

recognize the potential benefit to our Nation’s economic competitiveness, but we also recognize the potential for a safety risk if we 

don’t treat them as what they are: airplanes in airspace. 

We have all seen photos of the damage that can be caused to an 

airplane by a bird strike in flight. Unmanned aircraft can be much 

smaller or much larger than birds, but they harbor added risk in 

that they carry batteries, motors and other hard metal components. 

This was a bird strike, please take a look at this, on a commercial airplane, and this next photo of a military airplane’s encounter 

with an unmanned aerial vehicle. Hit it in the wing root there. 

We must not allow pressure to rapidly integrate UAS in into the 

NAS to rush a process that must be solely focused on safety. Standards and technologies must be in place to ensure the same high 

level of safety as is currently present in the NAS before a UAS 

RPA can be authorized to occupy the same airspace as airliners are 

operating in areas where it might inadvertently stray into airspace 

used by commercial flights. 

We also need to make certain that UAS pilots are properly 

trained and understand the consequences of possible malfunctions. 

Now, I knew I would be speaking before you today, so I went online last Thursday and purchased this quadcopter for the committee for just a few hundred dollars. I received it 2 days later, and 

as the marketing promised, it was ready to fly in a few minutes 

and I was flying it in my office. 

Now, this UAS can carry a camera, it has a GPS, which with the 

purchase of additional software can be used to pre-program a flight 

plan. It has the capability, this one, to fly as high as 6,600 feet for 

15 minutes, and that means it could easily end up in the same airspace I occupy when I am on approach to land at Newark or at Seattle or at any other airport. 

Now, if we took this aircraft out in the courtyard building, it has 

the capability to fly from this courtyard to the final approach path 

at Reagan National Airport, and from the park at the end of the 

runway. That is Reagan Airport, that is that Gravelly Point Park. 

You can see it would be even easier to fly right into the aircraft 

zone. 

Now, a well trained and experienced flight crew is the most important safety component of the commercial air transportation system. A pilot in the cockpit of an aircraft can see, he can feel, he 

can smell, and he can hear indications of a problem and begin to 

formulate a course of action long before even the most sophisticated 

indicators verify trouble. Without a pilot onboard, we lose this advantage, and as a result, it is essential that UAS pilots are highly 

trained, qualified and monitored to meet the equivalent standards 

of pilots who operate manned aircraft. 

We also need to make certain that UAS aircraft can’t stray into 

areas where it poses a hazard if the operator loses control, that it 

behaves like it is supposed to, and if there is a failure, the aircraft 

doesn’t endanger other aircraft or people on the ground. 

25 

If UAS is intended to be operated in civil airspace or could unintentionally be flown into our airspace, airline pilots need to be able 

to see them on our cockpit displays, and controllers need the ability 

to see them on their radarscopes. UAS aircraft also need to be 

equipped with collision avoidance capability. 

And, finally, the FAA resources are limited, and the agency must 

have a long-term sustained source of funding as well as realistic 

timelines and a systematic approach that builds the path of UAS 

integration based on safety. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify today. We look forward 

to working with Congress to ensure that safety is held paramount 

in bringing UAS into the national airspace. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Captain Moak. 

Mr. Kallman. 

Mr. KALLMAN. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify here today. 

I am the head of business development and regulatory affairs for 

Airware, a San Francisco-based company developing flight control 

systems for commercial unmanned aircraft, enabling companies to 

use commercial UAVs to collect, analyze and disseminate data for 

a growing number of commercial applications around the world. 

Airware has raised over $40 million from several of the world’s 

leading venture capital firms and our team has more than doubled 

over the last year. 

I also serve on the board of the Small UAV Coalition, which was 

formed earlier this year to promote safe commercial operations of 

small UAVs here in the United States. 

This is a critical time for the UAV industry and Airware. The 

Small UAV Coalition and others in the community would like to 

ensure that the United States becomes the global leader for commercial UAV technology development and operations while maintaining the safest airspace in the world. 

Today I will focus on three key issues for this subcommittee: one, 

the current state of UAV technology and potential implications in 

a variety of industries; two, the need for a risk-based approach to 

UAV regulations; third, the effective current and expected regulations on U.S. businesses. 

First, the UAV industry is one the fastest growing markets here 

in the United States. Many here today may be familiar with the 

small consumer UAVs used for personal enjoyment or photography, 

but I would like to focus on the commercial-grade UAVs which are 

tackling some of the biggest problems across a variety of industries. 

Commercial UAVs are being used for disaster management, oil 

and gas exploration, search and rescue, inspection of wind turbines, 

and surveying of crops. These UAVs are equipped with many technological features to ensure safety and reliability of operations, 

such as geo-fencing systems, which keep a UAV within certain altitude and distance limits as well as away from sensitive areas. Also, 

contingency management systems, which in the case of an issue onboard the aircraft, enable the UAV to automatically return to a 

safe landing location. 

These types of technologies are developing at an increasingly 

rapid rate and are enabling safe operations around the world 

26 

today. In addition, NASA’s also working to develop a UAS traffic 

management system to provide a means for safely managing a lot 

of these small systems. 

Through my past experience working at the FAA, I understand 

the challenge in regulating this new and revolutionary technology 

in the United States, but there are steps we can be taking to begin 

to open up operational environments now. Most commercial UAV 

operations will take place below 400 feet, 100 feet below the typical 

minimum safe altitude of 500 feet for manned aviation. 

This brings me to my second point. We must take a new, riskbased approach to regulating UAVs. For example, a very small aircraft operating over a remote farm field at 300 feet would be subject to minimal regulatory requirements, whereas a larger aircraft 

operating over populated areas would require highly reliable avionics, additional training, geo-fence technology, and fail-safe mechanisms, like a parachute. These are the types of risk models being 

used to allow commercial operations in Europe today, including 

France. 

I am pleased that the FAA recently stated its intentions to shift 

to this type of model, I applaud them for this, but the critical question is how quickly can it be implemented? 

Finally, I would like to discuss the effect of delayed regulations 

on U.S. businesses. As I mentioned, France allows low-risk commercial applications, as does Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and many other countries. The United States, typically a 

leader in aviation, is one of only a few countries that currently prohibits commercial UAV operations, except pursuant to an exemption. While we wait, small and large businesses in the United 

States are moving UAV testing and operations abroad, where regulations are more advanced. 

Delayed and overly restrictive regulations aren’t just slowing the 

growth of the UAV industry. Many of the largest industries and 

corporations in America see this technology as key for remaining 

competitive in the global marketplace. 

Airware has raised a strategic investment from one of the largest 

corporations in America, General Electric, who could use UAVs 

across many of their different business units. 

The Farm Bureau has also recently noted that U.S. farmers will 

not be able to keep up with foreign competitors if they are not allowed to use the same technology. 

UAV technology will have a major impact on our economy. In the 

first 3 years of integration, conservative estimates include creating 

more than 70,000 jobs and adding $13.6 billion into the economy. 

With each year of integration delays, the U.S. loses more than $10 

billion in potential economic impact. We want the jobs, economic 

benefits, and core intellectual property created from this work to be 

here in the United States. 

We know that no matter the outcome today, UAV technology will 

create jobs, it will save lives, and it will grow the economies of 

those countries with the foresight to act. The United States is 

poised to lead the way for this growing and game-changing industry. We have the talent and the workforce to create the technology 

needed to safely integrate into the world’s most complex airspace. 

Let’s act quickly before major opportunities are lost. 

27 

Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Kallman. 

Dr. Roy, welcome. 

Mr. ROY. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, Chairman Shuster, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you to discuss the unmanned aviation 

industry in the United States. 

I am a professor in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT. I lead a research program on unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, with a focus on unmanned flight in urban, civilian, 

or populated environments. Most recently, I worked to Google to 

found Project Wing, a UAV-based package delivery system. I returned to MIT full-time in September of this year. In this testimony, I am speaking today solely for myself, and cannot speak for 

either MIT or Google. 

My main message today is that the U.S. does lead the world in 

UAV development, but both testing the next wave of technology 

needed for commercial UAV applications and training the next generation of engineers, both are more difficult in the U.S. than in 

other countries. Let me explain further. 

Firstly, the issues around small UAV commercialization are quite 

different compared to large, primarily military, UAVs. Large UAVs 

are as safe and as reliable as manned aircraft. The U.S. is the unquestioned leader in this space, so I am going to focus today on 

small UAVs for civil use. 

The vast majority of small UAVs are basically toy aircraft, such 

as model airplanes or quadrotor helicopters. This current generation of small UAVs exist because advances in technology, such as 

computers, GPS receivers or batteries, leading to smaller, cheaper 

UAVs that are easy for anyone to fly. 

There are many companies proposing to use these technologies 

for commercial use, but right now most commercial vehicles can 

only fly simple missions, generally with the same reliability as a 

toy. A lot of example uses have made the news in this country and 

other countries, but are for the most part prototypes or vaporware. 

In reality, the current civil UAV markets around the world are 

tiny, only hundreds to a couple thousand vehicles at best. There 

are real technology gaps limiting the growth of UAVs. 

The recent FAA call for a center of excellence for unmanned aircraft systems is a pretty good roadmap for what technology is needed for growth, but let me give you some examples. Most people 

know what it is like for the GPS in their car to get confused. This 

can and does happen to UAVs too. The vehicles need to have sensors and algorithms to let them know where they are at all times. 

UAVs need to know about ground obstacles and aircraft around 

them and how to avoid collisions. 

We need radio spectrum and new radio technologies that ensure 

the pilot in command can control the vehicle at all times. 

As the number of UAVs grows, the air traffic management infrastructure must grow alongside in order to coordinate the large 

number of UAVs flying through the National Airspace System at 

any altitude. 

Lastly, an unmanned vehicle only makes sense when the operational cost is less than a manned aircraft. Onboard vehicle intelVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:22 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\12-10-~1\91735.TXT JEAN
28 

ligence is needed to drive down the human labor costs in more applications. 

