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

24–851 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 114–635 

UP IN THE AIR: EXAMINING THE COMMERCIAL 

APPLICATIONS OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT 

FOR SMALL BUSINESSES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 10, 2016 

Printed for the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana, Chairman 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire, Ranking Member 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MEREDITH WEST, Republican Staff Director 

ROBERT DIZNOFF, Democratic Staff Director 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS

Page 

Vitter, Hon. David, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Louisiana ................... 1 

Booker, Hon. Cory A., a U.S. Senator from New Jersey ...................................... 3 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, a U.S. Senator from New Hampshire ............................ 73 

WITNESSES

Panel 1 

Wynne, Brian, President and CEO, Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, Arlington, VA ...................................................................... 5 

Canoll, Tim, President, Air Line Pilots Association, International, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 13 

Dourado, Eli, Director, Technology Policy Program, Mercatus Center, George 

Mason University, Arlington, VA ....................................................................... 34 

Panel 2 

Vaneck, Thomas W., Vice President, Disruptive Technologies, Physical 

Sciences Inc., Andover, MA ................................................................................. 58 

McNeal, Gregory S., JD/PhD, Professor of Law, Pepperdine University, CoFounder, AirMap .................................................................................................. 64 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Booker, Hon. Cory A. 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Canoll, Tim 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15 

Dourado, Eli 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Responses to Questions Submitted by Senators Fischer, Heitkamp, and 

Scott ............................................................................................................... 90 

McNeal, Gregory S. 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 64 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Motion Picture Association of America 

Statement Dated March 10, 2016 ................................................................... 84 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Vaneck, Thomas W. 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Vitter, Hon. David 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Wynne, Brian 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Responses to Questions Submitted by Senators Fischer and Heitkamp ..... 85 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(1) 

UP IN THE AIR: EXAMINING THE 

COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS OF UNMANNED 

AIRCRAFT FOR SMALL BUSINESSES 

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2016 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

428A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. David Vitter, Chairman 

of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Vitter, Risch, Gardner, Ernst, Ayotte, Shaheen, Cantwell, Heitkamp, Markey, and Booker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, CHAIRMAN, 

AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA 

Chairman VITTER. Good morning, everyone, and welcome. 

Thanks for joining us today for the Senate Small Business and 

Entrepreneurship Committee’s hearing to examine the commercial 

applications of unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, by small businesses. We are going to be hearing from one panel of industry experts and one panel of small businesses, and I want to thank all 

of our witnesses for being here today and really contributing a lot. 

We appreciate it. 

The purpose of this hearing is really twofold. First, to highlight 

the need to integrate UAS into the national airspace in a way that 

fundamentally ensures safety as the top priority. I have raised significant concerns about the safe operation of this technology and it 

is crucial that the Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA, develops regulations to promote a culture of safety and compliance for 

the growing number of UAS users. 

But the second purpose of the hearing is to also recognize that 

while the FAA has certainly taken an extended period of time to 

develop these regulations, it risks sacrificing not only safety, but 

the proper development of this technology for the benefit of the 

economy and for consumers. The FAA’s failure to meet regulatory 

deadlines has limited the growth of the commercial drone industry. 

I am hopeful that today’s conversation will bring us closer to finding that right balance between the safe integration of drones in the 

national airspace and moving forward with economic development, 

not stifling small business innovation and utilization. 

The potential of UAS’s economic contribution certainly cannot be 

ignored, and it is not at all surprising that our nation’s entreLAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

2 

preneurs have made quick work of learning to benefit from this 

technology. In recent years, UAS have developed into useful and 

major tools for many small businesses. They are used in all sorts 

of applications across many industries, including agriculture, real 

estate, construction, film and TV, telecommunications, to name just 

a few. 

The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International recently issued a report and it concluded that precision agriculture 

is one of the most promising commercial markets for UAS. The report estimated that once FAA regulations are finalized, the UAS 

industry expects to produce over 100,000 total U.S. jobs and $82 

billion in economic impact within a decade. 

In the meantime, drones are prohibited for commercial purposes 

and the FAA has granted exemptions only on a case-by-case basis, 

and that is one of the major issues and hurdles, slow-ups, we are 

going to talk about today. It seems to me case-by-case analysis is 

not the best way to proceed for safety’s sake, and it is certainly not 

the most efficient way to engage a growing industry, and the FAA 

needs to update its exemption process to be sure we cover safety 

and so that small businesses are taken care of in a timely way. The 

current process is simply unacceptable and leaves too many small 

businesses out to dry. 

The silver lining lies within the simmering growth of the industry. In 2014 alone, the companies that were granted exemptions 

are estimated to have contributed nearly $500 billion in revenue 

and represented over 600,000 jobs. And of the first 1,000 commercial UAS exemptions, small businesses made up about 95 percent 

of them. 

I know that our entrepreneurs and small business owners want 

to follow the rules and use UAS for low-risk activities. But under 

the current circumstances, they face unnecessary barriers that prevent growth. The last thing our economy needs is unnecessary obstructions to small business growth, which is responsible for a huge 

part of sustaining jobs for hard working Americans. 

And I also say the other reality of the current state of affairs is 

that, quite frankly, you have a lot of folks, including small businesses, that simply are not going to comply. It is not practical and 

not sustainable, and that brings up real safety issues if you have 

a culture of a pretty wide open common non-compliance. 

In light of these realities, I have authored the Micro Drone Safety and Innovation Act. This bill would establish a micro classification for UAS that weigh 4.4 pounds or less in order to prioritize 

safety while promoting open innovation. The bill calls for strict 

safety requirements that fall in line with proposed regulations from 

the FAA. It is my belief that we can help maintain our country’s 

competitive advantage while encouraging a culture of safety and 

compliance for UAS users. 

Now, let us get to today’s conversation. I am extremely interested 

to hear from our witnesses about their experience with FAA’s current process and what they expect when proposed regulations are 

finalized. I also hope our expert panelists will inform us of the impact UAS integration will have on our economy, how it has made 

a difference in their work, ways we can emphasize safety in our 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

3 

country’s air space. And, of course, I would welcome any comments 

about my legislation, which we are introducing this week. 

Again, I want to thank everyone for being here today and I look 

forward to the discussion. 

And now, I will turn to Senator Booker, who will offer an opening statement in Senator Shaheen’s absence. 

Senator. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

Senator BOOKER. Senator Vitter, I want to thank you very much. 

It is very good that you are holding this hearing. I want to thank 

the folks that are here today. 

I get really excited about the future and the possibility for us to 

innovate as a country. We have expanded our economy in every 

generation because of American innovation, leading the globe. We 

are the net global exporters of innovation, of ideas, of new technology, and we need to stay on that cutting edge. 

And, what frustrates me and worries me right now is when it 

comes to UAS and drone technology, it is now literally taking off 

across the globe but being stifled right here at home. We are the 

country that invented flight. We are the nation that led the world 

into the skies. But now for this incredible technology, we have a 

regulatory regime that is undermining innovation at home and 

spawning it in other places. If during the time of Wilbur and 

Orville Wright we had this kind of regulatory regime, we would not 

be flying planes today the way we are. 

And, so, this is something we need to create an environment 

where we can explore, where we can innovate, where we can lead 

again, and I am very frustrated that in this area that has such profound potential, some of which Senator Vitter touched on, which, 

really, to me, is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the transformational opportunities it holds for our economy. 

And, this is not just our economy. It is not just dollars and cents. 

As a former mayor who saw the power of first responders, it can 

improve our search and rescue activities, and it can improve our 

ability to provide humanitarian aid, critical medicines. We should 

be making sure that we are doing this responsibly. We should 

make sure that we emphasize safety. But, we should do everything 

we can to let loose the reins of innovation and ideas. 

There is an unbelievably clear economic case. This should be 

bringing left and right together when it comes to issues of economic 

growth. The Senator gave a tremendous amount of data and statistics. Already, UAS accounted for $500 billion in revenue and represented over 600,000 jobs in the United States. And for me, it 

could bring efficiencies across industries, and, again, even more 

compelling to me is it can save lives. 

In order to reap the major social and economic benefits of this 

technology, we must have regulations that keep pace with innovation. That is one of the frustrating things in my two years as a 

Senator, is that the increasing pace of innovation and change, we 

are just not keeping up as a government, just not creating an atmosphere in which we can really maintain our competitive edge 

globally. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

4 

I am very proud to be working in a bipartisan manner with Senator Hoeven, who comes from a State very similar to New Jersey, 

and I am working with him. We have introduced already the Commercial UAS Modernization Act, which aims to unleash commercial 

UAS and actually provide businesses with some of the stable footing to make investments prior to the FAA’s long overdue rulemaking. 

I look forward to working on, with him and others, to advance 

this exciting technology as we move forward with the FAA reauthorization later this month. There is an urgency here, though. I 

really do feel an urgency, because every single day that we have 

a restrictive, overburdensome, unnecessary regulatory environment, we allow other nations to outpace us, we allow people to 

move past us, we allow lives that could be saved to be put in peril, 

and we undermine, again, our global dominance when it comes to 

innovation, when it comes to entrepreneurship, when it comes to 

expanding the horizons of the world. 

Thank you. 

Chairman VITTER. Thank you, Senator. 

As we always do, we will invite any other member of the committee to submit opening statements for the record, but we always 

like to get right to our witnesses and hear from them and be able 

to interact with them. 

I am going to introduce our first panel, and then, unfortunately, 

I am going to have to excuse myself because I need to be in the 

Judiciary Committee, and Senator Ayotte will take over the gavel. 

But, let me introduce our first panel of industry experts. 

First is Mr. Brian Wynne. Mr. Wynne is President and CEO of 

the largest association representing the unmanned systems and robotics industries. AUVSI is the world’s largest nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of unmanned systems and represents more than 7,500 members from 60 allied countries and 

2,700 organizations involved in the fields of government, industry, 

and academia. 

After that, we will hear from Captain Tim Canoll. Captain 

Canoll is the President of ALPA, which represents more than 

52,000 professional airline pilots who fly for 31 airlines in the U.S. 

and Canada. ALPA serves as the largest non-governmental aviation safety organization in the world and has worked closely with 

both government and industry on the integration of unmanned aircraft to the national aviation system. 

And rounding out our first panel is Mr. Eli Dourado. Mr. 

Dourado specializes in internet governance, intellectual property, 

crypto-currency, internet security, and the economics of technology. 

His popular writing has appeared in the New York Times, the 

Washington Post, Foreign Policy, the Guardian, and Wired, among 

many other outlets. 

