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

28–672 PDF 2018

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS: EMERGING USES 

IN A CHANGING NATIONAL AIRSPACE 

(115–30) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

AVIATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 29, 2017 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-transportation?path=/ 

browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

RANDY K. WEBER, SR., Texas 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan 

JOHN J. FASO, New York 

A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

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

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut, Vice 

Ranking Member 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan, Vice Chair 

JASON LEWIS, Minnesota 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

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

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

WITNESSES 

PANEL 1 

Juan J. Alonso, Ph.D., Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

William O. ‘‘Billy’’ Ball, Executive Vice President and Chief Transmission 

Officer, Southern Company: 

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

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

William Goodwin, General Counsel, AirMap: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72 

Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois ................................................................................................................. 86 

Brian Wynne, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International: 

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

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

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Jason Lewis of Minnesota ............................................................... 94 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon ............................................................. 97 

PANEL 2 

Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, 

accompanied by Earl Lawrence, Director, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office, Federal Aviation Administration: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 99 

Responses to questions for the record from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Paul Mitchell of Michigan ............................................................... 109 

Hon. Jason Lewis of Minnesota ............................................................... 110 

Hon. Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon ............................................................. 112 

Hon. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois ................................................................ 113 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington ............................................................................ 56 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Written statement of Air Line Pilots Association, International, submitted 

by Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo of New Jersey ........................................................ 115 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Letter of November 29, 2017, from William Wallace, Policy Analyst, Consumers Union, to Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, Chairman, and Hon. Rick 

Larsen, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Aviation ..................................... 123 

Letter of November 29, 2017, from Marc Rotenberg, President, Electronic 

Privacy Information Center, et al., to Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, Chairman, 

and Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Aviation ............ 125 

Page

VI 

Written statement of Mark Baker, President and CEO, Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association ................................................................................................. 130 

Written statement of Denis J. Mulligan, General Manager, Golden Gate 

Bridge, Highway and Transportation District ................................................... 136 

Written statement of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies ........................................................................................................................ 139 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 28672.001

Jilill i>buster 

€bairmnn 

MatMwM.Sturges 

Staff Director 

Committee on \IJ:ran~portatton anil 31nfra~tructure 

art.~. ~ou~e of ~epre~eutattbe~ 

Wa~btngton me 20515 

November 27,2017 

l!l<ter a. lill<.:fa;io 

i\nukhtg :ffitmber 

Katherine W. Dedrkk 

Democnlt!CStaffDtrector 

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

Members, Subcommittee on Aviation 

Staff, Subcommittee on Aviation 

Subcommittee Hearing on "Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration: Emerging 

Uses in a Changing National Airspace" 

PURPOSE 

The Subcommittee on Aviation will meet on Wednesday, November 29,2017 at 10:00 

a.m. in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building to consider technological, legal, and policy issues 

related to the use and integration of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the national airspace 

system. The Subcommittee will receive testimony from the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Southern Company, AirMap and the 

Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. 

BACKGROUND 

Overview 

UAS have been a part of American aviation for nearly a century, primarily in military 

research, and operations. 1 The FAA first authorized UAS operations in U.S. airspace in 1990.2 

Most operations since that time have been confined to public uses, such as law enforcement and 

scientific research. However, commercial and other private uses of UAS have grown 

dramatically within the last several years. In 2017, the FAA estimates tbat approximately two 

million UAS are operated in the United States.3 

1 John David Blom, Unmanned Aerial Systems: A Historical Perspective, Occasional Paper 37, pp 46. Combat 

Studies Institute Press, US Army Combined Arms Center. Available at: 

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/OP37_,rujf 

2 Federal Aviation Administration. "Fact Sheet- Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)." Feb. 15, 2015. Available at: 

https://www.faa.gov/news/fact sheets/news story.cfm?newsld=18297 3 Federal Aviation Administration. "Unmanned Aircraft Systems." Available at: 

https://www.faa.gov/data research/aviation/aerospace forecasts/media/Unmanned Aircraft Systems.pdf 
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 28672.002

UAS Capabilities and Applications 

Rapid advancements in technology have transformed UAS. Small unmanned aircraft are 

typically substantially Jess expensive, easier to acquire, and simpler to operate than manned 

aircraft.4 In some cases, UAS offer capabilities that cannot be matched by manned aircraft, such 

as close inspections of oil rig flare stacks, bridges, and pipelines. 

The number of potential applications for UAS continues to grow. Some companies use 

UAS as airborne cell phone towers that can ensure phone service after a natural disaster.5 Others 

have plans for commercial delivery services with UAS. The long-term economic opportunities 

and impacts ofUAS are expected to be substantial.6 Emerging technologies, such as UAS traffic 

management (UTM), have the potential to advance UAS. Using similar technological concepts, 

some companies are developing highly-automated "flying cars" that would transport people over 

short distances. 7 

National Airspace System and Aviation Safety 

UAS operate at a variety of altitudes. Small UAS typically fly within a few hundred feet 

of ground level but may climb to over I 0,000 feet above sea level. 8 Other UAS may remain aloft 

for days at altitudes between 60,000 and 90,000 feet above sea level, which is above the altitudes 

at which most manned aircraft operate.9 Yet other categories will operate primarily in altitudes 

used by manned aircraft. 

The growing numbers ofUAS flown in the NAS, in particular small UAS, have given 

rise to concerns about potential risks to aviation safety. In testimony given before the Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Earl Lawrence, the director ofFAA's 

UAS Integration Office, reported that manned aircraft pilots reported 1,800 sightings ofUAS in 

2016, an increase from I ,200 in the previous year. 10 Between January and March 2017, the FAA 

documented over 400 sightings ofUAS, some of which required pilots to take evasive 

maneuvers to avoid a collision. 11 

4 "Small unmanned aircraft" are those weighing less than 55 pounds. Pub. L. 112-95, § 331, 126 Stat. 72. 5 Nick Lavars, "Verizon trials drones as flying cell towers to plug holes in internet coverage", New Atlas. Oct. 7, 

2016. Available at: https:l/newatlas.corn/verizon-drones-intemet-trials/45818/ 6 Bill Canis, "Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS): Commercial Outlook fur a New Industry", Congressional 

Research Service, Sep. 9, 2015, R44192. Available at: https://fus.org/sgplcrs/misc/R44192.pdf 1 https://www.uber.com/elevate.pdf 

8 Jay Bennett, "Drone Breaks Record (And the Law) By Allegedly Flying to 11,000 Feet", Popular Mechanics, Mar. 

9, 2016. Available at: http://www.popularmechanics.com/flightidrones/al9854/drone-flown-11000-feet/. 

http://www .popularmechanics.cornlflightidrones/a 19854/drone-flown-11 000-feet/ 9 Jonathan Vanian, "Facebook's Huge Drone Flies Again (and Doesn't Crash)", Fortune, Jun. 29,2017. Available 

at: http://fortune.com/20 I 7/06/29/facebook-drone-aguila-test-flight/ 10Statement of Earl Lawrence, Director, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office, Before the Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Innovation, Integration, 

Successes, and Challenges, Mar. 15, 2017. Available at: 

https:/iwww .faa.gov/news/testimonv/news storv .cfm?newsid~2t494&omniRss-testimonyAoc&cid-I 05 Testimon 

y 

11 Federal Aviation Administration. "UAS Sightings Report: Reported UAS Sightings (January 2017 -March 

2017)." Available at: httos://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas sightings report/ 

2 
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 28672.003

In 2017, there have been two confirmed collisions ofUAS with manned aircraft. In the 

first event, which occurred on September 21,2017, a UAS struck a United States Army UH-60 

helicopter flying over New York City. The collision occurred along the eastern shore of Staten 

Island and caused the helicopter a significant amount of damage to the rotor and airframe. 12 The 

UAS was operating in the area illegally, and it is the Committee's understanding that the UAS 

operator, a non-commercial operator, has been identified by law enforcement. 

On October 12, 2017, a UAS crashed into an airliner in Canada during its final descent 

into Jean Lesage International Airport in Quebec City, Canada. The airliner was less than two 

miles from the airport when the UAS struck the aircraft. The airplane was able to safely land 

despite some airframe damage. 

In addition, firefighting efforts have been seriously disrupted as aircraft tanker crews 

have been forced to cancel or postpone missions because of UAS sightings in proximity to forest 

fires. 13 In 2016, the U.S. Forest Service reported 40 unauthorized unmanned aircraft incursions 

above or near wildfires; 20 of these events caused the Forest Service to temporarily suspend 

aviation operations which hindered firefighting efforts. 14 In the majority of cases, authorities 

have been unable to ascertain the identity of the unmanned aircraft operators. 

At the same time, UAS can improve or enhance aviation operations and safety when used 

properly. For example, UAS can substantially reduce the time required to perform runway 

inspections, thereby minimizing operational impacts at busy airports. 15 UAS can also be used to 

enhance safety inspections of manned aircraft in several ways. 16 First, they reduce the safety risk 

to personnel who sometimes must visually inspect components that are dozens of feet off of the 

ground. Second, UAS equipped with sensors can detect aircraft damage and discrepancies that 

might escape human eyes. Finally, they can complete a visual inspection of certain aircraft in 15 

minutes whereas a human inspection may last two or more hours. 

Legislation and Executive Actions 

FAA Modernization and RefOrm Act of2012 

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012 (FMRA; P.L. 112-095) included a 

subtitle to promote the safe integration of U AS into our national airspace. Among other things, 

provisions include the designation of six test ranges throughout the United States by the FAA in 

12 "Drone Hits Army Helicopter Flying Over Staten Island", CBS New York, Sept. 22,2017. Available at: 

http://newvork.cbslocal.com/20 17 /09/22/drone-hits-army-helicopter/ 13 United States Forest Service. "If You Fly, We Can't." Available at: https://www.fs.fed.us/managingland/fire/aviationlunmanned-aircraft-systems-uas/if-you-fly-we-cant 

14 Id 15 Sam Whitehead, "How an Atlanta airport is using drones to help with runway maintenance", Marketplace, May 

31, 2017. Available at: https://www.marketplace.org/20 17/05/31/business/how-atlanta-airoort-using-drones-helpwith-runway·maintenance 

16 Jonathan Vanian, "Airbus is Using Drones to Inspect Airplanes", Fortune, Jul. 15, 2016. Available at: 

http:/ /fortune.com/20 16/07/15/airbus-intel-drones-ail:plane-inspection/ 

3 
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 28672.004

furtherance of UAS integration. 17 The FMRA also required the issuance of an integration plan, 

regulations, and established a process for the Secretary of Transportation to authorize certain 

UAS flights within six months of enactment. 18 Finally, the FMRA contained provisions related 

to the operation ofUAS by government agencies and model aircraft operated in accordance with 

certain guidelines. 

FAA Extension, Sa&tv. and Security Act o(2016 

The FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of2016 (Extension Act; P.L. 114-190) 

contained several provisions related to UAS. 19 One of the provisions addressed is the remote 

identification ofUAS, which has become an increasingly important capability for purposes of 

safety and law enforcement.20 The Extension Act also established a process to allow operators of 

certain facilities to petition for UAS flight restrictions in proximity to such facilities.21 It also 

required the FAA to create guidance and regulations to expedite authorization ofUAS flights in 

response to certain public emergencies.22 Lastly, the Extension Act requires a UTM research and 

pilot program.23 

National De&nse Authorization Act o(2018 

The National Defense Authorization Act of2018 (NDAA 2018; H.R. 2810) would restore 

the FAA's small UAS registration requirement. NDAA 2018 is pending. A U.S. Appellate Court 

previously overturned the FAA's small UAS registration progranJ. Knowing who owns a UAS 

is critical for accountability when something goes wrong. With the NDAA, Congress has 

clarified its position on the need to identify and track all UAS operations in the NAS. 

Executive Branch Actions 

Rulemakings and Advisory Committees 

The FAA has taken a number of actions related to UAS integration. On June 28, 2016, 

the FAA issued a final rule (Part 107) related to certification and operation of small UAS.24 This 

rule of general applicability addresses areas including airman certification, operating rules, and 

weather minima. Part I 07 includes a waiver process allowing the FAA to authorize, on a caseby-case basis, certain operations that are otherwise prohibited, such as night flying. The FAA 

also convened an Aviation Rulemaking Committee in 20 16 to provide recommendations for 

17 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012. Pub. L 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012), § 332. The test ranges are based in 

New York, Virginia, Texas, Alaska, North Dakota, and Nevada. 18 Id & section 333 19 FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of2016. Pub. L. 114-190 (Jul. 15, 2016) 20 ld § 2202. 21 Id § 2209. 22 /d § 2207. 23 Id § 2208. 24 "Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems", 81 Fed Reg. 42,064 (Jun. 28, 2016); 14 

C.F.R. Part 107 

4 
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 28672.005

standards for the flight ofUAS over people who are not involved in the flight of the aircraft.25 

Those rules remain pending. 

The FAA is a participant in the public-private "Know Before You Fly" campaign to 

educate users ofUAS about aviation safety and regulation.26 The FAA also developed a 

smartphone application known as B4UFL Y to aid UAS operators with airspace information.27 It 

established a Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) in 2016 to gather input from stakeholders on 

key issue areas.28 The DAC is divided into "Task Groups" that addressed matters including the 

roles of different levels of government, airspace access, and funding for activities and services 

necessary for safe UAS integration.29 The DAC most recently met on November 8, 2017. 

FAA Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability 

In late 2017, the FAA announced the prototype evaluation of the Low Altitude 

Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC).30 LAANC provides real-time automated 

notification and authorization to UAS operators. Because the existing air traffic control system 

is designed to primarily meet the needs of manned aviation, it proved unwieldy, untimely, and 

labor intensive for UAS operators as well as air traffic control personnel. The FAA has indicated 

that LAANC will provide operators with necessary information in a matter of seconds rather than 

days. The FAA will not provide LAANC services to users. Instead, LAANC will be initially be 

provided by two UAS Service Suppliers (USS) under FAA oversight. The FAA expects more 

USS to join the program as it expands. 

UAS Pilot Program 

In a Presidential Memoranda dated October 25,2017, President Donald J. Trump 

announced a policy to promote the safe operation ofUAS and enable technological development 

in various economic sectors.31 The Memoranda also directed Secretary of Transportation to 

establish pilot program to evaluate, among other things, various models of state, local, and tribal 

government in the "development and enforcement of federal regulations ... :m The Secretary is 

soliciting applications from state, local, and tribal governments to participate in this program in 

25 Federal Aviation Administration. "ARC Recommendations Final Report", Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Aviation RulemakingCommittee (ARC), Apr. I, 2016. Available at: 

https:/lwww.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas regulations policylmedia!Micro-UAS-ARC-FINAL-Report.pdf 26 Know Before You Fly: http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/ 27 Federal Aviation Administration. "B4UFLY Mobile App." Available at: 

https://www.faa.gov/uas/where to fly/b4uflyl 28 Federal Aviation Administration. "Press Release -Drone Advisory Committee to Hold Inaugural Meeting." Aug. 

31,2016. Available at: https://www.faa.gov/newslpress releases/news storv.cfm?newsld=20754 29 Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics: https://www.rtca.org/contentldrone-advisory-committee 30 Federal Aviation Administration. "FAA U AS Data Exchange." Available at: 

https:l/www.faa.gov/uas/programs partnerships/uas data exchange/ 31 The White House. "Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Transportation." Oct. 25, 2017. Available at: 

https:llwww. whitehouse.gov /the-press-office/20 17/l 0125/presidential-memorandum-secretary-transportation 32 Id 

5 
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 28672.006

partnership with private sector UAS operators.33 In the Federal Register notice, the Secretary 

cites a number of private and public use cases that might be demonstrated in the pilot program. 

WITNESS LIST 

Panel I 

Dr. Juan J. Alonso 

Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

Mr. William 0. "Billy" Ball 

Executive Vice President and Chief Transmission Officer 

Southern Company 

Mr. William Goodwin 

General Counsel 

AirMap 

Mr. Brian Wynne 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International 

Panel II 

Mr. Daniel K. Elwell 

Deputy Administrator 

Federal Aviation Administration 

(Accompanied by: Mr. Earl Lawrence 

Director, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office, FAA) 

33 "Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Pilot Program- Announcement of Establishment of Program and 

Request for Applications", 82 Fed Reg. 51,903 (Nov. 8, 2017) 

6 
(1) 

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS: EMERGING 

USES IN A CHANGING NATIONAL AIRSPACE 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in room 

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

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to 

order. Thank you all for being here. 

Before we begin I would like to ask unanimous consent that 

members not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at today’s hearing and ask questions. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Who are we talking about? 

Mr. LOBIONDO. We are talking about John Garamendi. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Oh, oh, all right. I thought it was Rodney, OK. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. No, Rodney is on the committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I know sometimes it doesn’t seem that way. We 

don’t need to take a vote on Rodney, OK. 

OK, so ordered. 

Today the Aviation Subcommittee is holding its first hearing in 

the 115th Congress solely dedicated to the topic of unmanned aircraft systems, UAS. This hearing will consider technological, legal, 

and policy issues related to UAS. For new members of the committee, it will provide an overview of this very important topic. For 

returning members, this hearing will be an update on these issues. 

The UAS, or drones, are a game-changing technology. While 

drones have been in existence for decades, they are now creating 

new industries and transforming others, such as agriculture. 

The sheer volume of UAS now operating in the National Airspace 

System—about 2 million have been sold in the United States to 

date—and their unique features are causing policymakers and operators to rethink all aspects of airspace use. 

Until recently we thought of aircraft as mainly flying miles above 

us carrying people and cargo between airports with runways. UAS, 

on the other hand, can take off and land literally anywhere. They 

fly a few hundred feet above the ground and easily operate around 

buildings, factories, utility lines, and farm fields. 

The possibilities are exciting: our power companies can evaluate 

damage quickly after a storm, while keeping people out of harm’s 

way. Farmers can more efficiently assess their crops. All kinds of 

2 

equipment and buildings can be inspected faster and safer than 

ever before. And drones are changing the way first responders conduct research operations and how they monitor disaster and activities. 

In other countries, companies are beginning to use drones to deliver goods either directly or in combination with delivery vans. For 

example, Mercedes-Benz is using drones in Switzerland to deliver 

items such as ground coffee and cell phones in Switzerland on a 

trial basis. 

These examples make clear how important it is to maintain 

American leadership in aviation. We cannot rest on our laurels; the 

benefits of technological advancement and the costs of complacency 

are too great. As such, we must continue to diligently move forward 

with UAS integration. 

But, like with anything else, there are risks of which we must 

be mindful, as we learned earlier this year. In September over New 

York, a U.S. Army helicopter collided with an illegally operated 

drone causing hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to that 

aircraft. In Canada, not long after, a drone struck an airliner as 

it prepared to land. We were lucky. No one was hurt or killed in 

those incidents. But we cannot count on luck to keep us safe the 

next time around. 

Yesterday the FAA made public the results of research on collisions between UAS and manned aircraft. So far, the research 

shows that UAS can cause more severe damage to an airplane than 

a comparably sized bird. That is concerning. We will monitor the 

future of this research closely as they investigate the risks of ingestion of UAS into jet engines. 

These incidents, the numerous sightings of drones, and the research reveal that a lot of work remains to be done to achieve safe 

and successful integration of UAS. 

The witnesses on our panels today represent those who are pushing the boundaries of aviation technology and innovation. Only 

hard work and close collaboration between the Government, industry, aviation, labor, and Congress will allow the safe integration of 

UAS into the National Airspace System. 

I note that some of that hard work and collaborative effort is taking place at the FAA Technical Center in my district. The technical 

center plays an important part in the partnership between Government and industry. 

I look forward to hearing from our panel today about how Congress can enable the continued integration of UAS while meeting 

the safety challenges as they arise. 

Before I recognize Ranking Member Larsen for his remarks, I 

ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s hearing remain 

open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to 

any questions that may be submitted to them in writing for the 

record, and unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 

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

And without objection, so ordered. 

And I also ask unanimous consent that a written statement prepared by the Air Line Pilots Association, International, be entered 

into the record. 

3 

So, without objection, so ordered. 

[The written statement of Air Line Pilots Association, International, is on pages 

115–122.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. And now I would like to yield to Mr. Larsen. 

Rick, it is all yours. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

holding today’s hearing on unmanned aircraft systems integration 

and their emerging uses. 

This subcommittee held a hearing earlier this year, where we 

discussed the FAA’s readiness for new airspace users and technologies and the promise those technologies hold for our aviation 

system and our economy. Chairman LoBiondo and I have ensured 

UAS has been a focus of this subcommittee’s oversight work in recent years, and our work will not slow down any time soon, as the 

UAS proliferate into U.S. airspace. 

Mr. Chairman, as I was late getting to the hearing, I am not 

going to read my entire statement, and I am just going to apologize 

for being late, ask unanimous consent my entire statement be entered into the record, and beg for your forgiveness. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. There might be an objection to that. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. No, without objection, so ordered. 

[The written statement of Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington is on pages 56–60.] 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Now I would like to recognize the chairman of 

the full committee, Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, and thank you 

and Ranking Member Larsen for holding this hearing today. 

The United States is a world leader in aviation. We are also the 

world leader in innovation, and one of the sectors that I want to 

see thrive is the use of unmanned aerial systems. UAS are the latest intersection of aviation and innovation and I am excited to see 

where this industry goes from here. 

UAS have emerged as a strong growth sector in the aviation industry and are providing good-paying jobs here in the United 

States. As their numbers grow, more and more promising applications for UAS are being realized and planned. UAS have a variety 

of uses, ranging from assisting farmers surveying crops and croplands, to visual inspection of aircraft, railroads, pipelines, and 

bridges. 

During the historic hurricane season we had this year, UAS 

played an important role in relief and the recovery efforts. They 

were used as airborne cell phone towers to ensure the continued 

phone service and Wi-Fi internet access after these natural disasters occurred. Without this technology, many survivors of the hurricanes would have been cut off from their families. UAS were used 

to survey damage from the storms, allowing for faster recovery efforts. 

They are now being used for routine inspection of infrastructure, 

a function that cannot necessarily be matched by manned aircraft 

and often dangerous for human beings. 

4 

We are seeing industry and Government work closely together toward the common goal of UAS integration and keeping the United 

States ahead of the rest of the world in the development and integration of this new aviation technology. And that is very promising 

when you see collaboration occur between the private sector and 

Government. I believe this will move us forward faster and safer, 

rather than seeing these technologies being developed overseas. 

So I look forward to today’s hearing, and from the witnesses we 

have here today on the current state of UAS in our national airspace, and the emerging uses of those being developed, and what 

we in Congress can do to address those policy issues related to the 

use and integration of UAS. 

So, with that, I thank Chairman LoBiondo, and I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Now I would like to recognize our ranking member, Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for this hearing. This is critical. 

You know, the commercial application of drones has incredible 

promise of benefits across a multitude of disciplines and applications, if it is well regulated. Now, what I mean by well regulated 

is that it is safe, but secondly, also, that we are not overly and— 

obsessively over a long period of time prescriptive to the point 

where we lose the lead—in fact, we already are losing the lead in 

this industry. So, you know, that is a cautionary tale that has to 

be weighed very carefully. Yes, absolutely safe. 

The biggest problem so far has been with idiots who have toy 

drones, like the one in New York that are being operated illegally. 

And, for the life of me, why we allow any toy drone to be sold without geofencing that isn’t easily hackable in this country is extraordinary to me. I guess it is the pressure of the toy industry or something. 

So, you know, we have to get this straight. I asked quite some 

time ago for the FAA to—I said, ‘‘What happens when a drone hits 

a plane, or we ingest one into an engine?’’ Hmm, good question. 

Well, they have been grinding away at this very, very slowly. But 

yesterday we got the work product of the first part of this study. 

And it turns out that they can be worse than birds, a small one. 

In fact, they found a failure of horizontal stabilizers in an impact 

with a little crappy quadcopter or something like that, because 

they are a dense mass, versus a bird, which kind of—when it hits. 

So, this—you know, this is an accident waiting to happen. We 

are going to lose an aircraft. Whether it is going to be a smaller 

aircraft or a larger aircraft, we have to be sure that those who are 

operating these things illegally are dealt with. And there is technology out there to detect these things, detect where the operators 

are. You know, we need to pursue that. The FAA is working very 

slowly on that issue, too. 

We need to be able to ground these things. We are not worried 

about their rights, as people who are operating something illegally. 

We have had forest firefighting in the West suspended because of 

these same kinds of people. We need to find them, prosecute them, 

and, after we put a few of them in prison for a while, then that 

will go away. 

5 

The commercial application should not be held back because we 

got these irresponsible people out there. The commercial needs to 

be well regulated, as I said earlier. 

Finally, my—and to the FAA—and hopefully they can address 

this—you know, my critical concern, beyond that—well, that is 

pretty bad, level 4 damage, which is the worst for horizontal stabilizers—but an engine. We don’t know. And why can’t we do the engine? Engines are really expensive. Well, how about we get an old 

surplus engine? Well, the manufacturers don’t want to donate one, 

because they will say, ‘‘Well, it was a GE engine that failed, that 

ingested a quadcopter, but maybe a Rolls-Royce wouldn’t fail.’’ I 

mean all the turbines are quite similar. 

Maybe we can go out and get an old Ilyushin engine that nobody—I mean it is—the point is it is a turbofan. I mean I think 

they are all going to pretty much fail the same way, you know, and 

that—they are putting that off for another 2 years because of all 

these concerns. We need to know what is going to happen when one 

of these things gets sucked into a turbofan. And we don’t. But we 

already know that they can cause, potentially, catastrophic damage 

to airframes. 

So, you know, we have got to move ahead. And this committee 

should be—you know, I appreciate the fact we put in the—one of 

the extensions, a $20,000 fine. But you know, we haven’t put in 

place the technology to find these people as they are operating 

them, track them down, and actually prosecute some of them. 

And I think we got to go beyond a $20,000 fine. This is very, very 

serious and life-threatening, potentially. 

So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time, and look forward to hearing from the experts here. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio, and we thank our witnesses for being here today. 

On our first panel we have Dr. Juan Alonso, professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics; Mr. William ‘‘Billy’’ Ball, executive vice 

president and chief transmission officer of Southern Company; Mr. 

William Goodwin, general counsel for AirMap; and Brian Wynne, 

president and chief executive officer of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. 

I would like to remind all of our witnesses to please limit their 

opening remarks to no more than 5 minutes. We will enter your 

remarks into the record if they go beyond that. We will now hear 

from our first panel. 

Dr. Alonso, you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF JUAN J. ALONSO, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS; WILLIAM O. ‘‘BILLY’’ BALL, 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF TRANSMISSION 

OFFICER, SOUTHERN COMPANY; WILLIAM GOODWIN, GENERAL COUNSEL, AIRMAP; AND BRIAN WYNNE, PRESIDENT 

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION FOR UNMANNED VEHICLE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 

Dr. ALONSO. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and 

members of the subcommittee—— 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Can you pull your mic a little closer, please? 

6 

Dr. ALONSO. Surely. First of all, thank you for the invitation to 

appear before you and discuss my thoughts, opinions, and ideas to 

ensure that the United States remains the worldwide leader in unmanned aircraft systems R&D, operations, and integration. 

Even though I am a professor in the aeronautics and astronautics department at Stanford University and a current member of 

the FAA Drone Advisory Committee, I am actually appearing before you in a personal capacity, and speaking only for myself. 

There are many technical obstacles that prevent more widespread development and integration of UAS in the United States. 

But I will not focus on those technical challenges today. In fact, I 

would like to talk about three areas of the regulatory environment 

that can further enhance capabilities and attempt to solve the policy technology dilemmas that this field is currently facing. 

First, during these early days of the development of UAS capabilities—and we are in the early days—we will need more flight 

testing experiences, not fewer. We must try our ideas, fail, try 

again, succeed, because this is the iterative nature of the technology development process. The FAA UAS test sites, the Pathfinder programs, and the recently announced UAS Integration Pilot 

Program are all steps in the right direction that must be enhanced 

and significantly enlarged. 

Second, it is critical that all these tests result in data of sufficient quality in the appropriate amount so they can be used to inform the regulations and requirements that are to come. It is critical that this data be made openly available to the community for 

better insights and understanding. 

And third, we must set a regulatory environment that provides 

a reasonable expectation of periodic and timely updates to the levels of service available to UAS operators for those who can demonstrate compliance with stricter requirements to ensure safe operations. 

The United States has been at the forefront of R&D of the very 

capabilities that are enabling such a bright future for UAS, but the 

rest of the world is not sitting on the sidelines. Multiple countries 

have already recognized the potential civilian and military applications of drone technologies, and the situation truly begs the following questions. 

First, what must the U.S. do to retain leadership in the field that 

we had originally developed? 

Secondly, how do we make sure that the situation in the United 

States encourages both U.S. and foreign companies to test and develop here, and not abroad? 

How do we set up the proper regulatory environments, so that 

companies can plan ahead for both testing, development, and deployment of their UAS systems? 

And last, but not least, and above all, how do we ensure that the 

jobs that are created by this new field actually stay here in the 

U.S., and not go abroad? 

On these three areas I would like to begin the discussion by simply offering the following thoughts. Let me start with the topic of 

regulation. 

I think we need to ensure that we embark on a yearly cycle of 

updates to the existing rules. Part 107 is a wonderful starting 

7 

point, and it provides a certain level of service with a minimum 

level of requirements to guarantee safety. But we need to do operations over people, beyond visual line of sight, at night, in proximity, or close proximity to buildings and infrastructure. And all of 

these are logical regulatory steps that need to be tackled. And, to 

its credit, the FAA has begun to go down this path. 

We need to understand what are the minimum requirements 

that enable these new levels of service. 

We need more testing, not less. This testing is needed to collect 

the data to inform the regulatory process. Because of the fundamental importance of safety, without the data the regulatory process is doomed to unnecessarily burdened future drone operators. 

UAS test programs should be significantly enhanced. As we establish new UAS flight test programs, we must require that the operators share all the data about all the flights, and we must commit to ensuring that the data, appropriately identified, are open to 

the U.S. community at large, because you must remember that the 

value is not in the data itself, but rather in the interpretation of 

the patterns and the value of that data that can be enhanced by 

participation of others. 

The only way to do this is to use a probabilistic risk-based analysis approach that uses data to understand safety. 

I will finish my comments by saying that although I am talking 

about mostly small UAS in my testimony today, I would like to 

note that similar requirements for regulatory framework and data 

collection are important for larger vehicles. In the the country 

where I am from, we are developing electric VTOL [vertical takeoff 

and landing] aircraft that could revolutionize personal transportation in urban areas, and they can benefit from similar initiatives. 

Thank you for your attention. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Doctor. 

Mr. Ball, you are recognized. 

Mr. BALL. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and 

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

today. My name is Billy Ball, and I am the executive vice president 

and chief transmission officer at the Southern Company. Southern 

provides electricity and natural gas to 9 million customers through 

our 11 utility subsidiaries. We operate nearly 200,000 miles of 

transmission and distribution lines, and more than 80,000 miles of 

natural gas pipeline. 

Southern Company believes in leveraging innovation to keep energy safe, reliable, secure, and affordable. We were among the earliest energy industry adopters of unmanned aircraft systems, also 

known as drones. 

Now, for many years—as long as I can remember—we have used 

helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft for the regular inspection of our 

assets. Drones are a critical part of our future strategy for these 

inspections. Today, however, manned aircraft often remain more effective because of regulatory constraints on drone usage. 

Inspections with manned aircraft can be challenging, due to lowaltitude flight near towers and wires. Sadly, I have experienced 

this firsthand when we lost a seasoned pilot and an inspector in 

a helicopter crash. Being able to displace the use of manned airVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Feb 22, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\2017\11-29-~1\28672.TXT JEAN
8 

craft with drones to inspect our facilities will reduce safety risks 

to our employees. 

Now, I know this committee is particularly interested in disaster 

response and recovery. We work alongside first responders to restore service quickly and as safely as possible. Now, though still a 

relatively new technology, drones already have become an important part of disaster recovery. Human-based flights have to wait 

until the weather is acceptable to fly. But we can get drones up 

quicker, and begin the assessment sooner. A good damage assessment is the foundation to an effective recovery. 

So, in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, earlier this year, 

Southern Company, our company, was able to provide mutual assistance to CenterPoint Energy in the Houston area by providing 

six UAS teams. We have never done this before. They were able to 

make multiple flights in the areas no longer accessible because of 

all the flooding. With fewer regulatory restrictions, we believe additional flights would have been possible. 

After that, we utilized 16 drone teams in our own response to 

Hurricane Irma, which caused widespread outages for us in the 

State of Georgia. From our learnings in Texas, we precoordinated 

with the Georgia Emergency Management Agency, which enabled 

us to have improved access to make more flights. The use of drones 

really did improve our damage assessment. 

Lessons learned during both of these recovery efforts are now 

being shared across the utility industry, and is being used to improve our efforts, going forward. This spirit of collaboration within 

the electric power industry sets us apart from many other businesses. 

So, with that in mind, as Congress and the FAA continue to work 

on these issues, we ask that you would involve electric companies 

when you have pilot projects, task forces, advisory committees, and 

the like. 

Without further loosening in the regulatory space, drones will 

not see their full potential. Imagine inspecting transmission lines 

by the miles, instead of only as far as you can see, which is what 

we are limited to today. The technology exists. The improvements 

in safety and efficiency are overwhelming. 

Other places in the world are already doing it. We want to work 

with FAA to get projects like this green-lighted, get them moving 

on. 

In closing, I urge you to continue to pursue policy that allows for 

the safe integration of UAS into the national airspace. Of particular importance we call on FAA to finish the guidance in 

rulemakings called for in the 2016 FAA bill, and work with end 

users like our company and other utilities to use part 107 waivers 

to advance drone technology. 

Thank you again for the opportunity for me to be here, and 

thank you for your service to our country. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Ball. 

Mr. Goodwin, you are recognized. 