My point is that another wave of technology is required to scale 

up to products for imaging, agriculture, emergency response or 

package delivery. 

U.S. researchers and companies absolutely lead in these and 

other technology areas. We do have a demonstrated track record in 

autonomy, algorithms, sensors and communication, but there are 

hurdles. 

Firstly, from the Wright Cycle Exchange 100 years ago in Ohio, 

to Hewlett-Packard, to Apple, the creation myth of some of the 

most successful technology companies in the world is the small 

team of investors tinkering in a garage. The point is not the garage 

itself, but it gives the ability to test anywhere that is safe, and this 

massively accelerates the development cycle. Unfortunately, it is 

much harder to test UAV technology in the U.S. than in other 

countries. It is not impossible, the FAA does have a number of authorization mechanisms, but there is a considerable bar to enter for 

people who just want to work on the technology. 

The current processes might be right for authorizing a UAVbased pipeline inspection service across the length of North Dakota, but they are onerous for a two-person start creating basic 

technology. 

Unfortunately, there isn’t a single set of rules or procedures I can 

point to that can be adopted from another country that would work 

here, but there may be ideas to be learned. For example, a clear 

definition of legal test flight instead of a case-by-case approval 

process will let engineers know where they can literally set up 

their garage and start to work. 

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the U.S. position of 

leadership depends on our ability to train engineers and scientists 

with the skills necessary to develop the requisite technologies. 

There are a growing number of universities teaching UAV technology to undergrads. 

To learn the foundations of UAVs requires flight, requires real 

flight. While some institutions have access to COAs or are near one 

of the approved test sites, there are too few and the cost is substantial. The same processes that inhibit access to test areas limit how 

our educational institutions provide training in UAV technology. 

Furthermore, the support for basic research in UAV technologies 

is diminishing. Much of the progress in unmanned vehicles in the 

U.S. has been funded by forward-thinking program managers in 

ONR, ARO, AFOSR, DARPA and NASA. These program managers 

have not only funded the technology to enable UAVs, but have 

funded the students who write software that is running on UAVs 

today. It is these students that are going to solve the technology 

challenges. Universities outside the U.S. are acting both as training grounds for a generation of UAV researchers and as incubators 

for UAV companies. 

Let me conclude by saying that the U.S. is not currently lagging 

other countries regardless of the publicity around prototype demonstrations. The same technical hurdles will need to be overcome 

in any country before commercial UAVs become a reality of everyday life; nevertheless, there are issues and constraints in this counVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:22 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\12-10-~1\91735.TXT JEAN
29 

try that may allow other countries to overtake the U.S. both in 

technology development and in training the generation of engineers 

required to carry out that development. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Dr. Roy. 

Chairman Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here. We appreciate you bringing your 

expertise here, but I think it is important to point out that on this 

subcommittee, on the full committee, we have members that have 

expertise, we have pilots on this subcommittee. And I think I got 

them all down here: Congressman Graves is a pilot; Congressman 

Hanna; Scott Perry, Congressman Perry is a helicopter pilot, but 

a pilot; we are going to be joined next Congress by Congressman 

Rokita, who is a pilot; and Congressman Jeff Denham, when he 

served in the Air Force, was an aircraft mechanic; and our counsel, 

Naveen Rao, is a pilot. So we have a lot of expertise here, a lot of 

folks that understand what you are saying, and so I think it is 

going to be important as we move forward, listening to you, but listening to the experts that we have here on the subcommittee is 

very, very beneficial to us, and I am happy that they are here and 

with us and able to help us, guide us through this. 

The first question to Captain Moak, in your written testimony, 

you stated that commercial UAS operators should hold a commercial pilot’s license and instrument ratings. And we have heard that 

the skills to fly UAS are different, significantly different, from 

those to fly a passenger jet. Some parts of the curriculum really 

seem to have little relevance to flying UASs. For example, UAS operators need to master stall and recovery techniques in a Cessna 

if they plan on flying a quadcopter. So what would be the relevance 

there, how would it benefit safety, and is there a scientific basis for 

your recommendation? 

Mr. MOAK. So even on another committee I sat on, we have had 

the Air Force, where they were working—initially all their UAS pilots over the last several years were coming out of the pilot pipeline, but as the need for more UAS operators for U.S. Air Force increased, they set up a separate UAS track, which you may be familiar with. In that track, they do go through all the all the basic 

skills of flying, for a couple reasons: one is to understand when 

they are in the airspace, and the other is to make sure they are 

operating the UAS properly. So the Air Force has briefed us on 

that. We think it is a good model. 

With what the FAA has been doing, treating and—treating these 

as an airplane and go through—going through a process of 

certificating the aircraft, certificating the operator, the person trying to operate it, the company, and then certificating the pilots, 

OK, and then monitoring and oversight of all that, I think, is one 

of the precepts, the foundations of having a—continuing with a safe 

national airspace. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And so—— 

Mr. MOAK. On your specific on should they—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Cessna. 

Mr. MOAK [continuing]. Be able to recover from a stall or each 

of that, I think there is room for that in any curriculum. I agree 

30 

with you on that. I just think we need to be focused on that safety 

part of it. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. 

Mr. MOAK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So to modify it, you are not opposed to that if it 

doesn’t make sense. OK. 

Mr. MOAK. Absolutely. 

Mr. SHUSTER. The second thing is that we have got some reports 

from newspapers and other media sources that are leaking out 

some of the proposed rulemaking. And this question is to Captain 

Moak, Mr. Kallman and Mr. Roy. There appears to be a rule not 

to be permitted to operate beyond the line of sight. And if that 

were the case, my concern is it would significantly reduce or almost 

eliminate the benefits that a UAS system brings to us. So can you 

comment on beyond the line of sight? 

Mr. MOAK. Right. So you have seen the—there are news stories 

all the time, but there have been two recent ones, one at JFK and 

one at Heathrow. And this would be a different hearing if this 

would have went down the engine of an aircraft. It would have 

been, you know, catastrophic, and we would have a different hearing today. 

I think what is important is if it is going to be operated in that— 

in that method that you are talking about, there needs to be a way 

to have pilots that are flying be able to see it. And it is very difficult, if not impossible, to see this, because much like other things 

in the air, if there is not relative motion, your eye can’t pick it up. 

All right? 

And on the airspace issues, for example, for helicopters, you 

know, 500 feet and below is where helicopters, Life Flight and lots 

of other planes operate. So I would just suggest this: if we are 

going to be operating it beyond line of sight in densely—in dense 

areas, you know, big sky, little airplane, but lots of airplanes, there 

needs to be a way for air traffic control to see it, for the airplanes 

to see it, for the person who is operating it to be able to communicate with air traffic control and with the airplanes in the area. 

And that—I believe with that, you could very easily operate beyond 

line of sight. 

And then the only other thing, and we have experts over here, 

if you are in an area that is not populated by other airplanes, then 

of course you could operate it in that manner, but the only thing 

would be what do you do with a lost link, which, you know, has 

happened quite a bit in the military. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Kallman, based on what Mr. Captain Moak 

said there, can you comment? 

Mr. KALLMAN. Thank you. I think this gets back to the earlier 

point I made on taking a risk-based approach. So in the case of beyond-line-of-sight operations, you would be in a scenario where 

there are higher risks, but think you can mitigate that through 

technology. So, for example, in France today, what they are doing 

for beyond-line-of-sight operations is they are only operating at 

very low altitudes, where there isn’t general aviation traffic or commercial traffic, and they are enhancing it through technologies, 

such as cameras onboard, the system where an operator can actually see if there is other traffic in the area, to the point on lost link 

31 

scenarios, they are utilizing technology, I mentioned earlier, for a 

contingency management. 

So in the case where you do lose link with your operator, you are 

able to pre-program in so the UAV knows exactly how to respond 

in those cases. So depending on what the area is, what the environment is, it knows what a safe location is to return to. So these are 

the types of technologies that are already in place today. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would yield me 1 

more minute so that Mr. Roy can respond to that, because I know 

he has worked with Google and MIT, and this would be beneficial. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Without objection. 

Mr. ROY. So my answer is very consistent with the previous two 

answers in the sense that beyond line of sight is eminently doable. 

A risk-based profile makes a lot of sense. It is more feasible in unpopulated environments or where you have some notion of what 

the airspace contains. 

The technology issues are very consistent. Loss of link, there 

needs to be a contingency plan. Loss of link is a challenge. Maintaining situational awareness as the vehicle returns, that is a technology question that needs to be addressed, but these are eminently doable. 

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. Thank you very much. 

For the benefit of the FAA, I hope you heard a lot. To me it was 

loud and clear. Safety is paramount, absolutely. I think we all 

agree with that. This can be done, and as we move forward, making sure that we are looking at the technology and the safety aspect. And, again, one size doesn’t fit all. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to focus my initial questions on this end of the table. 

I know folks from my side of the aisle have some questions on 

the—for folks down here, and—but I wanted to talk a little bit 

about on the technology side. 

And is it doctor? Dr. Roy. Have you looked at the use of the six 

test sites and made any assessment about whether they are being 

used as much as they can? And if you have made that assessment, 

what would you suggest be done otherwise? 

Mr. ROY. So I—the six test sites are not my area of expertise, 

so I personally haven’t done an assessment. MIT was heavily involved in setting up the NUAIR test site. And I got back to MIT 

this September, so been a bit busy, haven’t done—haven’t looked 

at what is available there, but we hope to be flying there soon. 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, given—given your research and your course of 

study, what would be an ideal environment? 