Welcome to all of you, and as I hand the gavel over to Senator 

Ayotte, I will invite Mr. Wynne to begin. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

5 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN WYNNE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION FOR UNMANNED VEHICLE 

SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, ARLINGTON, VA 

Mr. WYNNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator 

Booker, Senator Ayotte. It is a pleasure to be here on behalf of the 

Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the 

world’s largest not-for-profit organization devoted exclusively to advancing the unmanned systems and robotics community. 

UAS increase human potential, allowing us to execute dangerous 

or difficult tasks safely and efficiently. From inspecting pipelines to 

filming movies, the applications of UAS are virtually limitless. 

The UAS industry is also poised to be one of the fastest growing 

in American history. Our economic impact study found that, during 

the first decade following UAS integration into the airspace, the industry will create more than 100,000 jobs and provide more than 

$82 billion in economic impact, and that is just in our community 

alone. That does not count the value-added, some of the statistics 

that you were describing, Senator Booker, to the other communities 

that will be benefiting from the technology. Under the right regulatory environment, there is no question these numbers could go 

even higher. 

For years, AUVSI has been urging the FAA to use all available 

means to establish a regulatory framework, starting with finalizing 

the small UAS rule. As we wait, American businesses are left sitting on the sidelines or operating under an onerous exemption 

process. 

In May 2014, the FAA announced it would consider granting exemptions for certain low-risk commercial UAS applications under 

Section 333 of the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act. Since 

then, the FAA has granted more than 3,700 exemptions, the vast 

majority of which are going to small businesses. For example, Louisiana-based LandBros Aerial is a start-up founded by two brothers 

in 2014 who use small quad copters to capture aerial images for 

the construction industry. 

While some businesses are flying, this current system of case-bycase approvals is not a long-term solution and in many cases serves 

as a deterrent. Policies governing the 333 exemption process are 

more onerous than those contemplated in the proposed small rule. 

For instance, Section 333 exemptions typically require approved 

UAS operators to hold at least a sport pilot certificate, which requires a minimum of 20 hours of training in a manned aircraft and 

costs thousands of dollars to obtain. Under the proposed rule, however, commercial UAS operators will more appropriately be required to pass an aeronautical knowledge exam every two years in 

order to fly. 

Additionally, access to some airspace is more complicated under 

the exemption process. Currently, approvals automatically allow 

commercial operators to fly up to 200 feet. Under the proposed 

rule, commercial operators would be allowed to fly up to 500 feet. 

In addition to the bureaucratic nature of the exemption process, 

the patchwork of state and local laws under consideration in many 

jurisdictions will create additional hurdles for small business. Any 

operator flying in multiple states may encounter and need to comply with different laws and regulations governing commercial UAS 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

6 

operations. The U.S. Code clearly states, and I quote, ‘‘The United 

States government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the 

United States,’’ unquote. 

In December 2015, the FAA asserted its authority and cautioned 

states and municipalities against enacting conflicting UAS legislation. The FAA was right to do so, but until the agency finalizes the 

regulatory framework for small UAS, states and municipalities will 

continue to fill the void. 

In addition to helping the industry thrive, finalizing the small 

UAS rule will provide the necessary tools and training to create a 

culture of safety. As more commercial operators are certificated, 

they will join the longstanding aviation community, which I have 

been a part of for more than 25 years as an instrument-rated general aviation pilot. 

Safety is essential for all users. That is why AUVSI, in partnership with the Academy of Model Aeronautics and the FAA, developed a ‘‘Know Before You Fly’’ campaign to educate newcomers to 

UAS about where they should and should not fly. I am pleased to 

note that ALPA is also a supporter of that campaign. 

While it is vital that the FAA finalize the small UAS rule, Congress also needs to pass an FAA reauthorization. This is critical for 

accelerating and expanding the commercial use of UAS and the 

most immediate way to encourage additional collaborative innovation between industry and government. 

UAS technology is developing rapidly, much faster than our 

country’s capacity to develop the necessary regulations. We need to 

make sure the FAA adopts the proper framework to keep up with 

this technology and is sufficiently resourced to do so. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this morning. I 

look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wynne follows:] 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

7 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 24851.001
8 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 24851.002
9 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 24851.003
10 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 24851.004
11 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 24851.005
12 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 24851.006
13 

Senator AYOTTE [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Wynne. 

I would like to now call on Captain Tim Canoll, who is the President of the Air Line Pilots Association. Thank you, Mr. Canoll. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN TIM CANOLL, PRESIDENT, AIR LINE 

PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. CANOLL. Thank you, Senator Ayotte, Senator Booker, and to 

the committee for the opportunity to testify today. 

The Air Line Pilots Association, International, has long stood in 

strong support of safely integrating unmanned aircraft systems, or 

UAS, into the national airspace. We recognize that UAS can perform specialized tasks efficiently and safely. ALPA applauds the 

entrepreneurs who are identifying new uses for UAS to help advance small business and the national economy. We also commend 

the members of Congress who have expressed an interest in UAS. 

In this context, our support for innovation and growth, ALPA’s 

greatest concern will always be safety. The U.S. airspace is the 

most dynamic on the planet. It is also the safest. We cannot rush 

UAS integration process. That must begin and end with making 

certain that the high level of aviation safety that exists today continues tomorrow. 

We know that unsafe situations involving UAS are occurring 

right now. Each month, the FAA receives more than 100 reports 

of UAS sightings from pilots and others. In Louisiana, for example, 

the air traffic control tower reported that an airliner on final approach to Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport observed a UAS at 500 

feet just one mile from the runway. In Manchester, New Hampshire, the air traffic control tower received a report from an airliner 

of a UAS hovering at 2,800 feet about 7.5 miles northeast of the 

airport on the arrival path. 

While it is almost certain that these events involved recreational 

rather than commercial UAS operators, they demonstrate the need 

for UAS pilot education and enhanced safety. 

For airline pilots like me, UAS often literally appear out of the 

blue. They are much smaller than other aircraft and they move 

more slowly than airliners. As a result of this difference, UAS are 

extremely difficult to see in flight. While the FAA is making 

progress, it needs to address all UAS uses with a full regulatory 

safety framework. 

ALPA’s near-term action plan contains four parts. Education. 

Anyone flying UAS, no matter the size, should understand the aircraft and the airspace and the other aircraft that share it. ALPA 

maintains that commercially operated UAS should be flown by pilots who have the necessary knowledge. All U.S. transportation 

forms, be they marine, rail, road, or air, require commercial licenses for commercial operations. UAS should be no different. 

Where our resources exist, such as the ‘‘Know Before You Fly’’ campaign, not every UAS owner makes the effort to learn about the 

safety regulations. We urge the FAA to do more to reach out to 

small businesses and other users regarding UAS safety. 

Registration. ALPA is pleased that more than 342,000 UAS owners have already registered with the FAA. While we applaud the 

civil and criminal penalties for those who do not register, ALPA 

maintains that point-of-sale registration is essential. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

14 

Technology. If UAS operate in airspace intended for airliners, or 

if they could end up there, airline pilots need to be able to see them 

on their cockpit displays and controllers need to see them on their 

radar scopes. The UAS must also be equipped with active technologies to avoid a collision with manned aircraft. The FAA should 

identify resources to develop UAS-centric collision avoidance technologies in fiscal year 2016 and adopt them in fiscal year 2017. 

In addition, if regulations restrict UAS from operating in a location, the UAS must have technology that cannot be overridden to 

prevent it from flying there. The FAA must also continue to evaluate technologies to identify UAS and operator location. 

Penalties and enforcement. ALPA calls for the full enforcement 

of civil and criminal penalties regarding UAS. If the FAA intends 

to rely on first responders to ensure compliance, it must do more 

to inform local, state, and national law enforcement about their responsibilities and authority. 

Let me close by underscoring that the UAS safety in the national 

airspace is serious business, not only for small business, but for 

every airline passenger and cargo shipper. This registered UAS, for 

example, which is in the classification of MicroUAS because it is 

under 4.4 pounds, can fly as high as 6,600 feet for 15 minutes. It 

could easily end up in the airspace I occupy when landing at Baton 

Rouge or Manchester, or any airport, for that matter. 

With ALPA’s plan and Congress providing the FAA with a longterm stable source of funding through a full reauthorization, small 

businesses can capitalize on the opportunities offered by UAS while 

maintaining our industry’s extraordinary level of safety. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Canoll follows:] 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

15 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 24851.007
16 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 24851.008
17 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 24851.009
18 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 24851.010
19 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 24851.011
20 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 24851.012
21 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 24851.013
22 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 24851.014
23 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 24851.015
24 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 24851.016
25 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 24851.017
26 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 24851.018
27 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 24851.019
28 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 24851.020
29 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 24851.021
30 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 24851.022
31 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 24851.023
32 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 24851.024
33 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 24851.025
34 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Captain Canoll. 

I want to now call on Mr. Eli Dourado, the Director of Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center at the George 

Mason University. 

Mr. Dourado. 

STATEMENT OF ELI DOURADO, DIRECTOR, TECHNOLOGY POLICY PROGRAM, MERCATUS CENTER, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, ARLINGTON, VA 

Mr. DOURADO. Thank you, Senator Ayotte and Senator Booker, 

for the opportunity to come here and testify and comment on commercial applications of unmanned aircraft for small businesses. 

My name is Eli Dourado, and I am a Research Fellow at the 

Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where I study the 

regulation of emerging technologies and direct Mercatus’ Technology Policy Program. 

We are at an exciting point in the history of unmanned aircraft. 

I think of drones as occupying a similar position now as the internet did in the 1980s. As members of this committee know, until 

1989, use of the internet for commercial purposes was generally 

prohibited. The removal of that prohibition resulted in an explosion 

of innovation, much of it completely unanticipated, that has persisted until today. 

As with the internet in 1989, commercial use of drones is highly 

restricted, but will soon become generally available, and as with 

the internet in 1989, we have only the vaguest idea of how drones 

will be used in daily life in the future. That vague picture does include some applications that we already understand—using drones 

for photography and inspecting equipment, for evaluating the 

health of crops, for transporting goods with a high value-to-weight 

ratio. The improvements in logistics generated by unmanned aircraft will allow new business models, doing for local and small 

businesses what the shipping container and services like UPS and 

FedEx did for global trade. 

But, I want to stress that what are likely to be the most important applications of unmanned aerial systems remain unknown, 

just as the most important internet applications were unknown 

when the internet first became commercialized. 

We must, to the maximum extent possible, treat airspace with a 

very light regulatory touch. A regime of permissionless innovation 

in which there is a default position of innovation allowed will allow 

us to reap the greatest gains from unmanned systems. I urge every 

member of this committee to set aside the fearmongering that accompanies every new technology and embrace the possibilities for 

innovation and economic growth that commercial drones provide. 