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

Larsen, and members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to 

speak with you today. My name is Bill Goodwin. I am the general 

counsel of AirMap, the world’s leading airspace management platVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Feb 22, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\2017\11-29-~1\28672.TXT JEAN
9 

form for drones, and we are currently deploying unmanned traffic 

management, or UTM solutions, that currently help millions of 

drones fly safely. 

However, to realize the full economic benefit and efficiencies that 

drones can provide, we have to continue to challenge our own assumptions about airspace and airspace management. We have seen 

enormous leadership in that regard in recent months within the 

administration, with the FAA, and DOT, including the presenters 

that we will hear on the next panel, Dan Elwell and Earl Lawrence. 

Internationally, however, there are countries competing with the 

United States, as we have heard, to integrate drones into their airspace more quickly, and other countries’ openness to experimentation has now accelerated into regulatory action and standard-setting that threatens to leave American businesses behind. We really 

have no choice but to work harder and faster to safely integrate 

drones into the U.S. airspace. 

In my testimony today I wanted to provide a few examples of 

how the U.S. airspace is evolving to accommodate drones, some of 

AirMap’s experiences in other countries that are accelerating drone 

integration today, and suggest some recommendations for U.S. policy to build on the recent progress that we have seen here. 

So, in the U.S., just within the last month, the FAA certified 

AirMap as one of two original providers of the low-altitude authorization and notification capability, otherwise known as LAANC, 

which enables operators to get instant authorization to fly in restricted airspace. This took a 90-day process with an uncertain outcome, often leading to a rejection, and turned it into instant access 

for safe commercial operations. 

We perceive LAANC as a building block to a full UTM network, 

and we know that the FAA intends to roll out LAANC across the 

national airspace in 2018. 

Also in the U.S., as we have heard from other members on the 

panel already, AirMap technology has assisted in the response to 

Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, just this fall. In the aftermath of 

each hurricane, AirMap supported vital hurricane response efforts 

by providing local emergency operation centers with a dashboard 

that allowed incident commanders to see flights and missions that 

were being planned and operated by operators performing search 

and rescue missions, and then communicate with them. 

Another example of some domestic innovation that we have seen 

is our partnership with the State of Kansas, which is a leader in 

aerospace innovation. We have worked closely with the Kansas Department of Transportation to deploy and develop UTM technology 

across the State—again, with the goal of speeding the integration 

of drones safely, and accelerating productive commercial uses of 

drones. 

But perhaps the most exciting development that we have seen 

here is the UAS Integration Pilot Program announced by President 

Trump and implemented by the FAA on November 2nd, which we 

expect to open the flood gates to expanded drone operations. By 

leveraging the unique insights of State, local, and Tribal governments, the UAS Integration Pilot Program will create numerous 

10 

laboratories of innovation and drive commercial drone activity 

here. 

Now, notwithstanding these innovations that I have highlighted, 

there are other countries, as I noted, that are working hard to integrate drones at a faster rate. And in some cases they are succeeding. 

So today AirMap is working with other international partners to 

deliver UTM solutions next year in 2018 that we fear may take the 

United States until 2021 or later to achieve without congressional 

action. 

So I will just highlight a few of those in the time that I have remaining. 

In a joint venture with Rakuten, Japan’s largest e-commerce 

company, AirMap is providing airspace management capabilities 

today to enable expanded drone operations in both suburban and 

exurban environments. 

Another noteworthy demonstration occurred in September of 

2017, when we participated in Switzerland in a demonstration of 

U-space, which is the European equivalent of UTM. This particular 

demonstration is worth calling out because multiple missions were 

occurring simultaneously over Lake Geneva in some of the most 

sensitive airspace in Switzerland, and the result of the demonstration and the deployment of the technology there is persistent approved beyond line-of-sight commercial operations that we heard a 

reference to earlier today. 

So, given our experiences here and overseas, there are three 

things that we think Congress can do to accelerate the safe integration of drones into the airspace in the U.S. 

First, Congress should expedite and prioritize the establishment 

of an operational UTM system by 2020. 

Second, Congress should apply support and resources to the 

FAA’s drone pilot program, and direct the FAA to exercise its authority to waive regulations that currently stand in the way of expanded operations. 

And third, Congress should ensure that a remote identification 

system based on licensed spectrum is established to enable nationwide expanded drone operations. 

Thank you again for convening this hearing to discuss the opportunities for drones here and abroad, and I would like to finish my 

remarks by thanking Chairman LoBiondo, in particular, for his 

commitment to the FAA and its employees. We know that your 

steady hand has helped guide the agency and, in particular, the 

FAA Tech Center. And we wish you the best of luck in your next 

chapter. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Goodwin. 

Mr. Wynne, you are recognized. 

Mr. WYNNE. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to address this hearing this morning, speaking on behalf of 

the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the 

world’s largest nonprofit organization devoted exclusively to advancing the unmanned systems and robotics community. 

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

means to establish a regulatory framework for UAS. Now we have 

11 

initial regulations governing civil and commercial UAS operations 

in the form of the small UAS rule, also known as part 107. Much 

has been accomplished so far because Government and industry 

have banded together to advance UAS. But I think my colleagues 

from the FAA would agree with me that there is still a great deal 

of work that needs to be done. 

The continued adoption of this technology will require an expanded regulatory framework that incorporates rules for, among 

other things, night-time operations—flights over people, for example—and we were expecting a notice of proposed rulemaking for 

flights over people a year ago. But this next regulatory step has 

been indefinitely delayed over security concerns. 

In trying to get this rulemaking back on track, industry stepped 

up and offered solutions for remote identification of UAS platforms. 

We expect the recommendations of the remote ID ARC [Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee] to be public soon, and industry looks forward to doing its part to implement a remote ID system that identifies any UAS flying in the airspace in real time. 

We hope this measure alleviates the concerns of the security 

community. To the extent more needs to be done, we need broader 

engagement from our Government partners, notably those responsible for national security, to understand their specific concerns, 

and work collaboratively to address them. 

Fundamental to remote identification, AUVSI has long supported 

a registration system for commercial and recreational UAS operators. We are glad Congress recently restored UAS registration for 

recreational operators. However, this piecemeal approach to solving 

issues regarding both commercial and recreational operators may 

slow progress and hinder efforts to move the industry forward. 

It may, therefore, be necessary for Congress to reevaluate the 

role of section 336, the Special Rule for Model Aircraft, that was 

part of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to address 

security concerns and streamline the process for future regulations 

such as those governing remote identification standards. 

The United States benefits from the safest airspace system in the 

world. This is largely thanks to uniform Federal aviation safety 

and operational regulations. Maintaining consistent regulations 

keeps our skies safe, and helps foster innovation. This authority resides and must continue to reside with the FAA. AUVSI also recognizes the need for non-Federal bodies such as States, municipalities, and Tribal governments to play a role in developing that Federal framework. 

The White House’s recent announcement of a UAS Integration 

Pilot Program is a positive step for that effort. This pilot program 

represents an opportunity for State, local, and Tribal governments 

to collaborate with the UAS industry and the FAA to further develop a Federal framework for integrating UAS into the skies 

above communities across the Nation. 

Of course, the UAS industry is not relying on the FAA and Government alone to advance this technology. Industry currently 

shoulders many of the research and development costs to spur innovation, find solutions, and find solutions to make UAS fly higher 

and farther, more safely and efficiently. 

12 

Industry has partnered with Government to advance UAS traffic 

management concepts, beginning with the low-altitude authorization and notification capability, also known as LAANC, which Mr. 

Goodwin just referenced. Continuing collaboration will be necessary, as we work toward additional UAS-related airspace management tools, and further UAS integration efforts to include platforms above the small UAS threshold and for higher altitudes. 

Before I conclude, I want to thank Congressman LoBiondo, 

Chairman LoBiondo, who has recently announced that he would retire at the end of his term. The chairman was one of the earliest 

champions of unmanned aircraft systems on Capitol Hill, and in 

his district in southern New Jersey, which has become an important center for UAS research and development. We look forward to 

working with Chairman LoBiondo and the rest of this subcommittee in the coming year on a long-term FAA reauthorization 

measure that will move the UAS industry forward and spur economic and job growth for the Nation. 

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

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Wynne. Now I will turn to Mr. 

Shuster for questions. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo. 

My question deals with—Mr. Wynne, you hit right on it—the remote identification of UAS. It seems to me that a big part of this 

solution, the safety, security, to law enforcement is us being able 

to tell who is flying those systems in the airspace up there. 

And so, in your view, what are the obstacles for us to get to a 

point where we are able to know who is flying them? Because, 

again, as we see these sightings and close events and near events 

that—and actual collisions that are occurring, again, knowing who 

is up there, knowing—be able to protect that airspace when it 

comes around, especially around airports or high-density aviation 

areas, what are the obstacles? Who opposes moving forward with 

some sort of a remote identification? 

Mr. WYNNE. I am not aware of anyone that opposes it, sir. And 

that is a great question. We—of course, to get to the Holy Grail of 

this industry’s potential, which is being able to fly beyond visual 

line of sight, as the gentleman from Southern Company mentioned—— 

[Disturbance in hearing room.] 

Mr. WYNNE. So, to continue, the—we are all in favor of that. We 

knew that we would—as commercial operators, we would have to 

be identifying ourselves. I think it is extremely important, particularly in urban areas, that local law enforcement have the tools in 

real time, as I mentioned, to be able to do that. 

The good news is that, increasingly, public safety, as we have already mentioned, is embracing this technology, and the more they 

use it as an everyday tool, the more they will be able to spot an 

unsafe operation or something worse. 

So remote identification is key. Backing up one step from there 

was registration. So we need all aircraft registered, and the ability 

to remotely identify. That might be a layered system, et cetera. But 

we are working on it. 

13 

Mr. SHUSTER. Why do you think we haven’t been able to get to 

that? I guess that is going to be a question, too, that I ask the folks 

from the FAA. Why haven’t we been able to get to that? To me it 

seems like it is—if people are—today we pretty much know who is 

flying around up there, we can identify who is flying up there. So 

why hasn’t it been—why hasn’t the rulemaking been put in place 

at this point? Because we have been dealing with this now for 4, 

5—several years now. 

Mr. WYNNE. Fair question, sir. I think it has been elevated in 

priorities. It was on the list of things that we had to get to. But 

I think, because we have had people flying in the wrong places, and 

there is a greater need for accountability, we pushed forward with 

registration and now we have the ability once again for everybody 

to be registered. We need to push forward with this, as well. 

If you think about most drones as flying cell phones, identification is not a difficult thing to get done. So I think we will get it 

done soon. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And do you think this is one of the one, two, three 

most important pieces of—— 

Mr. WYNNE. Yes, I do. 

Mr. SHUSTER [continuing]. The solution? 

Mr. WYNNE. I absolutely do. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And, Dr. Alonso, maybe you could address that in 

your thoughts, studying this. 

Dr. ALONSO. I think it has been well said. I think the lack of regulation for remote identification is just a typical case of the technology changing very rapidly. Are we going to do it through cell 

phone towers? Are we going to use the work of some startup companies that are developing ADS–B [automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast] capabilities? Are we going to go in other means of 

doing this? 

I think the FAA is probably trying to see what is developing before they issue a regulation as to what drones must have. But it 

is a technically solvable problem. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, if we continue to do that, Mr. Goodwin, if the 

FAA keeps waiting to see about technology, technology changes 

every couple of months, probably, or at least every year. Is that accurate, in your view? 

Mr. GOODWIN. I think there is room to not let the perfect be the 

enemy of the good. I do think that, ultimately, with existing technology, a lot of these problems can be solved. So I agree with Mr. 

Wynne in that regard, that I don’t think we have to wait for the 

perfect technological solution. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And, Mr. Ball, as an operator in the airspace, do 

you see the technology changing that—how many years—you said 

you were one of the earliest users of UAS. How quickly have you 

seen that technology change over the past several years? 

Mr. BALL. Well, you know, for us, there is certainly—the technology has been improving every year. And for us it is—we are a 

very compliance-minded company. So whatever the rules are, we 

just need clarity. We will gladly comply, and I think you are asking 

a great question. 

I also agree, I don’t think you have to wait for the perfect solution to move ahead. 

14 

Mr. SHUSTER. That would go towards what Dr. Alonso said about 

put a—make a rule, and then every year review it to make sure 

that the technology hasn’t grown past it or—so OK. 

Mr. BALL. Yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, thank you all very much. I appreciate the 

testimony and yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. DeFazio? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like 

to follow up on that. 

Again, as I expressed at the beginning, I—you know, responsible 

commercial operation is not a major concern, we just have to figure 

out, you know, what that endeavor is. But can anybody on this 

panel—since you have some expertise—why should we allow toy 

drones to be sold that don’t have geofence software in them that 

prohibits any illegal operation? Anybody got a clue as to why we 

haven’t done that? Do you think maybe the FAA doesn’t think they 

have the authority, or we would need to give them specific authority? 

I mean this is a major concern for me. Anybody got an idea? I 

mean is it technologically possible to do that to a toy drone, program it so it can’t go into restricted airspace? 

Mr. WYNNE. It is possible, sir. I think it is really more of a cost 

question than anything else. The more capable drones generally 

are geofenced. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. So then people, for these little junky drones, 

would have to pay more for them so that they won’t ultimately get 

ingested into a jet engine because they wanted to fly it near an airport. 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, we had that debate when we were working 

with the FAA on the registration process. What level do we call a 

toy? 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Yes. 

Mr. WYNNE. Because it literally could be a threat. And it is very 

difficult, as we saw—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, a toy is what—you know, there is a difference between a commercial operator and a hobbyist. And then, 

of course, we have the model airplane people, who are—you know, 

have a long tradition of operating responsibly and within the law. 

But now we are incorporating—there will be, what, 1 million of 

these things sold this Christmas or more? Who knows? 

And, you know, there is—all we are going to do is we are going 

to register them. That is a step forward, but what would it take 

to put, you know, remote sensing technology on those, so we would 

be able to track them? 

Mr. WYNNE. Well, I—not to be too fine on it, but I think you 

mentioned the AMA, which is a great partner of AUVSI and the 

FAA in our Know Before You Fly campaign, which is our educational effort to try and keep people from flying where they 

shouldn’t be. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Mr. WYNNE. If everyone flew that was a hobbyist—was flying according to AMA rules—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

15 

Mr. WYNNE [continuing]. They wouldn’t need to geofence, 

they—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. But when you go to 1 million people who 

just got one under the tree and go, ‘‘Wow, look at this, I am going 

to take it out and try it,’’ they don’t know—— 

Mr. WYNNE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So—but what would it take to put remote sensing 

technology on those things? 

Mr. WYNNE. I would like to answer that question for the record, 

if I could, sir, because I think there is a cost equation that needs 

to get captured with that. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. OK. And I am not quite getting what I want 

here. But—OK. 

How about the whole idea of the FAA? I mean sometimes the 

FAA gets way too prescriptive. Couldn’t we just have, in terms of 

developing a system for—you know, so we can have remote identification for a UTM network, couldn’t it be basically not prescriptive, but results-oriented? I mean it doesn’t have to be—it has to 

be interoperable, obviously, but it doesn’t have to be one particular 

prescribed technology, is that correct? 

And, I mean, we are—we have got the technology today. It would 

work today. Yes, maybe there will be something, you know, more 

compact in the future, whatever, or different—but it would still be 

the same thing. We just want to be able to see it and track it. Isn’t 

that—Dr. Alonso? Yes. 

Dr. ALONSO. I mean I think what you are describing are performance-oriented regulations—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Dr. ALONSO [continuing]. Where you describe what you mean to 

achieve, but you—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Dr. ALONSO [continuing]. Don’t impose the means by which you 

are going to achieve them. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. 

Dr. ALONSO. So this is doable. 

On your previous question of geofencing, it is a fairly easy technology. In fact, many drones already have this, but may not be activated at a particular moment. I think you have to worry about 

some legal issues that I am not an expert in regarding whether you 

require it absolutely from every toy, and how you define a toy. Is 

it this small or that small or a little bit bigger? 

But it is certainly something that is going to have to be activated 

at some point, because most people don’t do it out of malice, they 

simply have the lack of knowledge and they haven’t been exposed 

to some of the limitations that are in the law for these types of vehicles. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. Well, and—of course the geofencing has 

to be dynamic, because we are—I mean the most—you know, the 

thing that has interfered most in my part of the country is people 

flying these things into active forest fires, and we have to take out 

all of the aircraft until it goes away. 

Dr. ALONSO. Absolutely. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So—yes, Mr. Goodwin? 

16 

Mr. GOODWIN. To your comment about dynamic geofencing, that 

is exactly the kind of technology that AirMap is developing and deploying. And, in fact, that is one of the reasons we have partnered 

with the Department of the Interior, to get a more robust set of 

wildfires into our data sets so that those responsible manufacturers 

that are actually doing geofencing now would be able to avoid worrying about any consumer choice, but the drones wouldn’t be able 

to even take off if they were within a certain proximity of a wildfire. 

We have taken that a step further for local first responders, as 

well. So I just want to react on that. I don’t think it is so much 

a technology problem as it is some of the line-drawing exercises 

that we have to go through as to what the threshold is where that 

technology should apply. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I very unapologetically—at every opportunity I 

can—promote and highlight the work that the FAA’s premier technical center, which is in my district, continues to do with engineers 

and laboratories that is unmatched anywhere, and the partnership 

that they have formed with the private sector. 

So, for anyone on the panel, I believe, in many respects, that the 

technical center is somewhat underutilized, especially when it 

comes to their expertise with drones and unmanned aerial systems. 

Any ideas or suggestions on what can be done additionally to help 

validate what many of you are developing, you know, separately 

from the Federal Government? 

Mr. WYNNE. I would say that many of the technologies that we 

are going to need to move on to advanced—beyond remote identification, which we have already discussed, and things of that nature, you know, the ability to sense and avoid is really, really critical, not just for small drones, but for larger drones that are going 

to operate in the flight levels. 

These are the kinds of technologies that start to leverage, I 

think, the expertise that exist at the technical center, because they 

are going to—we want them—when we talk about true integration, 

we want the ability to interact with manned aircraft, both in an 

airport environment, as well as up in the sky. So I think the ability 

to get to true integration is going to require that kind of expertise. 

And the FAA, in its rulemaking, is going to need to require on data 

and research that is actually—you know, it is validating itself. So 

I think that is an extremely important role for the tech center. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Anyone else? 

Yes, Doctor? 

Dr. ALONSO. If I may, I think of where drones are going to have 

to get to in, let’s say, 5 to 10 years in order to be pervasive. It is 

not a set of aircraft, but rather a network system. So the technologies that need to be understood in order to regulate them, to 

further their capabilities and goals, are really not just in the realm 

of aerospace engineering, but also information technology, computer science, perception, autonomy, so on and so forth. 

So, if you ask the question what would I recommend that the 

FAA Tech Center is allowed to do in order to be more responsive 

to this new development environment, I think is the question of 

17 

trying to acquire the talent in all of these different fields that were 

not traditionally part of commercial aviation in order to be able to 

authoritatively say where we should go in the future. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Yes, Mr. Goodwin? 

Mr. GOODWIN. And this is a theme I will probably revisit a number of times, but I do think that the UAS Integration Pilot Program 

reflects a unique opportunity to leverage some of the expertise at 

the tech center as part of a broader application to that program to 

test, in the real world, some of the developments that we are going 

to need to see happen over a longer term basis. 

So I think that we are seeing opportunities for the tech center’s 

abilities to be leveraged that didn’t exist before, because there 

weren’t the same opportunities to implement those technologies in 

real life and test that research in real-world situations. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Ball, I don’t know if you are familiar with 

work at the tech center. Have any ideas in this area? 

Mr. BALL. I am not specifically familiar with the tech center. But 

in general, in the utility business we are huge believers in piloting 

first. You know, we are generally a very conservative, risk-averse 

universe of companies. And so, working with centers like you have 

mentioned is kind of in our history. 

You know, we work strongly, as a group of utilities, with the 

Electric Power Research Institute on drone research, really kind of 

playing out use cases. So anything we could do with the center in 

helping us validate use cases, as—and some of the things these 

men have mentioned, as well would be very helpful to us. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. Rick, you are up. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take my 5 minutes 

for my questions. 

So Dr. Alonso, could you just start off by answering this question? What do you think specifically legislatively that we would 

need to do versus separating that from what FAA needs to do, from 

a regulatory perspective? What would be our job, on a committee, 

for—to facilitate further integration? 

Dr. ALONSO. So in my written testimony I suggested that the regulatory process needs to proceed in a more regular cycle. So we 

need to see updates to things like part 107 every 6 months to 1 

year, with the expectation that certain new regulations are going 

to be in place for the developers of drone systems to be able to plan 

ahead to deploy their systems according to those regulations. 

So I would like to see more flights, as has been expressed here; 

more data, data informing these regulations; and these regulations 

happening in a more periodic cycle. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, but that isn’t necessarily a legislative action we 

need to take. 

Dr. ALONSO. Well—— 

Mr. LARSEN. I mean we could direct FAA to do that. We direct 

agencies to do a lot of things, and they don’t meet those timelines. 

Nothing against—that is just the history around here. 

Dr. ALONSO. So I guess what I am implicitly suggesting is that, 

you know, a little bit more pressure may need to be applied to the 

FAA in order to try to get these regulations happening more frequently. Otherwise, other countries are going to overtake us. And 

they have a tremendously difficult job ahead of them. 

18 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Dr. ALONSO. They are regulators for safety. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. 

Dr. ALONSO. They don’t want to be the first ones to actually issue 

a regulation that causes an accident. 

But we must begin—and I don’t know if you have the authority 

to do this—with regulatory updates for the things that pose extremely low safety risks. You know, we have gentlemen here that 

are talking about beyond-visual-line-of-sight operations in areas 

where there is no population whatsoever. Those things should be 

proceeding along almost immediately. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. And I think on your second—one of your—I 

think it was your second—about data sharing. Is there anything— 

are there any obstacles to data sharing, either from testing and research from public to private sector, from private sector to public 

sector, from the data results? 

Dr. ALONSO. Of course. You know, when we are talking about 

data, we are talking about data of all flights, but also the incidents 

and accidents that may occur during the operations of these UAS. 

So we may learn from them and avoid them proactively in the future. So there is a strong sensitivity to the data that may be provided, and something that was a near miss or a near accident, et 

cetera, et cetera. 

But the FAA has tremendous experience with the ASIAS [Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing] system for commercial aviation, where this data can actually be catalogued and 

databased with proper identification so you provide incentives for 

the operators to provide this data. And the data that can be made 

available to various parties, for them to mine it and to understand 

what situations led to certain risk of safety that then can be 

proactively managed. 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Ball, other than inspections and—you know, 

routine inspections, as well as the inspections done during—in light 

of the disasters, what other roles are you finding for your UAS 

teams? 

Mr. BALL. Well, we have got a lot of creative folks, and this has 

really been many unique opportunities, things as—we have hydroelectric dams we are responsible for. Drones make a great way to 

inspect the dams really efficiently and effectively. 

Shoreline surveys around lakes behind those dams that we are 

responsible for that we have to do, a much more efficient process 

at some of our solar energy facilities, inspecting the panels. It can 

easily be done—that has been a great process. 

Actually, in some of our coal plants we have to monitor the—you 

know, the volumetric amount of the coal there. We can do that with 

a drone, have done that. 

Wind turbine inspections, any sort of tower inspection. I mean 

today, not only do we fly, say, the transmission lines on a regular 

basis, but on a—not as frequent, but we still have to do it, we have 

to visually inspect the actual structure itself, and that is done with 

people walking on the ground. And we can do that, preprogram it 

with the drone, and it works very, very well. 

We have also been able to use drones, actually, inside of big boilers that we would normally have to let cool down, put in scafVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Feb 22, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\2017\11-29-~1\28672.TXT JEAN
19 

folding, put people in there to inspect things. You can preprogram 

a drone to run in there. It is—— 

Mr. LARSEN. You are getting near my time. As a son of a man 

who spent his life climbing poles and climbing down poles, I appreciate what a drone in 1968 might have meant to my dad. 

Mr. BALL. Absolutely, sir. Absolutely. It is amazing. 

Mr. LARSEN. All right, thanks. I would like to do some followup 

with you all, if I could, Mr. Ball, and—further. Thanks. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Gibbs? 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ball, in your testimony you talk about being able to displace 

the use of manned aircraft with drones to inspect our infrastructure, reduce the safety risk to our employees. I 150 percent agree 

with you on that. 

And in Mr. Wynne’s testimony he talks about under part 107 

there has been—FAA has granted more than 1,300 waivers to expand operations. 

Now, Mr. Ball, can you inspect transmission lines out of line of 

sight now, or do you get a waiver? Or what is the status here? I 

am trying to understand what is happening. 

Mr. BALL. Yes. Actually, at our company, we do not yet have a 

waiver for that. We, along with another—a bigger set of utilities, 

have made a request and we are just waiting on that. But that is 

a very exciting opportunity for us. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, it would seem to me—and I have got—had 

transmission line coming across one of my farms, you know, in the 

easement, and I don’t know how far it goes up above the power 

lines, but it ought to be a no-brainer to be able to fly a drone, you 

know, unmanned vehicle, within that—a commonsense, reasonable 

area of the easement. You know, if the easement is 100 feet, you 

know, across the surface, and however far up, that you ought to 

have some, you know—and it shouldn’t—you know, and no planes 

are going to be flying there, anyway. So I don’t understand what 

the issue is here. 

Mr. BALL. Well, I don’t think there is a technological issue, or 

even a safety concern. It is just a process opportunity that we need 

to get ironed out with the FAA. 

Mr. GIBBS. So how long has it been that you have applied for the 

waiver, or the industry has? 

Mr. BALL. I think it has been probably about a year now. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. So it is just bureaucratic redtape, is that what 

you are saying? I mean this should be a no-brainer, shouldn’t it? 

Mr. BALL. I would hope—— 

Mr. GIBBS. To be able to inspect transmission lines. 

Mr. BALL. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Because, you know, it is obvious that I have seen 

where they have had helicopters and planes fly over my transmission line, and they fly low, and you know, there is always that 

danger there, because, you know, if you do it with a drone, it is just 

a lot of common sense, makes a lot of sense. 

Mr. Wynne, your membership includes a lot of international companies. What have you really learned from—and, you know, and 

other—in other countries? 

20 

And I think I can tag that on with Mr. Goodwin has done a lot 

of drone work in multiple countries, you know, with, like, Switzerland and Japan. So I guess between the two, can you kind of 

maybe enlighten us a little bit what is happening in these other 

countries, and with the drone regulations, line of sight? I am really 

keen on this line-of-sight issue. So either one. 

Mr. WYNNE. There are places overseas where things are—might 

be a little bit more—there are things that are allowed that aren’t— 

we don’t regulate here, we don’t have regulatory authority or permission to do here yet. But I think it is fair to say that part 107, 

particularly with the waiver opportunity, has given us, you know, 

the path forward to getting to regulations. 

The last exchange I think was really critical to understanding 

the difference between a waiver environment and a regulatory environment. Once we have identified how to do that operation over 

miles and miles and miles of utility line safely, we should regulate 

that, we should codify that and say, under these circumstances, you 

have the permission to do it. That way, all utility companies now 

know how to do that, or service providers know how to do that, 

rather than having to seek a waiver. 

Mr. GIBBS. I just—to interrupt you—— 

Mr. WYNNE. We don’t quite have that yet, a—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Ball, if we are looking to—out of line of sight, and 

transmission line inspection, and that easement, what would be the 

maximum height that you would need above a power line, or—you 

know, what—— 

Mr. BALL. You know, the—actually, it would be very close. Certainly, probably no more than 100 or so feet above. I actually think 

the—what we were seeking before was—well, maybe 200 feet, no 

more than that, something in that range. So it is—and all within 

the right-of-way. 

Mr. GIBBS. All within the right-of-way. That is—— 

Mr. BALL. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. So I guess Mr. Wynne and Mr. Goodwin would agree 

that that should be, you know, not really an issue. 

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, I think that there is a lot of room to set a 

threshold that is reasonably low, that allows operators to pursue 

these kinds of operations. 

Just to your previous point about our experience overseas, what 

we have really seen is that what you just described with a plane 

flying low over your property or the issue that is specific to an 

easement, ultimately that is going to invite a lot of challenges that 

have to be resolved at a local level. You are going to have to have 

some kind of comfort level with either the landowner or either with 

the relevant authorities. 

And what we have seen is some embracing in a variety of jurisdictions of solving those problems collaboratively, and getting the 

various levels of government in the same room. And I think that 

has given other jurisdictions an advantage for AirMap, where it 

makes more sense to partner. 

I do want to call out the pilot program, again, as a mechanism 

that I think is forcing that collaboration to happen here. So a great 

opportunity for us to reclaim the lead. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

21 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. And thanks to all 

of you for being here. 

As I sit here and listen, I realize how much we need to be looking 

at safety. And considering the State of which I come, we have lots 

of wide open spaces and very little regulation. But I really do believe that the drones are going to present a real challenge in safety, 

unless we have some way to determine the number that should be 

in certain spaces at certain times, and what types that are toys and 

the real serious delivery systems. 

And I realize that safety will be a prime concern. Just recalling 

the Black Hawk helicopter incident that happened, this is really 

the tip of what can happen. So I am just trying to determine where 

do we begin to look at the privacy, the challenges that we see 

emerging through this integration of the unmanned drones. 

What steps are we taking now to address the privacy concerns, 

as we are handling consumer data, safety, the number? It seems 

to me that we could be pretty much encumbered with a number of 

regulations that could be somewhat troubling. But how do we get 

around it? 

Anybody who would like to address it? Yes? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, I think your question goes to a point that you 

have heard echoed on the panel before, which is that a lot of these 

issues need data. And we haven’t had access to a lot of data, because we haven’t had the volume of operations, certainly not the 

volume of compliant operations that I think folks like the Southern 

Company could perform that would generate data that would help 

solve some of those hard questions around privacy, around security, 

which are legitimate. 

And so I—you will hear me say this again—I think the pilot program is the prime mechanism that we have domestically today to 

start generating that data. And what Congress can do is ensure 

that the FAA does have the support necessary to make that program a success. 

What we saw in previous examples where we adopted a waiver 

process is that a couple folks out of the gate get a waiver, and then 

the backlog becomes significant. So you have folks like the Southern Company waiting a year in order to get a waiver. So that is 

where I think, if we adopt a waiver-based approach, we are never 

going to generate the data that we need to actually come to that 

kind of granular level of problem-solving that you are describing. 

So where Congress can act, I think, is to help support the pilot 

program and ensure that it has the resources necessary to start a 

lot of commercial operations in that mechanism. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Yes? 

Mr. BALL. Just to follow on with Mr. Goodwin, I think the opportunity in the utility space is to allow us to start in areas that aren’t 

as urban as we were talking about before. And there is a lot of information to be learned there. 

So I actually think there is—and Dr. Alonso mentioned these 

types of things in his testimony—you know, there is a way to step 

into this, and—but we just need to get stepping. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Yes? 

22 

Dr. ALONSO. If I may, you mentioned safety, which is what we 

are most concerned with, in addition to privacy. But safety is really 

a product of the risk of something happening and the consequence 

of that thing that is bad happening. 

So I think what Mr. Ball is saying is that there are plenty of opportunities where the consequence is very, very low. You are flying 

over unpopulated areas. We must get going with these types of test 

programs, acquiring all the data under those very low safety risk 

situations in order to be able to say something meaningful about 

situations where the safety risk is higher, or the privacy issues become significant. 

Mr. WYNNE. Ma’am, thank you for your question. We are always 

somewhere on a continuum of safety, privacy, security in this industry. And the objective is clearly to get to scale. We don’t see the 

value and the benefits that we have described until we are at scale. 

And we have seen this with other technology. So it is a bit of an 

iterative process, and data is extremely important. It has been indicated. 

The FAA has the safety part, right? They don’t have necessarily 

the privacy part. We have great collaboration with the FAA and 

other regulators around the world. 

The privacy part we worked very, very closely with many civil 

liberties organizations in an NTIA [National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration] process the previous President 

asked us to participate in. We came up with volunteer guidelines 

on how to protect people’s privacy. I am sure everyone in the room 

would agree privacy is paramount to getting to scale. We can’t be 

violating people’s privacy and expect to get to scale. 

Similarly, with security, as I mentioned in my oral testimony, we 

are ready and are engaging with the national security agencies to 

talk about how to address those issues. And I also sit here representing the counter-UAS community, as well, which stands at the 

ready to help geofence and do things in an active way to keep airspace safe. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ball, I would like to start with you, if I could. I want to kind 

of piggyback onto what my colleague, Mr. Gibbs, was talking about 

in regards to line-of-sight, visual-line-of-sight issues. 

In section 2210 of the 2016 FAA bill, to work beyond a visualline-of-sight flights for activities to inspect, repair, construct, maintain, or protect facilities, including critical infrastructure—to your 

knowledge, has the FAA made progress to implement this provision, and allow owners of critical infrastructure, like Southern 

Company, to maintain that infrastructure? 

Mr. BALL. It is my understanding that we are still waiting on 

that guidance from the FAA on how—on basically what are the criteria we need to meet. And that, as I think Mr. Goodwin or Mr. 

Wynne mentioned before, that is really what we need. We are a 

very compliant type of company. We deal with compliance all the 

time. We just need some more clarity around the rules. 

Mr. DAVIS. So hopefully we will get that clarity with the second 

panel, with the FAA coming up. 

23 

This is a question for any of the panelists who would like to answer. I introduced an amendment to the FAA bill to create somewhat of a micro-drone category, and I think it is—today’s technology, we shouldn’t have to have anyone climb a power pole again 

to inspect, and we shouldn’t have to have any claims adjuster climb 

up on top of a roof anymore with today’s technology that is in front 

of us. 

My micro-drone category would have created—would have been 

created for drones that are 4.4 pounds or less, that travel no more 

than 40 knots, and can be used with individual line of sight. Now, 

would this classification promote innovation and actually help the 

safety of companies like yours, Mr. Ball, or those that make up 

your association, Mr. Wynne? 