Mr. ROY. So that is a good question. One of the limitations, I 

think, is the distance with which one has to go in order to get to 

the test sites and the—I guess the onus on setting up operations 

there. In an ideal world, I describe in my written testimony the 

ability to designate local test areas anywhere—local flight areas 

anywhere as test areas, have clear rules so that, for instance, if you 

are more than 150—I am picking these numbers up entirely arbitrarily, but 150 meters from people on the ground or a ground 

structure and you have secured the airspace, then if you had the 

ability to do that, that would allow—you know, presumably you 

32 

could not do that in downtown Cambridge, but you could go further 

afield to an area where, you know, you could take your student 

more easily than having to drive through Griffiss Air Force Base 

and fly. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah. Mr. Kallman, do you have some comments on 

just generally what an ideal environment for these test sites would 

look like? 

Mr. KALLMAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. LARSEN. Or how they would operate, that is. 

Mr. KALLMAN. Yeah. And I agree. I mean, I think the important 

thing for test sites is the ease of access so that small companies, 

large companies all have the same opportunities to go utilize the 

airspace. Obviously safety is of utmost importance, so being able to 

do that safely through, for example, issuing a NOTAM to other operators in the area so that they understand that there is some testing going on in these areas, but ensuring that these areas are able 

to allow for companies to get that approval and be able to come and 

utilize that space quickly and rapidly and at low cost to these companies. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah. Well, we will talk to the test sites about 

whether that is happening as well as some of the stakeholders. 

You talked a little bit about the risk-based approach and what 

it would look like. Is there—is there any scenario where, since you 

are in the private sector, where you can envision a test-to-operation 

scenario where you—you know, where—like, on the Armed Services 

Committee, we sort of broke through some of the acquisition on certain things to sort of—you know, to break through the slowness of 

the Pentagon to act on things. 

Is there—using that model, is there a scenario where we can get 

to a test-to-operation scenario at these test sites in certain cases? 

Mr. KALLMAN. Absolutely. And I think that could be very valuable. And I know organizations like NASA Ames are already engaged in looking at things like this to allow companies to bring 

their technology to showcase what it is capable of doing and ensuring that it will respond safely in a variety of different scenarios. 

I think that will be very important to have, and I think that there 

should be infrastructure for that. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah. Dr. Roy? 

Mr. ROY. I completely agree with that. I think that is essential, 

because there are going to be operational scenarios that can’t be 

represented in the test sites. So, for instance, as the commercial 

application of infrastructure inspection, package delivery and so on, 

they are going to require more urban environments for testing. And 

so as we want—as we stand up those markets, the test-to-operation 

is going to be an important part of that. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah. In the minute I have left, I just want to come 

down to Ms. Gilligan about—on the test sites and the issue of designated air worthiness representatives. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes. 

Mr. LARSEN. You have designated one for Nevada, the Nevada 

test site. What about the others, and is that something that test 

sites need to request or is FAA trying to conclude that they ought 

to have these? 

33 

Ms. GILLIGAN. We have offered that as a tool, a technique for the 

test sites to be able to attract industry into those locations. We did 

it in Nevada. We have offered the training to all of the test sites. 

They have not yet offered a candidate for that training. We are 

ready whenever they are ready. And, after the training, the designee then has to actually demonstrate that they have the skill. 

That will be done with one of our engineers, and after that, the 

designee will be able to actually approve the operation of the vehicle for the test sites. We think that will help to enhance the attraction for industry to come to those test sites. 

Mr. LARSEN. So is this an ODA model, essentially? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. At this point it is individual designees. It is not 

necessary that it actually be an organizational designation, because 

we haven’t seen that level of demand. Certainly, if the demand expands and we think an organizational model makes sense, we could 

move to that. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. I am going to—I will yield back, Mr. Chairman, 

and look forward to the rest of the questions. Thanks. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Ms. Gilligan, the question I am going to try to get to is the effectiveness interaction with FAA and the test sites. And there is a lot 

of FAA activity with UAS arena, with the test sites and section 333 

and so on. 

Could you explain the respective roles of the FAA Tech Center, 

the test sites, the centers of excellence, cooperative research and 

development agreements, section 333 in terms of how they are getting us towards UAS integration? I mean, it seems like there is a 

lot of stuff out here, but we are getting reports that the test centers 

are somewhat frustrated because there is not the interaction that 

they were expecting and were not getting results. Can you talk 

about this? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. I would be glad to, Mr. Chairman. We have biweekly conferences with all of the test sites, and so I think we have 

begun to alleviate some of those early concerns. 

I do think the test sites got off to perhaps a slower start than 

we and they were anticipating as they really came to understand 

what it was that they had undertaken. I think we are seeing good 

movement there. They all have approved COAs, and they all have 

flight operations underway. We are collecting some amount of information from those, but, of course, the numbers are still small, 

because they really are all just getting underway. 

I believe the improvement that Mr. Larsen referred to with the 

ability for the test sites to have a designated airworthiness representative who can work with companies that want to use the test 

sites will go a long way to increasing the appeal of the test sites 

to some of the companies that my colleagues on the panel have 

talked about, who want to do research in these areas. So we think 

that will be an important improvement as well. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So does the FAA have a plan to use these assets 

in a coordinated fashion? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. For FAA research, we are looking at what our research needs are, and to the extent the test centers can help us fulfill those needs, and to the extent that we have funding for that 

34 

research, we will certainly look to use the test sites. Right now, 

FAA has not placed research at any of the test sites. 

These test sites, as I say, were set up in accordance with the intent that we saw in the act, which was to allow industry to complete research. As my colleagues have said, right now it is difficult 

for industry to have access to airspace for the purposes of research 

and development. We believe the test sites offer the perfect opportunity to meet those research needs here in the U.S., and that is 

why we are working with the test sites to expand their ability to 

attract that kind of research. 

Again, if FAA needs can be met at the test sites, we will certainly look to fund projects at those test sites as well. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. So when you say you are working with the test 

sites to expand that opportunity, can you tell me a little bit more 

about that? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Again, we are trying to keep them well informed 

about what they are able to do under the agreements that they 

have with the FAA. We now have individuals actually from the 

FAA Technical Center who will be traveling to each of the test sites 

to work with them more closely on what it is that we might be 

looking for to be able to get research data through the test sites. 

Once the test sites take advantage of the ability to have a designee 

on site, we think that that will really open the doors for industry 

to take advantage of the test sites. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Can you tell us a little bit about how you are engaging with U.S. companies that might want to do research and development here in the U.S. versus overseas and—what I am after 

is about some of these media reports that companies are frustrated. 

Are you interacting with these companies, or how are we trying to 

keep them to keep the jobs here, is what I am getting at? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, sir. The staff in our UAS office are interacting with industry constantly. There is a large annual conference, 

for example, this week out in New Mexico. We are well represented 

there and we are reaching out not only in public sessions, but in 

private meetings with manufacturers to try to understand what are 

their needs and whether and where they can meet those needs. 

In terms of the recent newspaper report that you saw, we have 

been working with that applicant. They are looking at both an exemption under part 333 as well as what we are recommending, 

which is that they seek certification for their vehicle under our special certification rules for the purposes of research. And we think 

that we can actually enable them to accomplish what they need to 

accomplish here in the U.S. through the test sites and through 

their own certification. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, there are obviously a lot of areas of interest 

here that we as the committee want to try to keep our fingers on. 

But while keeping safety paramount, the economic opportunities in 

an economy that can desperately use it is also at the top of our list. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Gilligan, there is this inanity of the Antideficiency Act where 

you can’t give direction to someone utilizing a test site because 

they are providing an uncompensated service. Have your lawyers 

35 

really looked at that to see whether or not there is a way around 

that, or are we going to need to legislate to fix that? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Our lawyers have looked at it, sir, at this point, 

and that is the advice that they have given us. I certainly will ask 

them to look more closely to see if there is some alternative. But 

at this point, we are, again, supporting the test sites by trying to 

make them attractive to industry which really is the party that is 

interested in the research. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. And I have also heard from some who use 

the test sites that there is quite a bureaucratic process that comes 

in. And if you want to run one flight you have to file all these papers, and then you want to modify something and run another, you 

can’t just like do it. You can’t just say, well, we are going to change 

eight parameters and we are going to do another flight. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. We are working with the test sites. We have actually asked them to come in with a proposal for what we are calling 

a broad co-authorization. They are working on that proposal so that 

we can start to address some of these concerns. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. I mean, you have got the test site, you 

know, we will get all those parameters in place, and then someone 

comes there and says, oh, well, come back and another 30 days if 

you want to run a little modified operate. They should be able to 

do it on a test site, be able to do multiple operations with different 

parameters would be useful for your people to observe. It would be 

useful, obviously, for their development or greatly facilitate things. 

So I hope that we can do that very quickly. 

Why aren’t there more test sites? We limited it to six, but why 

couldn’t we have more? I mean, we just limited it to six. Is there 

any reason why we couldn’t have more test sites? It doesn’t cost 

you anything, right? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Well, it does cost us in—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. In terms of personnel monitoring, yes, et cetera. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes. We have people who work very closely with 

the test sites, and so there is a resource—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yeah, but I don’t consider them very well geographically dispersed. There is a lot, I mean, as the point was 

made down here, for a small startup to have to travel 1,000 miles 

to a test site. That is another thing we ought to look at. 

Are we seriously pursuing a risk-based approach, which just 

makes so much sense to me, living in the West and knowing that 

there are vast areas with agriculture where you could be operating 

safely and there are no potential conflicts or virtually none. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, sir. We are using a risk-based approach as 

we look at each of the 333 requests for exemption, for example, to 

make sure that we understand the level of risk and what limitations need to be added to it. I think one of the panelists referred 

to it. We do have applicants who want to actually certify the systems, and we are using the same risk-based approach there. We 

are looking at our certification rules, and, with the applicant, we 

are looking at the risks that need to be addressed by design standards and what we can pick from the standards that exist right now 

for—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. Well, geographic makes a lot of sense as a 

starting point for risk-based approach, in terms of density of operVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:22 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\12-10-~1\91735.TXT JEAN
36 

ations, proximity to secondary tertiary, general airports, you know, 

critical airspace, whole different problem. So I hope you are seriously working on that. 