To be sure, permissionless innovation is a much more controversial proposition for the physical world of commercial drones than 

for abstract information on the internet. What if a drone collides 

with a passenger jet and takes down everybody on board? Fortunately, the best evidence shows that commercial drones do not pose 

a serious risk to the airspace. 

To evaluate the danger that drones might pose to traditional 

aviation, my Mercatus colleague Sam Hammond and I examined 25 

years’ worth of wildlife strike data from the FAA. This dataset proLAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

35 

vides an excellent lens through which to view the possible danger 

that drones create for other aircraft. 

U.S. national airspace is home to an estimated ten billion birds, 

and the FAA has reported over 160,000 wildlife strikes since 1990. 

Of those 160,000, only 12 strikes have resulted in human fatalities, 

and of those 12, only one incident involved a commercial flight and 

that incident involved not a bird, but a pair of white tailed deer 

loitering on a runway. 

We estimate that a drone is likely to collide with other aircraft 

about once every 374,000 years of continuous operation, and using 

statistical analysis on the risk that birds of different weight pose 

to humans onboard aircraft, we estimate that a two kilogram, or 

4.4 pound, drone will cause an injury to a human passenger every 

187 million years of operation. This is well within the realm of acceptable risk. 

Given that drones pose little risk to the airspace, the FAA’s proposed drone regulations do not adequately protect the need for experimentation and innovation. For example, in its proposed regulations, the FAA does not allow drones to carry external loads. This 

means that operators may be prohibited from delivering items that 

do not fit within the drone’s fuselage. 

The FAA does not allow operators to exercise their see and avoid 

responsibilities through technological means, such as onboard cameras. This limits drone operations to the operator’s line of sight, 

which will needlessly cripple drones’ ability to operate over longer 

distances. 

The FAA will not allow drones to operate outside the hours of 

sunrise and sunset. 

The FAA has said that no one will be allowed to transport property for compensation via drone without filing for an Air Carrier 

Operating Certificate. This may be prohibitively expensive for companies that wish to create small local delivery services using 

drones. 

The FAA has proposed a one drone per operator rule. This rule 

drastically raises the cost for small businesses of operating multiple drones. 

Finally, the FAA has so far prohibited drone operation over populated areas. Some of the most promising applications of drones, 

such as local delivery services that improve the logistical capabilities of small businesses, may only make sense in populated areas. 

This prohibition will simply rule out those business opportunities. 

As this committee considers how best to prepare for a future in 

which drones create new opportunities for small business, I urge 

you to insist upon a light touch regulatory environment for commercial drones. 

Thank you for your interest in this issue and for the opportunity 

to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dourado follows:] 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

36 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 24851.026
37 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 24851.027
38 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 24851.028
39 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 24851.029
40 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 24851.030
41 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 24851.031
42 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 24851.032
43 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 24851.033
44 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 24851.034
45 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 24851.035
46 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 24851.036
47 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 24851.037
48 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. Dourado. 

I want to thank all of you for being here. I chair the Aviation 

Subcommittee in the Commerce Committee, and this has been an 

issue that we are very interested in addressing and, in fact, just 

yesterday dropped a draft of the FAA reauthorization that includes 

in it some, I think, some important ways to integrate unmanned 

aircraft systems into our national airspace system, and I want to 

thank Senator Booker, because he has been very focused on this 

issue and making sure that we continue to reform our framework 

for handling UAS to spur innovation while also we need to make 

sure that we protect safety and privacy. So, I really appreciate your 

leadership on this issue, and we were able to incorporate several 

of your ideas, and I am sure there is more that we can do as we 

move forward with the FAA reauthorization. 

So, I wanted to ask all of you if you have had a chance yet to 

review our draft that has been proposed legislation, or if you are 

still analyzing it, and what your thoughts are. 

Mr. WYNNE. I will go first. We are still analyzing it, Senator. 

Thank you very much. But, we were very pleased, and I put out 

a statement yesterday saying we were pleased to see that—I mean, 

there are many things in the bill. But, the pieces that we, in particular, have been asking for from AUVSI’s perspective, the unmanned systems community’s perspective, we believe are there, 

and we are speaking specifically of a risk-based technology neutral 

regulatory framework, addressing of UTM, for example, unmanned 

aircraft systems traffic management, as an opportunity, trying to 

pull together the research that is going on in disparate areas of the 

government into a more concentrated effort so that we can increase 

the collaboration with industry and get the most for the taxpayers’ 

dollar. 

So, we think it is a really good initiative and we urge you to 

move forward with that. 

Senator AYOTTE. Yeah. I mean, one of the things that I am concerned about is that there are some really terrific technologies that 

I have seen, including crash avoidance technology that is being developed, and we need to have opportunities to continue to spur that 

innovation, because you can incorporate the safety concerns with 

some of the technological developments. 

Captain, I wanted to get your thoughts. 

Mr. CANOLL. Thanks, Senator. We are still reviewing the bill, but 

our initial view is we view this as a safety forward bill and we are 

very pleased that it is out. 

Senator AYOTTE. Good. 

Mr. CANOLL. We are very encouraged by what we have read so 

far, and particularly the commitment to doing all the safety initiatives, or starting the way down the road on a lot of these safety 

initiatives, and it is particularly the UAS. We think there is some 

good information there, as well. So, we will continue to review—— 

Senator AYOTTE. Great. Well, we appreciate it, and I know that 

it just came out, so you are still continuing to review the details. 

But, this is something we want to address. We are worried that delaying on it really will continue to keep these issues outstanding 

for UAS in terms of the innovation piece, because as Mr. Dourado 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

49 

has pointed out, the framework currently in place is not workable 

on innovation, but also a lot of safety issues. So, working on both. 

Mr. Dourado, do you have any comments? 

Mr. DOURADO. Yes. Thank you, Senator. I have reviewed the bill 

very, very briefly. I was gratified to see that it is extending the 333 

exemption process and also making clear that the FAA does have 

authority to extend authorization for beyond line of sight and outside the hours of sunrise and sunset. 

I would note that in addition to the 333 process, there is a 332 

process that the FAA has avoided, and even their current proposed 

commercial rules that were due last September, Congress had ordered them to be done under Section 332 and the FAA is promulgating those—continues to promulgate those only under Section 

333. So, asking the FAA to move forward more quickly on 332 authorization would be important, in my view, as well. 

Senator AYOTTE. Okay. Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate 

it very much. 

One of the things that, you know, I have been hearing, and I 

know that Senator Booker raised this, is that we hear that other 

countries are ahead of us in providing a regulatory environment for 

UAS innovation. So, that is one of the priorities, I think, that we 

have, obviously, ensuring that we are protecting safety at the same 

time. So, can you tell me—Mr. Wynne, can you comment on where 

other countries are vis-a`-vis the United States of America, and, you 

know, what opportunities we have if we can move forward with the 

right framework here. 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, ultimately, we do want global harmonization 

of rules. That will be particularly important for larger platforms 

that are going to travel across international borders, of course, and 

so far, these are the kinds of platforms that are getting the vast 

majority of the attention. But, we have many different types of 

platforms that we need to be thinking about, and that is why we 

are talking about a regulatory framework. Some of our platforms 

are enormous and fly above 60,000 feet for days on end, for example, and may be able to deliver the internet to the Third World in 

a much more efficient manner than trying to use wires. 

So, there is a lot of different innovation that is going to go on 

here. I, too, am very concerned about competitiveness. We watch 

this issue very, very carefully. There are clearly anecdotes—there 

are anecdotal places around the world where there is less regulation or they have moved forward with regulation a little bit faster 

than we have. 

I think if we can move forward with the same kind of cadence 

that we saw with the registration process, which AUVSI participated in—both Captain Canoll and I were there with Secretary Fox 

when that was announced, and we urged the FAA to move very, 

very quickly, and they did. If we can increase the pace of regulation, I think we can catch back up, and this is the largest market 

for unmanned systems, so I like our chances of remaining competitive. 

Senator AYOTTE. Does anyone else want to comment on that 

issue? 

Mr. DOURADO. I would like to, Senator. I think that Canada is 

governing circles around us right now. In Canada, up to a 25 kiloLAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

50 

gram drone you can fly without any special authorization for commercial purposes if you simply notify Transport Canada of your intention to do so. So, you simply give them notice that you are operating within a certain range of exemptions and you can operate. So, 

it is a much more simplified, pro-innovation stance from the Canadian government. 

Mr. CANOLL. The only thing I would add, Senator, is our members are seeing—are reporting and encountering the same problems at other high-density population centers around the globe as 

they do in the United States. In the low-density population areas, 

like Canada, we do not see it as much because they are just not 

as prevalent and the aircraft operations are far fewer. So, we do 

see problems in London, Paris, around the globe. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you. 

I would like to call on Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. So, a perfect—first of all, Senator Ayotte, I am 

grateful for your kind words and I just think that for the record 

I want to say that yesterday morning was a perfect metaphor for 

the United States versus the rest of the world. As I was running 

past you on the Mall, I was the United States, slow, sluggish, barely moving off the ground—— 

[Laughter.] 

You were obviously the innovative countries around the globe, 

because you flew past me at a speed—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator AYOTTE. Okay, but in fairness, he had what looked like 

a heavy backpack on his back, which I did not. 

Senator BOOKER. So, the backpack is empty just so I get people 

to assume that I am running so slow for a reason. 

[Laughter.] 

So, I have outed myself, but please understand that. It was a 

very humiliating moment for me yesterday. I did not want to be 

seen, and I was outed by my fellow Senator. 

Gentlemen, I am grateful for you being here, and I actually do 

not think there is much, Captain Canoll, which as a New Jerseyan, 

which has an incredibly great Italian community, to let your name 

be one vowel short of one of my favorite desserts. 

[Laughter.] 

I am very, very grateful that you are here, and I actually do not 

think there is any—there is much conflict between what you are 

saying. I think all the panelists here believe that we should be a 

nation that makes sure that we are safe. And, the Air Line Pilots 

Association, I work with quite a bit, and just revere the men and 

women that do—many of them former military people who have 

made a tremendous sacrifice and commitment to our country. So, 

I am just grateful for everybody being here. 

I just want to dive in real quick. First of all, Mr. Dourado, what 

you said is one of the most important points in my understanding 

of the cycle of innovation, is that we routinely underestimate the 

impact, the economic impact, when we have a new innovation. We 

really never see the true potential of that impact. Everybody wants 

to start talking about what this new innovation can do, but nobody 

gets, from the automobile to the television to—if you look at the 

things that were said in those early technologies, they had no clue 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

51 

about how transformative they would be and how much economic 

growth would be. 

So, your metaphor in comparing this to the internet, to me, is 

spot-on, and not an exaggeration. Am I right? 