You know, would this new class be something that we could then 

get the FAA to then focus on those structures and critical infrastructure issues and waivers that we have already talked about? 

[No response.] 

Mr. DAVIS. Who wants to go? 

Mr. WYNNE. It might. It is—you know, with miniaturization, 

there are going to be more and more drones that are smaller and 

smaller. And on the one hand they represent less of a threat, less 

of a security or a safety issue, I will say. You know, there are other 

things that are going on that sort of—I think when we started an 

ARC on flight over people, it was originally called a micro-UAS 

ARC with that thought. 

Where this has gone—and companies like CNN are designing 

very, very small drones that can bring you the news, but if they 

come down on somebody’s head, they are going to literally—they 

will not do any damage, they are literally—they break off, and you 

know, there is frangibility, and so forth, and they are very, very 

light drones—but I think, you know, the airspace, it is a, I think, 

fair debate to say that the airspace needs to be governed by regulation. 

There might be a threshold below which the harm is so minimal 

that it is not worth regulating. But I—again, I reference our discussion at the registration ARC. There were a lot of aviation organizations represented in that room that almost no size is viewed as 

nonthreatening, right? So I think it is a very—it is an ongoing debate, as to whether or not the weight of something or the size of 

something reduces its threat and, therefore, makes it a candidate 

for—to not be regulated. 

Mr. DAVIS. We are well aware of some of the initial opposition. 

However, I think, as we have clearly heard through your testimony 

and previous hearings here, that the FAA is just not doing its job 

to process waivers to actually allow for drone technology to be implemented in our airspace. 

And frankly, size of drone technology, I think, does matter when 

it comes into question, especially when it is—we are talking about 

hopefully creating a tool that is a—used in a toolbox, versus a— 

something that requires an FAA waiver. 

Would anybody else like to address the micro-drone issue? 

Mr. BALL. Well, I actually would have to agree with Mr. Wynne. 

I don’t know that I know a perfect answer to it. But again, whatever the size of the drone, for us it is just a matter of knowing 

24 

what the rules are, and having confidence in the rules. And then 

we will live within the rules. 

You know, for me, you are right, a small drone is a tool. And it 

can be a very handy tool. And what we have found with our employees is once you give them a new tool, give them the ability to 

use it within some set of parameters, their creativity is unbelievable. And so we would enjoy having the ability to use, really, 

drones of all sizes. I understand the smaller ones could be of benefit locally. We are actually very excited, also, on the other end. I 

do that—I understand that has bigger implications, you know, for 

bigger payloads, using them for construction, and other things. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, as—my fear is that if we don’t begin to separate 

out micro-drone technology, we are going to continue to be faced 

with the same problems within the regulatory environment that all 

of you mentioned in your testimony. And that, to me, would be a 

travesty. 

So thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Lipinski. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wynne, you had briefly discussed remote ID in response to 

a question by Ranking Member DeFazio. I would like to go a little 

further into that. 

First, if there is any update on the progress of rulemaking that 

you might be able to give us. But I would really like you to tell us 

why remote ID is so important. 

Mr. WYNNE. The update, I think, would probably be from Mr. 

Elwell, but I am given to understand that the report from the remote ID ARC is imminent. So we will have that, and then hopefully followed quickly thereafter by an NPRM [notice of proposed 

rulemaking], and then we start that process. 

I think it is extremely important, as is registration, to sort of 

build this process of visibility that we need in the airspace. And 

that—you know, that—there is a whole variety of ways that that 

can be done, ground-based, as well as platform-based, or some combination of those two things. 

But suffice it to say that we, as an organization, are against 

anonymous flying. Today, if someone gets in an aircraft and takes 

off, generally speaking it is visible to everyone in the system, and 

it is visible because they are in a system of systems. 

So similar to if you are waiting on someone to arrive, and you 

look up their flight number on FlightAware, I can now see on my 

iPad an aircraft that has been called for me by air traffic control. 

I can see its tail number, et cetera, et cetera, thanks to ADS–B. 

This is just what we do in aviation. Aircraft need to be—they 

need to be visible to one another, so that we can avoid conflicts. 

It is going to be even more important when, for unmanned aircraft, 

when we have got UTM and those unmanned aircraft need to give 

way to manned aircraft—say an EMS [emergency medical services] 

helicopter that is coming through an urban area, et cetera, et 

cetera. They need to be detecting one another, they need to be identifiable to one another, and they need to be responsive to one another. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. And as we have more operations of UAVs, how do 

we, you know, pay for the burden on the system? 

25 

Mr. WYNNE. I would defer to Mr. Goodwin, because I think he 

has—we have the beginnings of that, which I tagged up on in 

LAANC. His company, as well as Skyward, are the two organizations from the private side that are essentially bringing the tools 

to the operations community that tie into that system of systems 

that the FAA is providing, including basically automatic airspace 

authorizations, et cetera. Those are the building blocks for UTM. 

It remains to be seen how that burden gets shared, but I can 

promise you it will be a shared burden between industry bringing 

its tools to the table, as well as the FAA providing its back-end systems. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. So, Mr. Goodwin? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Wynne. 

As Mr. Wynne noted, we do have experience with this in the public-private partnership model that the FAA established with 

LAANC and used there, both with our work, also domestically with 

cities and States, and then overseas with ANSBs [Air Navigation 

Services Boards] and other entities that we are working with. We 

have seen, really, a variety of models here. 

So I think the—I am less concerned about the fact of how any 

burdens on the system are going to be paid for, and more that 

when we start to realize meaningful economic activity, you know, 

service providers or companies like the Southern Company, they 

are going to be able to rationalize any costs they have to bear, so 

long as they are adding meaningful value. And that is always going 

to be the burden on industry, to generate sufficient value that 

those costs are worth bearing. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Alonso—— 

Dr. ALONSO. And, if I may, I don’t know if you are aware, but 

the FAA Drone Advisory Committee has set up three groups to investigate different things. The technical working group three is 

looking at the issue of how this whole process is going to be funded, 

and their recommendations are due to the spring 2018 meeting of 

the Drone Advisory Committee. 

So studies are looking at various different options, and trying to 

figure out what is a fair way of distributing that burden. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. And I don’t have much time left, and 

this is a more complicated question, but let me throw it out there. 

Sense-and-avoid technology, where are we at right now? Who 

wants to take a stab at that one? All right. Mr. Goodwin seems to 

want to—— 

Mr. GOODWIN. Well, just to offer a small comment, I think that 

sense-and-avoid technology has to be complemented for commercial 

operations at scale with a UTM system. Generally, the more miniaturized drones get, the more challenging it is going to be to have 

an onboard sense-and-avoid that gives you the complete 360-degree 

awareness. 

However, with a persistent, you know, wireless connection that 

is sufficiently high bandwidth, you can have a much higher visibility into the airspace around you. So I think we are going to see 

a blend of those technologies and with—connect to drones of the future. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Nice, quick answer. 

I yield back. 

26 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Lewis? 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for this committee, and thanks to all the guests here. It is wonderful to see you 

all. 

Mr. Wynne, you had said earlier that you thought that the State 

and local units of government should play a role in developing a 

Federal framework. I want to focus on that a little bit because, as 

you know, I have been trying to address the issue of federalism 

versus preemption, and trying to find a sweet spot there. 

We have had a great experiment in this country, the concept of 

dual sovereignty, the idea that instances that affect two citizens of 

the same State would be governed by the State’s police power, and 

if you have a Federal nexus or interstate commerce, the Federal 

Government would handle that. And it has worked quite well. It 

has worked quite well because we don’t like the consolidation of 

power in this country. We like the idea of these great experiments 

and the several States arriving at good solutions. 

So, as it pertains to this emerging and wonderful new technology, 

I do want to ask you if you think that the Tribal, State, local governments should have no ability whatsoever to directly create, say, 

a time, manner, place, or some sort of restriction on low-level, 

small UAS, as long as it doesn’t interfere with interstate commerce. 

They should still have no say at all? 

Mr. WYNNE. No—— 

Mr. LEWIS. Legally? 

Mr. WYNNE. No, I did not say that. And I would not say that. 

Is the mic on? OK. 

I think the question that that is begging, sir, is how. How would 

they have the ability to do that? 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Excuse me, are you sure your mic is on? 

Mr. WYNNE. The mic? 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Are you sure your mic is on? 

Mr. WYNNE. Yes, it is lit, so—— 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Pull it a little closer. 

Mr. WYNNE. There we go, there we go. All right, I am going to 

start over again, sir. 

Mr. LEWIS. You bet. 

Mr. WYNNE. I did not say that. I—what—the question that is 

being begged here—and I am going to defer on the question of, you 

know, the way you contextualized it, which I think is very relevant, 

but I think it is probably a longer answer than you wish for—is 

that, at the end of the day, there is a workability question here, 

which I think the pilot project which we have been strongly supporting has the opportunity to help us solve. 

And I hasten to say that I think that, in many instances, with 

a lot of the questions that we are discussing, we will be in a different place 6 months from now, and on different complexes of 

issues than we are today. 

In this one in particular I have had numerous conversations with 

people who are responsible for public safety or municipal authorities. And the question that always comes up is how would I do 

that. How would I manage my airspace—— 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, OK, let me just interject, because in your statement you said that you thought State and local and Tribal governVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Feb 22, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\2017\11-29-~1\28672.TXT JEAN
27 

ments should play a role in developing a Federal framework, a Federal framework, as though they would have no framework themselves. 

And my question is simply if somebody is buzzing past a school, 

or hovering in my backyard, looking in, you know, the window upstairs, I am going to call the FAA? No. I am going to call the zoning 

board, I am going to call the police department, I am going to call 

a local authority. And that is where the police power comes into effect, isn’t it? 

Mr. WYNNE. Yes, it is. 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Goodwin, you want to comment on that? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, happy to comment. I think we have seen, 

both here in the U.S. and then overseas, that safe commercial 

drone operations only happen at high volumes if you get every level 

of government involved to solve some of these really complicated 

questions. 

I take the analogy of comparing, you know, the relative space of 

planes and automobiles. So in the automotive space, States and localities create time, manner, and place restrictions on cars. You 

have a highway speed limit that the State may set. You may make 

a street walkable, like where we work in Santa Monica, so no cars 

are allowed at all, and maybe trash trucks aren’t allowed to come 

in the middle of the night. Those are reasonable restrictions that 

don’t necessarily impede effective commercial activity, and they are 

implemented at the State and locality level. 

And all those are, of course, available in real time through apps 

like Waze, which can tell me when I am speeding at times. 

And so, comparing the volume of activity that that engenders, 

the FAA Air Traffic Organization provides service to more than 

42,000 flights a day, which is a significant economic benefit to the 

country. But the Department of Transportation estimates that 

there are 1.1 billion car trips per day. So, comparing the relative 

scale, I think that we can say that that doesn’t sound like a burdensome regulatory framework, it sounds like highly valuable economic activity. 

Mr. LEWIS. And I would only add—and thank you, everyone on 

the panel, for your testimony today—this is a wonderful, brave new 

world. We have got to embrace this technology and this—and I 

want the best for the industry. 

My concern, in all sincerity, is if we don’t find a satisfactory statutory scheme here, something worse will come down the road in a 

court decision, or something worse for the industry. So I hope we 

can all work together and find this sweet spot I have been trying 

to work on, so we can embrace this new technology and still pride 

ourselves and still embrace that wonderful idea of local control. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Ms. Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly appreciate this very important hearing. It comes at a time when a lot 

of us are thinking about drones in connection with their commercial uses. 

Now, I represent a unique district, to be sure. The Nation’s Capital, the District of Columbia. It has been declared a—there is a 

word that is used, ‘‘no drone zone,’’ so that if you live in the NaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:11 Feb 22, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\115\AV\2017\11-29-~1\28672.TXT JEAN
28 

tion’s Capital—almost 700,000 people do—I am interested, as the 

Nation prepares for commercial uses of drone, to have things delivered by drone—by the way, this includes parts of—near-in parts of 

Maryland and Virginia—whether you think this 15-mile ring—it is 

a 15-mile ring—where drones cannot fly, if that is what they do, 

without FAA authorization, I ask you whether you think that is— 

obviously, I have to think about safety first, and that is what I am 

thinking. 

Now I am trying to think about the commercial uses of drones 

to deliver packages at Christmas, for example, whether you think 

this—something can be done to make sure that drones fly within 

this 15-mile zone, the Nation’s Capital, safely for commercial purposes. I don’t know if Mr. Alonso, Mr. Wynne, or any of you have 

any ideas on that, but I would be grateful to have them. 

Dr. ALONSO. Well, I would say that a blanket prohibition of any 

type of drone, any size, any speed, any capabilities, without any 

particular specification of what requirements—— 

Ms. NORTON. It says without—and I am not going to be here 

when the FAA testifies—without specific FAA authorization. Do 

you believe what is envisioned is unique, a unique system for flying 

within this 15-mile radius? 

And by the way, this could apply to everybody else’s residential 

area, too, if that was considered to be a zone where there may be 

some kind of secure facility, as well. 

Dr. ALONSO. But obviously, the current regulation in this area is 

one that is coming from issues of security. So I think we are being 

absolutely safe and secure. But I think there are many opportunities to enable commercial drone use, even within the Washington, 

DC, area with more logical regulations as to what is permitted and 

what is not. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, please. 

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, I think part of the challenge there is to actually find the right way to say yes to drones. And it is not just a 

commercial operation, it is to drones operated by first responders 

or helping provide situational awareness to police. There is a lot of 

different uses of drones that could be constructive. They don’t have 

to be purely commercial and save lives, as we have seen. 

In that context, how do you say yes to drones that you know are 

going to be compliant? And that is, I think, where the digital infrastructure of UTM is going to be so important. So I think there may 

be an opportunity to explore even places as sensitive as Washington, DC, through the pilot program by virtue of surfacing all the 

hard questions about how do you mitigate the security concerns, 

how do you have a combination of counter-UAS and compliant 

drones operating, so that you can discriminate between people who 

are flying with permission and flying—those who aren’t. That is 

where I see the opportunity to actually stress test whether we 

could operate safely in, obviously, the most sensitive airspace in 

the U.S. 

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate the notion of a pilot program. The 

right way to say yes may be encompassed in these words without 

specific FAA authorization. It does seem to me we ought to be able 

to get there that way. 

29 

Is—could—coordination being done with the Department of Defense is their concern in this age of terrorism, that drones not only 

here, but elsewhere could be used, or is this going on just with the 

FAA, which has the major responsibility? Does any of you know— 

have an answer to that question? 

Mr. WYNNE. My organization works very closely with—— 

Ms. NORTON. Would you speak up, please? 

Mr. WYNNE. Sure. My organization works very closely with the 

Department of Defense, particularly JIDO [Joint ImprovisedThreat Defeat Organization], on how to handle the use of drones, 

particularly outside of the continental United States. There are 

things inside of the continental United States that make that a 

more challenging policy discussion. FAA, FCC regulations, rules 

that prevent the disablement of an aircraft, which I am in favor of, 

and so forth. 

So there are some subtleties here that are being looked at on 

how to implement counter-drone technology in security-type—in a 

security-type context. Overseas it is a little bit easier, when our 

troops are directly threatened, or our allies are directly threatened. 

But we are, as an industry, working with them to develop those 

technology security solutions. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would be interested, as well, in 

any involvement of the Department of Defense with this very important issue. Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Woodall? 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Ball, I wanted to start with you. I send you a check once a 

month, and I am grateful to you for keeping the lights on. Thank 

you for that. 

I want to pick up where Mr. Davis left off. He asked you about 

a legislative change that we worked on together here. You have 

been waiting about that same period of time on your waiver request. Tell me what the impact is, in terms of operations, if we get 

guidance for the legislation first, or if you get approval on your 

waiver first. 

Mr. BALL. Interesting. Well, number one, thank you for paying 

your power bill. We love all our customers. 

Mr. WOODALL. To be fair, I get threatening notes when I don’t. 

Mr. BALL. OK, good, yes. 

Mr. WOODALL. It is a relationship. 

Mr. BALL. I am—you may—your question—I don’t know that I 

have fully grasped it, but, you know, as soon as we—I mean right 

now, if we could get a waiver, that would be great. Just—but I 

would agree with some of the things that were kind of said earlier. 

If we can move to an environment, where instead of seeking waivers we have a clear set of rules that we can work under to allow 

us to do beyond-visual-line-of-sight operation, that is a much better 

environment than having to ask for waiver by waiver by waiver. 

Mr. WOODALL. And so my expectation is, when the guidance 

comes out for the section that Mr. Davis references, we will no 

longer be talking about waivers for any critical infrastructure provider in the country. 

Mr. BALL. That would be our hope. It’s just give us the rules, and 

we will work within them. 

30 

Mr. WOODALL. We talked about revisiting rules every 6 months. 

I think that was you, Dr. Alonso, who said we need to be in the— 

in a rapid regulatory framework. Talk to me a little bit about that. 

Is that because technology is moving on a 30-day cycle, and so regulating on a 180-day cycle makes sense? 

I worry about changing the rules every 180 days for folks who 

are trying to find some certainty in this space. I know you are supportive of performance-based standards, as opposed to prescriptive 

standards. But talk to me about the industry dangers of a frequent 

regulatory process, instead of a certain regulatory process. 

Dr. ALONSO. In an industry where safety is paramount, you have 

to be extremely careful. And the wheels of Government move slowly when it comes to regulation for a reasonable reason, I would say. 

But when I was talking about updates to the rules, I wasn’t 

meaning changes to rules that permit the same thing with different 

requirements over time, but rather updates to the rule that enable 

certain services and keep those rules for a significant period of 

time until there is additional knowledge that informs us to change 

them. 

So what I would like to see is more rules in the next 6 months 

to allow beyond visual line of sight when you are flying over unpopulated areas, right? Or rules for flights over people when you 

have drones that are relatively small and you are staying within 

visual line of sight, and those types of things, so that the periodic 

updates we were referring to, additional level of service with additional—of requirements, not to changing the requirements over 

time. 

Mr. WOODALL. When we talk about the safety, those of you who 

are so intimately involved seem to talk about safety from the—from 

a drone level up. When you listen to folks here who may not have 

as much UAS experience, we talk about safety from the drone level 

down. I am less worried about it getting sucked into an engine; I 

am more worried about it falling on my head. 

Where is the regulatory holdup there, as we struggle to balance 

safety and technological advancement? If I ask the same question 

to the FAA, are they going to tell me that what slows the process 

down is the inability to deal with safety going up, or a worry about 

safety going down? 

Dr. ALONSO. I think the answer depends on the category of drone 

that you are talking about. Certainly for the larger ones, going up 

is a significant and maybe a more substantial risk. But for the 

smaller ones going down is a very important thing that we need 

to worry about, not to impact the public. 

I—my take on this is that what is slowing things down is that 

we don’t have enough data to know exactly where to set the thresholds for the requirements for either the ones going up or the ones 

going down. We are learning about it, but we need to accelerate 

that learning. 

Mr. WOODALL. And so, when many of you have talked about folks 

like Mr. Ball and the work that Southern Company could do to 

generate that data—Mr. Goodwin mentioned that specifically—my 

assumption, when we talk about generating data is we are going 

to generate some failures in that space, that from an industry perspective the position is let’s give Southern Company the tools to do 

31 

this, let’s anticipate failures, and we are going to learn from those 

failures, and we are just going to be comforted by knowing that 

failure is going to occur in unpopulated, rural Georgia, as opposed 

to over New York City. Is that the answer that we have seen overseas, as well, Mr. Goodwin? 

Mr. GOODWIN. I think it is. And I think also, just to reiterate the 

point I made earlier, the closer you get to the ground, and more 

specific the concerns of the people on the ground, the more you 

need to ensure that there is a voice for all the relevant folks, both 

at the State and local level, and then of course, obviously, the individual citizens. 

So I think the pilot program is the first opportunity to generate 

that data, where all those voices are going to be heard, and I— 

hopefully it will generate a lot of that information that we haven’t 

seen today. 

Mr. WOODALL. I appreciate the nice words you all had to say 

about our chairman. My experience is sometimes folks get their 

very best work done, Mr. Chairman, after they have announced 

their retirement. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WOODALL. These next 14 months may be the most productive 

14 months we have seen. I think our folks are in good hands here 

today. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I will reserve comment. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Ms. Brownley? 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Alonso, I wanted 

to ask you a question. You have talked a lot today about accelerating learning, more data, more testing. I think in your testimony you said all of this must be significantly enhanced. 

So I am just trying to get an idea from you what that means, 

exactly, in terms of where we are today, and what is ‘‘significant 

enhancement,’’ in your mind? 

Dr. ALONSO. Let me take a little detour. If you accept that drones 

today have 1 accident in every 1,000 flights, that means you must 

observe 1,000 flights before you see a single accident. Obviously, 

you don’t want to see just one accident, you want to see tons of accidents, where there is no consequence. That means, instead of 

1,000 flights, you have to look at tens or hundreds of thousands of 

flights and data points. This is the point I was trying to make in 

my testimony. 

So, when I say significantly enhance—to your question—I mean 

that we cannot have pilot programs that have four participants, 

right, doing two or three flights a month or something. We have 

to have hundreds of participants doing hundreds of flights a month, 

and accumulate that data over a significant period of time. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. And is that where we are today? 

Dr. ALONSO. I think we are in a very, very small scale in 

these—— 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Very small scale. 

Dr. ALONSO. There are excellent flight test programs, and I give 

kudos to both Congress and to the FAA for starting them, but I 

think we need to ‘‘significantly enhance’’ them. 

32 

Ms. BROWNLEY. And then, to compare what we are doing today 

to where others and Japan or Switzerland, other international communities, where you have expressed concern that we may be falling 

behind in terms of R&D? 

Dr. ALONSO. So I think they are starting, but they are not significantly ahead of us. There are some simpler regulatory environments. 

But I would like to make the analogy more to driverless cars. 

You know, when you look at the amount of testing that is actually 

being done to figure out when and how these cars should be allowed to go on the roads, we are talking of about millions of hours 

of driving, accumulated by a number of different companies. I think 

we need to go in autonomous drones in a very similar direction. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you. And this is a question more for anybody, really, on the panel. And I am a little new in my learning 

around this issue. So—but there have been—you have previously 

talked about issues and our concerns around privacy, security, et 

cetera. And I think Mr. Ball or Dr. Alonso—I am not sure—responded by saying, well, we could start to learn more by simply flying in unpopulated areas. 

So I am having a hard time understanding what we learn flying 

drones in an unpopulated area, just—it seems like, well, there is 

no safety issue, necessarily. I mean you are out in the open space. 

So if you could, enlighten me. 

Mr. BALL. Well, I think what was being discussed was part of the 

learning is—to Dr. Alonso’s point—is when you do have an accident, or when there is a failure of a piece of equipment, how does 

the equipment react to it? What do you see? 

And if you have a failure like Mr. Woodall just said, in the middle of a field in Georgia, that is unfortunate. We don’t like that. 

But we can learn from it, and then that can be a—you can take 

those learnings and then say, OK, if that had happened in the 

Washington, DC, area, you know, what would the impact have 

been? 

So it is just something as simple as that, I believe. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Well, it seems to me that there are so many different types of UAS. I mean there are—there are lots of manufacturers. I guess you could group them into certain categories. But 

it seems like that is an inordinate amount of data points that I am 

not sure you can, you know, draw a line between them. 

Dr. ALONSO. Well, take for comparison the commercial aviation 

system. It has got similar diversity. And the failures can be equipment, although they are very, very rare. But it can be operations. 

And normally it is a combination of effects that lead to a particular 

failure. 

We have over 1 million drones, right, in the U.S. right now. We 

could expand the way in which we collect data as to when these 

things fail, or where they almost fail, in a much more large-scale 

way. I think this is the main point. 

And yes, there will be a lot of data, but it is the best hope we 

have to actually impose logical regulations. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. So is there another example of what we would 

learn flying in unpopulated areas, Mr. Goodwin? 

33 

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, I will offer very briefly an example that 

touches upon what Mr. Woodall said. The number of stakeholders 

that you have to be concerned about when it comes to privacy and 

security are significantly fewer in relatively low-density areas, so 

it is easier to get them into a room, it is easier to talk to a handful 

of folks and find a technology means of addressing their solution 

than it would be, say, in an urban environment. 

So I think that the—just from a simple crawl, walk, run kind of 

approach, a lot of those learnings are going to be applicable because, candidly, a lot of folks that we have encountered in some of 

the more rural environments do have a strong sense of private 

property and concerns about privacy, and they would be more than 

happy to participate in the benefits of technology, so long as their 

concerns are addressed. 

So it is the right population to really try to get those learnings 

on, simply because of the scale, and the scale relative to the scale 

of the commercial opportunity, which is significant. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Duncan? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. 

Alonso, you serve on the key FAA advisory council on drones, and 

I have got an article that is a few months old that said that we 

had almost 800,000 U.S. drones registered in the first 15 months, 

and that that was going to go on up to an estimated—an estimate 

by the FAA that there would be 31⁄2 million by 2021. I don’t know 

if those estimates are still accurate, because that is a few months 

old. 

But if we have 31⁄2 million drones in 3 or 4 years, is there any 

realistic way that we can keep up with all of that, or that we 

could—it seems to me you would end up with millions, because this 

same article says we have got 320,000 manned aircraft registered 

after 100 years of registration. So what do you think about that? 

I mean it seems to me we will end up with millions of unregistered drones. 

Dr. ALONSO. Well, I think because the barrier to registration has 

been lowered so significantly, I think, you know, maybe we should 

require that these drones are registered at the point of purchase. 

But I think this tremendous growth that you are talking about 

is really happening in the very small range of the UAS. So I think 

there has been some discussion already today as to various means 

that could actually get under control, that very large growth and 

the very small range of UAS that are now going to be flying beyond 

visual line of sight and above people, and that are mostly operated 

by you, myself, and maybe our kids doing relatively simple things. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, just yesterday Bloomberg News reported and 

it says ‘‘the millions of small civilian drones plying the Nation’s 

skies can cause significant damage to airliners and business jets in 

a midair collision, new research commissioned by the U.S. Federal 

Aviation Administration concluded. While most drones weigh only 

a few pounds, they include motors and other metal equipment that 

could cause significant damage to aircraft engines, windshields, or 

wings,’’ and so forth. What—do you have concern about that? 

34 

Dr. ALONSO. Absolutely. But we talked about technologies like 

geofencing and others that may significantly reduce that risk if imposed on these small drones that you are discussing at the moment. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Right. 

Dr. ALONSO. So you want to make sure that none of these millions of drones that are going to be in the very small scale are 

going to be in the path of an airliner. And I think we have the 

technology to do that, so—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Goodwin, you mentioned a key word to most 

people on this issue just a moment ago, and that is privacy. And 

I understood at another hearing that we had a few months ago on 

drones that they can make drones as small as an insect now, or 

as—you know, I don’t know what that—how far that goes. 

But do you—are you satisfied? Do you feel comfortable that we 

are doing enough to alleviate all the privacy concerns that are out 

there? I know in Los Angeles, when the Los Angeles Police Department was starting to increase its use of drones, there was quite an 

outcry from private citizens. What do you think about that? 

Mr. GOODWIN. I think particularly with the increase in miniaturization, we are going to only see this grow as an issue. That being 

said, I do think there is room for a lot of privacy issues—and we 

should perhaps not lump them all together—to be solved by existing laws that are on the books that might apply to other technologies, as well. 

So a lot of what we have seen in terms of, you can say, Google 

Glass or other technologies that allow you to record someone without necessarily them being apparent may apply some of the lessons 

learned from those technologies, may apply in the context of 

drones. 

Just separately, I would call attention to the privacy concerns 

from Government operators, which I think we have a very healthy 

mechanism in this country for elevating those kind of concerns 

when it comes to Government action, and leading to best practices 

around those operations. 

And I think that practice of finding the best practices for a Government operator, the way that they store the data, the way that 

it has to be accessible, there is a lot that can be learned from the 

high-skill commercial industry to solve some of those privacy concerns on the commercial side. That doesn’t necessarily address 

some of the other types of concerns that go perhaps down to the 

recreational level, but I do think there is room to not let the perfect 

be the enemy of the good there. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Chairman. I see my time is about up. Thank you. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, witnesses, for your testimony today. 

Sometimes it is hard to see the forest from the trees. And I will 

just leave that like that. I will ask you if anyone on the panel has 

an opinion about the pervasive antiregulatory environment that 

has been perpetuated over the years, and whether or not it has had 

an impact on the FAA’s ability to promulgate rules in this UAS environment. Does anyone have an opinion about that? 

35 

Mr. WYNNE. My opinion, sir, is it has not. We have—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. There is no antiregulatory environment that we exist under at this time? Are you—— 

Mr. WYNNE. We work very—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. Would you agree with me on that? 

Mr. WYNNE. We work very closely with the regulators. If we 

don’t have regulations under which we can fly, or permission to fly, 

we don’t fly. This industry doesn’t scale, society doesn’t benefit 

from the technology. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. I understand. My question goes to the 

regulatory environment that exists at this time. And I guess you 

would disagree that we have an antiregulatory environment, but I 

am sure that others agree with me that we do have an 

antiregulatory environment, generally. And my question is how 

does that, if it does, impact the promulgation of rules in this space. 

But let me—and you take your comments—you are well noted on 

that. What about the incessant budget cutting, including the FAA’s 

budget, over the years? Has it—has that fact impacted the FAA’s 

ability to promulgate rules in this UAS space? Anyone have an 

opinion on that? 

[No response.] 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. And I guess no one does. 

Mr. WYNNE. Actually, sir, I will take the opportunity to thank 

the subcommittee, because we have seen, actually, additional resources provided to the FAA in order to move forward with this 

regulatory environment. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. After the budget—— 

Mr. WYNNE. And I thank the subcommittee for that. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. After the budget has been cut, you 

have seen resources added? 

Mr. WYNNE. Yes, sir, and Mr. Elwell—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. To try to equalize—— 

Mr. WYNNE [continuing]. Or Earl Lawrence could speak to that. 

I would also be happy to provide information for the record. 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. OK. Well, I would love to see it, and 

I am sure the American people who are thoughtful might want to 

see whether or not the resources we are providing to our agencies, 

including the FAA, during these times of austerity have any impact 

on its ability to keep up with progress. I don’t see any way that 

it cannot have an impact. That is my personal opinion. But I will 

ask Mr. Ball. 

Sir, you mentioned in your testimony that during a recent hurricane you were able to dispatch drones to Texas and help their utility with coming up with assessments as to damage. And you could 

have done more, if the regulations had allowed you to do so. What 

regulations, other than the—being able to see the drone in operation, what other regulations impacted your ability to not use 

drones as much as you would have wanted to down there? 

Mr. BALL. Yes, I think it was just as—well, one thing, it was as 

simple as—this was one of the first times that drones were used 

in a mutual assistance since. So there is some learning there. That 

is when I said when we—in the following month, when we did the 

same thing in Georgia, we had learned from Texas. 

36 

But some of it was just waiting on waivers, waiting on permissions, and so—— 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. And these kinds of commonsense, 

practical realities are impacted by our budgeting decisions here in 

Washington, DC. I just wanted to make that point. 

And does anyone have any idea whether or not the proposed tax 

cuts that are working their way through Congress will have any 

impact on the ability of the Federal agencies to operate efficiently 

and effectively in this area? 

[No response.] 

Mr. JOHNSON OF GEORGIA. I see no one is responding. I think 

that these are—when I said sometimes it is hard to see the forest 

from the trees, that is exactly what I was referring to. And with 

that, I will yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Sanford? 

Mr. SANFORD. Thank you, Chairman. Let me find my notes here. 

Back in October of 2015, this subcommittee held a similar hearing on the same subject. And at that time I in essence asked this 

subcommittee how do we maximize safety, while minimizing Government involvement? And it was interesting that FAA Deputy Administrator Michael Whitaker at that time responded that he believed the best way to go down that path would be an industrybased standard, so we don’t have to go down the regulatory path. 

And obviously, that is not, in large measure, the direction we are 

going. 

But I will go back to the same question I asked back in 2015 of 

that committee, which is—yes, I think in part to what my colleague 

from Georgia, Mr. Woodall, was getting at, which is, in essence, 

you can’t have riskless innovation. You can’t have innovation without risk. 

And so, the question I think we have to struggle with as policy 

folks is to say how do we have more in the way of innovation, given 

what we have seen happen in the wake of hurricanes and other 

natural disasters, the utility that might come in the wake of the 

way retailers operate, there are just a lot of big possibilities out 

there. 

And so I guess one of the questions—it would seem to me that 

in answering that question—I was just talking again to Mr. 

Woodall, and there is a clear bifurcation in that when you talk 

about jet engines, you are clearly talking about Federal standard 

and the importance of operations around airports, interstate travel. 

But when you operate dealing with peeping Toms, local safety 

issues, rural power lines, fundamentally you are really operating at 

what has historically been handled at a local or State government 

level. 

Is there a system by which—that you all could imagine operating 

in—particularly I would ask you, Mr. Ball—wherein you would 

have a bifurcation responsibility? If you are close to HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport, you are going to be dealing 

with the FAA and all the appropriate Federal regulatory agencies. 

But if you are operating in rural Georgia at a low altitude, it really 

doesn’t involve a big safety issue. Is there a way to cover that at 

a local level? 

37 

Give me your thoughts on that again, because I think what we 

need to end up at, as a place, is a spot where we maximize innovation in this unfolding field, while at the same time managing risk. 

And might that not be better done if you bifurcated responsibilities 

between Federal and State or local duties? 

Mr. BALL. I do—I think, as Mr. Goodwin mentioned before, I 

agree with him, I do think there is an opportunity there to possibly 

do that. For a company like ours, whatever the structure is, we just 

need to know the rules. And so, in a multilayered regulatory environment—and we deal with that today in other areas—as long as 

we understand the rules, and the rules aren’t so conflictive that it 

kind of leaves us wondering what we should do—that would be 

helpful. 