There is one other question to you, and that is, the staff has provided something they say that in the case of the film industry that 

after they got the section 333, they have to get a separate operating authorization which has not yet been granted. So—— 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, they need approval to operate in the airspace, 

and we need to be able to put out a notice to airmen where the operations are occurring. I believe all but one of them have now gotten that approval for at least one location. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. But we agree that under the exemptions process, 

we might be able to make that more efficient as well. We are looking closely as how we could do that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. And this is to the panel generally or maybe 

that end. I mean, transponders, how small can a useful transponder be these days? 

Mr. KALLMAN. Some of the smaller transponders that can be 

used now in UAVs can be right now about the size of a cell phone, 

maybe even smaller. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. A what? Cell phone? 

Mr. KALLMAN. Yeah, about cell phone size. So those are some of 

the smaller systems. There is still some cost associated, but I think 

it could be a helpful technology when you are at a higher altitude 

when there could be other traffic in the area. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yeah. We said over a certain altitude get out a 

transponder. In certain kinds of critical airspace, you have got to 

have a transponder. I mean, because right now these things are invisible—— 

Mr. KALLMAN. Yeah. 

Mr. DEFAZIO [continuing]. Through our crude radar systems. So 

that is correct. 

OK. And then this lost link. I mean, that has been a problem 

with the military. You know, you think you have got that nailed 

in terms of if you have the geospatial restrictions and that is all 

somehow programmed in, and these things can find a safe harbor 

point remotely and they know they have lost a link so they are 

going to go to that point? 

Mr. KALLMAN. Uh-huh. Typically how that would work is the 

manufacturers of the vehicles know what a safe, you know, amount 

of lost link time is. And, for example, they can specify in certain 

applications where lost link is absolutely critical, and if there is 

any sort of lost link, it needs to be immediately returned to the 

landing location in a way that is safe. 

In other cases, a lot of these systems are so highly autonomous 

that interruptions in the link may not be as important if it is in 

an area where it is controlled. So it is all depending on the risk 

of the situation, and you can actually program a lot of that into the 

actual avionics of the system. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

37 

I want to follow up on some of what you were just sharing, Mr. 

Kallman. You know, you talked a lot about technology and where 

we are. You know, we see an aircraft sitting in front of Captain 

Moak there. Is it possible to put in the type of technology, or can 

you expand on the types of technology that would increase safety 

but yet not require an aircraft license as the gentleman to your 

right is advocating that would keep us safe? What other technologies are out there? 

Mr. KALLMAN. Yes. So I mentioned two very important ones: The 

geo-fence technology, which is very common in the industry and 

can be used on vehicles as small as the ones you see here; the contingency management functionality, it gets to a lost link; also, loss 

of GPS functionality so that should the vehicle no longer be able 

to make itself aware of where it is, it knows how to land safely. 

There is a lot of really great research going on right now here 

in the United States and other parts of the world that Professor 

Roy talked about on sense-and-avoid technology. I think that is 

going to be a critical piece for enabling a lot of these higher risk 

applications at higher altitude with, you know, other traffic in the 

air, and there is already very significant advancements in that area 

as well. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how confident are you that if we do not change 

our regulatory scheme that Canada, Australia, Europe will own 

this type of technology, and on a scale of one to ten being most confident that if we don’t change things that we are going to lose out? 

Mr. KALLMAN. I would say I am pretty confident, because we are 

seeing a lot of the highly skilled manufacturers in Europe really 

surpassing a lot of the U.S. companies because of their ability to 

go and iterate, do very frequent testing, do a lot of research on 

their products where they are able to actually go two or three generations in their products where a U.S. company may only be able 

to do it once. So we are starting to see some of that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So they are actually doing a lot more testing in 

Europe or Canada or other places than we are here? 

Mr. KALLMAN. So it is because a lot of the main manufacturers 

there have easy access to testing facilities. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So Ms. Gilligan, let me come to you. From an 

FAA standpoint, obviously, we have some six sites that we are talking about, but if there is so much work going on in these foreign 

countries, are you gathering data in terms of commercial activity 

from them, successes, failures, or are we just being more focused 

on the United States and not learning from their mistakes or their 

successes? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. No, sir. There is a lot of coordination at the international level, both in terms of what we as an industry should be 

establishing as the standards for these operations, as well as sharing experiences seen around the world. But, I do want to comment 

on the vast differences in the complexity of our airspace and our 

aviation system over some of the other countries where there is 

some easier access. 

We have 10 times the number of registered airplanes than our 

friends to the north. We have multiple times the numbers of operations—— 

38 

Mr. MEADOWS. And that is without a doubt, but as Mr. DeFazio 

is talking about, there are certainly areas where the risk would be 

minimal. I have learned today that I probably violated a Federal 

law by taking pictures of a golf course. Now, there was more danger of somebody getting hit by a golf ball than there is from the 

drone that flew over it to take the pictures. But as we see that, can 

we not look at it on a risk-based assessment and really open up the 

testing so that our airline pilots can feel comfortable with what we 

have but yet not keep it so confined? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. We are working closely with the test site in North 

Dakota, for example, with just that in mind, recognizing that there 

is lower level of air traffic over most of the State of North Dakota 

and they are looking at how they can broaden access for that test 

site. So yes, sir, we agree that there are areas where this can safely 

be accomplished, and we are looking at working with the test sites 

on how we can expand that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So have we implemented any recommendations 

that we have received from foreign countries that would actually 

help alleviate some of this, or are we just gathering data? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. I am not aware that we have recommendations 

from foreign countries that would address this, but we are learning 

from their experience and looking at how we—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. If we are learning and not implementing, that is 

not doing any good, is it? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. I am sorry, what I was going to say is we are 

learning from them and looking at how we can implement what 

they have learned safely here in this system. We continue to look 

for ways to do this safely. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 

back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. 

I want to thank the Members for watching the clock. You may 

have noticed Mr. Larsen and I kept ourselves on the clock. We 

have a lot of folks who want to ask questions so I appreciate that. 

We will now go to Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent Las Vegas, so 

there is a lot of enthusiasm in Nevada for the development of 

drones or UAS. We have got a lot of open space. We have got 

Creech Air Force Base. We have got a very creative gaming industry that wants to provide bottle service by the pool with these 

things. I mean, the potential is great. We applied to become a test 

center. We got that. I was supportive of that. We have been working on it. But the enthusiasm is starting to wane because that test 

site is not producing like we thought it would. 

Now, I hear Ms. Gilligan being positive about it, but the things 

that I hear from people who have briefed me from Nevada are more 

in line with what Dr. Dillingham pointed out. They just don’t think 

it is getting off the ground, so to speak. And I have heard Ms. 

Gilligan say about three different times, ‘‘We are working on this 

so we can start to address some of the concerns.’’ Well, that doesn’t 

give me a lot of comfort because you have been working on the rule 

for such a long time, I don’t think working on it address the concerns is going to get us there in time to be competitive. I don’t 

39 

know why business wouldn’t just go test in Canada instead of going 

to one of our test centers. 

Seems to me there are three problems that I hear over and over 

from the different folks from Nevada who come and talk to me. One 

is, they don’t know what information should be collected. It has 

just not been clear to them what data is needed, how to put it together, what procedure should be followed. Now, I hear Dr. 

Dillingham say you are working on establishing that, but there is 

no timeframe for when that is going to be done so that could be— 

who knows when that might be. 

Second problem that they seem to have is this speeding up the 

COA process. We heard some reference to that. You have to do it 

over every single time, takes so long. I wonder why we couldn’t 

maybe prioritize the COAs for the test sites over others because 

that seems to be where we want to put our emphasis. 

Third, the problem of intellectual property, protecting industrial 

secrets, so to speak, of companies that come and test there that 

have to give all this information to the FAA and the public. I just 

wonder if you would address some of these questions, Ms. Gilligan; 

and, Dr. Dillingham, would you give us your perspective on it? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, ma’am, I would be glad to. If I could start 

with the last one first. That is why we are very pleased to see that 

Nevada has stepped up to begin the approval process for a designee. We believe, and I think they believe, that using a designee 

will allow them to bring industry into the site without having to 

jeopardize the intellectual property of the folks who want to work 

at that site. So we think that is an important step forward. 

I believe the approval for that designee should be completed this 

month. And so I think with that, the test site will see that they 

can now sort of market that they have the ability for industry to 

bring their research projects to this test site and not put at risk 

intellectual property, which was a concern earlier on. So I think 

that is an important improvement, and we applaud Nevada for 

stepping out first to take that on. 

In terms of the COAs, we do prioritize the requests. All of the 

test sites have approved authorities now for airspace. There are 

some that are still pending. We are, again, trying to work through 

those as quickly as we can, because we agree with you; the test 

sites have been designated as a location where we can take advantage of our ability to continue to integrate UAS safely. So we are 

pursuing that as well. 

And I am sorry, I forget the first one. 

Ms. TITUS. I have forgotten the first one myself. What information should be collected? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. The data. I am sorry, yes. Again, we saw these 

sites initially and primarily—and continue to see them primarily— 

as a place where industry can go to do the research and development that they want to do, the work that some of my colleagues 

here on the panel have talked about. In terms of what data the 

FAA needs, we now realize that that is a valuable piece of information for this test sites to have. 

With the applications for the Centers of Excellence, we have 

identified the research needs that the FAA has, and, again, in our 

biweekly conference calls with the test sites as well as now with 

40 

the visits that will be made by our staff from the Technical Center, 

we are going to be working closely with the test site operators to 

make sure is that we and they understand what could be helpful 

to FAA based on the work that they are seeing at their test sites. 

So we will be—— 

Ms. TITUS. Dr. Dillingham. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Well, Ms. Titus, you hit on all the key points, 

the same stories that we have been hearing from the test sites. We 

have had the opportunity to interview half of them and visit some 

of the test sites and those are the key issues. 

I think in terms of increasing their value and their capacity to 

input, I think Ms. Gilligan, as FAA fulfills those things that Ms. 