Mr. DOURADO. Yes, Senator, and I would note even Paul 

Krugman, who is a great economist, as late as 1998 was predicting 

that the internet would have no more economic impact than the fax 

machine. 

Senator BOOKER. Right. 

Mr. DOURADO. And, it is not—you know, he is a great economist, 

deserved of his Nobel Prize, and he even as late as 1998 was unable to see everything that the internet would be able to provide, 

so—— 

Senator BOOKER. You are a braver man than me. I would never 

smack talk a Nobel Prize winner—— 

[Laughter.] 

So, let us just go where you are right now. I think Captain 

Canoll said it clearly, that other European high-density airports 

are seeing the same problems, not more. They have better regulatory regimes for innovation. They are not seeing an increased 

problem. They are seeing basically the same problems we are having. 

Mr. CANOLL. I am not sure if the statistics would prove that out, 

because we are not sharing information as much as we should. 

That is a great point, that we should be looking across other regulatory agencies to gather their information and do some comparison. 

Senator BOOKER. Right, and so that is a really good point and 

I think that is important. We should collect data. As you agree, 

data is important. 

But, what I really want to jump into is even what the other 

countries are doing so much better than us, and even in our FAA 

legislation we just introduced, is we are burdening businesses with 

multiple—each and every different use case, they are going to have 

to run to the government to get yet another exception, while what 

other countries are doing, and it is not just Canada—which we 

should speak nicely about because I hear Trudeau is close by—but 

it is not just Canada. It is France, dense country, big cities. They 

are doing one time going to the government, creating a use case. 

But they are not creating the differentiations we are between 

weight. Is that not so much easier and still allows us to have the 

kind of governmental scrutiny on safety that we want? 

And, in the last minute that I have, I would like, Mr. Wynne, 

Mr. Dourado to comment, please. 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, I completely agree, Senator, and it is clear. I 

started—I stopped trying to figure out what new applications for 

this technology a long time ago and I started trying to think of how 

it would not be utilized and what segments of the U.S. economy 

would not benefit from unmanned systems. 

And, again, we are talking about all manner of things. Some of 

them can be created on 3–D printers very, very rapidly. So, we 

need to have a system that allows for us to move forward with 

that. But, at the same time, we are integrating into an airspace 

which has a very low margin of safety—— 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

52 

Senator BOOKER. So, if I may interrupt—— 

Mr. WYNNE. Please. 

Senator BOOKER [continuing]. Because I have got 20 seconds left, 

and the Chairman is very rough. So, real quick. Why do we have 

to have multiple check-ins for every new case use as opposed to 

other countries which do it once, far less burdensome, far less systems, and far less restriction to small businesses? 

Mr. DOURADO. I think that is a great question, Senator, and I 

would like to see more done on an ex post basis. So, obviously, 

there will be accidents occasionally with unmanned systems, but 

we can handle them the same way we handle car accidents, with 

cases potentially being litigated in court rather than with ex ante 

precautionary regulation. So, I would like to see us moving more 

towards that ex ante dispute resolution mechanism rather than ex 

pose—or, I am sorry, ex post dispute resolution mechanism rather 

than ex ante prohibitions and regulatory prohibitions. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

Senator Heitkamp. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is good 

to see you here. 

I think many people on this panel understand the contribution 

that North Dakota is making to this entire industry. In fact, the 

New York Times, I think, called us the Silicon Valley of unmanned 

systems because we have that perfect marriage of an airbase that 

has a number of these systems based out of that airbase, a university that basically is one of the great aviation universities in the 

country, and a community that is wholly embracing and supporting, along with our extended use lease, building out these technologies. So, this is a very important industry potential for the 

State of North Dakota. 

But, we also know how important it can be to precision agriculture, how important it can be to monitoring infrastructure, 

whether it is a pipeline leak or whether it is a power line failure. 

So, we see these uses in only that big of a lens. 

But, I want to confirm what Mr. Dourado said about Canada. I 

recently met with a researcher from UND. She was researching 

wildlife, could have done it in North Dakota, ended up going to 

Canada because she was using unmanned aircraft to do the monitoring and it was much easier to get the permissions and the authorizations in Canada. 

And, so, we need to remember that it is not just building out this 

technology of the platform, but we are also losing the innovation 

of the utilization of this platform for all of these other uses, and 

so we have got to catch up. 

With that said, there has been a lot of focus today on safety, 

which obviously has to be job one. I asked what the FAA’s resistance is, why do we wait and wait and wait for integration, and I 

think that no one wants to be the person who authorizes something 

that leads to a catastrophe, and so there is a natural pulling back 

or inability to kind of think about it more broadly. 

But, I want to talk about another challenge with this technology 

and that is privacy. You know, we had the very high profile case 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

53 

of somebody who shot down a remotely piloted aircraft or an unmanned aircraft. Obviously, I think that if they shot it down, it 

probably was flying lower than what the person who owned it was 

saying it was flying. But, we have got to not only catch up in terms 

of the regulatory world, but the legal world in terms of who owns 

the airspace, what is an appropriate distance for this aircraft, and 

how do we make the world comfortable, and certainly in the United 

States, my farmers and ranchers comfortable with this utilization. 

Where do you see that? I guess I would ask Mr. Dourado, where 

do you see the privacy implications evolving to the point where this 

technology will be more accepted? 

Mr. DOURADO. Well, Senator, I think that the privacy issues are 

different in degree than the privacy issues we have seen in the 

past, but they are not different in kind. So, there were privacy concerns when cameras first became available. There is a famous law 

review article in 1890 from the Harvard Law Review on the right 

to privacy and fearmongering about cameras, and now we all have 

cameras and we somehow get along. 

But, it is an important—privacy is an important issue, and I 

think it will be resolved through court cases. The Supreme Court 

in 1946 issued a very important ruling when regular aviation was 

taking off establishing the property rights—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. To airspace. 

Mr. DOURADO. To airspace, saying that you could not interfere 

with the use of a property. So, I think that applying that same 

precedent from 1946, which was very flexible, to the modern world, 

as long as you are not interfering with a person’s use of their property, then you are not interfering. And that could be interpreted to 

include privacy harms, as well. It already exists under the law. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think we are going to have a really hard 

time with that kind of vague definition of what is airspace ownership. You know, obviously, if someone believes that they have a 

commercial right to privacy in terms of what they are growing, in 

terms of what they are raising, and someone thinks, no, I am the 

USDA and I am going to fly—I mean, I am going to test what is 

happening on the ground, and I am going to tell you what your 

crop looks like, that is a problem for a lot of ranchers and farmers. 

And, so, what I am suggesting is that we need to broaden the 

dialogue here beyond safety, and we need to talk about how we 

manage this new technology in that privacy space. And, I think 

that is something that we have not done all that well. 

In North Dakota, one of the things that we have been able to do 

is put together a committee that not only talks about when should 

you be able to basically deploy this resource, but what do you do 

with the data afterwards, and the for instance is, we send one up 

to monitor traffic out of the hockey arena, which is a big deal. I 

know you guys do not believe that, but it is a big deal. 

[Laughter.] 

Monitor traffic out of the hockey arena and then you do not need 

that information, so that information gets deleted out of the system 

and not stored. And, so, those are the challenging questions that 

are being asked in terms of data collection and in terms of information, and I think we need to have a broader discussion beyond safety about how this resource is used in America to protect the priLAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

54 

vacy rights of landowners, but also not irrationally restricting utilization of the resource. 

So, I am out of time, but—— 

Senator RISCH [presiding]. Senator Ernst, you are up. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I would just like to echo—and, first, thank you for being here 

today. I do appreciate it. And, this is a topic that is very interesting 

and we do need further discussions on. And, I would agree with 

some of the comments that are made already, especially as it applies to agriculture in a state like Iowa or North Dakota, it is a 

great tool for our farmers to use if they are doing that precisiontype agriculture and monitoring, and it does eventually save on 

labor costs, and it makes our environment that much the better because we are targeting specific weeds in specific areas, not entire 

fields. 

So, I think there is a lot of great application that we can find 

from these systems, but I wanted to echo the privacy concerns that 

we have, as well, because even in the rural areas, it may be a great 

tool for farming, but you certainly do not want somebody else’s remotely piloted aircraft or drone flying overhead taking pictures of 

your family as they are in the backyard or whatever other methods 

are being done out there. So, those are some concerns. 

Much of Iowa is rural farm ground. I mean, it goes without saying. Just like so many of our states, it is so rural. Many of these 

UAS are being operated for agricultural purposes, far from the 

nearest town let alone from the nearest airport. So, what do we do 

to ensure that we are not overburdening some of the folks that are 

utilizing this technology in those types of areas? Any thoughts on 

that? 

Mr. CANOLL. Well, Senator, I think there are a couple of areas 

that we can make advances. The technology exists today, it is just 

not fully deployed by the manufacturers—I know they are working 

on getting it into the platforms—called geo-fencing. So, if it is truly 

a platform used only for agriculture, a very low altitude surveillance, then we have to find a way to geo-fence that vehicle from 

stumbling or trundling into airspace. It probably has the capability 

if it is a vehicle strong enough to carry a camera like this one to 

fly very high, 6,000, 7,000 feet. 

So, that technological platform has to be restricted from ever operating there, and then we can really mitigate the risk to the national airspace and to airliners, for example, or general aviation, 

which we have a very large portion in this country, largest general 

aviation operations in the world by far that operate not near airports, they are just puddle jumping around, and they have a risk 

to running into one of these vehicles, as well. So, I think technology 

is the most profound way to protect it. 

Senator ERNST. Okay. Any other thoughts, gentlemen? 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, Senator, agriculture is probably the lion’s 

share of the numbers in our forecast because it is low-risk flying. 

In many respects, it is rural, as you say, and it is away from people 

and it is away from other aircraft for the most part, unless it is 

aerial applicators, and we are in a very robust discussion with 

them. So, I think agriculture is where we actually expected this 

technology to take hold very, very rapidly, and it is. There is no 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

55 

question that many of the exemptions that have been granted by 

the FAA are for agricultural applications. 

Interestingly, it is still early, and because we have not gotten to 

scale yet, because we are flying under exemption, agriculture being 

a low-margin business, it is probably not going to take off in the 

early stages as quickly as we thought. But, meanwhile, there are 

many other applications where we have seen tremendous adoption 

and uptake for the technology. 

The sooner we have got more people flying under rules, the sooner we will have datasets, and in aviation, we use datasets to figure 

out what is equivalent level of safety. No question, we are going 

to have the occasional conflict, and that is a bad thing in the airspace. But, we will learn from that, as Mr. Dourado has pointed 

out, and I like agriculture because it offers us a very low-risk profile, and again, we are looking for a regulatory framework that is 

risk based, because if it is technology based, we will never keep up 

with it from a regulatory point of view. 