And it has been mentioned before, this pilot effort that is—that 

people actually, I think, just now are making applications to, could 

be very helpful here. And I think Dr. Alonso mentioned, you know, 

the more of these pilots, where we are involving municipal and 

county and State-level folks in with the national rule, so we can 

learn how these things could coexist, I think that is going to be 

very helpful. Because I will be—I am not imaginative enough to 

imagine all of the unintended consequences we might get, but I 

think we can work through them. 

Mr. SANFORD. Then I ask you, Mr. Goodwin, in other words, historically it has not been the purview of the FAA to worry about 

peeping Toms underneath a home in Hollywood, California. Are we 

trying to jam too much, in terms of jurisdiction, in at the Federal 

level? Or, for that matter, again, covering the rural power line in 

Georgia? Is there a best practice that you have seen in another 

country? 

I would love to learn more about the mapping that has taken 

place in Kansas. Are there insights that you would offer from the 

standpoint of the Federal, State jurisdictional puzzle? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Absolutely. Well, I think it is certainly the global 

trend that most national authorities have looked at this issue and 

recognized you have to get every level of government in the room 

in order to enable high-volume commercial operations. And so you 

see that in Germany, where there is a delegation of authority down 

to the State level. We see the U.K. just announced a city-based 

drone innovation program. And you are seeing that in a variety of 

other—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Well, and how have they done that in such a way 

so that, for Mr. Ball’s organization, he is not having to contact five 

different, you know, governmental jurisdictions to go ahead and 

check the power line, or check the house that was damaged after 

a hurricane? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Absolutely. So I think there is a number of different nascent approaches, and I won’t go through them all, given 

the time constraints here. But I would call attention again to the 

formation of the pilot program requires people to solve for exactly 

that problem. 

And by not isolating it to just be localities by themselves, but 

also the coordinating role that States can play, I am encouraged— 

so long as we have congressional action to help support that pilot 

program and direct the FAA in that regard—that we are going to 

38 

see those best practices emerge because of the volume of activity 

to solve those problems that we see accrue there. 

Mr. SANFORD. I would ask other questions, but I see I am out of 

time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Yes. 

Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There has been a lot 

of very interesting talk. 

Mr. Goodwin, your company is in southern California, and leading the way in aerospace management of drones. In my district, 

San Gabriel Valley includes the foothills where we had multiple 

forest fires, due to the drought, threaten hundreds of homes and 

evacuated thousands of people. At one point the fire department 

was forced to stop the aerial firefighting due to the presence of private drones. 

What can be done, or what is being done to stop the use of 

drones? Is it the responsibility of local cities, the—to institute local 

ordinances? And how would they get the information to the general 

public? 

By the same token, are there any instructions in the sale of the 

drones to either register them or where they could be flown? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, so happy to answer the different parts of the 

question there. 

I think focusing on the information-sharing side, that is where 

companies like AirMap play a role. There is a growing and thriving 

USS/UTM ecosystem of companies that are trying to aggregate that 

kind of data, and then service it for users. 

Ideally, in a perfect world, what you have heard is that it is not 

a discretionary act, but responsible manufacturers set geofences on 

their drones. Once you have a dynamic, persistent connection, you 

have a connected drone, then the fact of a wildfire is—I don’t want 

to say it is an insignificant challenge, but it is a challenge that 

technology can solve for. 

We have computer-aided dispatch in our platform that people can 

automate their drones to not take off or to route around, and that 

includes things like local fires, not even just wildfires, which may 

be significantly larger. And I referenced it earlier, that was our 

partnership with the Department of the Interior, which became 

public and a number of other companies participated in to service 

that data. 

So I think there is a lot that technology can do there, independent of any particular local action. In terms of what is the best 

practice, again I think there is an opportunity for—through the 

pilot program to really test out the right regulatory models, just 

like we will see companies testing out the right business models. 

And hopefully, from that, we will see a lot more—the data that gets 

directly on point. 

I think—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Does the FAA prohibit cities from instituting 

their own ordinances? 

Mr. GOODWIN. So I will direct that question to the FAA on the 

next panel. I think they have issued guidance, and that is obviously a balancing line between where the FAA’s authority ends and 

where a city’s authority begins. 

39 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, when you have the information, as Dr. 

Alonso was stating, who generates and who keeps and disseminates the information on the drones? And where is this stored? 

Who can have access to it? 

Dr. ALONSO. You mean the information about ownership and location, or you mean information about flights—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. All of it, all of it, because it is a new technology that we—although it wasn’t really new. Twenty-some-odd 

years ago I spoke to a woman who was having drones for the movie 

industry. 

Dr. ALONSO. Well, I think, in general, what you need is a credible, honest, and neutral broker of that information, so you know 

that it is going to be provided accurately, and that it is going to 

be represented accurately or portrayed accurately, as well, I think. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But so far who handles it? 

Dr. ALONSO. Well, I imagine it would be the FAA in this particular case, right? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But the Government moves very slow. 

Dr. ALONSO. Yes, although they—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. This was pointed out. 

Dr. ALONSO. They have been successfully shown that this can be 

done for commercial aviation. I think, with the aid of new information technologies with companies like AirMap and others, you may 

streamline the processes that led to the existing databases to make 

them much larger, and much more available. So—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And does the industry talk to academia and 

to the FAA? Do they work in concert? 

Dr. ALONSO. Yes, I think so. I think all these pilot programs are 

essentially set up, such that these types of communications do take 

place. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, in a visit to the Port of Los Angeles recently with Chairman Graves, the port police highlighted the concern they have on authorized users interested in the landmark status of port complex flying drones unsafely through ships, cranes, 

and other equipment. 

And I would like to know if you know what is being done to address unauthorized drones on those landmarks and the airports. 

Dr. ALONSO. I don’t think I can answer that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Goodwin? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Specifically in reference to the port, who we have 

chatted with—and I think there is a lot of really fascinating, forward-thinking folks there—I think this is a great opportunity to 

show a combined picture of the airspace, because on the flip side 

of the coin is the commercial operations that a number of folks 

within port facilities want to do to use drones. 

But to do that you have to have a combined picture of the airspace. The good actors and the bad actors are just perhaps reckless 

folks—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Or unknowingly. 

Mr. GOODWIN. Or unknowingly in that airspace. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Because you have an area where you have 

beaches and people decide to fly them, well, for recreation uses, 

and they fly by the ports. 

40 

Mr. GOODWIN. Absolutely. Absolutely. So it creates a complicated 

airspace. And that is where I think companies like AirMap and 

counter-UAS companies can provide a combined picture of the airspace to help start to solve some of those problems. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is to the panel. 

The FAA estimates that the hobbyists’ UAS fleet will be more 

than triple the size in the next 4 years. On the commercial side, 

there will be a tenfold increase. You know, this is becoming a 

multibillion-dollar industry that will only grow in the future. 

You know, I represent an area that was once a thriving industrial district. I would like to ask what does this mean for American 

manufacturing? I know DJI, the Chinese company, is one of the 

biggest manufacturers of drones. Does anyone on the panel see 

where we can move forward in the United States in this effort? 

Mr. WYNNE. Yes, sir. That is a great question. We have been 

forecasting a lot of economic activity, not only in the industry itself, 

but also value added to companies such as Southern Company, et 

cetera, for their business models. So I think it is very, very good 

for the economy. You know, our estimates, which are in my testimony, are as we integrate into the airspace, more and more value 

accrues. 

So there is—we have a shortage of pilots in this country for 

manned aircraft, and a growing number of unmanned pilots for the 

commercial sector. Those unmanned pilots increasingly, as we get 

to automatic airspace authorizations—and automation is a word I 

have been trying to get out here during this panel, and I haven’t 

gotten to it yet, but automation is really, really key. And more and 

more of that automation will enable scale. More people will make 

a living doing this, whether it be adding value to particular industries or, you know, repairing drones and such nature. 

Mr. PAYNE. OK. 

Sir? 

Mr. GOODWIN. So I think one of the themes that you have heard 

is not just scale, but also the particular applications that we have 

heard, say, that Southern Company want to pursue. When we have 

high volumes of particular applications, it is going to create a much 

more rich ecosystem, a larger pie that other manufacturers can 

participate in. 

And that is where, I think, we are going to see some greater competition and greater opportunity for domestic industries when we 

see the airspace get unlocked to a whole variety of use cases, where 

building to a particular use case might give them a competitive advantage. 

Mr. PAYNE. And so, also as this grows—as you were saying, Mr. 

Wynne—there would be opportunity for a larger market of pilots 

for these in industry, correct? 

Mr. WYNNE. Absolutely. And we have been—we stood up our Remote Pilots Council earlier this year. Training is starting to come 

online. Trainers are starting to transition over to the unmanned 

space from the manned space, or to expand into that space. 

So there is a lot of opportunity here, and I come back to we have 

a pilot shortage. This is a lower barrier to entry for pilots than, you 

41 

know—and a way to get people interested in aviation, whether it 

be actually flying drones, designing drones, designing the software, 

designing the middleware that goes into corporate and enterprise 

systems, all the way to the repair work that is going to be required. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, thank you. 

Mr. Ball? 

Mr. BALL. Well, I would just like to say, too, I think, as the industry expands and grows, it provides a great opportunity, too, for 

the men and women in the military who have learned how to fly 

unmanned aircraft there. This becomes a great job opportunity for 

them. And in the utility industry we have been very focused on 

really reaching out to veterans and those folks who are coming out 

of the military. So I think there is a win-win for just a whole lot 

of sectors here. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Alonso? 

Dr. ALONSO. Yes, I think buried in your question is how we nurture the development of industries that utilize drones, develop 

drones, produce drones here in the U.S. And I think putting together—the best thing you can do is put together the infrastructure 

to enable large-scalability. So many hundreds of thousands of 

drones flying simultaneously, such that these business cases can 

actually be built. 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, thank you. You answered my second question, 

so I will yield back. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. OK. I would like to thank our panel, thank you 

for your expertise, thank you for willingness to work with us. We 

look forward to continuing the dialogue and continuing to try to 

find ways to move this forward so that we can best optimize the 

opportunities, so to speak. And this first panel, you are dismissed. 

Thank you. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Elwell, are you ready? Thanks. 

We are—we will now move to the second panel with Mr. Daniel 

Elwell, Deputy Administrator of the FAA. 

Mr. Elwell, you are recognized for a statement. 

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL K. ELWELL, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY 

EARL LAWRENCE, DIRECTOR, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION OFFICE, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. ELWELL. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

share what the FAA is doing to safely integrate unmanned aircraft 

technology—— 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Excuse me. Could you pull the mic a little closer, 

please? 

Mr. ELWELL. Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity to share 

what the FAA is doing to safely integrate unmanned aircraft technology into our Nation’s airspace. And thank you, Chairman 

LoBiondo, for your years of public service. Your unfailing support 

of the FAA, and the work performed at the technical center has 

been critical to the advancement of U.S. aviation, and we owe you 

a great debt of gratitude. 

42 

Accompanying me today is Earl Lawrence, the Executive Director 

of the FAA’s UAS Integration Office. Drones are the fastest growing field in aviation. What was once little more than a novelty is 

now used for commercial operations, public safety, law enforcement, and emergency response. There are 95,000 commercial 

drones operating in the United States going places that would otherwise be dangerous for people or other vehicles. 

The influx of new casual drone users continues to escalate, even 

beyond our most aggressive projections. It is estimated that the full 

integration of drones could reach a national economic benefit of $82 

billion and 100,000 jobs within the decade. 

Within this context, the need for the United States to safely and 

fully integrate this technology into America’s National Airspace 

System must be a national priority, which is why we are here. 

Led by Secretary Chao, the Department of Transportation has 

developed an ambitious vision. The FAA, in close coordination with 

organizations across the U.S. Government, intends to fully integrate unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace System, with 

drones operating safely and seamlessly with manned aircraft. They 

will occupy the same airspace and use many of the same air traffic 

management systems and procedures. 

Most countries seek only to accommodate drones, relying largely 

on operational segregation to maintain systemic safety. The vision 

of the United States is bigger and better. We seek to integrate, not 

segregate. We have made significant progress since our last appearance before this committee. 

In August 2016 we implemented a rule to govern small drones 

called part 107. It provides a working foundation for UAS integration, while still providing flexibility to allow the FAA to keep pace 

with technological advances. Since then, the FAA has issued 70,000 

remote pilot certificates, 1,100 operational waivers, and over 10,000 

authorizations for controlled airspace operations. 

We agree with Congress. The challenges remain. The FAA’s 2016 

extension pointed to physical security, cybersecurity, privacy, and 

enforcement. And recognizing these challenges, the President directed us to launch a UAS Integration Pilot Program last month. 

This program allows us to leverage the experience of our stakeholders, working in partnership with State, local, and Tribal governments. 

This program will likely evaluate concepts like night operations, 

flights over people, flights beyond the pilot’s visual line of sight, 

package delivery, detect and avoid technologies, and data links between pilot and aircraft. It will identify ways to balance local and 

national interests, improve communications with State, local, and 

Tribal jurisdictions, and accelerate the approval of operations that 

now require special authorizations. 

Industry and stakeholder engagement remains the backbone for 

integration. Our UAS industry partners have demonstrated extended and beyond-line-of-sight operations to support upcoming 

rulemaking. We also chartered a Drone Advisory Committee to 

help prioritize integration activities. Furthermore, we formed the 

Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team with industry to identify risks 

and develop mitigation strategies. 

43 

Now, there is still much to do. Congress can support these efforts 

by ensuring that all UAS operators abide by the same requirements and certification standards that we apply to all aircraft that 

operate in the airspace. To that end, remote identification and 

tracking will be a key component to full integration, such as operations beyond visual line of sight and operations over people. 

We deeply appreciate the National Defense Authorization Act 

that Congress passed 2 weeks ago that reinstates the registration 

rules for all small, unmanned aircraft. 

All of us involved in integrating unmanned aircraft into our Nation’s airspace are helping write a new chapter in aviation history. 

I believe we will recognize the full economic promise and technological advances unmanned aircraft represent. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you for your statement. 

So I was wondering if you could share with us your vision or priorities for the top several steps to be taken for integration of UAS 

into domestic airspace. And for me, very importantly, what additional role can be played at the tech center utilizing their expertise 

and their ability to go, I think, way beyond what they have been 

asked to do already? 

Mr. ELWELL. Mr. Chairman, I agree that the tech center is going 

to be vitally important to the efforts that we have going forward. 

They have already contributed to much of the work that we have 

done in section 2206 with detection at airports. They have 

interacted with the COEs [Centers of Excellence], and we have gotten a lot of good work and data and analysis from the tech center. 

The key to this endeavor is that collaboration has been the number-one most important thing, because this is an emerging industry. So we need, as you have heard, phenomenal brains and experts 

on the industry side. We have to coordinate and collaborate with 

local communities and municipalities. 

And, of course, one of the bigger challenges, frankly, is to coordinate our activities and our incremental approach to regulating this 

emerging industry with our Government partners. And there are 

quite a few interests across Government in this endeavor. 

So the idea is to do it incrementally. The idea is to use a soft 

touch where we can use a soft touch, but a firmer touch where it 

is needed. And we are currently in the process of finding out where 

that line is, and how to make that demarcation. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you. And I would ask you to continue to 

look at better utilization of the expertise that we have at our fingertips at the tech center, which, as I think you know, I believe 

have an ability to go beyond where they have gone, and would welcome the challenge of working closer on this. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Would you yield me the rest of your time? 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Sure. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Because I have just a quick question. I think I 

have previewed what I was going to ask. Would you yield? 

Mr. LOBIONDO. I would think about it, yes. Yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. That is what happens when guys retire. They don’t 

give a damn anymore about who their—the gentleman yields? 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Yes. 

44 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. The question, as I—I questioned the last panel about remote identification. What is the—why 

can’t we get that rule in place? Because it seems to me to be the 

simplest thing to do, to be able to start to be able to monitor safety, 

security, law enforcement, and those things. So could you tell me 

what seems to be that—the holdup? 

Mr. ELWELL. Of course the whole issue of ID and tracking is a— 

performance-based. There isn’t—we are not looking to identify a 

specific technology. We are looking for industry’s input on what is 

available, and then what is available, will it scratch the itch, will 

it get done what we need to have done in controlled airspace? 

I don’t know the technical, scientific specifics of it, but my colleague, Earl Lawrence, he was the designated Federal officer for 

the ID and tracking ARC, and I am sure he can—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sure. 

Mr. ELWELL [continuing]. Give you more detail, sir. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. So thank you very much—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Microphone. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Thank you very much. And to build on Mr. 

Elwell’s comments, I wanted to highlight the—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Can you pull that mic a little closer to you? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. You have got to pull the whole box. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Pull the whole box. There we go. 

Mr. SHUSTER. There you go. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. A little better. Thank you very much. 

And to build on Mr. Elwell’s comments, I wanted to highlight the 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee that we did host this summer. 

And I think it was a matter of priorities, of which thing do we tackle first. And now that ID is at the top of our priority list, having 

the collaboration and the involvement of our partners, both public 

and—particularly public safety was a great benefit. 

And what we were looking for them to do is, one, identify what 

the wants and needs were at the local level, what do our public 

safety officers need in the field to assist them. We understand what 

we need from an air traffic standpoint, but we also needed to have 

a good understanding of all the various technologies that are available to us. 

As was highlighted in the panel previously, the technology is 

evolving so quickly, we wanted their assistance and their knowledge so that we were not identifying one particular solution, but 

getting their expertise and knowledge on how we could develop a 

performance-based standard. And now that we have their report, 

we are moving forward with—we will be moving forward with our 

rulemaking activity. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So we will see something in short order, then? A 

matter of months? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Rulemaking is a very deliberative process—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. I know. 

Mr. LAWRENCE [continuing]. Will take time to—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. And that seems to be sometimes the problem. So 

I will end it there, my time has expired. I don’t want to cut into 

Mr. Larsen’s time. 

45 

But I would say, you know, we have been dealing with the issue 

of distracted drivers. And the industry is coming forward, saying 

if you put this rule in place, it is not going to matter 6 months from 

now or 1 year from now, so why don’t you work closely with the 

industry and, as our panel before said, put the rule in place, deploy 

the technology, deploy the rule, and then let’s review it every 6 

months, every year, to tweak it, to change it to the technology. 

So again, I would encourage you to work as fast as you can on 

this, and it is something I am very interested in. So I would like 

to keep in touch with you as you move forward. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. WOODALL [presiding]. The chairman yields back. 

Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Elwell, yesterday was the deadline for the State, local, and 

Tribal governments to register their interests in participating in 

the Integration Pilot Programs, I understand. How many notices of 

intent did FAA receive? 

Mr. ELWELL. I don’t know the exact number, sir. But it is hundreds. It has been a—we have been very happy with the response. 

Mr. LARSEN. At some point would the list of applicants be made 

public? How are you approaching that? 

Mr. ELWELL. So I am not sure. Because it is an acquisition process that ends up with an MOU [memorandum of understanding] 

with the participants, I am not quite sure how much of the information can be made public. But we will get back to you on that. 

Mr. LARSEN. Can you do that? 

Mr. ELWELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, thanks. Earlier this year it was reported the 

Drone Advisory Committee had been divided with regards to determining proper roles of different levels of government and regulating UAS operations. What is the current status of the DAC’s 

work? Is it—did you tell them to go back to the drawing board? Did 

you say thank you very much? Did—where are we at with that? 

Mr. ELWELL. So I think you are referencing task group 1, the 

task group that was—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. 

Mr. ELWELL [continuing]. Charged with that question. And that 

was before my time. 

In looking at it as I took over, I felt it was quite a bit to ask of 

that committee, quite frankly. And they briefed out at our last 

meeting in Seattle, and what we informed them is that, with the 

advent of the UAS Integration Pilot Program, we are going to 

retask that group to—as Dr. Alonso suggested, and I agree wholeheartedly, is that we need to retask task group 1 to be more narrow and more specific on the data we need to collect and the data 

we maybe don’t need to collect, and how we can use the data, going 

forward. And that is data across everything that we are going to 

do with the IPP. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. Getting back to Dr. Alonso’s answer to my 

question on data sharing, do you have—we have any limitations on 

sharing data from different States, different interest groups as we 

move forward on the UAS Integration Pilot Program? 

46 

Mr. ELWELL. I think that the—our only limitation is what the 

participants are willing to provide. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK. 

Mr. ELWELL. And, of course, our hope is that it will be much like 

we have done with legacy aviation and CAST [Commercial Aviation 

Safety Team], ASIAS, is to get agreements with all providers so 

that, as Dr. Alonso said, we have a constant flow of data and information that helps us understand the technology, so we can better 

regulate it. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. I just know that this is one of the hurdles we 

had when we set up the six or so test sites in the 2012 bill, I think, 

or whenever we last did it. But that one of the limitations that resulted in the test sites not being fully utilized was the issue of proprietary information and how it is being shared. 

So you know, if that hurdle still exists, we are still going to have 

the same problem. If there is a way to reach that hurdle, get over 

that hurdle, then we would actually—if you find a solution, let us 

know on that. 

Mr. ELWELL. Thank you. I agree, it is a hurdle, and we do need 

to get beyond it. 

Mr. LARSEN. Earlier this year the administration—so they 

were—they have a two-for-one Executive order on eliminating regulations before adding regulations. As you are moving through this 

particular exercise and UAS, are you running into any of these 

two-for-one problems? 

Mr. ELWELL. No. What we are trying to do is have a discussion, 

intergovernmentally, how we are going to treat emerging technologies because, of course, there is not a lot of regulation in existence. So within the confines of UAS, or another commercial space, 

for instance, where do you—where would you do the two-for-one? 

Or, you know, do we want to do two-for-one for something that 

could be so economically beneficial to the country? 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, great. That is all I have. 

Mr. Lawrence, do you have anything you wanted to add? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. No, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Great. Thank you very much. Oh, yes? 

Mr. ELWELL. I would add we do have a DOT regulatory task 

force, which is looking at this very issue, and meets regularly. 

Mr. LARSEN. OK, great, thank you. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from 

California, Mr. LaMalfa. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my apologies to 

the committee and panelists for my not being able to be present 

earlier. We had a Natural Resources Committee hearing also at the 

same time on NEPA and possible reforms to that, which kind of 

dovetails with part of my conversations on the unmanned aircraft, 

drones, et cetera. 

My district in the Western States have a lot of forestry, and a 

lot of remote areas and so the unmanned aircraft, the drones, 

would be very, very useful for a lot of aspects for inspection of infrastructure. 

I am also working on a bill, bipartisan bill with Mr. Schrader 

from Oregon, on easing up the process to remove hazardous trees 

that would be around power lines on Federal lands. So that should 

47 

be pretty obvious. You got a dying tree or a hazardous tree that 

could fall against a power line, you get two bad things, blackouts 

to the city area that—where the line is generally going to, and 

blackened skies from the forest fires is probably going to happen 

in the immediate area. 

So we believe that, especially given some of the rugged terrain 

you are dealing with, where transmission lines are going many 

miles across forested and other, you know, remote areas, that this 

is a very important tool for the inspection of those, very cost effective, and environmentally correct, and all that. 

So with what we are looking at, does—Mr. Elwell, do you see 

that—well, just a brief answer—is that a pretty important aspect 

of what you are trying to promote in your policy, of course? 

Mr. ELWELL. Absolutely. 

Mr. LAMALFA. OK. And then, what we are also seeing is that everybody wants to jump in on the regulation of these aircraft. So— 

and I am a little torn on this, because, of course, I would like to 

have local jurisdictions have strong input, and the ability to have 

things tailored to what they need. 

I have—you know, the Oroville Dam is right in my backyard of 

my district, as well, so there was a great amount of interest in 

what was going on with the dam, with the broken spillway, in the 

several months’ worth of infrastructure repair to that. And they 

have been very successful at that. But, you know, a lot of aircraft 

work needed to be done with helicopters. And so you just don’t always want drones running around the middle of that or in, you 

know, forest fire areas or other emergency situations. 

So what is the balance, do you see, with local—you know, local 

jurisdictions, whether it is States or counties or cities having their 

own drone—and if this is a redundant question, my apologies for 

not being here earlier—but having their own jurisdictions they are 

setting up on that, their own rules, versus a—you know, the map 

of the U.S., the airspace doesn’t really care about county lines, 

State lines, et cetera. 

What is the best course on that for the right type of regulation? 

And what can local input have on that to dovetail well with a countrywide regulation? 

Mr. ELWELL. Well, sir, that is a great question. And that is what 

we started talking about earlier with the Drone Advisory Committee test group 1’s efforts to look at that issue. 

But the UAS Integration Pilot Program that we started—and the 

early applications just ended—that is the nut we are trying to 

crack. We want to let local communities, States, Tribal authorities 

do time, use, and manner restrictions, present to us the time, use, 

and manner restrictions that they would like to impose, executing 

their application of their pilot project. 

And as long as it doesn’t interfere with the FAA’s responsibility 

to keep the navigable airspace safe, then we ought to be able to do 

it, and we ought to gather a lot of data and a lot of information 

going forward. I mean that is the whole purpose, really, of the pilot 

project, in addition to, of course, enabling this technology to grow. 

We need to find that sweet spot, I think was what somebody said 

about it in the first panel. We need to find that sweet spot. 

48 

Mr. LAMALFA. It can’t be easy with, you know, the type of uses, 

you know, I was speaking of in infrastructure and rural areas. But 

then you have a complete opposite, where there is movement to 

have packages delivered home to home in neighborhoods like that, 

which, I guess, would be pretty amazing. But also, you know, concerns, as well. 

Does that come down to privacy issues with delivering to the 

wrong neighbor? And what does that all feel like with, you know, 

the other stories you hear about privacy invasion by these things 

with cameras? How would you, in my remaining time, touch that 

side of it? 

Mr. ELWELL. So that is an interesting concept that you are talking about, dense airspace versus rural airspace. And they each 

present unique problems. And the airspace you were talking about 

in your district is class G airspace. So it is uncontrolled. 

But as a result, we don’t always know what aircraft are in G airspace in any given time. It might actually be easier to do certain 

drone testing in the complex airspace, because only aircraft that 

are identified and being tracked and monitored by air traffic control are in that airspace. So, in a way, it is almost easier to allow 

that and permit that and to get data from that scenario. But they 

each have their own unique challenges, and we are hoping that the 

applications for the pilot project—that we get plenty from both regimes so that we can gather data. 

Mr. LAMALFA. All right. Let us know how we can help. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I think everyone can agree that there 

are certain places that drones can’t fly. So when we were doing the 

2016 FAA extension, section 2209 envisioned a process by which 

operators of critical infrastructure facilities could seek approval to 

create no-fly zones for safety and security reasons. 

But the process, unfortunately, envisioned by section 2209 remains unresolved. I know Mr. Davis had brought this up in the— 

during the first panel. And I have worked across the aisle with 

members of this committee, including Representative Sanford, to 

improve the language and create a system that works for the FAA, 

for UAS operators, and for critical infrastructure stakeholders. 

It doesn’t require facilities to apply for a designation, and it 

doesn’t ask them to disclose any information about the facility that 

would compromise security. All it would do is make public the geographic location and boundaries of a critical infrastructure airspace 

designation. 

I think it is only fair that stakeholders have the opportunity to 

comment on possible changes to the airspace, and will only work 

if these designations reside in a central repository, so that operators know where to look to find out where they can and can’t fly. 

So, Mr. Elwell, what role, if any, does the FAA see for section 

2209 authorities under the new UAS integration, that pilot program? 

Mr. ELWELL. So section 2209, we have been working diligently on 

section 2209 within the constructs of our own authority, authority 

that we have today in 997, I think it is. And, as a result, mostly 

working with DoD, we have over 900 of these sensitive facilities 

49 

that we have restricted drone use—to your point, they have created 

these spaces where drones can’t go. 

We do have some limitations on our authority to draw those 

lines. We have a couple of security locations that we have collaborated with Department of the Interior—right? I am going to let 

Earl take over the details on this, but we are conscious of it, and 

we are with you. We want to have a database of these places that 

we don’t—we want to have a sort of no-drone activity, and we are 

working on it. 

Earl? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes. So to build a little bit more on Mr. Elwell’s 

comments, we have been working with the Department of Energy, 

the Department of Defense, and the Department of the Interior to 

designate additional areas as restricted areas for drone use at low 

altitude. 

In addition to that, we have been working with DHS and meeting with their stakeholder groups to get the feedback from their infrastructure stakeholder folks that they have put together after 9/ 

11 to understand what their needs are, and how we might categorize what facilities would need protection of these particular 

drone—no-drone zones. 

One of the things that we are looking at is education, as well. 

Not only education of the users, and asking people to stay away 

from these facilities, but it is also a matter of education that, in 

many cases, most of these facilities are already in restricted airspace, where these operations are not supposed to be occurring as 

they are today. 

So we are looking at their—other opportunities, such as our ID 

and tracking methods, so that we can identify the people who are 

already violating these, and then we can—to have additional counseling and education based on that. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Because this is very important that we do move 

forward on this, because I receive a lot of comments about the lack 

of clarity, and we need to move forward on this. 

In the remaining time I have, I just want to throw this question 

out there quickly. With the UAS Integration Pilot Program, the 

issue of enforcement, how is that going to work, is there going to 

be local enforcement? It really lies with—enforcement really lies— 

the authority lies with the FAA. How is that possibly going to 

work? 

So Mr. Elwell? 

Mr. ELWELL. So, as I was talking about earlier, finding that balance—and as we go forward in the pilot project, and they get started, you know, we need to balance the needs of the localities with 

our responsibility to operate in—safely and manage the navigable 

airspace. 

The pilot program is going to provide an opportunity for us to 

work with the local jurisdictions to understand their needs in managing their areas of responsibility. And of course, public safety, privacy, trespass, you know, those kinds of things within the low-level 

airspace that the applicant wants to use, and we will work with 

those communities on setting the time, place, and manner restrictions to meet their needs, and not disrupt the safe and efficient use 

of the airspace. 

50 

And those restrictions that would be in the pilot program enacted 

by the local government by legislation or regulation would be monitored and enforced locally, and FAA would just continue to enforce 

any Federal law. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. I think this is going to be—as you alluded to—difficult to do. So it is going to be something important that this committee keep oversight over that. 

Thank you, I will yield back. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentleman yields back. Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Elwell, one of the questions I had of the 

prior panel dealt with FAA. Were there any restrictions for local 

entities to provide ordinances prohibiting the flying of drones in 

that space? 

Mr. ELWELL. So as we have been discussing—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I can’t hear you, sir. 

Mr. ELWELL. As we—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Just move it up, closer. 

Mr. ELWELL. OK, sorry. As we have been discussing, the whole 

intent of the pilot project is to establish those lines of community 

involvement in their time, use, and manner restrictions that make 

sense for localities, many of which they have today, and they use 

today. 

You know, the—we are in charge of the navigable airspace, so we 

are in charge of aircraft and taking off and landing. And, of course, 

as Administrator Huerta has said many times, what drones in effect do is make every rooftop, every backyard, you know, every corner, a potential airport, a potential takeoff and landing spot. 

So what we are going to do is we are going to work out where 

the local interests and the FAA’s navigable airspace interests come 

together, and—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, excuse me, but in southern California 

that is going to be very hard, because you have airports right in 

the middle of communities. And as I explained, in the ports there 

is beaches that are adjacent to the water ports. And so it is going 

to be hard to determine exactly where the line can be drawn. 

Mr. ELWELL. Right. Yes, and as I said, in the pilot project we are 

hoping and looking for communities to present to us where 

local—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Have you asked them yet? 

Mr. ELWELL. Yes. That is the—it is in the SIR [Screening Information Request] and it is online, and—all of the requirements of 

the pilot project and what we are asking. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK, sir. The FAA was prepared to propose 

new regulations for unmanned aircraft operations over people in 

January, but pulled back at the last minute due to national security concerns. Since then there has been an informal hold on all 

UAS rulemakings. In the meantime, other countries are moving aggressively and ambitiously towards the regulations to attract investment in the technology. 

Have the law enforcements and national security communities 

communicated to FAA or to the industry or—what will it take for 

the agency to lift the hold? 

Mr. ELWELL. So we are in constant communication with our Government colleagues in the national security area. 

51 

In fact, I think, Earl, we had a number of representatives from 

law enforcement on the ID ARC, discussing exactly—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Federal and local? 

Mr. ELWELL. Federal, and we had local representation talking 

about what they would need for that comfort level that they didn’t 

have when we were getting ready to do the over-people rule last 

year. 

So yes, we are in consultation, we are finding out what we need 

to do to give them comfort in—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And how long will it take to process that—to 

go into rulemaking? 

Mr. ELWELL. That is a hard prediction to make, because of the 

intergovernmental review process. But our hope is to get it done 

with—efficiently and as quickly as possible. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. The rulemaking on small UAS has made 

tremendous strides toward the safe integration of commercial 

drones into the national airspace. However, commercial drones cannot operate beyond the operator’s visual line of sight or over people, 

unless permitted by FAA, like commercial delivery. 

You have issued more than 1,000 waivers. Can you please explain what the criteria of FAA is? 

Mr. ELWELL. So that question is—the man who has done 1,000 

waivers—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. All yours. 

Mr. ELWELL [continuing]. To best answer that question, Earl. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. All right. Thank you, Mr. Elwell. 

Most of the criteria that we outline and the waivers that—we try 

to be performance-based. And when we issued the final rule for 

part 107, the small UAS rule, we included in its preamble information of what were the safety issues that an individual would have 

to address when they applied for a waiver. 

When we received waiver applications, we look for that information, because they need to address the safety of the operation that 

they are conducting. And obviously, every operation is different. An 

operation rural would have a different set of safety risks versus in 

a city. 

In addition, we work very closely and collaboratively with our industry partners. I have personally conducted multiple webinars 

with AUVSI and educating applicants of this is the type of information that they should be bringing forward. 

We have updated our website where we provide instruction right 

on our website of here is the information that we need in order to 

obtain these waivers. 