Gilligan talked about, that will go a long way. But I think sort of 

key to this is something that Mr. DeFazio said about looking at 

this antideficiency law and seeing is there a way that funds could 

be made available to pay for research or support research at the 

test sites. 

And also, in terms of the idea that we only have six test sites, 

I mean, our information suggests that in Canada, for example, they 

are ready to designate a very large airspace up to 18,000 feet for 

testing beyond visual line of sight. So perhaps as we move towards 

the next stage of this, that not only additional test sites and maximum use of the current ones that we again think in terms of this 

risk-based approach to it. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Perry. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to question. I don’t sit on this subcommittee, but I have a 

great interest in it. 

From the context of safety juxtaposed with the industry and the 

things that we are missing out on, I think, as well as the time it 

has taken to come by the rule, my mindset is many, but I am just 

looking at an article in the local paper. On November 14 of this 

year, which is not too long ago, at 4:30 in the afternoon, on a 

Wednesday, so it is not on the weekend, an EMS helicopter flown 

by a guy that I used to fly with in the military at about 600 or 700 

feet AGL encountered a UAS about 50 feet away from the aircraft 

and, you know, did a pretty strong evasive maneuver to make sure 

that he didn’t hit the aircraft. 

Now, he didn’t have his patient on board. He was coming back 

from having the patient on board, but that concerns me. It is not 

just EMS, it is, you know, reports from Kennedy where just in the 

same month, on November 16, one came within 10 feet of a left 

wing of a Delta Airlines flight, which is concerning. And so we 

want everybody to—hobbyists, people that want to use them for 

business and so on and so forth to be able to access the airspace, 

but we also need to make sure that we all understand what the 

rules are and that they make sense. 

With that in mind, just one question for you, Mr. Moak. What 

is the cost of one of the engines on the airplane you fly? 

Mr. MOAK. Millions and millions of dollars. 

Mr. PERRY. I mean, literally over a million dollars just for the engine? 

41 

Mr. MOAK. Absolutely. 

Mr. PERRY. So if, I mean, if it is fodded out—— 

Mr. MOAK. No, no. 

Mr. PERRY [continuing]. If the UAS were to fly through it or hit 

it—— 

Mr. MOAK. Well, this is, just to be clear, because I think maybe 

this wasn’t clear, this has a GPS in it. This has geocoding in it. It 

has the ability to do the things. When it loses lost-link, it is supposed to come back. So this going through an engine would do that 

damage that we showed in the earlier picture. 

And to really be clear, we are all over this risk-based security, 

risk-based approach to it, and we also commend the steady hand 

of the FAA in making sure that as we bring them on they are safe. 

But, again, we would have a different conversation if it ran into 

that EMS helicopter or it was 10 feet closer to that Delta jet, you 

know. We need to be focused on—— 

Mr. PERRY. Ms. Gilligan, can I ask you a question in that regard. 

What specifications, if you can enumerate at this point or give us 

some insight, is the FAA contemplating to incorporate into UAS to 

ensure that pilots can detect and avoid and—pilots don’t look just 

straight ahead in the direction they are flying. You have to look almost in 360 degrees. You can’t look behind you, but—and then if 

you could address all-weather capability of UAS and what the plan 

is for that anonymous operation. If that aircraft were to hit the 

other aircraft, how do we know who owned it? And then maybe liability, if that is germane to this current conversation? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Thank you, Congressman. On the question of 

standards, we have several groups that are industry groups that 

are working on advising us on what those standards should be. 

Through the RTCA, we have had a special committee working on 

UAS standards. They expect to put forward their first set of draft 

standards around this time next year, with final standards due 

about a year after that, which is the standard process that we use 

when we are setting new design standards. 

In the meantime, we do have some applicants who have come in 

to get certification for their vehicles. They are working out of our 

Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office. We are approaching the 

certification basis with those applicants by looking at our current 

regulations and identifying those that are appropriate for this kind 

of technology. 

As it relates to small UAS, we do have a rule that will be coming 

out shortly which will make proposals around a number of these 

areas, and we will look for comments back on those as well. 

Mr. PERRY. For instance, lighting, a strobe or after hours a darkness required lighting, proximity warning or TCAS or something of 

that magnitude. And then if you could address the anonymous component or the ability to track who owns it if there is a liability 

issue? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Again, we do not have existing standards for the 

design or manufacturer of unmanned aerial systems for civil use. 

That is why we are working with RTCA and ASTM, both of them 

internationally recognize standards setting organizations to define 

working with the industry, what should those standards be. And 

that is work that is underway and that the community completely 

42 

agrees needs to be well developed to address just the kinds of risks 

that you are talking about. 

The other issue, which is something we are seeing now, the operation of small UAS by people who are able to buy them but who 

have no aviation history or experience, and who, in many cases, 

don’t even realize they have a responsibility to know that they are 

operating in the National Airspace System. 

Our first approach to that is through education. We are doing a 

tremendous amount of outreach. We are working with manufacturers who are voluntarily putting information into the kit, into the 

box when you get it, about what those responsibilities are, if you 

are going to operate a small UAS. They are directing people who 

buy them to look at the, modeling the American Modelers Association Web site, which has a tremendous amount of safety information for the operation of these kinds of small vehicles. 

The dilemma is not many of the folks who buy these are really 

modelers as you and I might have understood that, which was 

about building the airplane and the joy of that. As Captain Moak 

indicates, you can now purchase small UAS very easily and fly 

them pretty quickly after you have gotten them to your home. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you. I yield. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Ms. Esty. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on 

the future of unmanned aircraft systems, and I want to thank all 

the witnesses. 

I am sort of at the opposite end of our spectrum from Representative Titus. I live in the State of Connecticut where we have some 

of the most congested airspace in the country. And so for my State, 

which has been long at the forefront of aerospace design, I see both 

tremendous opportunity for American businesses and for workers 

in my State, but also serious risk. I was at an event recently, a 

charity event, which I had my first encounter with a drone, which 

was a little hard to actually be appropriately reflective during a 

benediction while a drone was overhead. So it kind of brought 

home what the reality of that is. 

So I want to return to one of my favorite topics, which is 

NextGen, and ask several of you, and it really goes to your point, 

Ms. Gilligan, I don’t think we can rely on the hobbyists here to 

take the time that modelers have always taken because they see 

themselves in the aviation space. These are people who are enjoying toys in some cases and don’t have that sense of responsibility 

of if seagulls can take down an aircraft, what do we think something out of metal can do? And all it is going to take is one horrific 

accident. 

So I would like to ask you, Captain Moak, can you talk a little 

bit about how you see what we need to do in NextGen to keep your 

pilots and all of the air passengers safe in this country, what we 

need to be doing with NextGen and how quickly and what resources and how we need to integrate—and, Mr. Hampton, you are 

next on deck on this—about the utter importance of integrating 

both of these together, which I think is tremendously important. 

We need to move very rapidly. Thank you. 

Mr. MOAK. OK. So we work with the unmanned aircraft systems 

groups, and they shouldn’t be defined by this because they also 

43 

have the same concerns we have of one of these causing an accident, all right. So the risk-based approach where we are working 

with them on, we are working with the FAA. 

On NextGen, the larger type of systems that would be in the airspace, there has to be a way for the pilot in the cockpit, if it is 

going to be in the same airspace to be able to see it. There has to 

be a way for our controllers, who keep the airspace very safe, to 

be able to see it on their scopes, in their control room. 

Currently, you know, we do that with IFF. We have ADS–B In 

and Out with NextGen coming on line, and I am confident that 

these technological challenges that we are facing here, going 

through a process, same kind of process we use to certify aircraft 

and operators, that we will be able to do that at some point. But 

right now, they are being defined by this. And what we have to be 

mindful of is, as the airspace gets more crowded, not less, that we 

have those same capabilities. When the Air Force comes and the 

NextGen Committee sits on it, their concern is how they are going 

to be integrated in the airspace, ADS–B In and Out and whatnot. 

So I think that is really the focus and the tie-in with NextGen, 

Congressman. 

Ms. ESTY. Mr. Hampton, about this integration effort of NextGen 

with UAS. 

Mr. HAMPTON. Currently a lot of today’s discussion has been focused on the smaller UAS. When we did our review last year, we 

noted that some UAS are operating today. Of those that are authorized, referred to as ‘‘COA,’’ there are about 500. DOD operates 

them now in the NAS. They are on the border, Albuquerque Center, Los Angeles Center. And only preliminary work has begun to 

look at the air traffic control systems and the adjustments that 

have to be made. 

In particular, the automation systems such as the $2.4 billion 

ERAM system, a flight planning system, are going to have to be 

adjusted. Another one we talk about is the voice switch. Today, 

most of the discussion has been about how pilots talk to controllers 

via voice commands. Now that discussion is going to have to be 

with the person that is operating the system that is on the ground, 

not in the cockpit of the aircraft. 

So a great deal of work has to begin to think about how air traffic control systems will need to be adjusted. Some work has begun. 

It is in its infancy and that has to be done now. I think the planning and requirements adjustments, that is something that has to 

be done very quickly. 

Ms. ESTY. And if anyone has got thoughts on the funding, you 

know, if this is appropriate to go to the industry to seek the resources to realize both the safety but also the opportunity for industry. And if anyone would care to get into that, I would love to 

hear your thoughts. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Your time is just about expired. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Farenthold. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We will start with Ms. Gilligan. We created section 333 to push 

the FAA to begin allowing small U.S. operations before finalizing 

the rule. You all stated the goal was to approve these petitions 

44 

within 120 days; however, only 7, according to my figures, have 

been granted to date, and 60 applications are past the 120-day window. What is the status of these petitions, and can we expect to 

see more timely response to them, especially with regard to areas 

you have predesignated as the test site? It seems obvious that you 

can let the airmen know that in these areas, there is going to be 

a presence of UAVs, you can dedicate airspace to them. You certainly ought to be able to streamline around the test centers. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, sir. I am pleased to say that there were 5 additional exemptions that were issued today, so there are now 12 exemptions that have been granted. But—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. There are 200 filed? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. I believe it was slightly over 160, but we will confirm that number for you. Having said that, we agree that we need 

to speed this up a little bit. Each of them is somewhat more unique 

than we were anticipating, but we are learning quickly as we 

thumb through this first set. 