Mr. DOURADO. Senator, I would add that Japan is doing very interesting things with drone-based agriculture, and so I think that 

looking to their example and seeing how they are handling these 

issues is also very useful. 

Senator ERNST. Very good. And, I know the FAA has been very 

slow about getting these rules and regulations in place. But, if you 

are an average Iowa farmer, how do you know what those rules 

are, or how are you notified that you need to be registering your 

unmanned aerial system? How do you know that? How are they 

going to know? Is there some sort of registry that takes place when 

they purchase a system? 

Mr. WYNNE. A very robust effort. As I said, our ‘‘Know Before 

You Fly’’ campaign is pointing people at the resources that they 

need. There are over 80 supporters of that campaign, and increasingly, we are reaching out to our colleagues, the American Farm 

Bureau Federation, et cetera, to get information in their channels 

so that it is readily available, not complicated information. 

Senator ERNST. Okay. 

Mr. CANOLL. Essentially, when you purchase it, you open it up, 

there it is. The information is presented. 

Senator ERNST. Okay. Good. Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Senator Ernst has put her finger on it. It is the best of technologies and the worst of technologies simultaneously. There is a 

Dickensian quality to this technology. It can enable and ennoble 

farmers and Homeland Security officials to protect our country, but 

it can also be used to fly drones over people’s backyards and photograph children or families in very sensitive situations, and we need 

rules in order to make sure that it is clearly understood what these 

drones can be used for. But, we also have to have clear rules in 

terms of where these drones can be flown. 

So, there have been several recent drone sightings near airports 

in Massachusetts, and I am becoming increasingly concerned about 

the threat of a drone colliding with a plane. It only takes one drone 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

56 

to fly into the path of one passenger plane in order to create one 

of the worst disasters in American aviation history. 

On New Year’s Day, a commercial plane spotted a drone flying 

800 feet in the air nearly one mile from Logan Airport. Just days 

earlier, another drone was reported two miles from Logan’s runways, also flying at about 800 feet in the air. Last month, I sent 

a letter to the FAA to find out what concrete steps the FAA is taking to prevent and respond to drones flying in sensitive airspaces. 

Captain Canoll, can you lay out for the committee what the dangers are, from your perspective, if we do not have real rules and 

these drones continue to insinuate themselves into the airspace of 

commercial aircraft. 

Mr. CANOLL. Yes, Senator. The biggest problem is, and it was 

mentioned in the opening remarks, that we have had a lot of wildlife bird strikes. Aircraft are pretty rugged things. I have hit many 

birds in my operations, both when I was flying in the Navy and in 

commercial aircraft. Aircraft pretty much can sustain it. 

But, there is a big difference between a bird and a drone with 

a heavy, lithium metal battery, motors, cabling. That is going to— 

this will do significant damage to an aircraft if it hits it. A quarter 

can destroy a jet engine if it goes down the intake—destroy it. So, 

we have both the threat of that and then the proliferation, which 

is an issue for us, as we have seen these hundreds of thousands 

sold in this last holiday season. 

So, I think it is important to note, though, that my members who 

are flying around reporting these sightings, we all firmly believe 

that it is not the commercial operator or even the serious hobbyist 

that we are running into. This is the hobbyist or the non-commercial operator who really does not know what they are doing. So, we 

need to enhance enforcement. We need to enhance enforcement. 

Senator MARKEY. And, so, what is the area that you think should 

be built around an airport, like LaGuardia or Newark or Boston—— 

Mr. CANOLL. I think—— 

Senator MARKEY [continuing]. Where the air traffic is just absolutely massive? How wide a radius should be created? 

Mr. CANOLL. The FAA has established five miles, and that is a 

good place to start—— 

Senator MARKEY. But it is not being enforced, is that what—— 

Mr. CANOLL. Well, the problem is, it is hard to enforce it because 

someone can walk into that area with a drone this size and just 

take off and start flying—— 

Senator MARKEY. Yeah. 

Mr. CANOLL [continuing]. And you do not know it is there until 

you have had a couple of near misses. 

Senator MARKEY. And, to what do you attribute the lack of enforcement? Is it that the local officials, the state officials, the federal officials are not properly signaling to all these new drone owners that there is a penalty they have to pay? 

Mr. CANOLL. I think there is—yes, I think there is a coordination 

issue through the FAA to the law enforcement agencies. The other 

thing I think that we could think about from a technology standpoint is we have the ‘‘Know Before You Fly’’ campaign, and it is 

presented, as we told Senator Ernst before, is you open up the box. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

57 

You see this pamphlet there that you should go to this website and 

look at it. 

The technology exists to make it so, just like when you open up 

a version of Microsoft Office, you have to enter a key code before 

it will operate. We could do that with our recreational drones so 

that you have to go pass an online test which informs you that you 

cannot operate within five miles of an airport, enter that key code 

before the vehicle will turn on. 

Senator MARKEY. And, I agree with you. We need standards and 

the FAA has to put in place policies that will prevent and respond 

to these new risks and to do so in a way that all new drone operators—we are going to have ten million of these, 15, 20 million of 

these, and they will be—a lot of them will be in major metropolitan 

areas with so many planes, that without clear standards, a catastrophe is just going to happen. There are just no two ways about 

it, like you are saying. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Thank you to the panel for taking the time to come visit with us 

today. This is certainly a critical issue that I am sure, as with a 

lot of things with technology, it is in its infancy and we are going 

to learn a lot, and as we move forward, hopefully, we will get a lot 

better at doing this, just as we have with the camera, as was mentioned earlier. So, thank you so much again. Thank you for coming. 

We will now move to our second panel. 

[Pause.] 

Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us today. We are going 

to hear from each of you, and I am going to introduce both of you 

and then go from one to the other. 

For the committee, for the witnesses and everyone else, as usual 

around here, we are on a short string. We have a vote that starts 

in 28 minutes, so we will try to be, as usual, efficient, but certainly 

as thorough as we can be. 

Dr. Thomas Vaneck is the Vice President of Disruptive Technologies for Physical Sciences Inc. As a small business, PSI has 

been at the forefront of drone technology development for years, 

working on both military and civilian commercial applications. Dr. 

Vaneck leads a team of technologists focused on the development 

and application of multipurpose small unmanned aircraft systems 

called InstantEye. 

Our last witness is Dr. Gregory McNeal. Dr. McNeal is an expert 

on drones and topics related to technology law and policy. He is a 

nationally recognized commentator for Forbes and a frequent keynote speaker at industry events and academic conferences related 

to drones, technology, law, and public policy. 

So, we will give you each about five minutes to address the committee, and then I have no doubt we will have deep and probing 

questions for you. 

So, starting with Dr. Vaneck, if you would, please. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

58 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. VANECK, VICE PRESIDENT, DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, PHYSICAL SCIENCES INC., ANDOVER, MA 

Mr. VANECK. Distinguished members of the committee, thank 

you so much for giving me the opportunity to testify today about 

our experience in commercial UAS development and operations and 

working with the FAA. 

At Physical Sciences, a small business, I have the privilege of 

leading a group of talented technologists focused on the development and applications of the multipurpose small unmanned aircraft system we call InstantEye, and I have actually brought 

InstantEye with me so you can see the size. 

While at first we solely supported the military, today our customers include not only the military, but also law enforcement, 

first responders, and a growing list of commercial users. Working 

with military, we broke new ground to push the technology to those 

most in need of it, the individual warfighter. This required significant innovation to make the system easy to operate, extremely rugged, adaptable to mission needs, and low cost. We also created a 

two-day program of instruction to train operators in the use of the 

system, including emergency procedures, and how to service and 

maintain the equipment. 

Much of the technology developed and experience gained during 

this SBIR-supported product development effort has successfully 

been transitioned to the commercial sector. Today, supporting commercial customers is one of our greatest growth areas. As we expand into these markets, we work closely with the FAA to obtain 

the necessary certifications to conduct commercial operations. 

Teamed with a commercial customer in the power and gas industry, we applied for and received a Special Airworthiness Certificate 

for InstantEye so we could test its efficacy as an inspection tool. 

We and others have applied for and have been granted Section 333 

exemptions allowing InstantEye to be used for commercial operations. Today, our systems are used to inspect power lines, pipelines, wind turbines, solar arrays, endangered species habitats, and 

many others. The list grows weekly. 

The process used by the FAA for both the Special Airworthiness 

Certificate and the 333 exemption was to take regulations developed for manned aircraft and apply them to our unmanned system. 

When regulations did not quite fit, we applied for and were granted 

exemptions, which kept the safety intent of the rule but modified 

its implementation so that it made sense for our small UAS. While 

the process was tedious, it was always apparent that the FAA 

wanted us to succeed. They also did not want to do anything that 

would break the system. Safety always came first. 

We understand that today the FAA is seeking to develop rules 

that are specific to UAS and their operations instead of continuing 

the approach of taking existing manned aircraft regulations and 

modifying them through exemptions. We applaud these efforts. 

We firmly believe that, for this process to move quickly and to 

ensure that safety is not compromised, it needs to be a collaborative effort between the FAA and the UAS industry. Over the last 

90 years, the FAA and its predecessor organizations have created 

an airspace architecture that is today the safest it has ever been. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

59 

That experience will be invaluable as we enter this next era in 

aviation. 

Equally important is the knowledge and experience of the UAS 

industry. We know our systems and their limitations. We are forever finding new applications for the technology. And we can use 

this knowledge to help suggest regulations that are appropriate for 

this industry, maintain safety, and allow it to grow and thrive. 

We also believe in developing UAS regulations, one size does not 

fit all. Rules and operator requirements must be appropriate for 

the system being used and operations being conducted. An approach based on the engineering risk model will likely be the most 

successful methodology. Evaluating risk encompasses a number of 

items, including failure analysis, probability of injury, probability 

of property damage, et cetera. This will allow us to collect combinations of system type and intended commercial activity into groups 

which we can apply safety requirements to and ultimately derive 

rules. 

Lower-risk activities will require fewer rules on the operator and 

the system, while higher-risk operations will require the operator 

to have greater demonstrated skills and the system to have additional capabilities to ensure that an equivalent level of safety is 

met. 

Not only does this approach build on the existing FAA rule architecture for manned aircraft—a sport pilot flying a sport aircraft 

does not have to have the same rule burden as does an airline 

transport pilot flying a commercial airliner—it will also drive innovation. Clear rules, thoughtfully developed and applied, will allow 

healthy competition by virtue of a level playing field and will encourage creative companies to invent innovative solutions that both 

adhere to the rules and also create a better mousetrap. 