Again, this is a new environment. We are learning, as well as the 

operators. So we don’t have the answers to everything for every circumstance. And, because of that, it is a bit of a deliberative process, as we work with the applicants to advance their operations. 

I am happy to say we—you know, night operations have become 

almost commonplace, because it was clearly understood how to 

comply with that. We now have CNN operating over people, and 

they have shown how they could safely operate an aircraft over 

people. And we do have some beyond-line-of-sight operations with 

our partners, as well. 

52 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, with the indulgence of the chair, I want 

to ask one more question, and that regarding personnel that is 

equipped or ready or trained. Do you work with the universities to 

attract people who have an interest in the technology? 

Mr. ELWELL. And the STEM program, of course, has national interests way beyond DOT and FAA. But Secretary Chao just announced a few weeks ago a program called Forces to Flyers, where 

we are going to focus on working with educational entities to bring 

veterans who are coming off their service to our country, and getting them into—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, that is for veterans. I am talking about 

students who understand the technology and can help FAA upgrade their knowledge. 

Mr. ELWELL. We—and I don’t know, Earl, if we have an active 

recruitment process in that area. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. So I will just build a little bit on what Mr. Elwell 

said. Per—under the direction of this committee we have our Center of Excellence. And part of the Center of Excellence, not only is 

it partnering with the universities, it has also included a STEM 

program for education. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But is it directly—— 

Mr. LAWRENCE. And we are—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO [continuing]. Addressing FAA and drones? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes, specifically FAA and drones. It is the 

drone—it is the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center of Excellence 

partnering with the universities who are doing a lot of our basic 

research. And part of that legislation included science—you know, 

math and technology learning, and we do look for them—I like hiring from them as much as I can—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would like to know what the needs of the 

universities are, so we can share them with the rest of the committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. OK. 

Mr. WOODALL. The gentlelady yields back. With that reference 

to—from Mr. Lawrence of the direction of a committee, I will pick 

up—from the committee, I will pick up right there. I want to talk 

about section 2210 for a moment. 

We have talked a lot about pilot projects and how quickly folks 

are getting ramped up on the President’s request we move forward 

there. I want to talk about the committee’s request from July of 

2016. 

We heard testimony from the previous panel, from the Southern 

Company and a consortium of utility providers, to say they had applied both for part 107 waiver more than 12 months ago, as well 

as they are waiting on a guy that is from section 2210, passed almost 18 months ago. You all have limited resources with which to 

do your work, you are having to work for the exact same goal for 

this consortium under—on two separate tracks right now. 

I would be interested to know, number one, which track do you 

expect to yield fruit first and, number two, what we can do, as your 

partner here, partner in innovation, to keep you from having to go 

through the same process twice, as this ever-changing dynamic 

continues to grow in speed. 

53 

Mr. Elwell? 

Mr. ELWELL. Thank you, sir. First of all, we absolutely appreciate the diligence of this committee and the work that you have 

done to help us in our efforts to assimilate this technology. And I 

will pass section 2210 on to Earl. 

I will say, however—and I need to follow up with Billy and his— 

I think I am aware of the application he is talking about. And if 

it is the one I think he is talking about, we actually denied that 

request about 4 months after it was made. So we will follow up 

with him, and we will make sure that we are all on the same page. 

Earl, section 2210? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. So thank you. And just to build on that, on 2210, 

I would like to—I am happy to say we have two companies we are 

partnering with now on 2210. Specifically, they are Xcel Energy— 

so it is a power line company that we have what we call a safety 

partnership with, and we have outlined a program with them to 

get them to be online as site operations, as well as BNSF has recently applied under that legislation, as well. 

And I am happy to say that we are working, and more recently 

we received a request from the Southern Company to do a similar 

thing as those other two companies, and we have just started our 

discussions with them to add them into that program, as well. 

So again, we don’t have it all laid out, because it is new, and we 

are also understanding what section 2210 offers us and what does 

that give us, as far as additional authorities. But it does prioritize 

it. We take it very seriously. And infrastructure patrol is something 

very important, and we know you—it is your—top on your list. 

Mr. WOODALL. Help me to understand what that means, Mr. 

Lawrence. Two partnership companies, eighteen months’ worth of 

legislation, I know if I go and look at a part 107 waiver the FAA 

will say, ‘‘We are going to try to get you an answer back in 90 

days.’’ And to Mr. Elwell’s point, no is actually an answer. And so 

that counts in that timeframe. 

I make application under section 2210. I am also on a 90-day 

clock? I am on a 120-day clock? What do I expect, as an applicant? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. So what we are doing with those companies was 

we actually sit down with representatives that—across the FAA, so 

we have our aircraft certification folks, we have our flight standards folks, we have our Air Traffic Organization, and we sit down 

with them, face to face, and we work out a schedule and say, OK, 

what do you want to do? 

They first tell us what their concept of operation—what aircraft 

are they using, what airspace are they going to be operating, and 

they lay all that information out for us, and we identify the rules 

that are already in existence that they can comply with, and the 

additional rules that we may need to do a waiver or an exemption 

to, identify those things, and then we go on and we do a joint 

schedule with them to identify what the time would be to achieve 

their objective, because, as we know, quite often they have to bring 

testing data, they have to bring design data and information to the 

discussion, as well. 

And, in some cases, we have to include the Air Force and other 

organizations because the airspace that they are operating in is 

54 

joint use, and we need to bring in those other authorities to have 

this—— 

Mr. WOODALL. So if you were to ballpark that for me, that 

doesn’t sound like 90 days. About the third collaborative agency 

you had in there—I went ahead and ticked this up to 120, 180. 

What would you ballpark—— 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Yes, sir. So we meet immediately with them. 

And then we let them identify to us what the timeline—help identify what the timeline would be. 

If you are asking how long does it take, it depends on their 

project. But we are there, physically meeting face to face, answering those questions at that point, not 6 months—we are not taking 

data and a letter and then coming back 6 months later. We are sitting down with them, answering those questions, and identifying 

what needs to be done in order to do that operation safely. 

Mr. WOODALL. Thinking about that collaborative process, tell me 

about the Drone Advisory Committee, Mr. Elwell. What is it that 

the FAA sees as the best way to utilize the expertise on the DAC? 

Mr. ELWELL. So I am still getting to know the committee. My 

first reaction is that one of the best things we are getting from the 

Drone Advisory Committee is the socialization of a inhomogeneous 

group of people. I mean you have got brilliant technocrats who 

don’t know a thing about aviation. You have got folks that are used 

to doing technological iterations in days, talking to regulators 

who—we don’t do change in days. 

So one of the best things about the DAC is the ability of those 

two communities to come together and—really, we are learning 

from them and they are learning from us. We are learning ways 

that we can think faster, we can work faster. You know, our performance-based, risk-based regulatory philosophy now is much closer to how they look and do things and move out. 

So that is just sort of the philosophical side that the DAC is benefitting us. But they are also providing some, you know, tremendous guidance. And we have people like Dr. Alonso on the DAC, 

and we have the heads of many of aviation’s top trade associations. 

So it is a brain trust that is providing a great amount of information to us. So it is—they are very valuable. 

Mr. WOODALL. I am glad to hear that very positive review of who 

we have there. 

What should we expect in terms of new taskings from the FAA, 

whether to RTCA or to DAC? What do you envision being requested of those folks, going forward? 

Mr. ELWELL. As I said, we are developing a new tasking for task 

group 1 to align with the pilot project, so that we can get their expertise in helping us gather data and implement the project. 

We are waiting. In March, task group 3 is going to give us their 

recommendations on funding. Task group 2 gave us some interesting recommendations. In fact, the one I mentioned earlier about 

we want FAA—task group 2 says FAA should go after operations 

in class B airspace. That is that counterintuitive—really, that is 

the most dense airspace, but that makes sense, because it is the 

most rigidly controlled airspace that we have. 

55 

So, going forward, it is hard to predict, because it is such a dynamic and changing technological environment. But we promise to 

keep you guys absolutely informed on our work, going forward. 

Mr. WOODALL. When we are talking about funding, do you have 

the funding tools that you need, as we sit here today, to make that 

happen? 

Mr. ELWELL. Yes, sir. Funding is not an issue. 

Mr. WOODALL. Well, thank you both for being here, and thank 

you for what you are doing. As—when panel 1 suggests that we 

should revisit the regulatory environment every 180 days because 

things are moving so fast, clearly you have your work cut out for 

you in staying that nimble. I look forward to our next meeting, Mr. 

Elwell, where you tell me again about the folks you work with who 

expect change in 3 days, about how we, as regulators, are now 

catching up to them in that model. 

With that, this hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

56 


Insert offset folio 7 here 28672.007

Talking Points for 

Ranking Member Rick Larsen 

Aviation Subcommittee Hearing on 

"Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration: 

Emerging Uses in a Changing National Airspace" 

• Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for holding today's 

hearing on unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) integration 

and their emerging uses. 

• This Subcommittee held a hearing earlier this year where 

we discussed the Federal Aviation Administration's 

readiness for new airspace users and technologies, and the 

promise those technologies hold for our aviation system 

and economy. 

• Chairman LoBiondo and I have ensured UAS have been a 

focus of this Subcommittee's oversight work in recent 

years. And our work will not slow down any time soon as 

UAS proliferate in U.S. airspace. 
57 


Insert offset folio 8 here 28672.008

• According to a leading research firm, UAS unit sales 

increased by 60 percent in 2016. They are estimated to 

have another 3 9 percent increase this year. 

• Projecting a bit further out, the FAA has forecast the 

commercial UAS fleet will increase tenfold by 2021. 

• Given that UAS can be purchased easily and at low costs, 

the hobbyist UAS fleet will grow by about 2 to 3 million 

units during that same period. 

• Beyond flying for fun, we cannot deny the extensive public 

and commercial benefits of unmanned aircraft. This 

industry is particularly important to my horne state of 

Washington-a thriving hub of aviation R&D. 

• As UAS have multiplied, so too have their applications. 

• Most recently, we saw how UAS played a vital role in 

recovery and rescue efforts following the hurricanes that 

ripped through parts of the United States and its territories. 

2 
58 


Insert offset folio 9 here 28672.009

• A variety of users in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands operated UAS to inspect the extent of 

damage to neighborhoods and local infrastructure. Several 

insurance companies used them to assess and verifY 

insurance claims, expediting the processing of such claims. 

• We also saw how helpful UAS can be in wildfire mitigation 

and response during and following the several fires that 

swept across multiple Western States, including my home 

state of Washington and the Full Committee Ranking 

Member's, Oregon. 

• I look forward to hearing from Verizon today about the 

work it is doing to help the residents of Puerto Rico whose 

homes and infrastructure were devastated by Hurricane 

Maria. And also from the FAA about how the agency was 

able to process and approve expeditiously applications to 

fly UAS to assist in such efforts, while ensuring the highest 

level of safety during those operations. 

3 
59 


Insert offset folio 10 here 28672.010

• With growing prominence, the UAS industry has great 

potential to drive economic growth and create jobs here in 

the United States, too. 

• Industry groups have estimated by 2025, the UAS industry 

can generate more than 100,000 jobs and billions of dollars 

in economic activity. 

• However, with the continued growth of the UAS industry, 

we must ensure both commercial and recreational users 

operate their aircraft in a safe and responsible manner. 

• The FAA receives more than 100 drone sighting reports 

each month. This reflects a continuing risk of collisions 

with manned aircraft, incursions with airports and other 

critical infrastructure, and mishaps over populated areas. 

• In fact, just this fall, a UAS collided with and damaged a 

U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter near Staten 

Island, New York; another UAS struck a commercial plane 

with 8 passengers in Quebec City, Canada. 

4 
60 


Insert offset folio 11 here 28672.011

• Thankfully, no one was injured during these events. 

However, the events serve as strong reminders of the 

inherent risk associated with introducing new users into our 

airspace system. 

• I look forward to hearing today from our witnesses about 

how this Subcommittee can be proactive in assuring skies 

crowded with UAS remain safe for conventional aircraft 

and the 800 million people who fly each year. 

• Our task, in short, is to give the FAA the proper authorities 

and resources necessary to accommodate, safely, the 

capabilities of this burgeoning industry. 

• Again, Chairman LoBiondo, thank you for calling this 

hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

5 
61 


Insert offset folio 12 here 28672.012

Testimony of Juan J. Alonso 

Professor of Aeronautics & Astronautics 

Stanford University 

on 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration: Emerging Uses in a Changing National Airspace 

before the Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U.S. House of Representatives 

November 29,2017 

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you to discuss my thoughts, opinions, and ideas to 

ensure that the United States remains the worldwide leader in Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs, 

also referred to as "drones" in this testimony) R&D, operations, and integration. Our ability to 

solve the complex problems that UASs face today depends heavily on a carefully-balanced 

combination of technology development, pilot programs, data collection, and on the use of 

probabilistic risk-based approaches for the right amount of regulation, while meeting privacy 

concerns. 

I am a professor in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Stanford University and a 

current member of the FAA Drone Advisory Council (DAC). In this testimony, I am appearing in 

a personal capacity and speaking solely for myself. I am therefore not representing the views of 

either Stanford University or the FAA DAC. 

Since I became a professor at Stanford University over 20 years ago, I have worked on the 

development of computational analysis and design methods to enable the creation and 

development of realizable and efficient aerospace systems. My research has involved advanced 

low-speed, transonic, and supersonic aircraft, launch and re-entry vehicles, jet engines, and drones. 

I began teaching drone courses at Stanford in 200 I, long before they were perceived as the next 

new thing, and have designed a variety of drone vehicles under the sponsorship of both industry 

and the federal government (NASA and NSF). Together with my students and research staff in 

the Aerospace Design Laboratory, we are responsible for open-source tools such as SUAVE 

(http://suave.stanford.edu) and SU2 (http://su2.stanford.edu) that are being used around the world 

for many new aircraft developments, including drones and electric Vertical Take-Off and Landing 

(VTOL) aircraft for personal air transportation. 

1 have served in the FAA Management Advisory Council (2011-14), the Secretary of 

Transportation's Future of Aviation Advisory Committee (2010-11), and the NASA Advisory 

Council (2005-06). I am currently a member of the FAA DAC and an Independent Expert in the 

ICAO/CAEP Integrated Review for Technology Goals in aviation noise, fuel burn, and emissions. 

I have received a number of awards and recognitions, including the NASA Exceptional Public 

Service Medal (2009) for my role as the Director of the Fundamental Aeronautics Program at 
62 


Insert offset folio 13 here 28672.013

NASA (2006-09), where I was responsible for all of the agency's vehicle technology R&D 

programs. 

Just as with many advanced technologies in aerospace engineering in the past 100 years, UASs 

find their origins in military technology investments and requirements. But a remarkable 

technology convergence that began in the early 2000s with the advent of miniaturized sensors, 

more powerful real-time computing capabilities, and a strong interest in research in perception, 

automatic control, and autonomy, has opened up the possibilities for the use of drones to a very 

large number of applications that have the potential to generate new capabilities and open new 

markets. Precision agriculture and infrastructure monitoring, fire-fighting, disaster recovery, 

package and medical supply delivery, law enforcement and border patrol, mapping and surveying, 

search and rescue, even journalism and aerial photography are but a few of the possible uses of 

this incredible new technology. 

Retaining US Leadership in UAS Technology and Integration 

Arguably, the United States has been at the forefront of R&D of the very capabilities that are 

enabling such a bright future for UASs. But this is just the beginning: much work remains to 

continue to nurture these new capabilities and to allow them to develop into the systems that will 

impact our society in many profound and beneficial ways. The rest of the world has not been 

sitting in the sidelines: multiple countries have recognized the potential civilian and military value 

of drone technologies and companies that produce small and medium-sized drones have been 

created and are thriving. These foreign companies are laying the foundation for more complex 

vehicles and uses and have come to dominate this market. The question I try to address in this 

written testimony is "what must the US do to retain leadership in a field that we had originally 

developed?" 

There are many technical obstacles that prevent more widespread development, integration, and 

acceptance of UASs in the United States and abroad. These can all be resolved through diligent 

and inspired technical breakthroughs that our engineering and scientific base is used to pursuing 

and accomplishing. With this comment, I do not intend to minimize the magnitude of these 

endeavors, but I will not focus on them in this testimony, given that the Subcommittee has already 

heard from my colleagues Prof. Mykel Kochenderfer (Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics, 

Stanford University) and Prof. Nicholas Roy (Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics, MIT) 

and they have made a compelling case for technology development to enhance the reliability, 

safety, communication, navigation, air traffic control, and manufacturing cost of future drone 

systems. 

Instead, in this testimony, I would like to focus on three separate areas of the regulatory 

environment that can further enhance capabilities and attempt to solve the policy-technology 

dilemmas that we are currently facing. First, during these early days in the development of UAS 

capabilities, we will need more flight testing experiences, not fewer; we will need more 

opportunities, with low barriers to entry, to try out new ideas, fail, try again, and eventually 

succeed: such is the iterative nature of most technology development programs and, in this case, 

these iterations will necessarily involve interactions with other stakeholders beyond the 

technology-based ones. The FAA UAS Test Sites, the FAA Pathfinder programs, and the recently-
63 


Insert offset folio 14 here 28672.014

announced UAS Integration Pilot Program are all steps in the right direction. Second, it is critical 

that all tests result in data of sufficient quality and in the appropriate amount so that they can be 

used to inform requirements I regulations for different levels of service in the NAS. Moreover, it 

is critical that this data be made openly available to the community for better insights and 

understanding. Third, we must setup a regulatory environment that provides a reasonable 

expectation of periodic and timely updates to the levels of service available to UAS operators for 

those who can demonstrate compliance with stricter requirements, as appropriate, to ensure safe 

operation in the NAS. 

There is ample evidence that multiple US companies are seeking a more predictable regulatory 

environment to conduct the testing of their UAS prototypes (see for example, WSJ, May 17, 2017 

"Welcome to the Jungle: Amazon's Australian Expedition to Rattle Retailers", and NYT, Oct 25, 

2017, "Trump to Open Skies to More Drone Testing".) How do we make sure that the situation 

in the United States encourages both US and foreign companies to develop and test here and not 

abroad? How do we setup the proper regulatory environment so that companies can plan for both 

the testing and deployment of their systems? How do we train and retain the technical talent that 

will be needed to realize this vision? How, above all, do we ensure that the jobs created by this 

new field stay here in the US? 

A Nimbler and More Rational Regulatory Process for UASs 

On the topic or regulation, and more importantly the predictability of upcoming regulatory 

requirements, it would be beneficial to ensure that the FAA embarks on a yearly cycle of updates 

to the existing rules. It would be useful to ensure that the FAA views updates to the UAS 

regulations like the standard software development cycle with periodic releases that update the 

regulatory framework. Take Part 107 - Small Unmanned Aircraft Regulations, for example. Part 

I 07 covers commercial uses of drones weighing less than 55 lbs for non-hobbyists and provides a 

certain level of service (daylight and twilight operations, under 400 ft of altitude, within visual line 

of sight, with a pilot certificate) with a minimum level·of requirements: the safety implications of 

operations in compliance with this rule are virtually non-existent. This level of safety is achieved 

by directly avoiding circumstances that may expose the uninvolved public to any level of risk. 

There are several small steps forward that will be required to realize the full potential ofUASs that 

many organizations are clamoring for today. In particular, flights over people, operations beyond 

visual line of sight (BVLOS) and/or at night, and flights in the proximity of buildings and 

structures all require the operators to follow a waiver process that is neither scalable nor conducive 

to understanding what might be possible (from the regulatory point of view) in the future. In the 

future, I would prefer to see a steady rhythm of updates to Part I 07 that enable operators to receive 

a higher level of service by complying with a clearly articulated set of increasingly stricter 

requirements to guarantee the desired level of safety. Such a process could begin with the 

increased services that have smaller safety impacts and progress towards scenarios where safety 

does become a major concern. The FAA is already conducting a series of Pathfinder Programs 

that have these precise objectives in mind. I would recommend that (a) these kinds of programs 

are significantly enhanced (perhaps through the UAS Pilot Integration Program or by enlisting 

additional participants into the existing programs), and that (b) a more concerted effort to learn 

from such experiences and disseminate the results is pursued. 
64 


Insert offset folio 15 here 28672.015

Note that I mention "required level of safety" in my comments above. The truth of the matter is 

that, at present, no technologist knows what this required level of safety ought to be for different 

kinds of vehicles and operations in the airspace. The "required level of safety" must be arrived at 

from direct involvement of policy makers such as yourselves, in consultation with experts in 

government, industry, and academia, as well as local governments and tbe public at large. The 

FAA has a key role to play in this area and has been able to navigate complex regulatory matters 

such as these ones in the past. 

Risk-based Probabilistic Safety Analyses and the Availability of High-quality Data 

The focus on a "required level of safety" that we must arrive at as a community, begs the question 

of how we measure the level of safety that a UAS I operator combination can achieve given the 

equipment that is available on board the vehicle and the amount of training that the operator has 

completed. This is truly a hard question and there are no easy answers. I personally believe (and 

given recent briefings I have received from the FAA in the context of the DAC, it appears that the 

FAA is in full agreement) that the only way to assess whether the combination of a given UAS 

and operator meets a "required level of safety" for a particular mission is by using a probabilistic 

risk-based analysis approach. Such an approach would control for the main variables of the 

problem and provide confidence intervals based on significant amounts of data collected during 

extensive flight trials. Let me state that again more clearly: we can only reach conclusions about 

levels of safety attained and the level of requirements in new regulations with significant amounts 

of high-quality data. Notice that, in addition, we must focus not only on the risk but also the 

consequences of accidents/incidents that occur. Witb a combination of risk and consequence we 

can truly make progress in setting regulations that make sense. 

This discussion begs two fundamental questions: how much data are needed and where will these 

data come from? The simple answer is that we will need lots of data and tbat we should collect 

these data (and should have been collecting them for some time) from every opportunity we have. 

This includes tbe recently-announced UAS Integration Pilot Program, the FAA Focus Area 

Pathfinder Program, and many other flight tests being conducted within the seven FAA UAS Test 

Sites. My colleagues from AirMap (and from other companies developing similar infrastructure) 

will probably tell you that we have the software system prototypes that can help collect, catalogue, 

classify, and mine the data for useful information that can influence regulations. I believe this to 

be the case. But we are far behind in setting up the proper data collection plans: what data should 

be collected? How do we make it easy for every operator to provide these data for further analysis? 

How do we maintain the anonymity of the operators to encourage truthful reporting of accidents 

and incidents? 

As far as data are concerned, I believe we are missing out on two key opportunities that should be 

addressed in the very near term: 

I. With the establishment of new UAS flight test programs we must require, as a condition 

for approval, that the operator share all data about all flights, and that this data-sharing 

process be an integral part of the learning from these flight test activities, and 
65 


Insert offset folio 16 here 28672.016

2. We must commit to ensure that all data (appropriately de-identified) are open to the UAS 

community at large: the value of data is not in the data per se but, rather, in the 

interpretation of patterns and values contained in the datasets. By opening the data to a 

larger number of interested parties, new methods and ideas will be applied that will lead to 

better safety estimates and to identifying situations that are precursors to unsafe outcomes, 

thus improving the quality of the regulatory requirements that are eventually imposed. We 

cannot underestimate the importance of open data sources and crowd-sourcing the data 

analysis process. 

The FAA jointly with NASA have a rich history, in the commercial aviation context, of collecting 

and cataloguing data about incidents and accidents in the Aviation Safety Information Analysis 

and Sharing (AS !AS) system and it seems that many of the lessons learned there could be directly 

applicable to the UAS context. 

The Potential Role ofthe FAA DAC 

As a member of the FAA DAC that has observed its discussions and interactions since the first 

meeting, I would like to make some comments about the very positive impact that a well-balanced 

and diverse consensus body such as DAC can have in improving the eventual integration of UASs 

in the NAS. It is my opinion that we face some complex interdisciplinary problems that will only 

be solved by timely action on the part of the FAA if proper advice from all participating 

stakeholders is provided. Since the DAC is at a point where some of its early efforts are being 

completed and new directions for its work are being discussed, it would be beneficial for the FAA 

to task the DAC with specific issues (e.g. definition of datasets to be collected, architecture of 

database to be used, probabilistic risk-based analyses to be pursued, etc.) and let it come back to 

the FAA with recommendations on these and other subjects within a reasonable time period. 

Note that the DAC can be helpful in also recommending what not to pursue. Where should we 

invest and where should we not? Finally, it is also important to understand that a deliberative body 

such as the DAC may not be well positioned to pursue certain tasks that are of a highly political 

nature. 

Final Comments I Thoughts 

As I was writing this testimony, I read about six laws written by a technology historian, the late 

Prof. Melvin Kranzberg, to better understand the interactions between technology and society and 

the significant consequences that misuse of technology can bring about (WSJ, "The 6 Laws of 

Technology Everyone Should Know", Nov. 26, 2017). Two of these laws are particularly relevant 

to our discussion. Firstly, he stated that technology is neither good, nor bad; nor is it neutral. 

Rather, new technology must be viewed in context: although UAS technology has the potential to 

improve our lives in many ways, we have a responsibility to anticipate unintended consequences 

and preempt them as much as possible through both knowledge/data generation and an appropriate 

regulatory framework. Secondly, he stated that although technology might be a prime element in 

many public issues, nontechnical factors take precedence in technology-policy decisions. The 

benefits of technology cannot be considered independently of issues of safety, privacy, public 

perception, local regulations, and noise. Better sources of information lead to better decision 
66 


Insert offset folio 17 here 28672.017

making and, ultimately, to more coherent regulations that responsibly minimize the burden on 

UASs and their operators. 

Although I am directing my comments to small UASs in this testimony (as the most urgent need 

at this very moment) I would like to note that the requirement for a similar regulatory framework 

for larger vehicles is just as pressing: electric VTOL aircraft are being developed today that could 

enable large-scale personal air transportation in congested urban areas. In some senses, these 

larger vehicles are easier to regulate and integrate into the NAS since the FAA and NASA have 

been conducting research on this topic for a number of years, and these larger vehicles can carry 

the necessary equipment to satisfy stricter requirements. In other senses, though, these vehicles 

are harder to integrate into the NAS as they will pose significant challenges in air traffic control 

(regardless of how it is achieved) and the safety implications will be vastly more significant. If 

we lump all UASs under a single category, we will fail to understand the profound differences 

between vehicles at the larger and smaller ends of the spectrum. 
67 


Insert offset folio 18 here 28672.018

Congressional Testimony 

"Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Emerging Uses in a Changing National Airspace" 

William 0. "Billy" Ball 

Executive Vice President and Chief Transmission Officer 

Southern Company 

Testimony before the 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

United States House of Representatives 

November 29, 2017 
68 


Insert offset folio 19 here 28672.019

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you 

for inviting me to testify today. I am Billy Ball, Executive Vice President and Chief 

Transmission Officer at Southern Company. Southern provides electricity and natural gas to 9 

million customers through our subsidiaries: electric operating companies in four states and 

natural gas distribution companies in seven states. We operate nearly 200,000 miles of electric 

transmission and distribution lines and more than 80,000 miles of natural gas pipeline. We 

support a full portfolio of energy resources, including carbon-free nuclear, 21st century coal, 

natural gas, and renewables. 

Southern Company believes in leveraging innovation to keep energy safe, reliable, secure, and 

affordable. We are among the earliest adopters in the energy industry, or any other industry, of 

unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), also known as drones. 

Our company, and the electric power industry at large, is committed to building smarter energy 

infrastructure that is reliable and resilient to all hazards-from natural events like storms to 

manmade malicious attacks. Drones are a critical part of our strategy, both for inspecting and 

maintaining our infrastructure to prevent outages and for our efforts to respond and to recover 

following incidents. Drones can also go places where planes cannot. From the inside of a boiler 

or a stack to flying in wide-open transmission rights of way, drones provide a valuable service. 

As far as infrastructure inspection, we are much like our counterparts in other industries. We 

would like to make greater use of drones because they are a flexible platform and a safe, efficient 

way to gather data. For many years, we have used helicopters and fixed wing aircraft for the 

regular inspection of our generation, transmission, and distribution assets. Drones can be used in 

all of those cases. Today, however, manned aircraft are often more effective because of 

regulatory constraints on drone usage. Inspections with manned aircraft can be challenging due 

to low altitude flight near towers, wires and other fixed objects. Sadly, I have experienced this 

first hand when we lost a seasoned pilot and inspector in a helicopter crash during an inspection 

of a transmission line after a severe thunderstorm event. Being able to displace the use of 

manned aircraft with drones to inspect our infrastructure will reduce the safety risk to our 

employees. 

I know that disaster response and recovery are important to this Committee, given your oversight 

of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In that role, electric companies are not like 

every other company. We work alongside first responders to restore service as quickly and safely 

as possible. Today's hearing follows a historically destructive series of storms: Hurricanes 

Harvey, Irma, Maria, and Nate, as well as wildfires in the western United States. Though still a 

new technology, drones already have become an important part of disaster recovery. The ability 

to gain situational awareness during times when many areas are inaccessible by other means 

allows our crews to develop a more informed restoration strategy. Human based flights have to 

wait until the weather is acceptable but we can get drones up quicker and begin the assessment 

process sooner. Drone flights, when approved, during low light or dark hours could also further 

reduce the time required for initial damage assessments, ultimately getting the power back on 

faster. 

2 
69 


Insert offset folio 20 here 28672.020

There are yet-to-be-implemented provisions in the 2016 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

law that would improve our use of drone technology. In particular, Section 2207 requires the 

FAA to publish guidance for emergency certificates of authorization or waivers for the use of 

UAS in response to a catastrophe, disaster, or other emergency to facilitate emergency response 

operations, such as firefighting, search and rescue, and infrastructure restoration efforts. 

Since weather is an unavoidable part of our business, we constantly work to get better and to 

prepare during "blue sky" days. In this space, a strong partnership with the public sectorfederal, state, and local governments-is key. 

Fortunately, such a collaboration exists: the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC) 

is comprised of the CEOs of21 electric companies and nine major industry trade associations. 

The ESCC includes all segments of the electric power industry, representing the full scope of 

electricity generation, transmission, and distribution in the United States and Canada. Southern 

Company's Chairman, CEO and President Tom Fanning serves as one of three co-chairs of the 

ESCC. 

During incidents, the ESCC helps to coordinate efforts across industry and government in 

response to all hazards. During the most recent storms, the ESCC worked with partners like the 

Departments of Energy and Homeland Security and with the FAA to remove temporary flight 

restrictions for both manned and unmanned aircraft quickly to assist with aerial damage 

assessments. 

Southern used UAS in our service territory and also responded to our fellow companies that 

needed the technology and associated operators. Our industry has well-established mutual 

assistance programs that leverage lineworkers and other resources and equipment. In the 

aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, Southern Company was able to provide mutual assistance to 

Centerpoint by providing six UAS teams. These UAS teams included drones and employees 

skilled in piloting and analyzing data from drones. These six teams were able to make multiple 

flights in areas no longer easily accessible due to flooding. Additional flights would have been 

possible with fewer regulatory restrictions. Providing drone teams through mutual assistance 

was a first for Southern Company and lessons learned from this effort will be used to develop 

policies across the sector that will allow companies to share drones and drone operators more 

efficiently and to integrate UAS into our existing mutual assistance programs more formally and 

systematically. 

Internal to Southern Company, we utilized 16 drones in our own response to Hurricane Irma 

which caused wide spread outages in the state of Georgia. Coordination with the Georgia 

Emergency Management Agency provided improved access to making UAS flights. The use of 

drones improved our damage assessment process and provided us with more valuable experience 

in using this technology after storms. 

That spirit of collaboration also sets the electric power industry apart from other businesses. We 

do not compete against one another, and we welcome sharing best practices. In fact, through our 

trade association, the Edison Electric Institute, we have formed a UAS Executive Task Force to 

3 
70 


Insert offset folio 21 here 28672.021

do just that. With that in mind, we urge Congress and the FAA to consider electric companies to 

be an important drone end-user and stakeholder. 

When pilot projects, task forces, advisory committees, and the like are created, critical 

infrastructure sectors, and particularly electric companies, should be involved. The lessons 

learned by one pilot company will be shared industry wide-to the benefit of all customers. The 

electric power industry is critical to life, health, and safety. Electricity runs our economy. As 

such, we need the best tools at our disposal. 

Congress and the Administration also can advance drone technology for the benefit of smarter, 

stronger energy infrastructure by promulgating regulatory and legislative policies that encourage 

innovation without sacrificing safety. Few would disagree that regulation does not move as fast 

as technology. This is particularly pronounced in the drone space. 

It is clear that the FAA plans to regulate in a crawl, walk, run mode. For a new technology, that 

approach makes sense. But the quicker we can get to "run" safely with drones, the better. 

Southern was an early recipient of a Section 333 exemption, and, while it was helpful to get our 

drone program off the ground, it still was limited. Once the Part I 07 rulemaking was finalized, 

we also were an early recipient of a waiver to fly at night. 

Without further loosening in the regulatory space, drones will not see their full potential. 

Southern is part of an industry consortium that submitted a Part I 07 wavier to demonstrate 

beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) inspection of energy infrastructure. The group filed the 

applications shortly after the effective date of the Part 107 rule. However, like many BVLOS 

waivers, it has not been acted upon. We support the Part I 07 waiver transparency provisions in 

the House and Senate FAA reauthorization bills; showing what applications are successful will 

lead to more successful applications. 

It is important to note, Congress already has called on the FAA to prioritize these kinds of 

applications. Section 2210 of the 2016 FAA law allows for an application to the FAA "to operate 

an unmanned aircraft ... beyond the visual line of sight. .. and during the day or at night" for 

"activities to inspect, repair, construct, maintain, or protect covered facilities," including natural 

gas pipelines, electric generation, transmission, and distribution systems, and "any other critical 

infrastructure facility." We agree that when innovative drone flights are being allowed, critical 

infrastructure should be at the front of the line. 