As to the test sites, we actually believe that the statute intended 

for them to be separate from the test sites. They are for commercial 

service, which is actually not the reason for the test sites. The test 

sites are about research and development. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Let me ask you real quick with commercial 

service. 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Sure. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. First off, I am also worried about the cat being 

out of the bag. I have got a quadcopter on my Christmas list, as 

I suspect quite a few people do. So at some point, there are going 

to be so many of these that are out without—we are not going to 

know who owns them. I mean, you can look back to the FCC and 

the walkie-talkies, they came with a card where you are supposed 

to register them but nobody did. And I think this is a more dangerous scenario, and it is something that I think you guys need to 

be putting a priority on. When there are too many of these out here 

capable of going, you know, beyond a couple hundred feet and actually being able to go up to 6,000 feet, we have got a problem, and 

our failure to regulate them we are going to have a genie-out-ofthe-bottle issue. 

So I am going to ask Dr. Dillingham: You studied this; how can 

we speed this up? I mean, things move at Internet speed now. 

These are considered tech devices. Silicon Valley gets stuff done in 

weeks not years. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, sir. This is a situation that, although we 

have studied, we don’t have an answer before because, as you 

pointed out, we are talking about civilians, regular public using 

these kind of platforms, and there are already existing regulations 

that the modelers follow but the public has not adhered to it. Because I would argue—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Do we have the resources to enforce that 

against, you know, tens of thousands of these that are going to be 

sold this Christmas? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. It is going to be a difficult or almost impossible 

task because FAA already has so many calls on its resources. I 

think what Ms. Gilligan said earlier, probably is one of the best 

steps, that is, education for the public that there are, in fact, rules 

45 

and regulations that they need to follow. And when we see these 

public announcements of individuals being fined or otherwise, the 

FAA acting on them, that probably is going to have to be one of 

the incentives as well. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I mean, even the existing regulations, assuming they were enforced, let’s say I buy a quadcopter, put a GoCam 

on it and go out to my friend’s ranches and film some deer around 

a deer feeder. I am perfectly legal at that point. I post that to my 

blog that has Google ads on it, all of a sudden I have probably 

crossed into a gray area of commercial use. And, I mean, that is 

a lot of fine line distinctions to have to educate the public about. 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. I can’t argue with that, sir. You are right. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And Ms. Gilligan, I will give you an 

opportunity to answer my question or concern that we are operating at the speed of the Internet, and if our regulations can’t keep 

up with technology and there are so many of those out there, we 

are really going to have a dangerous situation. Is there a sense of 

urgency? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, sir, there is within the FAA. As I commented 

in my opening remarks, our small UAS rule has been delayed beyond what any of us think is acceptable, but we believe our balanced proposal will be out shortly and will start to get comment 

and finalize those rules. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. I see my time is expired. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Massie. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Gilligan, you mentioned that a rule would be coming out 

shortly, and Mr. Hampton, you have documented the ways that we 

are kind of behind schedule. I understand that things rarely go according to schedule, whether you are in the private sector or the 

public sector, but when you say a rule is going to be coming out 

shortly, to quote a colleague, is that in a geological time scale or 

in Internet speed? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. The proposal is under executive review at this 

point, sir, so I really can’t tell you exactly what the timeframe is. 

But as I said, I think all of us who are involved in the project understand how important it is to get this out as quickly as we can. 

Mr. MASSIE. I would be remiss in my oversight responsibility 

here if I didn’t get a date or some kind of commitment at this hearing so that when we are at the next hearing we can measure 

progress toward that. What are some of your goals in the next 

year? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Well, for the rulemaking, the Department of 

Transportation has a Web site which shows the rule as scheduled 

for release at the end of this year. Once the rule is released it will 

go out for public comment. That period will last anywhere between 

60 to 90 days, depending on what the community asks for. There 

is some concern that we will get a substantial number of comments 

which will delay how quickly we can get to the final rule, but we 

will certainly keep the committee informed of how we are progressing once we are able to publish the rule. 

Mr. MASSIE. To Ms. Esty’s point earlier, how are we going to 

make sure these rules are copacetic with the NextGen? Is putting 

46 

ADS–B in every drone, is that going to be one of the answers? 

Would that allow them to interoperate? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Well, sir, I can’t really comment on what is in the 

rule because it is a pending rulemaking. But, as I said, we have 

the industry very tightly involved with us in determining what 

should be the design standards for these kinds of platforms, when 

they are to be certified by the FAA. So we will base our decisions 

on what the community recommends. 

Mr. MASSIE. One of my concerns for drones and the commercial 

development of them is if you require something like ADS–B and 

there is no low-cost solution to that, are we throwing up another 

impediment, because the low-cost solution to ADS–B doesn’t exist 

right now for private aircraft? And do you see any progress in that 

field? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Well, again, the industry and members of the committees who are advising us know that they must address the risks 

that are posed by the ability to sense and avoid other aircraft and 

for the unmanned platform to be able to be seen by both controllers 

and pilots in the system. They are working hard on what exactly 

those technology solutions can be, and we are sure they will find 

them. 

Mr. MASSIE. I know you don’t want to comment on a rule because 

it has not been released, but can you give us some indication, is 

it going to be risk based, or to what degree will you incorporate 

those recommendations of a risk-based strategy? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. I can tell you that we did take a risk-based approach. It is the approach we use now for all of our standards. We 

also look at performance standards rather than directing particular 

technology solutions, for example. Those are just the general policies that we follow. 

Mr. MASSIE. So I have got a question for Mr. Kallman, or Dr. Roy 

here. Some experts have talked about integrating privacy by design. You know, we are talking about safety, what about privacy 

here? This is a concern, a genuine concern that the larger public 

has, I think. Are you aware of any technology solutions to the privacy issue? 

Mr. KALLMAN. To the privacy issue, and I think it is important 

to state that privacy is definitely one of the things of utmost importance for the UAV industry and a lot of companies in it. And to 

your point on privacy by design, I think a lot of manufacturers are 

engaging this today and doing things like restricting, for example, 

where cameras can and cannot turn on and board the aircraft, protecting that valuable information. But ultimately, I feel that privacy is really independent of the type of technology that is collecting that information. I feel that privacy is really about what information is private, what information is public, and ensuring that 

we protect that independent of the different types of collection 

methods. 

Mr. MASSIE. Dr. Roy. 

Mr. ROY. I would also like to add that privacy is a little bit of 

a moving target and it varies from not just country to country, but 

across the U.S. as well. And it is really a question of expectations. 

I think that when we talk about, your suggestion of privacy technology, I think so long as the public understands what information 

47 

is being collected and has clarity into that, then that will go a long 

way towards actually defining privacy. 

Mr. MASSIE. Quick question. I don’t know if there will be time 

for an answer. But one of the things in addition to a ceiling that 

I would like to see is a floor. What is a reasonable expectation on 

your property? If something is an inch above the ground, is it trespassing? If it is 10 feet above the ground, is it trespassing? And do 

you have the right to engage a trespasser? So that is something 

that I would like to see considered along the privacy lines. I think 

my time is expired. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. It has. 

Mr. MASSIE. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand, because of 

the number of folks you have and the number of folks we have, we 

will kind of go at two to your side and one to our side and get 

through this. 

I want to yield a little bit of time to Mr. DeFazio who has a question and then I will take the rest of the 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman and try to do this quickly. 

You know, when we see these things in the New York airspace, 

have we found anybody operating illegally who was putting people 

at risk? I mean, you have talked about some commercial violations. 

Have you caught anybody who has like put people at risk with one 

of these things? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. I can’t make the correlation, sir, to some of the reports that we had and some of the cases that we have pursued. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, because we don’t know who is operating 

them, who owns them or anything. How about a system where we 

require registration, licensure with user fees. The user fees go to 

help you with the deficiencies in your budget and you vary the license according to the uses and the weight and the capabilities so 

the cost, you know, would be appropriate, so it is not going to be 

burdensome on, you know, little small—but, so anyway, think 

about that. There is no real answer now, but I think that is the 

way to go. We need to know who has these things, who is operating 

them. And, you know, people are putting people at risk, taking a 

plane down. They have got to be prosecuted. Thank you. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

So Mr. Hampton, the FAA UAS working group has recommended 

the integration office be placed at a higher level with the FAA. 

Have you looked at or do you have an assessment of whether or 

not you think moving the UAS integration office would help coordinate efforts better across the agency? 

Mr. HAMPTON. That is a very good question, and for industry 

that is a significant concern. At this time, I think we are more concerned about outcomes. And going forward in the reauthorization 

process, I think we would have to look a year from now and see 

the outcomes and whether things have advanced. The FAA is going 

to quickly move from a situation of planning to actual execution on 

a number of fronts. I think we would have to wait until about a 

year from now and see where we have gone with the execution of 

the rule, where we have gone on FAA’s response to a number of 

our recommendations, such as developing and executing a frameVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:22 Feb 18, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\AV\12-10-~1\91735.TXT JEAN
48 

work for collecting data, and where we have come with the test 

sites. So I think that is a very real possibility. 

I am not too concerned about how FAA is organized and structured, but rather on outcomes, sir. And I think that is a very good 

question. The office is structured and it does a very good job of coordinating. A year ago we were concerned about staffing levels. 

They staffed up. We are also concerned about the requirements of 

what is important for it to actually begin to develop the regulatory 

framework and do controller training. We are concerned about requirements and the position of the office to execute plans and make 

things happen with a sense of urgency. So I think we would have 

to take a look at that in about 6 months to a year, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. All right. Just for the record, I am hopeful we will 

be done with this reauthorization well before that year is up. 