In summary, the commercial UAS industry represents an immense opportunity for our country. It is creating jobs. It is driving 

innovation. And each day we discover yet another application for 

the technology. To realize its full potential and to ensure that the 

United States is a world leader in this area will require a close collaboration between the FAA and the UAS industry. The rules and 

operator requirements that are put in place must ensure safety and 

protect privacy to garner public trust. This is essential for success. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for your 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vaneck follows:] 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

60 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 24851.038
61 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 24851.039
62 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 24851.040
63 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 24851.041
64 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Dr. Vaneck. 

Dr. McNeal. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY S. McNEAL, J.D., Ph.D., PROFESSOR 

OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY, PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, 

AND CO-FOUNDER, AIRMAP, SANTA MONICA, CA 

Mr. MCNEAL. Senator Risch, Senator Booker, members of the 

committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to participate 

in today’s hearing on unmanned aircraft systems. 

My name is Greg McNeal. I am a professor at Pepperdine University, where my research focuses on unmanned aircraft. I served 

on the FAA’s Aviation Rulemaking Committee for UAS registration, and I currently serve on the FAA’s MicroUAS Rulemaking 

Committee. 

I am also the co-founder of AirMap, a small business that provides safety-related software to UAS manufacturers, operators, 

software developers, and key stakeholders like airports and universities. We provide the airspace safety map for the ‘‘Know Before 

You Fly’’ campaign and approximately 85 percent of the non-toy, 

non-military UAS sold today use or will use our software, and more 

than 250 software developers use our SDA to integrate our safety 

software into their own programs and into their own UAS. 

From my vantage point as a professor and as a small business 

founder who works directly with UAS businesses ranging from one 

employee to 1,500 employees, I can tell you that these individuals 

are being held back, and it is not just American entrepreneurs. 

Students, educators, journalists, and volunteers are ready to use 

unmanned aircraft to save lives, generate significant economic activity, yet they have been held back, unable to operate even the 

smallest of devices because they want to use these devices for a 

purpose that is not strictly recreational or hobby. 

Every moment spent without freeing these individuals to use unmanned aircraft results in unavoidable deaths and injuries from 

people falling from towers, missed moments to educate students 

about technology, foregone moments of free expression, and lost 

chances to find missing people. 

Since the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, one thing 

has been clear. Only Congressional action has ensured individuals 

were able to use unmanned aircraft. In Section 332, Congress 

called for UAS operations in the Arctic, and we have seen those operations take place. 

In Section 333, Congress created a process for categorical exemptions, and we have seen those exemptions and operations take 

place pursuant to those rules, but those exemptions were granted 

on a case-by-case basis rather than categorically, as Congress directed. 

In Section 334, Congress directed that public safety officials may 

operate unmanned aircraft weighing 4.4 pounds and less, and we 

have seen those operations take place thanks to Congressional action. 

And in Section 336, Congress carved out protections for hobby 

and recreational use of unmanned aircraft weighing up to 55 

pounds, and we have seen such hobby and recreational uses take 

place. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

65 

The trend line is clear. When Congress acts, innovation takes 

flight. 

But despite the Congressionally directed progress of 2012, there 

is more work to be done. Entrepreneurs, students and educators, 

journalists and volunteers have been left on the sidelines, and it 

appears they will continue to be left on the sidelines. The only way 

to secure the benefits of unmanned aircraft flight for these important constituents is to create a micro classification that prioritizes 

safety while promoting open innovation. 

That is why I am here today to ask Congress and the members 

here to support a MicroUAS classification that empowers those who 

have been left out of the process. The MicroUAS category should 

be focused on simple and straightforward requirements that are 

minimally burdensome and streamlined. 

Specifically, the MicroUAS category should be for registered devices that weigh 4.4 pounds or less, that are operated within line 

of sight of the operator, less than 400 feet above the ground, and 

which provide notice to the airport prior to operating within five 

miles of that airport. 

By eliminating the distinction between recreational and commercial use for the smallest and safest classification of UAS, it cuts red 

tape for entrepreneurs, encourages a safety culture based on rules 

that are easy to follow. It also relieves the FAA from the burden 

of licensing and exempting grants for low-risk operations, allowing 

them to focus on important initiatives, like unmanned traffic management. 

Moreover, people strive for compliance when rules make sense. 

However, overly burdensome requirements, including pilot certification, aeronautical knowledge testing, traveling to test facilities, 

and retesting every two years will create high barriers for low-risk 

users, increasing the potential for non-compliance. 

A MicroUAS classification is a reform that will allow for operations on terms similar to those already allowed for recreational 

operators, but it would allow entrepreneurs, educators, and volunteers to operate unmanned aircraft by removing the restrictive recreational or hobbyist purpose limitation, focusing instead on the already accepted safety standards that Congress put into place in 

2012. 

American entrepreneurs, students and educators, journalists and 

volunteers need the support of Congress. History has proven that 

the best way to foster innovation is for Congress to take action to 

empower innovation and protect entrepreneurs. Now is the time for 

Congress to act by creating a MicroUAS classification, and I am 

hopeful that you will be able to support that initiative. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McNeal follows:] 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

66 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 24851.042
67 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 24851.043
68 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 24851.044
69 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 24851.045
70 

Senator RISCH. Gentlemen, thank you very much. 

Let me start with the questions. Mr. McNeal, do you feel that 

the—this outfit is not very good at passing corrective legislation. It 

is totally unlike the states, that if they make a mistake, they revisit it the next year and correct it. This outfit almost never does 

that. I cannot answer why. Do not kill the messenger. I am just 

saying that is the way it is here. 

So, the question I have for you is, can these be corrected by agency rule and regulation, which is obviously much more flexible, or 

does the actual Act need to be revisited? 

Mr. MCNEAL. Senator, that is a great question. Give yourself 

more credit. Three-thirty-two, 333, 334, and 336, I think the body 

did a pretty good job at crafting a framework. 

But, with regard to your specific question, in my written testimony, I suggest some language that would allow for Congress to 

create this very lightweight category, something as small as that, 

or that would fit in the palm of your hands up to 4.4 pounds, and 

then the operator could operate under that category, or if a more 

permissive category is developed by the FAA after some additional 

analysis, they would have the option to operate under that. So, it 

preserves the flexibility while giving Congress the ability to act on 

innovation. 

Senator RISCH. That actually sounds like an excellent idea, but 

the question I have is could that be done by rule and regulation 

as opposed to legislation, or is the legislation going to have to be 

revisited? 

Mr. MCNEAL. So, I actually walked over here from—or I took a 

taxi over from the Department of Transportation, where we were 

talking about the MicroUAS category, and to put that in perspective, Senator, we are on a fast timeline to complete our recommendation by April 1. And then once that rulemaking process 

begins at the FAA, that rule, if the FAA hits every single deadline, 

simply cannot be enacted until next summer. Just, if you just take 

the timeline of 60 days of—— 

Senator RISCH. This coming summer or the following—— 

Mr. MCNEAL. The following summer, Senator. 

Senator RISCH. We do not move much faster up here. 

Let me ask you this. Being an attorney, I would like to get your 

take on what the state of the law is on this privacy, and I understand it is in a state of flux, and I understand that common law 

takes a while to develop. But, I think—I read stories all the time, 

as does everybody else. Some guy walked out in his backyard and 

saw a drone and shot it down because his daughter was out there 

doing whatever. What is the state of the law on that right now? 

Are there sideboards? Have they developed standards, or is this 

still—is there any rule of thumb? 

Mr. MCNEAL. So, I think with any new technology, there is obvious sort of apprehension. We can just think back ten years when 

cell phones came out, and the immediate response was, these devices should beep every time they take a photo because everyone 

is carrying a camera, and eventually, people got accustomed to the 

technology. 

I think with regard to the laws that are being promulgated, we 

are seeing very different laws coming up in the states. I think in 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

71 

the states, existing law really does address a lot of the concerns 

that people have, and we are starting also to see that industry is 

coming together and meeting with those state legislators to say, 

why do we not look to those existing laws that might need to be 

amended rather than creating UAS-specific rules. I think that is 

the right path forward. 

I think the challenge for this body, if it were to legislate in this 

area, is that Montana is not Philadelphia, right, and New York 

City is not Nebraska—— 

Senator RISCH. How well we know. 

Mr. MCNEAL [continuing]. And I think we really want to make 

sure that, on the privacy rules, that we do not try to over-legislate 

here in a way that would stifle innovation, that we entrust the 

states to handle those types of things under existing state law, 

Senator. 

Senator RISCH. Is there any effort by the Uniform Code Commission to adopt something like the UCC or something like that 

that—— 

Mr. MCNEAL. There is—— 

Senator RISCH [continuing]. That states can look at? 

Mr. MCNEAL. There is an initiative. It is not the Uniform Code 

Commission, I think it is an ALI group that is meeting to create 

a harmonized set of rules. There is also a similar group that is trying to create a harmonized set of rules across the states for a variety of the other things that we are talking about with regard to 

trespass, privacy, and nuisance, to try and ameliorate the concerns 

about a patchwork of rules and regulations cropping up across the 

states. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you very much. 

Senator Gardner. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to 

the witnesses for being here today and your testimony. 

I had the privilege of traveling to where I attended law school, 

the University of Colorado Law School, and a couple of years ago, 

they got a new law school, and so I went and visited the old law 

building, which was still there, and inside the old law library is a, 

I guess a UAS test and flying facility. They had this—it looked like 

a batting cage net up where they were flying around UAS, doing 

all kinds of things. It was the best use of a law library I think I 

have ever seen. At least, I wish they were doing that when I was 

studying there. 

[Laughter.] 

But, I mean, they were doing tremendous work. 

Do we have any idea—do either of you have any idea about how 

much money is right now being put toward research and development at various universities’ engineering laboratories across the 

country on UAV systems, those kinds of things? 

Mr. MCNEAL. I do not know the specific dollar amount, Senator, 

but I know that many universities are looking to get involved in 

it. Actually, to tie this back to my testimony, one of the challenges 

that I face is that I want to educate my law students about technology, and if I were to take a drone and bring my students outside 

and start flying that drone, I would need to get a 333 exemption. 

I would need to go to flight school and become a pilot, all to be able 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

72 

to show my students how to use that. And if they were to use it 

as part of their education, that would be deemed non-recreational, 

non-hobbyist, not in conformity with the set of community-based 

guidelines, those students would have to go through a similar process. And, so, I have taken to not bothering to show them how UAS 

work in the classroom because of these prohibitions. 

And, so, I think it is Senator Peters that has an act that he has 

proposed to try and free up universities. I think that dovetails nicely with the MicroUAS proposal, to free up universities to be able 

to conduct this type of research, to help expand STEM education 

and even reach down into high schools and intermediate schools to 

do the same thing. 