My experience is in transmission. Across the industry, there are more than 380,000 miles of 

transmission lines in the United States: enough to wrap around the Earth 15 times. Much of these 

lines are in remote locations where there should be no manned aircraft and where there are clear 

rights of way present. Imagine inspecting those lines many miles at a time instead of mile by 

mile as is the case now with drones. The improvements in safety and efficiency are 

overwhelming. Other places in the world already are doing this. Indeed, our technology partner 

in the demonstration project did this exact kind of BVLOS inspection in Europe. We want to 

work with the FAA to get projects like this green-lighted. 

4 
71 


Insert offset folio 22 here 28672.022

During this time, we are working with others in the industry through the Electric Power Research 

Institute (EPRI) to undertake research on multiple UAS use cases. We want to be ready when 

more regulatory flexibility is available to usc this new teclmology to the fullest benefit of our 

customers. This research includes BVLOS uses as well as possible uses for drones to take 

measurements from and make repairs on electric infrastructure. As mentioned before, the uses 

for this new technology are very broad. 

Drones are a game-changing technology for companies like Southern. The use and usefulness of 

drones only will continue to grow. Congress and the FAA have the power to control that growth. 

In closing, I urge Congress and the FAA to continue to pursue policy that allows for the safe 

integration ofUAS into the National Airspace. Of particular importance, we call on FAA to 

finish the guidance and rulemakings called for in the 2016 FAA bill, and to work with end users 

like my company to use Part l 07 waivers to advance drone technology while continuing work on 

the next phase of regulation. For the benefit of millions of American electric and natural gas 

customers, we encourage Congress and the Administration to move forward swiftly and safely. 

5 
72 


Insert offset folio 23 here 28672.023

Testimony of 

William Goodwin 

General Counsel, AirMap 

Before the 

House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Hearing on 

"Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Emerging Uses in a Changing National Airspace" 

November29, 2017 

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure 

to speak with you about the emerging uses of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the changing 

national airspace. 

I am the General Counsel of AirMap, the world's leading airspace management platform for 

drones. We are building and improving unmanned traffic management solutions that currently 

help millions of drones fly safely. 

To realize the full economic benefit and efficiencies that drones can provide we must continue to 

challenge our own assumptions about airspace and airspace management. Leaders within the 

Administration, such as Mich!lel Kratsios, Elaine Chao, Michael Huerta. Earl Lawrence and 

Parimal Kopardekar (PK), ate working as change agents promoting a spirit of innovation and 

collaboration between government and business. 

See Appendix A (UTM) 

Internationally, countries are competing with the United States to integrate drones into their 

airspace more quickly. Other countries' openness to experimentation has accelerated into 

regulatory action and standards-setting that threatens to leave American businesses behind. We 

have no choice but to work harder and faster to safely integrate drones into the U.S. national 

airspace. 

In this testimony,! will provide you with 1) examples of how the U.S. national airspace is 

evolving to accommodate drones, 2) AirMap's experience in other countries that are accelerating 

drone integration, and 3) recommendations for U.S. policy to build on recent progress in the 

United States. 
73 


Insert offset folio 24 here 28672.024

U.S. Airspace Innovations 

In the United States, Air Map has been working at the federal, state, local, and tribal government 

levels to help adapt the airspace to safely integrate drones. 

Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability 

Recently, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certified AirMap and Skyward as LAANC 

providers to grant instant authorizations to operate in restricted airspace that has been identified 

as safe for low-altitude drone operations. This program is called the Low Altitude Authorization 

and Notification Capability or LAANC program. Prior to LAANC, it could take up to 90 days to 

secure an authorization to operate in restricted airspace. The AirMap LAANC solution is active 

at 49 airports through 10 FAA air traffic control facilities. AirMap has already granted more 

than 500 approved authorizations in the U.S. national airspace. LAANC creates the first 

building block to a full UTM network. 

Learn more at airmap.com/laanc or see Appendix B (LAANC) 

Kansas UTM Pilot 

Another example of Air Map's work to enable expanded drone operations in U.S. airspace is our 

partnership with the State of Kansas, a leader in aerospace innovation. We worked closely with 

the Kansas Department of Transportation to develop and deploy UTM technology across the 

state to speed the integration of drones. As a part of this project, Kansas will use AirMap's 

platform to communicate local, safety-critical information to drone operators, including other 

drone operations, manned aircraft operations, wildfire locations, and major events on the ground. 

Learn more at airmap.com/kansas or see Appendix C (Kansas Case Study) and 

Appendix D (First Responder Activity) 

Hurricane Response 

AirMap technology also assisted in managing the U.S. national airspace in the response to 

Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. In the aftermath of each hurricane, the FAA restricted drone 

operations in the recovery area. AirMap supported vital hurricane response efforts by providing 

the local Emergency Operations Center (EOC) with a dashboard that allowed incident 

commanders to plan and observe their missions, deconflict manned and unmanned air assets, and 

communicate directly with their teams. AirMap provided essential airspace intelligence services 

including weather data, infrastructure locations, and manned traffic alerts, to ensure emergency 

operators' manned and unmanned assets remained safe while conducting search and rescue and 

surveying efforts. 

See Appendix E (Hurricane Response) 

Drone Integration Pilot Program 

Finally, the UAS Integration Pilot Program announced by President Trump and implemented by 

FAA on November 2"' is expected to open the floodgates to expanded drone operations. By 

2 
74 


Insert offset folio 25 here 28672.025

leveraging the insights and expertise of state, local, and tribal governments into their low-altitude 

airspace, the UAS Integration Pilot Program will create numerous laboratories of innovation. 

This program is expected to enable package delivery, beyond visual line of sight operations, and 

flights over people, as well as accelerate the testing of enhanced human mobility. AirMap is 

assisting state, local, and tribal governments prepare applications that manage the safety of 

expanded operations in their areas of jurisdiction, while providing solutions to commercial 

partners through our developer platform and manufacturer integrations. 

Learn more at airmap.com/ipp/ or sec Appendix F (Developer Platform) 

International Airspace Innovations 

Outside the United States, other countries are working hard to integrate drones at a faster rate 

and, in some cases, are succeeding. Unfortunately, there are still reasons that companies need to 

go overseas to conduct transformative drone work today. AirMap is working with other 

international partners to deliver UTM solutions next year that may take the United States until 

2021 or later to achieve, absent Congressional action. 

See Appendix G (Timeline) 

Japan 

Two years ago, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe committed the Japanese government to 

enabling drone deliveries as early as November 2018. To enable these deliveries, he directed his 

government to form public-private councils to collaborate and review drone regulations. Thanks 

in part to his leadership, commercial drone delivery already exists in limited form and is 

expected to expand over the course of next year. In a joint venture with Rakuten, Japan's largest 

e-commerce company, AirMap is providing airspace management capabilities to enable 

expanded drone operations. 

Learn more at airmap.com/rakutcn or see Appendix H (Rakuten) 

Switzerland 

In September 2017, in Geneva, Switzerland, Air Map participated in a robust demonstration of Uspace. Defined by SESAR J.lJ., the Single European Sky A TM program, U-space is a 

collaborative effort to enable situational awareness, data exchange, and digital communication 

for the drone ecosystem, much like the UTM initiative in the United States In partnership with 

skyguide, SITAONAIR, senseFiy, Intel, px4, and AirMap, and with support from FOCA and 

GUTMA, Switzerland demonstrated an operational UTM system, including registration, 

authentication, A TC integration and approval, dynamic flight planning, and real-time 

geofencing. 

In missions flown by senseFly's albris and eBee Plus drones and a drone with a pre-programmed 

Intel I PX4 flight controller, partners demonstrated how drones can be easily announced to the air 

navigation service provider through e-registration and e-identification. AirMap provided 

integration with air traffic control, managed flight plans and enabled electronic airspace 

authorizations. Additional technology was used to transmit live telemetry of drones and 

3 
75 


Insert offset folio 26 here 28672.026

manned-aviation over LTE through the ground control stations to inform drones and drone pilots 

of manned aviation traffic as well as dynamic updates of airspace restrictions related to rescue 

helicopter missions. Finally, A TM radar feeds were made available to the UTM system though 

technology powered by AirMap. This has since enabled BVLOS missions for package-delivery 

over densely populated areas. 

The entire demonstration occurred over and around Lake Geneva, in close proximity to Geneva 

Airport in some of the most complex and sensitive airspace in Switzerland. This successful Uspace demonstration is a model for UTM around the world, proving that the air navigation 

services are available today and ready for the next stage of drone integration worldwide. 

Learn more at airmap.com/u-space or see Appendix I (U-space) 

Recommendations 

There are three things Congress can do to accelerate the safe integration of drones into the 

complex U.S. national airspace: 

First, Congress should expedite and prioritize the establishment of an operational UTM system 

by 2020. UTM is necessary for expanded operations, such as package delivery and beyond 

visual line of sight operations. Congress should expand on Section 2208 of the FAA Extension 

to support the leaders within NASA and FAA that are developing a national, federated UTM 

network. Congressional action with clear direction, mandatory deadlines, and consistent 

oversight is the only way to ensure that our infrastructure and agencies keep pace with 

innovation. Without Congressional action, America will fall behind other nations and businesses 

will cast their eyes abroad. 

Second, Congress should apply support and resources towards the FAA's UAS Integration Pilot 

Program to leverage state, local, and tribal governments to enable expanded drone operations. 

Congress should ensure that FAA has all the necessary authority to waive regulations to allow 

local authorities to authorize expanded operations that can be conducted safely within 

geographically defined areas. Congress should ensure that the UAS Integration Pilot Program 

serves as a permanent pathway for the United States to enable an unlimited number of expanded 

operations by using state, tribal, and local governments as laboratories of innovation. 

Third, Congress should ensure that a remote identification and tracking system based on licensed 

spectrum is established to enable nationwide expanded drone operations. Remote identification 

and tracking is an essential component to ensure responsible operations and serves as another 

building block to an operational UTM network. 

Thank you again for convening this hearing to discuss the exciting emerging uses of drones 

across the United States and abroad. We appreciate the committee's leadership on these critical 

issues and believe that working together we will ensure that the United States remains a leader in 

drone innovation. 

4 
76 


Insert offset folio 27 here 28672.027

Appendix A: Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) 

OBJECTIVE: AirMap is a UTM Service Supplier (USS), collaborating with regulators and industry partners 

to develop the infrastructure to enable the safe integration of drones into the national airspace system. 

IN COLLABORATION WITH: NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, Rakuten 

STATUS: AirMap is part of NASA and the FAA's ongoing research in data exchange, remote command 

control, beyond visual line-of-sight operations, telemetry, and doconlliction. 

Unmanned Traffic Management Tetrain,weattmr,nllstades, 

n!h~:rsHpplem,gntaltfatrt 

.,.,/\. ''[1 Ptiblir: Safety 

~ Pi • 

l [I" ::::: ~;;~ State&lntal 

Mannei:!Ai~lrtJffJcf.ontrol; ! VASSw~' 1

caSupp1ers ,;....~ N;Jttona: A1rspane System : Dmnc1; L.l /0\ Nanona1,1Giotoa1 Airspace O:tt:a ; Drone Oper<JWr~ ~ 

Drone Heats. 1-i-~ 

+-- Government j Industry--+ 

Situational Awareness 

The AirMap UTM platform allows drone manufacturers 

like DJI, Senselly, and Intel to lie liver AirMap's airspace 

information and services to their end users directly !rom 

the drone's flight control software. 

Real-Time Deconfliction 

.1\irMap partners with the FAA for RTCA 00-200A aviation data and PASSUR, the aviation mtelligence provider 

trusted hy airlines and airp01ts worldwide. to dBiiver 

real-time collision avoidance capabilities to drones. 

Remote Identification 

l he AirMap platform includes a suite ol security solutions tor remote identificati011, er·crypted communications, and the protection of critical infrastructure tor the 

safe integration of drones worldwide. 

Route Optimization 

Today, millrons of drones rely on 1\irfvlap's airspace data 

to navigate safe and eftic1snt routes, including controlled airspace. nearby traffic, temporary flight restrictions, local weather, and more. 

Automated Airspace Authorization 

AirMap's notice and authorization technology empowers 

airspace authorities to automatH authorization when 

cond rtionai reqwernents are met and to interact directly 

with operators !n rea! time. 

Dynamic Geofencing 

AirMap makes it easy for drone manufacturers to 

incorporate and authorited unlocking directly 

into a firmware. For example. the DJI GEO flight 

control app is powered by Airfvlap lo provrde the satest 

opcratmg environment possible. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com 
77 


Insert offset folio 28 here 28672.028

Appendix B: Low-Altitude Authorization & Navigation Capability (LAANC) 

OBJECTIVE: Propose and develop an easy and reliable digital system for providing authorized access to 

controlled airspace areas for commercial drone operations. 

IN COLLABORATION WITH: The Federal Aviation Administration 

STATUS: AirMap is one of the selected industry partners working directly with the FAA to demonstrate 

operational LAANC to advance commercial drone operations and decrease administrative workload. 

low-Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability ILAANC) describes a digital system that allows for 

the instant authorization of commercial drone operations in controlled airspace by third party UTM Service 

Suppliers (USS)Iike AirMap based on contextual airspace rules designated by the Federal Aviation Administration. LAANC authorizes commercial flight plans taking place in controlled airspace that match up to 

ATC-approved airspace grids that are identified as low-risk or pro-approved for drone flight 

LAANC streamlines and digitizes the current authorization process lor commercial operations in controlled 

airspace. Today, FAA authorization is a manual process that takes up to 90 days. With LAANC, authorization 

is automatic and instantaneous. LAANC drives efficiency while removing the need for administrative work 

by human resources. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com 
78 


Insert offset folio 29 here 28672.029

AppendixC 

A new collaboration between 

the Kansas Department of 

Transportation (KDOTI and 

airspace management platform 

AirMap is deploying technology for 

unmanned traffic management or 

UTM, across the state of Kansas. 

The initiative will create a 

digital infrastructure capable of 

communicating local, safety-critical 

information to drone operators 

about conditions in the surrounding 

airspace and on the ground By 

implementing technologies that will 

one day be part of a nationwide 

UTM framework, Kansas is the 

first U.S. state to take a proactive 

approach to protecting the privacy. 

safety. and security of Kansas 

residents- while empowering 

drone entrepreneurship statewide 

According to PricewaterhouseCoopers. corr:merclal drones will create more than $127 bi!lion 

in ecorom1c tJeqefits and 100,000 jobs over the next several years-- presenting trefT!endous 

opportunities for Kansas and other US. states. The KOOTAirfvlilp partnership will foster 

a thriving drone economy with the potential to contribute billions in economic impact and 

create thousands of jobs m the state 

The KDOf~AirMap partnership will make the AlrMap platfmm available to state agencies, 

a1rports. and colleges and un1vmstt1es, deploying technology that is capable of 

Delivering safety-critical information frorr: state and local agencies to orones for 

situational awareness and flight planning 

• Facilitating collaboration. communication. anc data exchange between state and local 

authorities and drones and tflelr operators 

• Fostering public awareness about drone regulations and airspace requirerrents 

Auto•nating dlrspace nottfication and aulhoritdtion at Kansas anports 

• Demonstrating sophisticated solut1ons that safeguard public satety and personal 

privacy, including technologies for geofencing and remote identification 

• Enaoling high-scale and complex operations beyond visual !ine oi sight 

fhe UTM imtiDtive represents the next step in Kansas' long history ot aviation innovation, 

<JIIowing the state to mob!lize drones for disaster recovery. search and rescue. agriculture. 

constructwr. package delivery, and other commur11W benefits 

By opening Kansas skies for sophisticated drone operations and deploying Air Map airspace 

management technology across the state. Kansas will be uniquely positioned to capture a 

s:gruficant share of the drone opportunity 
79 


Insert offset folio 30 here 28672.030

Appendix D: First Responder Activity 

OBJECTIVE: Empower drone operators to plan safer routes and ensure that flights do not interfere with 

the efforts of firefighters and emergency responders. 

IN COLlABORATION WITH: U.S. Department of the Interior and 2,100 U.S. Communities 

STATUS: Thousands of drone operators receive real-time information about nearby first responder activities today through the AirMap app for Android, and iDS. 

usa Flrst ResoondN Activity 

Wildfires 

AirMap makes fAA-published temporary flight restrictions available to millions of drone However, 

the vast majority of wildfires start spread faster 

than the time it takes to communicate and post the 

hazard. 

In July 2016, the U.S. Department of the Interior partner 

with AirMap to wildfire information from the Department's s incident command system as it happens and 

immediately push it to drone pilots through AirMap's 

iOS, Android and web apps, AirMap's API. and the GEO 

geofencing system in the DJI GO flight control app. 

First Responder Activity 

AirMap also enhances situational awareness for drone 

pilots and the availability 

of First which provides data about 

fires, and gas hazards, medical emergencies, 

tornados, tsunamis, rescue operations, and more. 

Drone operators can see first responder activity from 

more than 2,100 U.S. communities. For safety and security of first responders, the exact location and category 

of emergency is not disclosed to drone pilots. Drone 

operators use this information to plan safer routes that 

won't interfere with the efforts of firefighters and emergency responders- prohibited by law in most states. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com/first-responder-activity 
80 


Insert offset folio 31 here 28672.031

Appendix E 

The United States experienced one of the most 

devastating hurricane seasons on record in 2017. 

Hurricanes Harvey and Irma were category four 

storms that left destruction across communities in 

Texas and Florida. 

In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, the FAA 

issued a disaster TFR (temporary flight restriction), 

charging the Texas Emergency Operations Center 

(EOC) with managing the local airspace during 

disaster relief efforts. Both manned and unmanned 

(drones} aircraft became essential components 

to these efforts. AirMap supported vital response 

efforts by providing a dashboard that allowed 

incident commanders to visualize and manage their 

airspace. 

In the wake of Hurricane Irma, AirMap worked with 

the same team of emergency operators deployed on 

behalf of the State of Florida and provided them with 

the same airspace management services. 

AirMap provided essential airspace intelligence 

services including weather data, infrastructure 

locations, and manned traffic alerts, to ensure 

emergency operators' manned and unmanned 

assets remained safe while conducting search and 

rescue and surveying efforts. This intelligence was 

visuaUzed on a screen which allowed the EOCs 

to monitor and manage where their teams were 

operating. AirMap's technology provided the Florida 

and Texas EOCs with the information required to 

plan and observe their missions. deconflict manned 

and unmanned air assets, and communicate directly 

with their teams. 

How did AirMap help? 

AirMap provided the Texas and Florida teams with 

an airspace management dashboard and airspace 

intelUgence services that allowed them to: 

Create flights and provide notice of intended 

flight to command centers 

Accept flight notices by relief operators active in 

disaster TFR areas 

Visualize and monitor hundreds of flights being 

conducted by the EOC to support relief efforts 

Remain abreast of manned aircraft traffic and 

unmanned flights submitted through AirMap 

within the TFR 

Notify drone operators togging flights with 

AirMap that they had entered airspace covered 

by a disaster TFR managed by the EOC 

Contact drone operators who were flying in 

violation of the TFR and urge them to keep their 

UAS grounded until the TFR was lifted 

By providing the EOCs with a suite of tools and and 

an airspace management dashboard. AirMap helped 

support safe and efficient relief efforts that we hope 

to replicate for emergency operators across the 

country. 

"Essentially, every drone that flew meant that a 

traditional aircraft was nat putting an additional 

strain on an already fragile system. I don't think it's 

an exaggeration to say that the hurricane response 

will be looked back upon as a landmark in the 

evolution of drone usage in this country." 

FAA Administrator Michael Huerta 

"InterDrone" Speech, Las Vegas, NV 

September 6, 2017 

AIRMAP www ""mao cam 
81 


Insert offset folio 32 here 28672.032

Appendix F: Developer Platform 

OBJECTIVE: Empower the hundreds of innovators that are building software for drones. apps, and the 

Web with easy-to-use APis and SDKs for complete airspace intelligence. 

IN COLLABORATION WITH: Hangar, Kittyhawk, Dronelogbook, KnowBeforeYouFiy, DroneDeploy, ANRA 

Technologies, Hover, NVDrones, the Intel Aero Platform, Aeryonlabs, and more. 

STATUS: More than 300 developers are building tools for drones on the AirMap platform. 

Status API 

Is it safe to fly71ntegrate AirMap's low-altitude airspace 

intelligence platform into third party software to inform 

end users of airspace requirements, including advisories, and notice requirements. 

Airspace API 

Bring AirMap's robust, trustworthy, and accurate low-altitude airspace intelligence to your software. Includes 

RTCA D0-200A data as well as information about critical infrastructure. obstacles, weather, TFRs. and more. 

Flight API 

Empower end users to create and query flights. verify 

that flight requirements are met, and provide digital 

notice to or request authorization from designated 

airspace authorities. 

{' 

Pilot API 

Let end users manage their pilot profile, including contact details. registration number, and preferences, and 

verity pilot identity for added security. 

Aircraft API 

Includes metadata about a pilot's drone, including manufacturer. model, weight, speed, performance, and type. 

Maps API 

Customize the look/style of your AirMap-powered application with a TileJSON spec for use with Mapbox GL. 

Platform SDKs 

AirMap makes it easy for software developers to get up 

and running with interactive airspace data for applications built for Javascript, Android, iOS, & Apple Watch. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com/developers 
82 


Insert offset folio 33 here 28672.033

Appendix G: Timeline 

OBJECTIVE: Develop and ope rationalize a complete UTM infrastructure for the safe integration of drones 

for VLOS and BVLOS operations into the national airspace system. 

STATUS: 

2017: Airbus to begin flying car trials. 

2018: Rakuten Sora Raku to begin regular drone deliveries in Japan. 

2025: Federal Aviation Administration to complete UTM transition and implementation. 

UTM Development and Implementation 

The diagram above outlines NASA and the FAils 

Unmanned traffic Management Ill IM), with complete 

timeline for the full development and implen1entation of 

irr:plementotion planned for 2025. 

Important progress has been made towards critical UTM milestones. and AirMap continues to be a oartner in the 

NASA-FAA UTM project testing UTM technologies and participating in the development of UTM standards. 

Airbus is projected to begin flying car trials in 2017 and companies across the drone ecosystem. including AirMap. are 

already offering technologies for UTM US. regulators have the opportunity to harness innovation to realize a fully 

operatiOnal UTM system in alignment with progress industry-wide. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com 
83 


Insert offset folio 34 here 28672.034

Appendix H: Rakuten Air Map, Inc. 

OBJECTIVE: Bring Unmanned Traffic Management {UTM) solutions to Japan to support and empower 

drone ecosystem for economic development 

IN COLLABORATION WITH: Rakuten 

STATUS: launched Rakuten AirMap, Inc., joint venture in March 2017 to serve Japan's growing drone 

ecosystem. 

BVLOS Flights 

Solutions to help Japan's regulators open the skies for 

drones. even in "densely inhabited districts" where 

drone flight is currently prohibited. Rakuten AirMap Inc. 

helps commercial drone operators fly safely and securely beyond visual line of sight in a variety of environments, from rural agricultural sites to densely populated 

urban areas in maJOr cities. 

Drone Delivery 

Rakuten launched its Sora Raku Rakuten Drone delivery 

service in April2016. including a successfullTE-powered test with support from Chiba City and NTT Dncomo. 

Rakuten AirMap's UTM platform will support airspace 

managers seeking to open surrounding airspace for 

drones and innovations like drone delivery by 2018. 

Airspace Authorization 

Designate sensitive areas requiring authorization before 

flight. Airspace managers~ which in Japan includes 

owners of critical infrastructure, universities, airports. 

municipal governments, and other stakeholders -can 

specify digital authorization requirements. accept digital 

flight notices, and communicnte safety-critical information directly to drones and drone operators in real time. 

Situational Awareness 

Delivering real-time airspace intelligence to recreational and commercial drone operators in Japan. Drone 

pilots rely on the Rakuten AirMap UTM platform to 

learn about the rules and condition in their flight area, 

create flight plans. and share them with nearby airports. 

authorities, and other stakeholders. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com/rakuten 
84 


Insert offset folio 35 here 28672.035

Appendix I: U-space Demonstration 

OBJECTIVE: Provide U-space (UTM) services, including flight planning, geofencing before and during 

flight, tracking, and live telemetry, during three live drone missions in Europe's first live demonstration of 

U-space (UTM) capabilities. 

STATUS: In September 2017, Skyguide, AirMap, SITAONAIR, senseFiy, Intel, and PX4 demonstrated how 

drones can be safely, efficiently integrated into existing airspace infrastructure in urban environments. 

ADVANTAGES: 

U-space (UTM) capabilities are available today, ahead of SESAR's anticipated 2019 delivery. 

U-space (UTM) can be replicated in other cities and countries worldwide. 

Supported by existing and competitive ecosystem of hardware and software providers. 

Provides dynamic situational awareness of low-altitude airspace in urban environments. 

The European Commission expects that the global marketplace for unmanned aircraft or drones will create 

more than 10 billion Euros in economic impact each year by 2035. U-space is a set of new services and 

procedures designed to support safe, efficient, and secure access to airspace for a large numbers of drones. 

Defined by SESAR J.U., the Single European Sky ATM program, U-space ensures the smooth operations of 

all categories of drones, all types of missions and all drones users in all operating environments. Much like 

the U.S. "Unmanned Traffic Management" initiative, U-space is a collaborative effort to enable situational 

awareness. data exchange, and digital communication for the drone ecosystem. U-space provides not only 

the framework for routine drone operations, but also an effective interface to manned aviation, ATM/ANS 

service providers, and authorities. The services are based on a high level of digitilization and automation, 

on board the drone itself or on the ground. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com/u-space 
85 


Insert offset folio 36 here 28672.036

Appendix I: U-space Demonstration (cont.) 

U4 

U3 

• 

Levels of U-space services based on increasing levels of technological capability are as follows: 

U1: U-space foundation services provide a-registration, a-identification and geofencing. 

U2: U-space initial services support the management of drone operations and may include flight planning, 

flight approval. tracking, airspace dynamic information, and procedural interfaces with air traffic control. 

UJ: U-space advanced services support more complex operations in dense areas and may include capacity management and assistance for conflict detection. The availability of automated DAA functionalities, 

in addition to more reliable means of communication, will lead to a significant increase of operations in 

all environments. 

U4: U-space full services, particularly services offering integrated interfaces with manned aviation, 

support the full operational capability of U-space and will rely on very high level of automation, connectivity, and digitalization for both the drone and the U-space system. 

In September 2017, project partners performed a live demonstration of U1 and U2 services. In three live missions 

flown by senseFiy's albris and eBee Plus drones and a drone with pre-programmed Intel I PX4 flight controller. partners demonstrated how drones can be easily announced to the air navigation service provider through a-registration 

and e-identification. AirMap provided integration with ATC, managed flight plans and enabled electronic airspace 

authorizations. Additional technology was used to transmit live telemetry of drones and manned-aviation over LTE 

through the ground control stations to inform drones and drone pilots of manned aviation traffic as well as dynamic 

updates of airspace restrictions related to rescue helicopter missions. ATM radar feeds were made available to 

the UTM-system though technology powered by AirMap. This enabled BVLOS missions for package delivery over 

densely populated areas. 

The successful U-space demonstration in Geneva, Switzerland, is a model for UTM around the world, proving that 

the air navigation services are available today and ready for the next stage of drone integration worldwide. 

AIRMAP 

www.airmap.com/u-space 
86 


Insert offset folio 37 here 28672.037

Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, Questions for the Record to 

William Goodwin, General Counsel, AirMap 

2. Airspace management technology 

QUESTION: Mr. Goodwin: I understand Air Map recently entered into a contract with 

the State of Kansas through which you provided unmanned traffic management 

technology. 

The Drone Federalism Act in the Senate and the Drone Innovation Act in the House would 

provide new authority to states and cities to regulate UAS operations below 200 feet. As 

I'm sure you are aware, concerns have been expressed that this approach will lead to a 

confusing and inconsistent patchwork of local laws, and therefore a less safe operating 

environment. 

Should such legislation be enacted, from an implementation standpoint, do you believe 

that states or cities have the technological capabilities to manage the airspace themselves, 

or would they need seek partnerships to support airspace management (like in Kansas)? 

If so, how would yon envision those agreements being structured? 

Would services be provided for free as a public good or would there be a cost to states and 

localities? 

RESPONSE: States and cities play an important role in manned aviation and will be 

required to play a role with unmanned aviation. In AirMap's experience, we have seen 

that safe commercial drone operations only happen in high volumes when all levels of 

government are working together. 

Consider the analogy of comparing the relative space of planes and automobiles. In the 

automotive space, states and cities create time, manner, and place rules with respect to 

automobiles. States and local governments set speed limits. States and local 

governments may make a street walkable, like where AirMap is headquartered in Santa 

Monica, California, so no cars are allowed at all. States and local governments may 

prohibit trash trucks from residential neighborhoods in the middle of the night. Most 

people believe these are reasonable rules that do not necessarily impede effective 

commercial activity. 

And all of those rules are available in real time through common apps, like Waze, which 

are dynamic and can tell a driver when he or she is speeding, for example. 

Comparing the volume of activity that engenders, the FAA Air Traffic Organization 

provides service to more than 42,000 flights a day, which is a significant economic 

benefit to the country. But, the Department of Transportation estimates that there are 1.1 

billion car trips per day that are handled by state and local regulators. On a relative scale, 

that should not be considered a burdensome regulatory framework, but instead a highly 

valuable economic activity. 
87 


Insert offset folio 38 here 28672.038

Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, Questions for the Record to 

William Goodwin, General Counsel, AirMap 

QUESTION: Do you believe that states or cities have the technological capabilities to 

manage the airspace themselves, or would they need to seek partnerships to support 

airspace management (like in Kansas)? 

RESPONSE: In the last two months, the FAA certified AirMap as one of two original 

providers of the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) 

program. With this program, the FAA has established a public-private partnership that 

allows for airports and government to partner with industry to surface and automate 

important information for drones. 

For expanded drone operations, an unmanned traffic management (UTM) network is 

necessary. A UTM framework has been developed jointly by NASA and FAA and is 

envisioned as a federated network in states or regions. As with LAANC, a UTM network 

will help improve safety and generate economic growth by enabling expanded drone 

operations. Section 2208 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of2016 (Public 

Law 114-190) included bipartisan language that required NASA and FAA to create a 

research plan and a pilot program for UTM development. 

A UTM network will ensure that state and local governments have access to the 

technological capabilities to manage drone operations in its jurisdiction. 

QUESTION: If so, how would you envision those agreements being structured? Would 

services be provided for free by contractors as a public good or would there be a cost to 

states and localities? 

RESPONSE: The FAA UAS Integration Pilot Program is a prime mechanism to test 

different models that will allow state, local and tribal governments to access the 

necessary UTM services they need to enable expanded drone operations. As in manned 

aviation, expanded aviation operations will require government and technology 

companies to work together. We have seen success with the public-private partnership 

model that the FAA established with the LAANC program. We have been involved in 

variations on a public-private partnership model through our work domestically with 

cities and states and overseas with Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) and other 

governmental entities. 
88 


Insert offset folio 39 here 28672.039

UNMANIU:O 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN WYNNE 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION FOR UNMANNED VEHICLE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

"Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Emerging Uses in a Changing National Airspace" 

November 29, 2017 

Chairman loBiondo, Ranking Member larsen and members of the subcommittee, thank you very much 

for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing. I'm speaking on behalf of the Association for 

Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the world's largest non-profit organization devoted exclusively 

to advancing the unmanned systems and robotics community. AUVSI has been the voice of unmanned 

systems for more than 40 years, and currently we have more than 7,500 members, including many small 

businesses that support and supply this innovative industry. 

Many of our members are exploring new and expanded ways that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) of all 

shapes and sizes can help American businesses and individuals across the United States realize the 

potential of this technology. My comments today will focus on emerging uses for UAS in the National 

Airspace as we seek to take the industry higher and farther. 

From inspecting pipelines and newsgathering to inspecting critical infrastructure during disasters such as 

Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, UAS help save time, save money and, most importantly, save lives. It 

is no wonder why thousands of businesses -small and large - have already embraced this technology, 

and many more are considering integrating UAS into their future operations. 

For years, AUVSI has been urging the FAA to use all available means to establish a regulatory framework 

for UAS. And now, we have initial regulations governing civil and commercial UAS operations. On August 

29, 2016, the FAA implemented the small UAS rule, also known as Part 107. The rule was the result of 

years of collaboration between government and industry that established a flexible, risk-based approach 

Page 1 of 6 
89 


Insert offset folio 40 here 28672.040

to regulating UAS. This regulatory framework helped reduce many barriers to low-risk civil and 

commercial UAS operations, allowing businesses and innovators to harness the tremendous potential of 

UAS and unlock the many economic and societal benefits the technology offers. 

The demand for commercial UAS has since exploded. As of September 2017, more than 79,000 platforms 

have been registered for commercial use and currently, more than 66,000 remote pilots have been 

certified to fly in the United States. The FAA expects more than 400,000 UAS to be flying for commercial 

purposes over the next five years, which is a five-fold increase from today. 

Part 107 allows anyone who follows the rules to fly for commercial purposes. Generally speaking, 

operators need to fly under 400 feet, within visual line of sight and only during daylight hours. However, 

recognizing the need for the rule to be flexible in order to foster innovation, the FAA created a waiver 

process under Part 107 that allows for expanded types of operations with the approval ofthe agency. 

To date, the FAA has granted more than 1,300 waivers for expanded operations under Part 107. An AUVSI 

analysis of the first 1,000 found that companies in 47 states are already taking advantage of the process 

to operate at night, as well as to operate in certain airspace, beyond line of sight and over people. More 

than 90 percent of these are small businesses with fewer than 10 employees. The FAA has granted about 

74 percent of the waivers to operators who had not previously flown UAS under the Section 333 

exemption process, demonstrating how having regulations and rules in place has helped increase the 

adoption of this emerging technology. High profile use of these waivers includes this year's Super Bowl 

halftime show, which featured an aerial light show made possible by Intel's waivers to operate multiple 

UAS at night. BNSF Railway also received a waiver to conduct inspections of its sprawling rail network 

beyond line of sight. 