Mr. HAMPTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Dr. Dillingham, from your discussion with test site 

operators and other stakeholders, do you have any thoughts about 

how test sites could increase level of participation in the UAS integration efforts? 

Dr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, Mr. Larsen. In our conversations with the 

test sites, in addition to the blanket COA that Ms. Gilligan talked 

about and the appointment of the air worthiness director, the test 

sites also talked about perhaps they could be a part of FAA’s approval process of the section 333. That number is going to increase, 

and it is a workload burden on FAA. We are hearing that it will 

be 2 or 3 years before we have a rule. So in the meantime, any 

tools that are available to further the idea of commercial use of 

UAS will certainly be helpful. 

Something was talked about earlier, again, is the development of 

an integrated budget that allows FAA to be more supportive of the 

test sites, as well as, again, we bring back, the issues around the 

antideficiency law that can be somehow dealt with so that it allows 

FAA to adhere to the law but also be supportive of the test sites. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yeah. OK. 

Captain Moak, just one final question on this: How are ALPA pilots communicating their misses of unmanned aircraft to FAA? Is 

there a structured way to do that, and are you confident that every 

near-miss that is seen is being reported? 

Mr. MOAK. So if you see one of these, you are going to take action 

to avoid it. You are then going to report it to the controlling authority. So if we are out in the approach corridor, we are going to 

be talking to the approach and let them know immediately so that 

they can make sure someone else doesn’t go in the same airspace. 

If we are on the tower frequency, we would report it to tower at 

that time. Then once we are on the ground safely and have gotten 

to the gate, we have an ASAP reporting program that we work 

with the FAA and the companies with. We report it through that 

so that everybody can know about it. 

I am confident that when someone sees it we are reporting it; I 

am not confident that we are seeing them, because they are very 

small. And like I was saying earlier, we don’t have any indication 

in the airplane like we do with TCAS with the other aircraft, and 

the relative motion necessary for your eye to be able to pick it up 

is difficult, especially this size, maybe just a little bigger. So it is 

49 

a real issue. Our pilots are reporting them and we just need to stay 

on top of it. 

I would like to see us take some kind of construct on this type 

of problem that we took with the green laser problem we were having and we became a lot more successful on reporting and also 

prosecution of people that were pointing those lasers at pilots on 

final. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I echo the comments that Chairman LoBiondo and Chairman 

Shuster on UAS, both from a safety perspective as well as an opportunity for economic growth. The briefing materials that we were 

provided by the committee cite that UAS systems will have an $82 

billion economic impact and possibly provide up to 100,000 jobs by 

the year 2025. So my questions should be viewed through that lens. 

I would like to start with Associate Administrator Gilligan. One 

of the benefits I see with the UAS is more efficiency in rural areas, 

like the one I represent, especially viewing farmland and precision 

agriculture could be aided by UAVs and we could reduce the costs 

of the farmers’ input and also make sure that we have proper 

drainage and better production, better environmental impact. So 

one thing that can hamper this is a requirement, if the rule required a pilot’s license in order for a farmer to operate a UAV. 

Can you confirm that the small UAS rule would require a farmer 

in my district to actually get a pilot’s license in order to use one? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Unfortunately, sir, because we are in rulemaking, 

I am not able to talk about what is contained in the rule. We are 

very mindful, however, of how easily UAS could be applied to agricultural operations. Of course, we also have a very active ag pilot 

community that we are dealing with, as well, who are very concerned about operating in airspace with these kinds of platforms. 

So we are looking at how we can address all of those safety risks 

and how they can be mitigated. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you. Please note my concern of requiring that, 

if that is going to be part of the rule. 

Dr. Roy, the FAA’s slow pace may be causing our best and 

brightest to maybe leave the United States, especially when you 

look at major U.S. tech companies that have moved their research 

and development operations overseas. Do your students have better 

job opportunities outside the United States in this field? 

Mr. ROY. So the field is small right now in commercial UAVs, so 

the job opportunities are few and far between in the U.S. and in 

other countries. But I think you have heard from several people 

that the rate at which the opportunities are growing in other countries possibly is going to lead to a lot more opportunities. I would 

say that it is immeasurably small around the world right now, but 

I would worry that there are many more—I personally am seeing 

more startups, very, very small startups, but more startups outside 

the U.S. than in the U.S. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Kallman, one of the major issues with UAVs is 

the flyaway problem, you know, where they lose connectivity and 

fly away. It affects consumer UAVs but also very high-end aircraft 

50 

with the military. How do we mitigate that risk and how do we integrate this into our aviation system? 

Mr. KALLMAN. Yeah, and I think to reiterate also that safety 

again is of utmost importance, and I think with the flyaway issues, 

that is a matter of technology. I think that the technology is increasing at a very rapid pace. I mentioned earlier a lot of the 

functionality in a lot of these systems to manage a lot of issues that 

happen on board the aircraft, typically that is where you will see 

those types of things. You will lose the GPS or something along 

those lines, so making sure that systems have the ability to know 

how to automatically respond should any system fail on board the 

aircraft and be able to return it to a location that is determined 

safe before the flight. So I think those will be very, very important 

to ensure. 

Mr. DAVIS. All right. Captain Moak, safety is paramount on the 

flight simulators that many of your pilots use to train. Is there a 

simulation for UAVs? 

Mr. MOAK. Not per se, but there is simulation for, you know, detect and avoid, you visually pick up something, or if you have a situation where you are losing control of the aircraft because perhaps 

you had to maneuver it, maneuver it in a manner that you 

wouldn’t normally be maneuvering it, meaning you were banking 

it excessively and how you recover from that upset situation. We 

do have that. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Captain. And thank you, all, for being 

here today. Obviously, this is an issue that we should be able to 

address. We have seen unmanned aircraft fly sorties within the 

theater of war in a much smaller area than they have done it safely. We ought to be able to not fall behind countries like Canada in 

putting together a rulemaking process so that we can get commercial UAVs into the marketplace and do it in a way that is going 

to be safe. 

I have concerns too with our medical helicopters. I am in the 

flight line of my house in Taylorville, Illinois. I want to make sure 

that we have these rules in place. We can do this. So I appreciate 

your work and look forward to hearing you at the next hearing. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. 

Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think most all the 

questions have been asked, but a couple of comments I would like 

to make, and I was pleased to hear Ms. Gilligan mention agriculture, because I am very concerned about that. During the periods between May and August, at least in the Midwest, we have 

heavy traffic at and below 300 feet that is going to and from the 

airport and that is on the site where they are spraying too, and it 

is a big concern. And there is a huge potential out there for UAVs 

and in the agriculture sector, but they are in that same airspace 

and it concerns me a great deal. 

And, you know, this comes down to, and Captain Moak mentioned it, it comes down to visibility and being able to see these 

things. And I don’t necessarily know what the answer is. I don’t 

think transponders are necessarily the answer. That certainly gives 

air traffic control visibility on them, but if you are on a VFR flight 

51 

plan, you are not talking to air traffic control. You don’t have the 

benefit of that site. 

ADS–B, you know, if we put ADS–B Out on them, obviously, that 

is going to paint them. But you have got to have ADS–B In to be 

able to, you know, read that as well. And it still comes down to situational awareness. And, you know, obviously the people that are 

flying the aircraft, or at least the manned aircraft, they have got 

that situational awareness. 

But just as Captain Moak pointed out, you know, a VFR aircraft 

traveling at 100 knots, right on up to our airlines traveling at 350 

knots, and everything in between. You are moving pretty fast and 

that is awful small and it is very hard to see it, particularly if 

there is no relative motion. So I have got a huge concern with how 

we are going to move forward. And, you know, I hope you are—and 

I know you are being very diligent in this, and I am not so sure 

that we don’t need to take a more active role in Congress as well 

when it comes to reauthorization. 

But it concerns me. It concerns me in a big way. And we haven’t 

even began to talk about this safety of individuals on the ground 

when these things do go rogue and what happens to those folks. 

We are just talking about aviation and the potential, and I don’t 

want to run into one. I don’t. You know, interestingly enough, there 

are a lot of birds out there and we have bird strikes, but birds have 

situational awareness too, and they will get out of your way, for the 

most part. But this is a big concern, I guess. There is no question 

in that, but we need to move very, very carefully as we move forward. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Graves. 

Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would like to thank all of you for being here today. Appreciate it. I am from Texas. We have got a lot of airspace in Texas. 

And my question to you would be, Ms. Gilligan, as companies look 

for economical ways to modernize their delivery systems, unmanned aircraft systems are looking more and more attractive as 

we learned today. 

Amazon Prime Air is currently investigating the possibility of 

using small drones to quickly deliver their packages to their customers. My office has met with Amazon Prime Air and learned that 

they are having some difficulties getting permission from the FAA 

to test their delivery system outdoors in a rural area in Washington State. Would you please give this subcommittee an update 

on Amazon Prime Air’s petition for an exemption under section 333 

of the FAA Modernization Reform Act of 2012 that would allow 

them to test the system outside here and in the U.S.? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. Yes, sir, I would be glad to. They have applied for 

the exemption, and we have worked closely with Amazon. We have 

been in regular contact with Amazon since, I would say, over a 

year ago when they began pursuing this project. We believe 

though, to some extent, that what they want to be able to do they 

can do with a research certification for the vehicle, and we are also 

working with them on taking that approach because we think that 

will fit their needs better. 

52 

We and they are having those conversations. We know they are 

not satisfied that they have to go that path, but I am certain that 

we will reach some conclusions shortly so that we and they can figure out exactly how to support what it is they are trying to do. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. My second question would be also to 

you, Ms. Gilligan. Looking to the future, do you see a time when 

the FAA will have an Assistant Administrator for unmanned aircraft systems, and if not, why, and if so, what do you think the 

FAA is doing to prepare for this change? 