Senator GARDNER. Absolutely. And last summer in Colorado and 

across the country, we saw wildfires throughout the Western 

United States, a number of incursions between drones and firefighting operations. You have recommended a ceiling of 400 feet for 

the MicroUAS classification, but retardant drops are usually made 

from heights of 150 to 200 feet. So, in your opinion, what should 

we be doing to make sure that the likely proliferation of micro 

drones does not further imperil that kind of an emergency response 

situation? 

Mr. MCNEAL. Yes, Senator. So, these devices would similarly be 

subject to the same hazard restrictions that are already in under 

my proposal, that are already in place. And, so, flight within a temporary flight restriction would be a violation of the law. 

Additionally, just to tie it back to AirMap and tell you a story, 

a year ago, AirMap started as a company believe that unmanned 

aircraft operators needed accurate and up to date information 

about airspace information, and now approximately 85 percent of 

the market gets a live update about where temporary flight restrictions are. One of our partners, DJI, will geo-fence that temporary 

flight restriction so that you cannot fly into it. Another one of our 

partners, 3D Robotics, provides an alert to the operator, letting 

them know this is an area where you cannot operate. 

And, so, that gives you an idea of the pace of innovation when 

we allow the industry to act quickly in response to problems, perhaps to avoid the—because they see the threat of legislation or regulation coming, trying to stay ahead of that trend, whereas if we 

get overly prescriptive, what ends up happening is we slow them 

down because they have to meet regulations, instead of allowing innovation to address the public policy problems. 

Senator GARDNER. How does that alert work that you just talked 

about? You said—how would that work to the user, the operator? 

Mr. MCNEAL. Sure. The user, upon opening their system up, is 

immediately provided accurate information about the airspace in 

which they are operating and they would get a pop-up notification 

on the screen letting them know that they are in a temporary flight 

restriction and they are unable to fly in that area, and it would 

give them the exact detailed rationale behind why that temporary 

flight restriction was there, be it POTUS movement or a stadium 

event or a wildfire or any other significant event. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

73 

Dr. McNeal, for those of us that are from the Western states— 

I see a few of us here, four of us here anyway—this fire issue has 

become a real issue. This last summer, we had a number of fires. 

I am sure you had the same thing in Colorado. And the firefighters 

are concerned, and they are having a lot of issues with the drones, 

because it is a natural thing if you are a hobbyist or what have 

you. You want to go out and take a picture of that. So, common 

sense is going to play a role here somewhere. 

Well, I have just been ignominiously chastised by the Ranking 

Member for ignoring her and not allowing her to make an opening 

statement. Unfortunately—— 

Senator GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, that was as much my fault as 

anybody’s. I am sorry to the Ranking Member—— 

Senator RISCH. Well, in my defense, I did not start this shindig 

and I thought you had been here—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SHAHEEN. And I did not, either. 

Senator RISCH. So, in any event, Senator Shaheen for your deep, 

probing, important remarks. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Senator Risch. It is so nice to 

chastise you. 

Senator RISCH. Yes. It is not the first time, I might add. 

[Laughter.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, RANKING 

MEMBER, AND A U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, thank you very much, and I am going 

to submit my statement for the record, but I would point out a couple of things. 

One is that, as both of our witnesses have testified, and we 

thank you very much for being here, unmanned aviation presents 

new opportunities for innovation and for delivering services, but it 

also raises a number of new and serious safety concerns. And, as 

the discussion has pointed out, we need to address those safety 

concerns very thoughtfully and with an understanding of what the 

ramifications of that would be. 

And, I would just point out with respect to wildfires, this is 

something that has been called to our attention in New Hampshire, 

even though we are not a Western state, and I have introduced the 

Wildfire and Emergency Airspace Protection Act, which would 

make it a federal crime to knowingly operate a recreational drone 

that interferes with disaster response efforts. So, I do think that 

is a very serious issue. 

I also want to recognize Dr. Vaneck from Physical Sciences Inc., 

which is a business that is located in Massachusetts, but they do 

some of their work with drones in New Hampshire, so we are delighted to have PSI represented here. I had the opportunity to discuss with representatives of PSI the importance of the SBIR program and what we need to do to reauthorize it and, I hope, make 

it permanent. So, thank you for being here. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Shaheen follows:] 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

74 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 24851.054
75 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 24851.055
76 

Senator SHAHEEN. My question—I am going to start with you, 

Dr. Vaneck, because I wonder if you could walk us through the experience that PSI has had to date with getting involved in the commercial drone sector and how the costs and constraints have affected your business. 

Mr. VANECK. Thank you. Certainly. When we first started getting 

into the commercial activities, I want to step back and say that, 

initially, we primarily focused on the military and we have a large 

number of these systems that are in theater supporting our military quite successfully. 

It was a logical step to take that to the commercial sector. We 

worked with several commercial companies that wanted to use the 

system for inspection. First, they wanted to understand, was it useful for inspection, and then if it was, that they wanted to actually 

put it into operation. We worked with an energy company that, 

through working with the FAA, we were able to get a special type 

certificate for the system that allowed us to operate it in the experimental category, and that was simply to go and look at the efficacy 

of using the system for those kinds of inspections. 

The process was tedious. The FAA applied manned rules to unmanned, but in our viewpoint, they could not do anything else because they had a rule set that worked really well. This was thrust 

on them. They had to do something. It took a long time. We were 

able to be successful in getting that type certificate, and the system 

has been used commercially by that company to do power line inspections. 

The 333 was a good step, not the last step, I hope, in getting to 

a point where we can now use these commercially. I have to say 

that the process that we went through was not that onerous. The 

FAA emphasized safety. It was on a case-by-case basis. We made 

our pitch to them, and were able to receive the 333. 

It led us to believe that this risk model is the proper approach, 

and I believe that is the model that the FAA is proposing. I will 

say that categorizing both the risk and the type of operation, you 

get micro systems that will have one set of rules. You will have 

other systems that perhaps want to go beyond line of sight, will 

have a different set of rules. And then you will have rules for very 

large systems, and I think that is what makes sense. Thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Can you also—maybe both of you could talk 

a little bit about the degree of training that should be required for 

drone operators, because on the previous panel—I missed it, but I 

understand that the President of the Air Line Pilots Association 

was here, and that he raised some of the concerns around safety 

and training requirements that the FAA is looking at. So, can you 

speak to that, and then perhaps—— 

Mr. VANECK. I will quickly comment on that. For our military 

customers, it is a two-day approved training course that they go 

through to fully be able to operate the system and maintain it. We 

believe that for the commercial side, anyone who is going to operate the system commercially should have some degree of training. 

That could be as simple as an online training that you would take 

and then pass an exam so you understand what the airspace is 

that you are going to be operating in and what the rule architecture is. So, we are fully in support of that. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

77 

Senator SHAHEEN. Would you like to comment? 

Mr. MCNEAL. Yes, Senator. So, I do think that we should take 

a cue from other countries. I just sat through a presentation yesterday. The Canadians have segmented up based on the weight class 

and the risk category of the operation whether or not someone 

needs training, and at the low end of the spectrum, basically that 

4.4 pound and below area, I think it would be prudent for us to 

not require substantial training. 

To put it in perspective, Captain Canoll—I keep wanting to say 

Captain Cannoli, Senator Booker—he put a DJI Phantom on the 

desk. My five-year-old operates that with my supervision. It is not 

a complex device. And if you think about if you were trying to sell 

your home today and you had that, or it was your kid’s DJI and 

you wanted to fly up and take a picture of your home so you could 

sell your home, that would be a commercial operation. 

Do we expect that that person is going to go through that educational process? Probably not. And, so, what we end up having is 

people who are skirting the rules and not complying, in the same 

way that I could have skirted the rules and used the device to educate my students, but because I am a law professor, I felt it would 

probably be wrong for me to violate the law while educating my 

students. So, I do think we need to key it to the type of operation 

as opposed to having a blanket rule that everyone must go through 

some formal training. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you both. 

Mr. MCNEAL. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SHAHEEN. My time is up. 

Senator RISCH. Yes, it is. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. I realize there is a vote coming up, Mr. Chairman, and I know Senator Cantwell has not had a chance to ask 

any questions, so I would defer to her. 

Senator RISCH. Oh, I am sorry. 

Senator BOOKER. Okay. Then, I will instead continue with questioning. Thank you. 

So, real quick, I have a lot of concerns, as you heard in the last 

panel, about what we are doing to choke innovation and through 

overly burdensome regulation that does not seem to be in any way 

keeping pace with what other countries are doing who have the 

same safety concerns but have an ability to spawn innovation that 

has now seemed to be taking off, no pun intended, in other countries, but not taking off here. 

But, I actually want to shift for a second, because this is the 

Small Business Committee, and I would like to know that beyond 

the discussions of what the FAA is doing, how can other government agencies actually help small businesses, such as the SBA, foster a culture of innovation around UAS, particularly for these commercial users? And, I open it up for both of you. 

Mr. MCNEAL. I think there are a few things that can happen. 

One of the things that we struggled with as a company was just 

being able to access certain types of data and communication protocols at the FAA, where the FAA had an approach to allowing people to create innovation and participate with the National Airspace 

System in a way where they basically sort of selected single conLAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

78 

tractors who were the only people who could provide certain types 

of approved solutions, rather than creating standards to which everyone else could develop. 

So, an example of that was rather than creating standards for 

aeronautical apps that would allow individuals to provide information to end users, they instead created their own app, which did 

not get a lot of adoption. And, so, I think flipping that focus, calling 

on agencies to say, here are the standards to which we want people 

to create new software, or here are the standards around which we 

want people to innovate, and then free those individuals to innovate and then maybe they get the stamp of approval if they have 

met those broad developmental standards. So, that is speaking just 

to the software category, Senator. 

Senator BOOKER. Great. Any other thoughts? 

Mr. VANECK. Very quickly, two quick thoughts. One is, I did 

want to go back and talk a bit about the SBIR, very briefly. This 

system would not be in existence today had it not been for an SBIR 

program that got it started. We were able to develop it to a point 

that we had larger agencies providing funding to continue on and 

actually get it into military operations. 

The other is this is an ITAR-restricted piece of equipment. Part 

of our market is going international, as well. There are tremendous 

burdens, and the rule structure is not as clear as it could be for 

us to understand how we push this technology out internationally. 

If we want to compete on the international stage, I have to be able 

to put my technology into the international market, and I think we 

need some—a look at the ITAR restrictions that are placed on 

these types of technologies to ensure that we are not burdening it— 

overly burdening it so it does open those markets up. 

Senator BOOKER. And it puts you at a competitive disadvantage 

to other companies that might be—— 

Mr. VANECK. Yes, Senator, it does. 