Much has been accomplished so far because government and industry have banded together to advance 

UAS. The collaborative process in which we have engaged, and the goals we share of supporting 

innovation and ensuring the safety of the national airspace, have made for a working relationship that is 

defined by both productivity and mutual respect. This has led to a more flexible and nimble approach to 

regulating UAS as well as to more businesses adopting the technology. The Unites States was once falling 

behind the rest of the world in embracing UAS; now our country is leading the way. 

Page 2 of 6 
90 


Insert offset folio 41 here 28672.041

We are at the dawn of a new American renaissance in technology, one that deserves continued 

government attention and support. In the past, government invested heavily in physical infrastructure 

from the nation's air traffic control system to its interstate highway system and the internet - which 

ultimately had a tremendous impact on commerce. The benefits, however, did not stop there. Over time, 

the safety, security and efficiency gains we achieved as a nation have vastly outweighed the costs, and 

the unmanned systems industry will be no different. 

Facilitating interstate commerce is the responsibility of the federal government, but government 

investments in infrastructure didn't originate solely from a sense of obligation; it came from necessity 

coupled with vision and an embrace of what's possible. Technology is advancing at lightning speed, 

especially in the realm of UAS. The promise of UAS is not held back by innovation, imagination or 

technology, but by a lack of regulatory clarity. 

We need a new national imperative in unmanned systems that, like the air traffic control system and 

interstate highway system before it, creates greater capacity, fulfills consumer demand and facilitates the 

future of commerce. Industry is bringing the technology; government needs to do more to support it and 

advance innovations. 

Part 107 and its waiver process were just the first steps in creating a regulatory framework for UAS 

integration into the airspace. There is still a high and, as yet, unmet demand for expanded UAS operations 

that will pave the way for these future innovations. An economic analysis by AUVSI projects that the 

expansion of UAS technology will create more than 100,000 jobs and generate more than $82 billion to 

the economy in the first decade following integration into the national airspace. After witnessing the 

growth of the industry over the last few years and now with Part 107 in place, these figures could be even 

higher under the right conditions. 

These "right conditions" will require a regulatory framework that incorporates rules for expanded uses 

such as nighttime operations and flights over people. However, this progress has been delayed while 

stakeholders assess whether the right accountability measures are in place as more users gain access to 

this technology. 

UAS registration, for instance, is strongly supported by the national security community. AUVSI has also 

Page 3 of 6 
91 


Insert offset folio 42 here 28672.042

long supported a registration system for commercial and recreational UAS operators. We believe that a 

UAS registration system promotes responsibility by all users of the national airspace and helps create a 

culture of safety that deters careless and reckless behavior. We are glad Congress recently restored UAS 

registration for recreational operators as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. This was an 

expedient way to resolve a sensitive matter across the UAS operator community, but this piecemeal 

approach to solving issues regarding both commercial and recreational operators may slow progress and 

hinder efforts to move the industry forward. It may therefore be necessary for Congress to reevaluate the 

role of Section 336- the Special Rule for Model Aircraft that was part of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 

2012 -to address security concerns and streamline the process for future regulations, such as those 

governing remote identification standards. 

Additionally, Congress must appropriately fund the FAA so it can meet the employment and staffing needs 

required for the future, including the federal rulemaking processes for UAS integration. Equally as 

important is additional federal investment to update the FAA's information technology infrastructure. 

This will allow the agency to automate its UAS processes in collaboration with industry to meet the 

growing demand for UAS services and enhance the safety and security of the national airspace. 

Congress and the FAA must also engage state and local governments in conversations regarding UAS 

regulations. Maintaining federal sovereignty of the airspace keeps our skies safe and helps foster 

innovation, but soliciting input from non-federal bodies such as states, municipalities and tribal 

governments will be integral to moving federal regulations forward. The White House's recent 

announcement of a UAS Integration Pilot Program is a positive step in that direction. It represents an 

opportunity for these state and local governments to collaborate with the UAS industry and the FAA to 

further develop a federal policy framework for integrating UAS into the skies above communities across 

the nation. 

The pilot program will offer a data-driven approach to allow for expanded UAS operations, including 

beyond line of sight, and UAS traffic management concepts. Importantly, it will also provide a mechanism 

for state, local and tribal officials to contribute their views to the UAS policy framework, without infringing 

on the U.S. government's jurisdiction over the national airspace. 

Of course, the UAS industry is not relying on the FAA and government alone to advance this technology. 

Page 4 of 6 
92 


Insert offset folio 43 here 28672.043

Industry currently shoulders many of the research and development costs to spur innovation, finding 

solutions to make UAS fly higher and farther, more safely and efficiently. 

Industry has partnered with government to advance UAS Traffic Management (UTM) concepts, beginning 

with Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC). It has also been a partner in helping 

develop standards for remotely identifying operators and owners of UAS, building on earlier registration 

efforts with real-time tracking of UAS operators. AUVSI collected papers on remote identification solutions 

for UAS from industry stakeholders to help the FAA meet its congressional directive under the 2016 FAA 

reauthorization extension to develop consensus for such standards. 

The RTCA's Drone Advisory Committee (DAC), of which I am a member, also provides a key forum for the 

FAA and industry to work together to "facilitate the resolution of issues affecting the efficiency and safety 

of integrating UAS into the NAS."1 Through its Drone Advisory Subcommittee and three Task Groups, the 

DAC is working to provide consensus-based recommendations to the FAA. I am also honored to represent 

the UAS community on the FAA Management Advisory Council (MAC), where I provide input to the FAA 

on policy and regulatory matters relating to all aviation matters. These important collaborative measures 

will continue to be important to the growth and security of the UAS industry. 

Industry-government collaboration on outstanding issues will be necessary as we work towards further 

UAS integration, to include platforms above the small UAS threshold and in higher altitudes. This will 

require dialogue between industry stakeholders and additional federal agencies, such as NASA and DoD, 

and will help ensure a holistic approach to airspace integration. 

The UAS industry is primed for incredible growth, thanks to industry representatives and government 

regulators nurturing innovation that helps businesses be competitive in the marketplace. We hope that 

these efforts can be sustained, that a long-term FAA bill can be passed, and that together we continue to 

reach new historic milestones in integrating this technology into the national airspace and pave the way 

for regular and widespread UAS use. 

Before I conclude, I want to take a moment to offer the UAS industry's thanks to Chairman LoBiondo, who 

1 https://www.rtca.org/content/drone-advisory-committee 

Page 5 of 6 
93 


Insert offset folio 44 here 28672.044

recently announced that he would retire at the end of this term. The Chairman was one of the earliest 

champions of unmanned aircraft systems on Capitol Hill, and in his district in southern New Jersey, which 

has become an important center for UAS research and development thanks to work at the FAA Technical 

Center. He has been a tireless advocate for the UAS community, supporting policy that has helped expand 

the adoption of commercial UAS across dozens of business sectors. We look forward to working with 

Chairman LoBiondo and the rest of this subcommittee in the coming year to continue to move the UAS 

industry forward and spur economic and job growth for the nation through a long-term FAA 

reauthorization measure. 

Thank you, again, for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward to answering any questions from the 

committee's members. 

Page 6 of 6 
94 


Insert offset folio 45 here 28672.045

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

RESPONSES ON BEHALF OF BRIAN WYNNE 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION FOR UNMANNED VEHICLE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

"Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Emerging Uses in a Changing National Airspace" 

November 29, 2017 

Questions Submitted on Behalf of Congressman Jason lewis (MN-02) 

1. In your oral testimony, you agreed that state, local, and tribal governments have a role to play using 

their police powers. In light of that, can you clarify and describe how the Association for Unmanned 

Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) envisions these levels of government creating and enforcing 

temporary flight limitations or restrictions using their traditional powers? 

The United States benefits from the safest airspace system in the world. This is largely thanks to uniform 

federal aviation regulations and restrictions. Maintaining consistent regulations keeps our skies safe and 

helps foster innovation. This authority resides and must continue to reside with the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA). AUVSI also recognizes the need for non-federal bodies such as states, municipalities 

and tribal governments to play a role in developing that federal framework. 

The White House's recent announcement of the UAS Integration Pilot Program {UAS /PP) is a positive step 

for that effort. This pilot program represents an opportunity for state, local, and tribal governments to 

collaborate with the UAS industry and the FAA to further develop a federal framework for integrating UAS 

into the skies above communities across the nation. 

Page 1 of 3 
95 


Insert offset folio 46 here 28672.046

We are hopeful that in addition to helping unlock the full potential of VAS technology, enforcement issues 

will be another key component of the VAS IPP, in order to explore the specific issues that you highlighted. 

In the meantime, as is noted in the FAA's "State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (VAS} 

Fact Sheet" that it released on December 17, 2015, "laws traditionally related to state and local police 

power- including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and Jaw enforcement operations- generally are not 

subject to federal regulation." 

2. I think we both agree limitations put in place by or at the request of various levels of government 

need to be easy for the public to monitor and understand. Do you believe technology can properly 

address this? 

Through technology that industry has already brought to the forefront and future research and 

development, advances in VAS-related technology will continue to spur innovation, finding solutions to 

make VAS fly higher and farther, more safely and efficiently. 

As an example, industry is working with government to advance technologies for UAS Traffic Management 

(UTM} concepts, beginning with Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC}. LAANC is 

an industry developed application with the goal of providing drone operators near real time processing of 

airspace notifications and automatic approval of requests that are below approved altitudes in controlled 

airspace. 

3. On September 10, 2015, you testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary stating: "Only 

the FAA can regulate airspace; states and municipalities cannot... It is critical for the federal 

government to assert its preemption authority over the National Airspace System. In the absence 

of FAA action, we may soon be facing a legal quagmire. Challenges to questionable state laws will 

tie up the courts and at a significant expense to U.S. taxpayers. The Judiciary Committee is 

positioned to deal with the issue of federal preemption. If the FAA feels that it needs clarification 

of its authority, I would urge Congress to provide such clarity and legislatively settle this issue." 

I too am concerned that without legal clarity the drone industry will see significant setbacks as tribes, 

Page 2 of3 
96 


Insert offset folio 47 here 28672.047

counties, cities, states, and property owners go to court to protect their traditional interests. In light of 

your statements on November 29, 2017 and considering the lack of interest in pursuing federal 

preemption, do you believe Congress will need to provide clarity in order to provide certainty to the 

drone community and put an end to the "legal quagmire"? 

The FAA's UAS IPP will allow for a data-driven process, within a controlled operational environment, to 

explore the best options for states, tribes, and municipalities to address their needs, as it relates to 

different types of UAS operations. Additionally, the UAS IPP is the best option for informing future 

regulatory and congressional action that will help enhance innovation and increase economic impact. 

Therefore, congressional action on this issue prior to the conclusion, findings, and recommendations of the 

FAA's UAS IPP would be premature. 

Page3of3 
97 


Insert offset folio 48 here 28672.048

Subcommittee on Aviation Hearing 

"Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration: Emerging Uses in a Changing National Airspace" 

November 29, 2017 

Follow-Up Questions for the Record 

Mr. Brian Wynne, President and CEO, 

Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) 

Questions submitted by Ranking Member Peter A. DeFazio 

Question 1: 

With expanded commercial drone operations on the horizon, such as those beyond visual line 

of sight or covering long distances, drones will require access to appropriate and stable 

spectrum to perform those operations safely. 

How will spectrum allocation affect the full integration of drones and their emerging uses, 

such as those uses discussed during the hearing? 

Brian Wynne: 

The availability of spectrum to UAS is paramount for the safety of our skies and for the success 

of expanded operations, as drone operators require a communications link or radio frequency 

spectrum in order to maintain control of their aircraft. Proper spectrum allocation may be 

needed to accommodate the growing number of UAS operating below 400 feet and to avoid 

spectrum congestion. 

In addition to dedicated spectrum for command and control at higher altitudes, the anticipated 

development of sophisticated sense-and-avoid technology, beyond-line-of sight operations and 

the transmission of payload data represent functionalities that will require significant spectrum 

resources. 

A key component of safe operations will be the integration of communications links into 

vehicles, and the ability of those links to meet applicable performance standards appropriate to 

various altitudes, vehicles, and types of operations. 
98 


Insert offset folio 49 here 28672.049

Question2: 

I am concerned that toy drones flown for non-commercial purposes introduce safety risks into 

the national airspace system. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) projects that the 

hobbyist drone fleet will more than triple in size in the next four years, to more than 3.5 million 

(and potentially as many as 4.5 million) units by 2021. 

Equipping toy drones with various safety-enhancing technologies, such as remote-sensing or 

geofencing capabilities, may be a method of reducing the number of unauthorized or unsafe 

drone operations, regardless of the operator. 

What would it take to require that toy drones sold in the United States are equipped with such 

technologies? 

Do you believe the FAA has the authority to require that drones be equipped with such 

technologies? 

Brian Wynne: 

A number of manufacturers, including those that make drones highly popular with consumers, are 

already voluntarily equipping their platforms with safety-enhancing technologies, such as geo-fencing. 

AUVSI is also working collaboratively with government partners to develop remote identification 

solutions that will enhance security as well. 

However, AUVSI believes that the FAA may need additional authority to require all appropriate UAS 

be equipped with such technologies, given the limitations outlined in Section 336 in the FAA 

Reauthorization and Modernization Act of 2012. It is worth noting that the FAA's registration 

requirement applies to any UAS over 0.55 lbs., which may cover some drones considered "toys," 

thanks to recent Congressional action in the FY18 National Defense Authorization Act. 

\X'hile technological solutions can provide adclitional situational awareness and enhance safety, they 

are no substitute for training and education. Ultimately, the operator is responsible for the safety of 

an aircraft- whether it's manned or unmanned. 

That's why AUVSI, in partnership with the Academy of Model Aeronautics and the FAA, developed 

the Know Before You Fly campaign to educate UAS operators on safety guidelines. I<now Before 

You Fly works with manufacturers to put educational materials in product packaging and online to 

provide consumers with the information they need to fly their UAS safely and responsibly. 
99 


Insert offset folio 50 here 28672.050

STATEMENT OF DANIEL K. ELWELL, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL 

AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, BEFORE THE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION: UNMANNED 

AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION: EMERGING USES IN A CHANGING NATIONAL 

AIRSPACE, NOVEMBER 29, 2017 

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, Members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss a subject that is at the 

forefront of aviation; Unmanned Aircraft Systems or UAS. UAS-also referred to as dronesare the fastest growing field in aviation. They are being used today to examine infrastructure, 

survey agriculture, provide emergency response support, examine damage caused by time or 

disaster, and to go places that would otherwise be dangerous for people or other vehicles. 

Entrepreneurs around the world are exploring innovative ways to use drones in their corporate 

activities. And we have witnessed a significant influx of new, casual users ofUAS-people who 

fly drones for recreation or entertainment-into the National Airspace System (NAS). The need 

for us to fully integrate this technology into the NAS continues to be a national priority. 

Accompanying me today is Earl Lawrence. Earl is the Executive Director of the FAA's 

UAS Integration Office and is responsible for facilitating all of the regulations, policies, and 

procedures required to support the FAA's U AS integration efforts. The Department of 

Transportation and FAA's vision is ambitious. We intend to fully integrate UAS into the NAS, 

with UAS operating harmoniously, side-by-side with manned aircraft, occupying the same 

airspace and using many of the same air traffic management systems and procedures. Our vision 

goes beyond the accommodation practices in use today by most countries, which largely rely on 

operational segregation to maintain systemic safety. As we work to realize this vision, UAS 

must be introduced to the NAS incrementally to ensure the safety of people and property both in 

the air and on the ground. 
100 


Insert offset folio 51 here 28672.051

Two years ago, we appeared before this committee to discuss the status of the safe, 

incremental integration of drones into the NAS. In that time, we have made significant progress 

toward our goal of fully integrating this new class of aircraft and their operators. Today, I would 

like to highlight for you some of our accomplishments, our challenges, and our ongoing work to 

build upon our successes as we move forward with the next phase ofUAS integration. 

Small UAS Rule 

At the outset, the FAA recognized that managing the safe integration of drone technology 

into the world's busiest and most complex airspace system would require the participation of all 

stakeholders-the FAA, industry, aviation groups, and our public safety and security partners, to 

name just a few. The FAA adopted an approach of engagement and collaboration with these 

stakeholders in the development of the first set of operating rules for small UAS, which forms 

the bedrock of the regulatory framework for full UAS integration. Because UAS technology is 

changing at a rapid pace, a flexible regulatory framework is imperative. Our goal is to provide 

the basic rules for operators, instead of specific technological solutions that could quickly 

become outdated. We've met this goal with the final small UAS rule (14 CFR part 107), which 

went into effect on August 29,2016. 

Part 107 introduces a brand new pilot certificate specific to UAS-the Remote Pilot 

Certificate. Unlike an airman certificate for manned aircraft issued under part 61, which 

necessarily has more stringent requirements, an individual can obtain a Remote Pilot Certificate 

under part 1 07 by passing an aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA -approved testing center. 

Alternatively, if the individual already holds a current non-student part 61 airman certificate, the 

individual may complete an online UAS training course in lieu of the knowledge test. Remote 

pilots must be 16 years of age, be able to read, speak, write, and understand English, and be in a 

2 
101 


Insert offset folio 52 here 28672.052

physical and mental condition to safely operate a small UAS. The certificate is valid for two 

years, after which the remote pilot must take a recurrent knowledge test. Since this rule went 

into effect, the FAA has issued almost 70,000 remote pilot certificates and 92% of the people 

who take the remote pilot certificate knowledge exam pass it. 

The provisions of part 1 07 are designed to minimize risks to other aircraft and people and 

property on the ground. Among other things, the regulations require pilots to keep an unmanned 

aircraft within visual line-of-sight. Operations are allowed during daylight and twilight hours if 

the drone has anti-collision lights. The new regulation also addresses altitude and speed 

restrictions as well as other operational limits such as prohibiting flights over unprotected people 

on the ground who are not directly participating in the UAS operation. 

In keeping with our goal of a flexible framework, some provisions of part 107 may be 

waived. Operators may apply on our Web site for a waiver to allow drones to fly in controlled 

airspace or at night, for example. Applicants must demonstrate that their proposed operation can 

be conducted safely outside of the provisions of part 107. Part 107 allows for operations in Class 

G airspace without prior air traffic control authorization. Operations in Class B, C, D, and 

surface area E airspace, all of which exists primarily around airports, may be permitted with 

authorization from the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) using the online waiver portal. To date, 

the FAA has issued 1,200 operational waivers and II ,000 authorizations or waivers for 

controlled airspace operations. Consistent with our risk-based approach, we are increasingly 

able to grant waivers for more complex operations, including one recently granted to CNN for 

operations over people. And we are taking steps to further streamline the waiver and 

authorization process. 
102 


Insert offset folio 53 here 28672.053

The small UAS rule provides UAS operators with unprecedented access to the NAS 

while also ensuring the safety of the skies. However, it is only the first step in the FAA's plan to 

integrate UAS into the NAS. Consistent with our incremental approach to integration, we are 

using a risk-based analysis to facilitate expanded UAS operations, including operations over 

people, operations beyond visual line-of-sight, and transportation of persons and property. 

Supporting Emergency Response 

UAS have been invaluable in supporting response and recovery efforts following the 

widespread devastation brought about by recent hurricanes. When winds and floodwaters 

damaged homes, businesses, roadways and industries, a wide variety of agencies and companies 

sought FAA authorization to fly drones in the affected areas. We responded quickly, issuing a 

total of355 airspace authorizations to ensure that those drones could operate safely. 

Drones played a critical role in performing search and rescue missions; assessing damage 

to roads, bridges, and other critical infrastructure; and helping insurance companies act more 

quickly on claims coming in from homeowners. And in Puerto Rico, the FAA quickly approved 

the first UAS operation of its kind to provide essential communication services. We granted 

AT&T an exemption from part I 07 to operate a 60-pound tethered drone to provide temporary 

voice, data, and internet service while construction crews rebuild a tower to restore permanent 

service on the island. 

The FAA's ability to quickly authorize UAS operations after these storms was especially 

critical because most local airports were either closed or dedicated to emergency relief flights, 

and the fuel supply was low. As Administrator Huerta recently said: "Essentially, every drone 

that flew meant that a traditional aircraft was not putting an additional strain on an already fragile 

4 
103 


Insert offset folio 54 here 28672.054

system. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the hurricane response will be looked back 

upon as a landmark in the evolution of drone usage in this country." 

UAS Integration Pilot Program 

The FAA's commitment to the safe and efficient integration ofUAS and the expansion of 

routine UAS operations requires resolving several key challenges to enable this emerging 

technology to safely achieve its full potential. Congress recognized a number of these challenges 

in the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of2016. Technical issues to ensure that a drone 

maintains a safe distance from other aircraft and that the pilot retains control of the drone and 

can comply with air traffic instructions must be addressed before UAS operations beyond visual 

line-of-sight can become routine. And there are additional policy questions raised by UAS use, 

including security, both physical and cyber, privacy, and enforcement. 

To address these challenges and leverage the experience of our stakeholders, on 

October 25, 2017, President Trump directed the Department of Transportation to launch an 

initiative to safely test and validate advanced operations for drones in partnership with state and 

local governments in select jurisdictions-the UAS Integration Pilot Program. The results of this 

program will be used to improve the safe and secure integration of UAS into the NAS and to 

realize the benefits of this technology in our economy. 

The pilot program will help tackle the most significant challenges in integrating drones 

into the NAS while reducing risks to public safety and security. Ultimately, it is expected to help 

the Department of Transportation and the FAA develop a comprehensive regulatory framework 

that will allow more complex low-altitude operations; identify ways to balance local and national 

interests; improve communications with local, state, and tribal jurisdictions; address security and 

5 
104 


Insert offset folio 55 here 28672.055

privacy risks; and accelerate the approval of operations that currently require special 

authorizations. 

As stated in the Federal Register Notice announcing the pilot program application 

process, the deadline for Lead Applicants-state, local, or tribal government entities-to submit 

a notice of intent to participate in the program was yesterday, November 28,2017. Private sector 

companies or organizations, UAS operators, public sector entities, and other stakeholders may 

submit a request to be on the Interested Parties List by December 13, 2017. After evaluating the 

applications, the Department of Transportation will invite a minimum of five government/private 

sector partnerships to participate in the pilot program. 

VAS Airspace Authorizations and Traffic Management 

Starting in spring 2017, the FAA began publishing UAS facility maps, which indicate 

safe UAS flight altitudes in areas of controlled airspace around airports. Part 107 operators can 

use these maps to submit better airspace authorization requests. This was a first step toward 

setting up a data exchange program with external stakeholders, and on October 23, 2017, the 

FAA launched a prototype evaluation of the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification 

Capability (LAANC). LAANC is a joint public-private initiative for the FAA to work with 

industry to develop the requirements for an application that automates the process for UAS 

operators to get authorization to fly in certain classes of airspace. In the future, operators will 

also be able to use LAANC to notify airports and Air Traffic Control when they want to fly 

within five miles of an airport, as required by the Special Rule for Model Aircraft. The initial 

LAANC prototype evaluation will cover 10 air traffic facilities and nearly 50 airports. A list of 

these facilities and airports can be found on the FAA's Web site at: 

www.faa.gov /uas/programs _partnerships/uas _data_ exchange/airports _participating_ in _laanc/. 

6 
105 


Insert offset folio 56 here 28672.056

LAANC is the first step toward implementing UAS Traffic Management (UTM). The 

FAA is working with NASA and industry to develop and eventually deploy a UTM concept, 

which will enable more routine beyond line-of~sight operations. NASA's concept specifically 

addresses small UAS operations, primarily below 400 feet above ground level, in airspace that 

contains low-density manned aircraft operations, where air traffic services are typically not 

provided. NASA has developed a phased approach for their UTM platform, building from rural 

to urban and from low- to high-density airspace. In April2016, NASA coordinated with six 

FAA-selected test sites to perform phase one testing of the UTM research platform. A Research 

Transition Team has been established between the FAA and NASA to coordinate the UTM 

initiative, as the concept introduces policy, regulatory, and infrastructure implications that must 

be fully understood and addressed before moving forward with technology deployment. 

Security and Enforcement 

As Congress recognized in the 2016 FAA Extension, the security challenges presented by 

UAS technology require a layered and integrated government response. Addressing one 

challenge, the Department of Homeland Security is leading an interagency coordinated effort by 

federal partners, including the FAA, the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense, 

to identify and evaluate technologies that help detect and track unmanned aircraft movement 

through the NAS. We continue to work closely with our government and industry partners to 

evaluate these drone-detection technologies, including evaluations around airports in New York, 

Atlantic City, Denver, and Dallas-Fort Worth. 

The potential for conflicts between manned and unmanned aircraft has become a very 

real challenge in integrating these new technologies into the NAS. We are seeing an increased 

number of drone-sighting reports from pilots of manned aircraft. This year, we've received an 

7 
106 


Insert offset folio 57 here 28672.057

average of almost 200 reports from pilots each month--over 2,000 to date-which is 

significantly higher than the number received in 2016 and 2015. In 2016, we received 

approximately I ,800 complaints, compared to I ,200 complaints the year before. 

As the Federal agency responsible for the safety of the flying community, the increasing 

number of these reports is of great concern. As a result, the FAA has actively engaged in public 

education and outreach efforts, such as "Know Before You Fly" and the small UAS registration 

process. Sometimes, however, education is not enough. To be clear, if an unauthorized UAS 

operation is intentional, creates an unacceptable risk to safety, or is intended to cause harm, 

strong and swift enforcement action will be taken. Earlier this year, we announced a 

comprehensive settlement agreement with a UAS operator that flew drones in congested airspace 

over New York City and Chicago, and violated airspace regulations and aircraft operating rules. 

One of our ongoing challenges in this area, however, is the limited amount of information 

available to our inspectors when they need to contact a UAS operator or take action to address a 

potential violation of our regulations. As Congress has recognized, identification and tracking of 

UAS is critical to the full integration of this technology in the NAS. As discussed further below, 

the FAA established an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to develop standards and 

provide recommendations for remote identification and tracking ofUAS this year. 

Engagement with the law enforcement community also is paramount to ensuring that our 

airspace remains the safest in the world. In January 2015, the FAA published guidance for the 

law enforcement community on the UAS Web site, and has been actively engaging with law 

enforcement agencies at local, State, and Federal levels through a variety of channels. The goal 

of these efforts is to reduce confusion in the law enforcement community about how to respond 

to UAS events. The FAA encourages citizens to call local law enforcement if they feel someone 

8 
107 


Insert offset folio 58 here 28672.058

is endangering people or property on the ground or in the sky. Local law enforcement will then 

work with local FAA field offices to ensure these safety issues are addressed. We have also 

started a webinar series specifically geared toward educating law enforcement and other public 

safety officials about how to enforce unsafe or unauthorized operations, and how to fly UAS 

safely and legally when they need to. 

Moving Forward 

As we move forward with UAS integration, we need to continue to involve all 

stakeholders in framing challenges and finding solutions. By leveraging this expertise, we will 

continue to ensure that the FAA maintains its position as the global leader in aviation safety. 

This month, I attended a meeting of the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC). Our main goal with 

the DAC moving forward is to harvest the collective technical and operational expertise of its 

members, which include representatives from industry, government, labor, and academia. With 

the announcement of the UAS Integration Pilot Program, we will ask the DAC to provide us with 

the technical and operational recommendations we need to implement the program. In addition, 

the DAC will continue to assist us with determining what the highest-priority UAS operations 

are and how we can enable access to the airspace needed to conduct these operations. 

We are also making headway with two Aviation Rulemaking Committees (ARC) tasked 

with making recommendations for the next critical steps in the pathway to full UAS integration: 

remote identification and tracking ofUAS and integrating larger UAS into the NAS. This past 

spring, we established the UAS Identification and Tracking ARC to make recommendations 

about technologies that can be used to remotely lD and track UAS, and that would address some 

of the concerns of the law enforcement and security communities. The ARC recently concluded 

9 
108 


Insert offset folio 59 here 28672.059

its work and submitted its report to us last month; we are now reviewing the committee's 

recommendations and expect to publish this report in the coming weeks. 

In addition, we recently convened a UAS in Controlled Airspace ARC, which will 

provide recommendations on integrating larger UAS into the NAS. It will develop and 

recommend scenarios that will encompass the most desired operations, identify gaps in research 

and development needed to successfully integrate larger UAS into controlled airspace, and 

develop and recommend up to five prioritized changes to policies and procedures that will spur 

integration. The ARC held its second meeting at the end of October 2017 and will continue to 

hold regular meetings over the next 15 months. 

Before I conclude my remarks, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the support 

that Chairman LoBiondo has provided to the FAA and, in particular, the William J. Hughes 

Technical Center in Atlantic City, New Jersey. In its role as the core facility for sustaining and 

modernizing the air traffic management system, the Technical Center has been instrumental in 

the FAA's efforts to facilitate new entrants and users to the NAS. I thank Chairman LoBiondo 

for his leadership and wish him well as he retires from Congress. 

Conclusion 

The FAA's progress in accommodating new technologies and operations demonstrates 

that the agency is well positioned to maintain its status as the global leader in safe and efficient 

air transportation. The progress we have made would have seemed unimaginable not long ago. 

We know, however, that these accomplishments are only the first step. There are many 

important issues yet to be addressed and we will continue to work with our stakeholders as we 

write the next chapter in aviation history. 

This concludes my statement. I will be glad to answer any questions you have. 

10 
109 


Insert offset folio 60 here 28672.060

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration: 

Emerging Uses in a Changing National Airspace 

Wednesday, November 29,2017, 10:00 a.m. 

2167 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 

Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, 

Responses to Questions for the Record 

Submitted on behal{o[Congressman Paul Mitchell (Ml-10) 

Efforts to date from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and stakeholders have rightly 

focused on getting the regulatory framework as well as licensing and registration requirements 

right. While that work continues, at a certain point enforcement of whatever the standards may 

be becomes necessary. 

1. What steps has the FAA taken on the enforcement front? Forward looking, what do you 

anticipate that will look like? 

ANSWER: The FAA investigates all complaints involving possible regulatory violations and, based 

on the results of the investigation, determines a course of action. Non-enforcement responses, 

known as compliance actions, include educational outreach and counseling. The FAA has taken 

over 350 compliance actions for regulatory deviations involving a UAS operation. However, in 

cases that involve intentional, reckless or criminal violations or that pose an unacceptable risk to 

the National Airspace System, enforcement action will be pursued. Enforcement action may 

include suspension or revocation of FAA certificates, civil, or criminal penalties. To date, more 

than 65 enforcement cases have been initiated by the FAA for non-compliant UAS operations. 

In the future, the FAA anticipates that as more UAS operators become aware of the regulatory 

environment in which they are operating through FAA and industry outreach, the FAA will be 

able to focus its enforcement resources on operators unwilling or unable to comply with 

regulatory standards. These efforts will be aided by the restoration of the 14 CFR part 48 

registration requirements, as well as ongoing efforts regarding remote identification and 

tracking. 

2. Can you describe what the FAA is doing to work with state and local goverrnnents and 

law enforcement agencies to enforce Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) rules and 

regulations? How will the FAA partner with these stakeholders? 

ANSWER: The FAA works closely with state and local governments and law enforcement to 

share information regarding apparent unsafe or unauthorized UAS operations. In particular, the 

FAA works with local law enforcement in gathering information about unsafe or unauthorized 

UAS operations. The FAA pursues enforcement actions based on information provided by law 

enforcement and also provides law enforcement with technical expertise to assist with local 

criminal enforcement actions. 
110 


Insert offset folio 61 here 28672.061

To further educate state and local governments and law enforcement, the FAA holds regularly 

scheduled webinars to discuss UAS enforcement issues and offers other educational 

opportunities as well. Specifically, we have published guidance for law enforcement and for 

state and local governments on our website. 

We have also recently announced the UAS Integration Pilot Program, which is intended to 

enable more advanced drone operations and collect relevant operational data from those 

operations, while also providing a forum for the FAA to work with state, local, and tribal 

governments to understand their needs in managing drone operations within their jurisdictions. 

The FAA will be signing agreements with the selected participants, all of whom will be a state, 

local, or tribal government entity, and we anticipate this program will better inform all parties 

about balancing federal airspace authority with the traditional interests and authorities of 

states, tribes, and localities. 

Submitted on behal(o(Congressman Jason Lewis (MN-02) 

Deputy Administrator Elwell, I thank you for participating in this hearing. I have a few 

questions for you as this Committee considers policies around drone technology. 

I. With regard to the recently announced pilot program, does the FAA intend to accept 

applicants that are looking at unique ways to encourage drone operations while 

simultaneously applying their traditional police powers in order to better inform any 

future action as it pertains to applying the traditional interests of states, tribes, and 

localities to drone technology? 

ANSWER: The UAS Integration Pilot Program is intended to enable more advanced drone 

operations and collect relevant operational data from those operations, while also providing a 

forum for the FAA to work with state, local, and tribal governments to understand their needs in 

managing drone operations within their jurisdictions. The FAA will be signing agreements with 

the selected participants, all of whom will be a state, local, or tribal government entity, and we 

anticipate this program will better inform all parties about balancing federal airspace authority 

with the traditional interests and authorities of states, tribes, and localities. 

2. Earlier this year we saw a drone collide with a Blackhawk in New York and then a drone 

collide with a commercial aircraft in Canada. Do you have any recommendations for this 

Committee as we consider proposals addressing how unmanned small drones integrate at 

low and high altitudes in order to maintain a safe National Airspace System for manned 

aviation? 