Ms. GILLIGAN. We believe that unmanned systems are actually 

like many other of the technologies that we have brought into the 

system over the years, and so we do believe that there will be full 

integration and that that will be handled within the structure that 

we currently have. We do not see a need at this point for a separate organization, because, again, we need to make sure that the 

aircraft itself in those systems are integrated in both design and 

manufacture with the aviation system and that the operations are 

integrated with the operation of the rest of the aviation system. So 

that is the approach that we are pursuing. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI [presiding]. Thank you. Mr. Rokita. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the Chair for the indulgence. I am not on 

the committee yet, but I appreciate the time to ask some questions. 

I have six pages of notes here, which for me has been kind of an 

all-time record, so I can tell I am going to hate being on this committee. 

I thank the witnesses for their testimony. Mr. Roy, let me start 

with you. If I heard your testimony correctly, it seemed like you 

were defending the FAA process here and where they are at when 

you said, look, other countries might be ahead in terms of the regulatory schematic right now, but they are still going to incur the 

technical difficulties. Did I get that accurately? 

Mr. ROY. That is correct. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. So, then, those countries must be acting with 

reckless abandon or something. 

Mr. ROY. No. I don’t think that is—that is true. So the—— 

Mr. ROKITA. So if that is not true, then why can’t we follow the 

same path? 

Mr. ROY. So let me draw a distinction between a small number 

of flights that demonstrate a capability or provide a service and 

the—what is required in order to service all of, say, agriculture and 

the U.S. So a good example is Japan. So Japan is sort of a highwater mark in terms of precision agriculture, in that about somewhere between 30 and 40 percent, and the numbers are a little unclear, are sprayed using Yamaha RMAX helicopters. It is interesting that one model of aircraft is providing service for about 77 

percent of all the UAV, and it is doing so with about 2,000 aircraft. 

So that is a very, very small number, and the effort required to actually support that is relatively small. 

So it is nice that Japan and the other countries have, you know, 

the regulatory infrastructure in place, the permission for testing, 

that allows companies like Airware and others to go and develop 

their technology, but the—what is required is another way of a 

technology actually scale up to the Amazon Prime servicing all of 

53 

DC or the Boston area. And I think that next step is what is going 

to be required to really grow the markets everywhere. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. Thank you. 

Tangential to that line of questioning, I would like to ask any of 

you if you are aware of any actuarial studies that have been done. 

If we are talking about a risk-based approach, right, and you have 

all indicated that that is a fine approach, well, insurance companies all day long do studies that analyze this using math, right? 

So if we are worried about a strike, you know, in an—in an approach corridor around an airport, we could take the number of, 

let’s say, birds that are in a square mile of that airport or some 

area, and then let’s say it is 10,000 or 20,000 or 100,000 or whatever it is, and then add the 10 drones that would be in the area 

potentially at the same time and see what the increased percentage 

of risk is. 

And then we could have a discussion based on science and math 

and not what—not pictures and beliefs, because the fact of the matter is a bird, which does have situational awareness, I completely 

agree, but it still can be study—we still can determine what the 

risk is. 

Yeah. Captain? 

Mr. MOAK. So we have procedures for birds currently. So if there 

are birds in the area when you arrive in the terminal area, there 

is the ATIS system that the controllers are putting bird reports 

out, meteorologists are putting that information out. You can see 

some large flocks of birds on your radars. We have procedures if 

we were to have a bird strike. So there is all kinds of procedures 

for dealing with birds. It is not preferred method to encounter a 

bird. 

Mr. ROKITA. But not a bird near-miss. 

Mr. MOAK. Pardon me? 

Mr. ROKITA. You outlined a procedure for a UAS near-miss, 

and—— 

Mr. MOAK. Bird near-miss, we have a procedure for that. You report birds in the area, because you know you have another plane 

coming right behind you, and you don’t want them—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah. You report flocks of birds and that kind of 

thing on the airport and if it is—if it is in the approach corridor, 

but there is not—the detailed procedure you indicated for a UAS. 

Mr. MOAK. There is. If you are going to hit a flock of birds, you 

are going to maneuver the airplane in a manner—— 

Mr. ROKITA. No. I meant you get down, you call, you—then you 

alluded to a prosecution element that was—— 

Mr. MOAK. You can’t prosecute a bird. 

Mr. ROKITA [continuing]. Inherent with the laser stuff, which is 

an intentional act, you know, so—but my question is about the actuary studies. Have there been any actuarial studies? 

Mr. ROY. So—— 

Mr. ROKITA. Dr. Roy. 

Mr. ROY [continuing]. For the larger aircraft, I think that is absolutely the case. For the small aircraft, the vehicles, et cetera, I 

think the answer is no, and there is a couple reasons for that: one 

is that we don’t have good models of the—we don’t have good failure models for a lot of the components; and the second thing we 

54 

don’t have good models yet for the consequences of failures. So a 

bird strike actually might be one that does exist, but for a lot of 

the other failure models, I am reasonably certain they don’t exist. 

Mr. ROKITA. Will they be helpful? 

Mr. ROY. They will be extremely helpful. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

If there are no further questions, I would like to thank all the 

witnesses for their testimony, and in absentia, the other Members 

for their participation in today’s program. The subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

55 


Insert offset folio 22 here 91735.022
56 


Insert offset folio 23 here 91735.023
57 


Insert offset folio 24 here 91735.024
58 


Insert offset folio 25 here 91735.025
59 


Insert offset folio 26 here 91735.026
60 


Insert offset folio 27 here 91735.027
61 


Insert offset folio 28 here 91735.028
62 


Insert offset folio 29 here 91735.029
63 


Insert offset folio 30 here 91735.030
64 


Insert offset folio 31 here 91735.031
65 


Insert offset folio 32 here 91735.032
66 


Insert offset folio 33 here 91735.033
67 


Insert offset folio 34 here 91735.034
68 


Insert offset folio 35 here 91735.035
69 


Insert offset folio 36 here 91735.036
70 


Insert offset folio 37 here 91735.037
71 


Insert offset folio 38 here 91735.038
72 


Insert offset folio 39 here 91735.039
73 


Insert offset folio 40 here 91735.040
74 


Insert offset folio 41 here 91735.041
75 


Insert offset folio 42 here 91735.042
76 


Insert offset folio 43 here 91735.043
77 


Insert offset folio 44 here 91735.044
78 


Insert offset folio 45 here 91735.045
79 


Insert offset folio 46 here 91735.046
80 


Insert offset folio 47 here 91735.047
81 


Insert offset folio 48 here 91735.048
82 


Insert offset folio 49 here 91735.049
83 


Insert offset folio 50 here 91735.050
84 


Insert offset folio 51 here 91735.051
85 


Insert offset folio 52 here 91735.052
86 


Insert offset folio 53 here 91735.053
87 


Insert offset folio 54 here 91735.054
88 


Insert offset folio 55 here 91735.055
89 


Insert offset folio 56 here 91735.056
90 


Insert offset folio 57 here 91735.057
91 


Insert offset folio 58 here 91735.058
92 


Insert offset folio 59 here 91735.059
93 


Insert offset folio 60 here 91735.060
94 


Insert offset folio 61 here 91735.061
95 


Insert offset folio 62 here 91735.062
96 


Insert offset folio 63 here 91735.063
97 


Insert offset folio 64 here 91735.064
98 


Insert offset folio 65 here 91735.065
99 


Insert offset folio 66 here 91735.066
100 


Insert offset folio 67 here 91735.067
101 


Insert offset folio 68 here 91735.068
102 


Insert offset folio 69 here 91735.069
103 


Insert offset folio 70 here 91735.070
104 


Insert offset folio 71 here 91735.071
105 


Insert offset folio 72 here 91735.072
106 


Insert offset folio 73 here 91735.073
107 


Insert offset folio 74 here 91735.074
108 


Insert offset folio 75 here 91735.075
109 


Insert offset folio 76 here 91735.076
110 


Insert offset folio 77 here 91735.077
111 


Insert offset folio 78 here 91735.078
112 


Insert offset folio 79 here 91735.079
113 


Insert offset folio 80 here 91735.080
114 


Insert offset folio 81 here 91735.081
115 


Insert offset folio 82 here 91735.082
116 


Insert offset folio 83 here 91735.083
117 


Insert offset folio 84 here 91735.084
118 


Insert offset folio 85 here 91735.085
119 


Insert offset folio 86 here 91735.086
120 


Insert offset folio 87 here 91735.087
121 


Insert offset folio 88 here 91735.088
122 


Insert offset folio 89 here 91735.089
123 


Insert offset folio 90 here 91735.090
124 


Insert offset folio 91 here 91735.091
125 


Insert offset folio 92 here 91735.092
126 


Insert offset folio 93 here 91735.093
127 


Insert offset folio 94 here 91735.094
128 


Insert offset folio 95 here 91735.095
129 


Insert offset folio 96 here 91735.096
130 


Insert offset folio 97 here 91735.097
131 


Insert offset folio 98 here 91735.098
132 


Insert offset folio 99 here 91735.099
133 


Insert offset folio 100 here 91735.100
134 


Insert offset folio 101 here 91735.101
135 


Insert offset folio 102 here 91735.102
136 


Insert offset folio 103 here 91735.103
137 


Insert offset folio 104 here 91735.104
138 


Insert offset folio 105 here 91735.105
139 


Insert offset folio 106 here 91735.106
140 


Insert offset folio 107 here 91735.107
141 


Insert offset folio 108 here 91735.108
142 


Insert offset folio 109 here 91735.109
143 


Insert offset folio 110 here 91735.110
144 


Insert offset folio 111 here 91735.111
145 


Insert offset folio 112 here 91735.112
146 


Insert offset folio 113 here 91735.113
147 


Insert offset folio 114 here 91735.114
148 


Insert offset folio 115 here 91735.115
149 


Insert offset folio 116 here 91735.116
150 


Insert offset folio 117 here 91735.117
151 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 118 here 91735.118