Senator BOOKER [continuing]. Other countries. And, again, this 

goes to that point about how we are really undermining innovation, 

economic growth, jobs, because we are doing things to our businesses and innovators that other countries are not, and they are 

not having these horrible safety disasters, and they are taking a 

focus on safety, but they are not creating these regulatory burdens. 

And, so, just for an example, either of you, how long does it take 

for a typical small business—not the people who—the individual 

users who crash into the White House lawn and things like that, 

but I am talking about for a business that is trying to use and innovate an application, how long does it take for a small business 

to apply for an exemption through the FAA? I am just curious, just 

for the record. 

Mr. MCNEAL. Well, worse than the exemption process, Senator, 

would be the fact that if we just decided to start today, it would 

take 120 days at the long end, but they have really narrowed that 

gap down to about 60 days, to approve the exemption. But, then 

you would have a piece of paper—— 

Senator BOOKER. Wait—— 

Mr. MCNEAL. You would need to learn how to fly. You would 

need to go fly a Cessna and fly for 20 hours before you could fly 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

79 

that—what is it, 200 grams—that tiny 200-gram device. You would 

need to know how to land a manned aircraft. 

Senator BOOKER. Right. And, right now, there is a backlog at the 

FAA—— 

Mr. MCNEAL. There is a backlog, right, and now people—and, so, 

I think people are sitting on the sidelines, too, hoping that—the 

people that last summer were sitting, expecting that Congress 

would hit the deadline—I mean, the FAA would hit the deadline 

Congress gave them. They did not file for their exemption. Then 

they heard there would be a delay. They did not file for their exemption. And now, some of them are probably kicking themselves 

for having not filed the exemption. The regulatory process takes a 

long time because the agency has to run all of its traps. 

Senator BOOKER. And, let us just be clear. Right now in America, 

we are killing innovation as a result of this. We are killing jobs. 

We are undermining the life-saving potential that this technology 

could have for our own communities. And this is just a regulatory 

regime that desperately needs to be changed. 

Mr. MCNEAL. I one hundred percent agree, Senator. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. 

Senator GARDNER [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Booker. 

Had I known that we were bringing some of these visuals, I have 

a Millennium Falcon drone in my office I could have brought here, 

too, so—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCNEAL. Do not fly it commercially, Senator. 

Senator GARDNER. No, no, no. After some experiences, I am pretty sure nobody would want me to do that. 

[Laughter.] 

I guess Senator Markey is next. 

Senator MARKEY. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. 

PSI is a perfect example of why we have Small Business Innovation Research grants. It is an amazing number, just for Massachusetts, but there have been 20,000 SBIR grants to Massachusetts 

companies totaling $5 billion. That is the program that has been 

authorized by this committee year after year, and those 20,000 

grants have helped to create, just to Massachusetts companies like 

PSI, and PSI, Physical Science Incorporated, to be distinguished 

from PSI, pounds per square inch, where Bill Belichick is the expert—— 

[Laughter.] 

Notwithstanding what anyone who comes from any other state 

might believe is accurate. 

So, we thank you, Dr. Vaneck, for your incredible innovation at 

your company. 

Can I turn just for a second, then, to the privacy issues. Obviously, right now, there are no rules in terms of the gathering of information and how they can use it, how they can sell it, and clearly, there have to be rules. You just cannot allow these drones to 

be hovering over people’s backyards and taking pictures. You know, 

it is one thing to say it is great for Amazon to be able to deliver 

a package, but what about the film now that is in there as they 

are hovering around the home? What is the rule for the reuse or 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

80 

resale of all of that information, especially if it is related to children in the family? 

So, in a way, for the purposes of public safety or the purposes 

of helping the agriculture sector to better monitor what is occurring, there are eyes in the sky, and that is great, but there is also 

a spies in the sky aspect to all of this that, clearly, we have to talk 

about, as well. 

And, last year, I actually introduced the Drone Aircraft Privacy 

and Transparency Act, which establishes safeguards to protect the 

privacy of individuals from the expanded use of drones. We need 

guidelines, especially with regard to information gathered about 

children in our society. 

So, could you, Dr. Vaneck, talk a little bit about how PSI ensures 

that drones are protecting the privacy of those on the ground. 

Mr. VANECK. Certainly. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Actually, the privacy concerns, I share them, as well. When we 

worked with the power and gas company, I will tell you that certain operations that they conducted, inspecting these power lines, 

they would only inspect from one direction, because if they inspected from the other direction, in the view would be a farm, and 

they knew that that farmer was very concerned about privacy. So, 

they conducted their operations so as to not to impinge. 

I think it actually can drive innovation. If you pull up Google 

Maps, you will see that license plates are blurred. Faces are 

blurred. Even signs on buildings, which, unfortunately, when I am 

trying to find that building make it a little difficult, but they are 

blurred. 

We have a lot of the technology already starting to be in place 

that we can apply to this as far as the video feeds and even other 

data that we collect. So, I think it can drive innovation. We are actually—— 

Senator MARKEY. You think the solution to the problem lies in 

innovation itself. 

Mr. VANECK. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator MARKEY. Like Google Maps. 

Mr. VANECK. Absolutely, and I think we can begin to apply that. 

I think there needs to be rules in place that say this has to 

occur—— 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. 

Mr. VANECK [continuing]. And that will drive innovation. It will 

get the three guys in a garage who come up with a great idea that 

then will deploy across the entire industry. 

Senator MARKEY. And, so, that then basically says that the FAA 

could say that this technology, such as Google Maps, which blurs 

faces, blurs that kind of personal information, should then be applied here, and once it is adopted, then you have got a balance between the innovation and the use of the technology, but also in the 

protection of the privacy of individuals. 

Mr. VANECK. I would say that I am not sure the FAA is the organization to do that—— 

Senator MARKEY. Yes. 

Mr. VANECK [continuing]. Because they are safety-related. But, I 

believe that there are rules that can be put in place by organizations to ensure that that takes places. 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

81 

Senator MARKEY. Yes, and I agree with you a hundred percent. 

And, again, we thank you. We are proud of having PSI up in Massachusetts. Thank you. 

Mr. VANECK. Thank you. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Vaneck, I wanted to ask you, NASA has been working on a 

drone transportation system to basically monitor the ability to fly 

safely on altitudes under 500 feet, and yesterday, the Senate introduced a FAA bill that had a pilot program on that. So, do you think 

that a traffic management system can be safely put in place for 

drones so that they can—we can get that network operating? 

Mr. VANECK. I believe it can. There are already activities now for 

micro radars that are able to, not today, but very soon will be able 

to track aircraft as small as our aircraft. The other advantage to 

something like that is it can track individual birds around airports. 

You have heard from pilots of bird strikes. If that radar were to 

exist, they could alert pilots of individual birds. 

Of the management system, commercial airliners today have a 

system on board where the aircraft themselves talk to other aircraft. It is called TCAS. Those kinds of technologies will be available for these small aircraft, I think, in the future. Again, it drives 

innovation. We are going to have the necessity to have those kinds 

of technology in place, and we will have to develop the technologies 

to do it. 

Below a certain size limit and the operation type, it may not 

make sense, it may be too much of a burden for line of sight, because you have an operator and an observer who are keeping clear 

of other traffic. But, for example, beyond line of sight, we certainly 

need a technology like that. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, if you could—I mean, obviously, with 

a digitized system, everything could be monitored. I think my colleague, Senator Risch brought up this issue as it related to fire, 

which is a perfect example. We definitely believe that drones could 

be a huge asset in helping us track and monitor fire starts. At the 

same time, literally, we had aircraft who were fighting the fires 

having to physically suspend and set down because hobbyists’ 

drones were flying in the area, and they could not risk the safety. 

So, that is a perfect example of the need for a traffic management system, if you will, and a communications system. Not everybody probably understood where every fire was, given that they 

were so immense across our state, anyway. So, it was pretty hard 

to go and identify and tell everybody, you know, a drone APB. Do 

not fly. We have firefighters flying their missions. But, so, if you 

had a system, you obviously could see that system and identify and 

communicate with it. 

Mr. VANECK. Absolutely. We are actually developing technologies 

now so that this system can be used by smoke jumpers for fighting 

wildfires, for looking for hot spots using thermal cameras, for having just an SOS that the firefighters are in trouble and you can 

send up an SOS. Right now, it is humans deconflicting the airspace. We need to move that to a technological solution to take the 

human out of the loop and have that information both sent 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

82 

throughout the infrastructure that is fighting the fire, but to everyone else, as well, with geo-fencing and other things to prevent the 

other users from being in that airspace. 

Senator CANTWELL. So, do you believe the FAA’s 333 is fostering 

this environment of voluntarily compliance, and do you think that 

that works to achieve that goal? 

Mr. VANECK. The—as I said, the 333 was not an onerous task for 

us. It did take a long time. It was about 160 days for us to receive 

our 333. The real issue, and it has been mentioned by others, having someone have to be a pilot, a manned aircraft pilot, to be able 

to operate this is a burden that is just too far. 

Senator CANTWELL. That is not where our international counterparts are. 

Mr. VANECK. That is not where our military is. Most of the operators that we have in the military are not pilots. They have other 

jobs to do, but this is a technology that they use for life saving, for 

other things. 

Senator CANTWELL. So, are we losing ground to international 

competitors because we are not—— 

Mr. VANECK. Yes, Senator. Absolutely. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I definitely believe that we need to fix 

and address that. We need—this is unbelievable applications, life 

saving applications, information saving applications. I just think 

about what we need to do with fire and fire-wise, making sure that 

we attack fire starts right away. This kind of data and information 

would give us a perspective that is just invaluable. So, I hope we 

can figure out how to move faster as the U.S. and not be left behind the international marketplace. Thank you. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I just wanted to make a final comment, and 

that is, as we talk about the challenges at the FAA, one of the 

things that would help a lot to allowing them to move forward 

more expeditiously is to reauthorize the FAA so they do not have 

to worry about what is going on with their life span. And, just as 

we need to reauthorize the SBIR program, we need to make sure 

that the FAA is operating, that they know what they are expecting, 

and that this is critical. As we talk about innovation, we should not 

be doing things here in Congress that hinder the innovation that 

we need in the country. 

So, thank you both very much for your testimony. 

Senator GARDNER. Thank you both for your contribution and testimony today. We are in the middle of a vote, so we are going to 

go ahead and conclude the hearing. Very informative and, obviously, important to balance the safety, the safe integration of unmanned aircraft into our nation’s airspace without stifling small 

business growth and innovation. 

Thank you very much for being here, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

(83) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER

84 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 24851.046
85 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 24851.047
86 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 24851.048
87 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 24851.049
88 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 24851.050
89 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 24851.051
90 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 24851.052
91 

Æ 

LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 24851.053