ANSWER: The restoration of the 14 CFR part 48 registration requirements in the National 

Defense Authorization Act was a necessary first step in ensuring appropriate accountability for 

flying in the National Airspace System (NAS). While the FAA will continue our education and 

outreach initiatives to help operators understand the regulatory environment in which they are 

operating, ongoing efforts regarding remote identification and tracking of UAS will become 

increasingly important as we continue our integration efforts. Knowing who is flying where is 

important from both a security perspective (i.e. helping security partners distinguish "good 

guys" from "bad guys"), and also from an integration standpoint, as a foundational aspect of 
111 


Insert offset folio 62 here 28672.062

UAS traffic management is the ability for all aircraft in the system to have situational awareness 

of others. Moving forward, it will be vital that all unmanned aircraft flying in the NAS, regardless 

of the type of operation, be subject to some manner of regulatory oversight to ensure overall 

system safety, and we appreciate this Committee's continued support for these important 

building blocks to full integration. 

3. Is the FAA equipped to monitor all current and future users and enforce regulations on all 

UAS flights that are local in nature? These could include operations that are five feet 

above the ground in my back yard, over a crime scene, or near a school. If not, what 

resources or assistance would be needed? 

ANSWER: The future success of the United States' UAS integration efforts depends on all 

unmanned aircraft flying in the NAS, including model aircraft flown by hobbyists, being subject 

to some manner of regulatory oversight to ensure overall system safety. Our ongoing efforts 

regarding remote identification and tracking will be crucial to moving forward with integration, 

which is why the FAA convened an industry committee in Summer 2017 to provide 

recommendations on implementing remote 10 and tracking requirements. 

At the local level, the FAA works closely with local and state governments and law enforcement 

agencies to enforce regulations. We host regularly scheduled webinars to discuss UAS 

enforcement issues and have published guidance for law enforcement and for state and local 

governments on our website to help inform them about their authorities with regard to unsafe 

or unauthorized UAS flights. As more UAS operators become aware of the regulatory 

environment in which they are operating coupled with identification and tracking requirements, 

the FAA will be able to focus its enforcement resources on unsafe or unauthorized operators 

and operations. 
112 


Insert offset folio 63 here 28672.063

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION HEARING ON "UNMANNED AIRCRAFT 

SYSTEMS INTEGRATION: EMERGING USES IN A CHANGING 

NATIONAL AIRSPACE" NOVEMBER 29, 2017 

RANKI:>IG MEMBER PETER A. DEFAZIO QUESTION 

FOR THE RECORD 

For Mr. Daniel K. Elwell, Federal Aviation Administration: 

With expanded commercial drone operations on the horizon, such as those beyond visual line of sight or covering 

long distances, drones will require access to appropriate and stable spectrum to perform those operations safely. 

How will spectrum allocation affect the full integration of drones and their emerging uses, such as those uses 

discussed during the hearing? 

Answer: 

Drones require access to appropriate and stable spectrum to meet the required performance requirements that 

assure the safety of their operations in the National Airspace System (NAS). Assessing the full impact of 

spectrum allocation on the emerging drone industry requires additional input from both the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) and the industry itself. The FAA is focused on setting the performance 

standards necessary for the industry to meet for the safe operation of their products; these standards are 

primarily limited to requirements for the command and controllinlc Industry is free to use the full commercial 

spectrum to meet their needs, provided they meet these performance requirements to ensure safety, and can 

work with the FCC and others to procure the needed spectrum. 
113 


Insert offset folio 64 here 28672.064

Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

Questions for the Record to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy Administrator, 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1. Global Competitiveness of the UAS Industry 

Mr. Elwell: There is a growing number of manufacturers building electric vertical takeoff and 

landing aircraft for short distance travel now being called Urban Air Mobility. 

As co-chair of the public transportation caucus, I have heard from stakeholders across all modes 

of transportation about the changing paradigm of mobility. We need to need to think big, and we 

need agencies that are nimble enough to respond to a changing technology landscape. 

Yet many of these companies are being attracted to other countries for initial deployment because 

of a difficult regulatory regime here in the United States. What is the FAA doing to ensure that 

the US will lead the world on certification and airspace integration for these promising new 

aircraft? 

ANSWER: 

Most other countries are pursuing a segregated approach to UAS operations, meaning they carve 

out a segment of airspace solely for UAS to fly. While this enables more testing in the short-term, 

it does not necessarily provide long-term flexibility. The FAA is focused on the more difficult, but 

ultimately more efficient, task of integrating UAS into our airspace system. We are taking an 

incremental approach to this objective by developing a performance-based regulatory framework, 

and also through working with industry to build a firm foundation for a scalable and automated 

UAS traffic management system. 

The FAA's Small UAS Rule (14 CFR part 107) represents the base framework of regulations for 

small UAS operations, and we are building on this base with upcoming proposed rules for routine 

operations at night and over people. At the same time, the recently announced UAS Integration 

Pilot Program (IPP) enables the FAA to facilitate more complex U AS operations like beyond lineof-sight and package delivery while working with state, local, and tribal government entities to 

manage airspace requirements in their jurisdictions. To assist industry in developing viable Urban 

Air Mobility Concepts, the FAA is exploring the establishment of an internal team that will meet 

regularly and work directly with industry to provide guidance and direction. For UAS traffic 

management, we are in the midst of a prototype evaluation of our Low Altitude Authorization and 

Notification Capability (LAANC), which is a joint data exchange effort with industry partners to 

enable near real-time authorization and notification of UAS operations in controlled airspace. 

Finally, we recently received recommendations from an industry committee for remote 

identification and tracking requirements for unmanned aircraft. These recommendations will be 

used to inform the development of future regulations that will enable other airspace users and 

public safety officials to know who is flying where in the airspace, a foundational element for 

future UAS traffic management. 
114 


Insert offset folio 65 here 28672.065

Hon. Daniel Lipinski, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

Questions for the Record to Daniel K. Elwell, Deputy Administrator, 

Federal Aviation Administration 

3. Emergency waivers for disaster response 

Mr. Elwell, could you provide a brief overview of the FAA's work with U AS operators in the 

immediate aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria? Did operators request, and did the 

FAA issue any Part 1 07 waivers for beyond visual line-of-sight or over people in the context of 

disaster response efforts? Are such waivers available for public view? 

ANSWER: 

The FAA used contingency airspace management measures to expedite UAS operations in 

support of disaster response efforts for Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria. The FAA issued a 

total of345 Special Government Interest (SGI COA)/Waivers, 18 of which were for beyond 

visual line-of-sight (BVLOS) operations- 12 in Florida for Next Era/Florida Power & Light, and 

6 in Texas to Insitu and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). These authorizations were largely 

granted within a matter of hours of being received by the FAA's System Operations Team, and 

allowed first responders quick access to support emergency response efforts. Because these SGI 

CO As are granted to support activities which answer significant and urgent governmental 

interests, including national defense, homeland security, law enforcement, and emergency 

operations objectives, they are generally not made public. 

In addition to the SGI COAs, the FAA approved a Section 333 exemption for AT&T to use a 

Flying COW (Cell on Wings) to provide cell phone service to Puerto Rico in the aftermath of 

Hurricane Maria. This approval was issued within a couple days of receiving the 

request. Section 333 exemptions are posted on the public docket at 

https:ljwww. regulations.gov I docket ?D=FAA-2017-1069) 
115 


Insert offset folio 66 here 28672.066

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL (ALPA) 

TO THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2017 

"UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS: 

EMERGING USES IN A CHANGING NATIONAL AIRSPACE" 

Air Line Pilots Association, International 

1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

(202) 797-4033 
116 


Insert offset folio 67 here 28672.067

The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALP A), represents more than 58,000 

professional airline pilots flying for 33 airlines in the United States and Canada. ALP A is 

the world's largest pilot union and the world's largest non-governmental aviation safety 

organization. We are the recognized voice of the airline piloting profession in North 

America, with a history of safety and security advocacy spanning more than 85 years. As 

the sole U.S. member of the International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations 

(IFALPA), ALPA has the unique ability to provide active airline pilot expertise to 

aviation safety issues worldwide, and to incorporate an international dimension to 

safety advocacy. 

Safe Integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

With the rapidly growing use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) for any number of 

applications and uses, the safety risks to airline operations needs to be monitored very 

closely. Clearly, at some point in the future, UAS will be integrated into the national 

airspace system (NAS), interacting with other aircraft in a manner similar to "pilot on 

board" aircraft today. 

However, it seems at times that the FAA is struggling to keep pace with the expansion 

of the UAS industry. We must not allow pressure to rapidly integrate UAS into the NAS 

to rush a process that must be focused on safety as the highest priority. Risk mitigation 

plans, which have yet to be fully developed, combined with consensus-based technology 

standards that will ensure interoperability with manned aircraft, must be in place before 
117 


Insert offset folio 68 here 28672.068

a UAS can occupy the same airspace as manned aircraft or operate in areas where it 

might inadvertently stray into airspace occupied by airliners. When UAS operate in the 

same airspace as airline aircraft, the pilots will need to be able to see them on cockpit 

displays, and air traffic controllers will also need to see them on their displays to safely 

separate air traffic. Further, the UAS must be equipped with active collision-avoidance 

technology. We will oppose any integration that does not include collision avoidance 

systems that are interoperable with airline collision avoidance systems. 

If a UAS operator does not intend to fly in the same airspace as airliners, then limitations 

that ensure the UAS stays out of the airspace must be programed into the UAS in a way 

that cannot be overridden. 

FAA Authority to Fully Regulate all UAS 

The FAA has established 14 CFR Part 107, which are rules for small UAS (sUAS). The 

regulatory framework created is limited to commercial operations only. This is because 

Congress prohibited the FAA from promulgating any new rules on "hobbyists" 

operators in Section 336 of P.L. 112-95 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012. This law was cited in an appeals court decision earlier this year that struck down 

the FAA regulatory requirement that requires all operators of sUAS that weigh more 

than .55 pounds to register with the FAA. Fortunately this committee's bill- HR-2997--

includes a provision that would legislate the FAA's authority to require registration of 

all sUAS above the minimum weight threshold of 0.55 pounds. 
118 


Insert offset folio 69 here 28672.069

The prohibition against the FAA's regulation of model/hobby sUAS also creates an 

interesting situation where commercial sUAS pilots who are certified by the FAA have 

more operational restrictions on them than the hobbyist operators. While commercial 

sUAS operators must obtain explicit approval from air traffic control to operate in the 

vicinity of an airport with an operating control tower, model/hobby sUAS operators 

merely need to advise ATC. This seems somewhat counter-intuitive from a safety 

perspective. The operators who are not trained, and who have not been issued a 

certificate from the FAA should have more safety restrictions than commercial 

operators. 

As has been widely reported, a drone recently collided with a U.S. Army helicopter one 

mile east of Midland Beach in Staten Island, New York. The investigation into the cause 

of the collision is still ongoing, but we know that the aircraft was not registered with the 

FAA, nor was it equipped with any type of identification or tracking technology. ALPA 

has learned that pieces of the sUAS were found lodged in the aircraft, and using the 

information from these pieces the hobbyist pilot of the sUAS was identified and located. 

The individual operating the sUAS routinely operated his hobby aircraft in the vicinity 

of the collision site, which was beyond his visual line of sight. After losing control of the 

aircraft, and because it failed to return to his position, he indicated that he simply 

believed his aircraft had "gone down" and that he was unaware that it had been 

involved in a mid-air collision. 
119 


Insert offset folio 70 here 28672.070

ALP A, along with many aviation industry stakeholders, strongly urges the committee to 

remove the current restrictions that Congress has placed on the FAA's ability to fully 

regulate all UAS, including hobby sUAS. We are not calling on congress to apply overly 

restrictive and burdensome regulations on the recreational segment of the sUAS 

industry. However, we are calling on Congress to allow the FAA to use its regulatory 

authority to address the known and constantly increasing risk to airline safety. 

sUAS Identification and Tracking Technologies are Needed 

ALPA also encourages congress to work closely with the FAA to implement mandatory 

identification and tracking capabilities as quickly as possible. An aviation rulemaking 

committee (ARC) recently concluded its work in this very important area, and provided 

the FAA with recommendations that should result in a regulatory framework that 

increases safety and addresses security concerns as well. ALP A participated on the 

ARC, and I can tell you that a very diverse group of participants worked very well 

together to achieve excellent results. 

If an identification and tracking system had been in place prior to the October collision 

with the Army helicopter, much more information would have been immediately 

available to accident investigators and law enforcement. Such a system would likely 

have prevented the collision in the first place, because law enforcement may have 
120 


Insert offset folio 71 here 28672.071

observed the sUAS operating on a previous flight, and proactively contacted the 

hobbyist about the illegal use of the aircraft. 

UAS Integration Pilot Program Safdv Review 

There is no doubt that the UAS industry is growing quickly and there are beneficial uses 

of the technology emerging all the time. Recently, sUAS were successfully and safely 

used to assist in search and rescue operations after natural disasters. Inspections of 

bridges or other infrastructure is another example of a safe and useful application. 

The safety risk of each type of operation needs to be examined by the FAA, with 

industry by its side. The recent announcement of a VAS Integration Pilot Program by 

the administration has greatly increased this immediate need for safety risk analysis. 

The FAA has indicated that the integration pilot program proposals will not be available 

for public comment. This generates concerns for ALP A, partly because the FAA intends 

to designate safety oversight of the pilot program's operations to the lead organization 

to manage. 

In order to ensure a high degree of confidence that safety levels can be adequately 

maintained, the planned operations by each of the pilot program participants needs to 

be publicly reviewed from a safety perspective. Safety organizations, such as ALP A, 

should have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposals. 
121 


Insert offset folio 72 here 28672.072

Seeking public comment would be consistent with the FAA's solicitation of public 

comments before awarding designations for other activities such as special conditions 

for airworthiness, waivers on airmen training, and other diversions from standard 

regulations and policy. Given the fact that the Pilot Program will include operations 

beyond visual line of sight and other deviations from the current regulations, the public 

should be given the right to review and provide comment. 

Conclusions 

1. Incorporating UAS into the NAS must be done in a safe and timely manner to 

ensure the safety of the system as a whole. New and emerging technologies need 

to be incorporated into existing designs for UAS to prevent the catastrophic 

consequences that could occur from airplanes colliding with UAS. 

2. Requiring registration and tracking capabilities is critically necessary to hold 

non-compliant UAS operators accountable for their actions. 

3. FAA should have the ability to fully regulate all aspects of the NAS and this 

includes hobbyist UAS operations. Section 336 needs to be repealed. 

4. Public input on the planned operations from the forthcoming UAS Pilot Program 

is necessary and is consistent with FAA standards and practices. 

On behalf of the more than 58,000 pilots whose top priority is safe transportation, we 

thank the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony on this important subject 
122 


Insert offset folio 73 here 28672.073

and look forward to working together to ensure the safety of our air transportation 

system. 
123 


Insert offset folio 74 here 28672.074

POLICY & ACTION FROM CONSUMER REPORTS 

November 29, 2017 

The Honorable Frank LoBiondo, Chairman 

The Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member 

U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking Member Larsen: 

Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization division of Consumer Reports, writes 

regarding the safety of unmanned aircraft systems. or drones, which the Subcommittee examines 

at a hearing today. We are concerned about the potential for drones with product defects to create 

a substantial risk of injury to the public-including if drones were to stall and drop out of the sky 

or if a drone battery were to catch fire-and the regulatory gap that would allow this potential 

risk to continue unabated. We urge you to require stronger federal oversight of drones' safety. 

Consumer drone sales in the U.S. more than doubled from 1.1 million units in 2015 to 2.4 

million units in 2016, and industry observers expect the market to continue expanding over the 

next several years. 1 Consumer Reports has covered issues related to drones and tested various 

models so that consumers can have comparative information about them.2 During the current 

holiday season-and throughout the year-it is important for shoppers to know that products in 

the marketplace are safe. 

Unfortunately, in the case of drones, consumers do not have that assurance. When a 

GoPro drone model was found to contain a safety defect in November 2016, no federal agencyneither the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) nor the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC)-wielded oversight of the recall.3 As Consumer Reports noted at the time, 

the CPSC lacks jurisdiction over drones due to a statutory carve-out for aircraft, 4 even though 

many of these systems are marketed and purchased in a manner similar to toys and other 

consumer products. The FAA has authority over how drones are flown, and has set standards for 

when small unmanned aircraft must be registered, but does not have policies and procedures with 

respect to product safety and declined to meaningfully engage on the GoPro defect. 

In 2016, Go Pro did the right thing: it voluntarily took its products off the market and 

publicized the recall. But there is no guarantee that other companies will follow its lead, and it is 

not clear that any government agency would take action to remove dangerous products from the 

marketplace in the event of a future defect. A lack of protections and clear regulatory authority 

leaves consumers at risk of being hurt or killed by defective drones. 
124 


Insert offset folio 75 here 28672.075

The CPSC is well positioned to oversee the safety of consumer drones as produced and 

distributed in commerce while the FAA handles their in-use operation. Ultimately, federal law 

should reflect this division of oversight. However, unless and until the CPSC gains jurisdiction 

over consumer aircraft, the FAA should make sure that drones are built to be safe. We urge the 

Subcommittee to clarify without delay that the FAA has this responsibility. 

Thank you for your attention to this important subject. 

cc: The Honorable Bill Shuster, Chairman 

Sincerely, 

William Wallace 

Policy Analyst 

Consumers Union 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio, Ranking Member 

U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Members of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

The Honorable Greg Walden, Chairman 

The Honorable Frank Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member 

U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Bob Latta, Chairman 

The Honorable Jan Schakowsky, Ranking Member 

U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection 

[1] See, e.g.. Recode, "U.S. drone sales have more than doubled from last year" (Apr. 10, 2017) (online at 

www.recode.ne1!20 17/4110/ 15245234/us-drone-sales-doubled-from-last-year); Business Insider, "Drone market 

shows positive outlook with strong industry growth and trends" (Jul. 13, 2017) (online at www.businessinsider.com/ 

drone-industry-analysis-market-trends- growth-forecasts-20 17 -7). 

[2] Based on the results of independent product testing, Consumer Reports recently recommended several drone 

models as part of a Holiday Gift Guide with the Washington Post. Washington Post, "Holiday Gift Guide" (online at 

www. washingtonpost.com/ graphics/20 I 7 !lifestyle/ gi ft-guide/?tid~consumer-reports ). 

[3] Consumer Reports, "GoPro Drone 'Recall' Raises Oversight Questions" (Nov. II, 2016) (online at 

www .consumerreports.org/safety/ go-pro-drone--recall--raises-jurisdictional-questions). 

[4]15 u.s.c. §2052. 

2 
125 


Insert offset folio 76 here 28672.076

epic.org 

November 29, 2017 

Electronic Privacy Information Center 

1718 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20009, USA 

The Honorable Frank A. LoBiondo, Chairman 

The Honorable Rick Larsen, Ranking Member 

U.S. House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

2251 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman LoBiondo and Ranking Member Larsen: 

'- +12024831140 

oji;. +1 202 483 1248 

~ @EPlCPrivacy 

\H) https://epic.org 

We write to you regarding the upcoming hearing on "Unmanned Aircraft Systems: 

Emerging Uses in a Changing National Airspace."1 As the deployment of drones in the United 

States continues to increase, meaningful privacy safeguards should be established. 

EPIC is a public-interest research center established in 1994 to focus public attention on 

emerging privacy and civil liberties issues. EPIC has documented the unique privacy problems of 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs or "drones"), and has sued the FAA for its failure to establish 

privacy safeguards to protect Americans2 EPIC is now proceeding in the D.C. Circuit Court of 

Appeals to establish drone privacy safeguards 3 In comments to the FAA, EPIC has also 

recommended mandatory identification requirements so that individuals could easily determine 

the location, course, purpose, payload and ownership of drones. 4 

1 Unmanned Aircra.fi Systems: Emerging Uses in a Changing National Airspace, !15th Cong. 

(2017), H. Comm. on Trans. & Infrastructure Subcomm. on Aviation (Nov. 29, 2017)., 

https:/ /transportation .house.gov /calendar/eventsingle .aspx?E ventiD=4020 13. 2 EPICv. FAA, No. 15-1075 (D.C. Cir. Filed Mar. 31, 2015); See also Domestic Unmanned 

Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones, EPIC, https://epic.org/privacy/drones/; See also EPIC, EPIC 

v. FAA, Challenging the FAA's Failure to Establish Drone Privacy Rules, 

https://epic.org/privacy/litigation/apa/faa/drones/ 

3 JD Supra, EPIC Continues its Fight Against FAA for Drone Privacy Regulations (Mar. 6, 20 17) 

("'The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed its 65-page brief in its case against the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) this week"), www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/epiccontinucs-its-fight-against-faa-71113/; EPIC v. FAA, No. 16-1297 (D.C. Cir. Filed Mar. 2, 2017, 

https:/ /epic.org/privacy/litigation/ apa/faa/ drones/ 1664 208-EPI C-Amended-Brief.pdf; EPIC v. 

FAA: Challenging the FAA's Failure to Establish Drone Privacy Rules, EPIC, 

https:/ /epic.org/privacy /litigation/apa/faa/drones/. 4 EPIC Comments, Aircraft Registration System o.f Records Notice, Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-

235 (Jan. 14, 20 16), https://epic.org/apa/comments/EPIC-Drone-Registration-SORNComments.pdf; See also Billy Steel, FAA considers remote identification system for drones in the 

US: To be effective, the registration requirement would likely need to be reinstated, Endgaget, 

July I, 20 I 7, https://www.engadget.com/20 1 7/0710 ]/faa-remote-identification-system-fordrones/. 

EPIC Letter to U.S. House 

Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

Defend Privacy. Support 

Emerging Drone Uses 

November 29,2017 

EPIC. 
126 


Insert offset folio 77 here 28672.077

EPIC has also pursued several open government matters regarding the FAA's decision 

making process, which appears intended to purposefully avoid the development of meaningful 

privacy safeguards.5 As we learn more about drones, we also recognize growing risks to public 

safety and aviation security. 6 

EPIC believes that strong drone privacy rules and identification requirements are vital for 

the safe integration of commercial drones in the National Air Space. The present course is simply 

not sustainable. 

Aerial Drones: A Unique Privacy Threat 

Drones pose a unique threat to privacy. The technical and economic limitations to aerial 

surveillance change dramatically with the advancement of drone technology. Small, unmanned 

drones are already inexpensive; the surveillance capabilities of drones are rapidly advancing; and 

cheap storage is readily available to maintain repositories of surveillance data. A Pew Research 

Center and Smithsonian Magazine survey found that 63% of Americans objected to the idea of 

giving personal and commercial drones permission to fly through most U.S. airspace. 7 However, 

in recent years individual drone use has soared, and the FAA predicts that 7 million drones will 

be sold by 2020.8 As drone use increases so do the risks to privacy and safety. 

Drones are now regularly equipped with high definition cameras that increase the ability 

of a user to conduct domestic surveillance. 9 The DJI Inspire 2 is a high-end, commercially 

available hobbyist drone about the size of a small desktop printer and weighs less than eight 

pounds, yet it can transmit high definition video to an operator over four miles away and can 

live-stream that video. 10 Even lower-end hobbyist drones costing less than $100 can stream live 

video. The Hubsan X4 H502E DESIRE, a drone that can fit in the palm of your hand, utilizes a 

front facing high definition camera with 720P resolution that can stream live video up to 200 

5 EPIC FOIA: Drone Industry Cozied Up to Public Officials (Dec. 21, 2016), EPIC, 

https://epic.org/2016/12/epic-foia-drone-industry-cozie.html. EPIC v. DOT, No. 16-634 (D.C. 

Cir. Filed Apr. 4, 20 16), https://epic.org/foia/dot/drones/taskforce/1-Complaint.pdf; EPIC v. 

Department of Transportation- Drone Registration Task Force, EPIC, 

http://epic.org/foia/dot/drones/taskforce/. 

6 Sherisse Pham, Drone hits passenger plane in Canada, Cl'.'N (Oct. 16, 2017), 

http://money .cnn.com/20 17/1 0/16/technology/drone-passenger-plane-canada/index.html. 7 Aaron Smith, US. Views of Technology and the Future, Pew Research Center, Apr. 17, 2014, 

http://www .pewintemet.org/20 14/04/1 7/us-views-of-technology-and-the-future/. 8 Sally French, Drone Sales in the US. More Than Doubled In The Past Year, Market Watch, 

May 28, 20 16, http:/ /www.marketwatch.com/story /drone-sales-in-the-us-more-than-doubled-inthe-past-year-20 16-05-27; FAA Aerospace Forecast: Fiscal Years 2016-2036, FAA, 2016, 

https://www.faa.gov /data _research/aviation/aerospace _forecasts/media/FY20 16-

36_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf. 

9 Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by EPIC, Mar. 8, 2012, https://epic.org/apa/lawsuit/EPICFAA-Drone-Petition-March-8-20 12.pdf; Univ. of Wash. Tech. and Pub. Policy Clinic, Domestic 

Drones: Technical and Policy Issues 12 (2013), 

https://www.law.washington.edu/clinics/technology/reports/droneslawan policy.pdf. 10 DJI, Inspire 2, http://www.dji.com/inspire-2/info#specs. 

EPIC Letter to U.S. House 2 

Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

Emerging Drone Uses 

November 29,2017 
127 


Insert offset folio 78 here 28672.078

meters away. 11 Drones can be used to view individuals inside their homes and can facilitate the 

harassment and stalking of unsuspecting victims. 12 Drones can also be modified with tools that 

can enable them to gather personal information using infrared cameras, heat sensors, GPS, 

automated license plate readers, and facial recognition devices. 13 

Drones also pose risks to security and cybersecurity. Close calls between drones and 

traditional aircraft have risen significantly as their use becomes more widespread. 14 Furthermore, 

the very features that make drones easy to operate also make them susceptible to cyberattacks. 15 

Hackers have the ability to exploit weaknesses in drone software to take over operation of a 

drone and access the camera and microphones. 16 

The privacy risks of drones, as well as the safety and security vulnerabilities, underscore 

the need for the FAA to develop drone privacy regulations. We urge the Committee to question 

why the FAA has not yet taken steps to issue regulations on drone privacy despite prior 

Congressional directives to do so. 

The FAA Has Failed to Implement the Requirements of the FAA Modernization Act 

The FAA has failed to take the action mandated by Congress. The FAA Modernization 

Act required the FAA to create a Comprehensive Plan to integrate drones into the National 

Airspace and subsequently conduct a notice and comment rulemaking. In the Plan, the FAA 

identified privacy as an important issue to address, acknowledging that "as demand for [drones] 

increases, concerns regarding how [drones] will impact existing aviation grow stronger, 

especially in terms of safety, privacy, frequency crowding, and airspace congestion."17 

11 Hubsan, X4 H502E DESIRE, https://www.hubsanus.com/shop/h502e.html. 12 Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by EPIC, supra note 6. 13 !d.; Ciara Bracken-Roche et al., Surveillance Studies Centre, Surveillance Drones: Privacy 

Implications of the Spread of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in Canada 46, Apr. 30, 2014, 

http://www .sscqueens.org/sites/default/files/Surveillance _Drones_ Report. pdf; Mary Papenfuss, 

Utah Couple Arrested Over 'Peeping Tom' Drone, Huffington Post, Feb. 17,2017, 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry /peeping-tom-drone_ us_ 58a684 7fe4b045cd34c03e56. 14 Alan Levin, Drone-Plane Near misses, Other Incidents Surge 46% in U.S., Bloomberg, Feb. 

23, 2017, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artictes/20 17-02-23/drone-plane-near-misses-otherincidents-surged-46-in-u-s; Steve Miletich, Pilot of Drone That Struck Woman at Pride Parade 

Gets 30 Days in Jail, The Seattle Times, Feb. 24, 2017, http://www.seattletimes.com/seattlenews/crime/pilot-of-drone-that-struck-woman-at-pride-parade-sentenced-to-30-days-in-jail/. 

15 Kacey Deamer, How Can Drones Be Hacked? Let Us Count the Ways, Live Science, Jun. 10, 

20 16, http:/ /www.livescience.com/55046-how-can-drones-be-hacked.htmL 16 Wang Wei, You Can Hijack Nearly Any Drone Mid-Flight U.~ing This Tiny Gadget, The 

Hacker News, Oct. 27, 2016, http://thehackernews.com/20 16/1 0/how-to-hack-drone.html. 17 Joint Planning and Dev. Office, Fed. Aviation Admin., Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) 

Comprehensive Plan: A Report on the Nation's UAS Path Forward 4 (2013), 

https://www Jaa.gov /about/office_ erg/headquarters_ officcs/agi/reports/media/UAS _ Comprchens 

ive_Plan.pdf. 

EPIC Letter to U.S. House 3 

Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

Emerging Drone Uses 

November 29,2017 
128 


Insert offset folio 79 here 28672.079

Under the FAA Modernization Act, Congress required the FAA to implement the 

recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan via a public rulemaking within 46 months of the 

enactment of the Act. The FAA identitied privacy as an important issue directly related to 

domestic drones, yet the agency has failed to address privacy in the agency's only public 

rulemaking on drones in the National Airspace. 18 Indeed it has been over 65 months and the 

FAA has failed to implement the rulemaking that addresses the issues identified in the 

Comprehensive Plan, including privacy, as required by Congress. 19 

The FAA Has Failed to Conduct the Required Drone Privacy Report 

Soon after the FAA's Comprehensive Plan identified privacy as an important drone 

integration issue, the agency was ordered by Congress to conduct a drone privacy report, which 

the agency failed to do. In the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress required the 

FAA to conduct a drone privacy study, stating: 

Without adequate safeguards, expanded use ofUAS and their integration into the 

national airspace raise a host of concerns with respect to the privacy of 

individuals. For this reason, the FAA is directed to conduct a study on the 

implications ofUAS integration into national airspace on individual privacy.20 

The report specifically required the FAA to study "how the FAA can address the impact of 

widespread use ofUAS on individual privacy as it prepares to facilitate the integration ofUAS 

into the national airspace.''21 The report was to be submitted to Congress within 18 months of 

enactment of that appropriations bill and completed "well in advance of the FAA's schedule for 

developing final regulations on the integration ofUAS into the national airspace."22 Nearly 47 

months since the bill was enacted, the FAA has failed to produce the report. Furthermore, EPIC 

obtained documents through a Freedom oflnformation Act request that suggested that the FAA 

has no intention of complying with Congress' directive to produce a report.23 

EPIC's Lawsuit, EPIC v. FAA 

Immediately after the passage of the FAA Modernization Act, EPIC and more than one 

hundred legal experts and organization petitioned the FAA to undertake a rulemaking to 

establish ~rivacy regulations prior to the deployment of commercial drones in the National 

Airspace. 4 More than two years later, the FAA responded to the petition by refusing to conduct 

a separate drone privacy rulemaking but said privacy would be considered in an upcoming 

18 Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 81 Fed. Reg. 42,063 (June 

28, 2016) (codified at 14 C.F.R. pts. 21, 43, 61, 91, 101, 107, 119, 133, and 183). 19 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012, Pub. L. 112-95 § 332, 126 Stat. 73-75. 20 160 Cong. Rec. 1186 (2014), https://www.congress.gov/crec/2014/01/15/CREC-2014-01-15-

bk2.pdf. 

2t Id. 

22 Id 

23https://epic.org/privacy/litigation/apa/faa/drones/EPIC-16-07-20-F AA-FOIA-20 160921-

Production.pdf. 

24 Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by EPIC, supra note 6. 

EPIC Letter to U.S. House 

Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

4 Emerging Drone Uses 

November 29,2017 
129 


Insert offset folio 80 here 28672.080

rulemaking on small drones?5 However, the FAA later stated that privacy issues were "beyond 

the scope of the rulemaking"26 and did not consider privacy in its final rule,27 prompting EPIC to 

file suit.28 EPIC is challenging the FAA's refusal to consider privacy and to conduct a 

comprehensive drone rulemaking as required by Congress. The FAA has failed to explain why 

the agency did not evaluate privacy in their final rule despite the requirements of the FAA 

Modernization Act, EPIC's petition calling for the agency to address privacy, the FAA's own 

statements establishing privacy as an important issue to address, and the hundreds of comments 

that raised privacy issues in the small drone rulemaking. 

EPIC urges this Committee to ask the FAA whv the agency has (ailed to take steps to 

protect the public ftom the privacy risks posed by drones. Any privacy and security risks are no 

longer hypothetical and the longer the FAA waits to issue comprehensive privacy rules, the 

longer the public is at risk. 

Conclusion 

We ask that this letter be entered in the hearing record. EPIC looks forward to working 

with the Committee on these issues of vital importance to the American public. 

Sincerely, 

lsi :Marc 'Roten6ere 

Marc Rotenberg 

Is! leramie Scott 

Jeramie Scott 

EPIC President EPIC National Security Counsel 

Is! Caitriona fitzeera{d" 

Caitriona Fitzgerald 

EPIC Policy Director 

25 Letter from Fed. Aviation Admin. to EPIC (Nov. 26, 20I4), 

https :II epic.org/pri vacy I drones/FAA-Privacy-Rulemaking-Letter .pdf. 26 Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 80 Fed. Reg. 9,544 

(proposed Feb. 23, 2015). 27 Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 81 Fed. Reg. 42,063 (June 

28, 2016) (codified at 14 C.F.R. pts. 21, 43, 61, 91, 101, 107, 119, 133, and 183). 28 EPIC v. FAA, No. 16-1297 (D.C. Cir.); https://epic.org/privacy/litigation!apa/faa!drones/. 

EPIC Letter to U.S. House 

Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

5 Emerging Drone Uses 

November 29, 2017 
130 


Insert offset folio 81 here 28672.081

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

Statement for the Record 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

Hearing on: "Unmanned Aircraft Systems: 

Emerging Uses in a Changing National Airspace" 

Submitted by: 

Mark Baker 

President and CEO, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

November 29,2017 

~ 

AOPA 

your freedom to fly 
131 


Insert offset folio 82 here 28672.082

SAFE INTEGRATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT 

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) represents more than 

300,000 of America's pilots and aviation enthusiasts and we believe that nothing better 

represents the foundational spirit of freedom than taking to America's skies. Unmanned 

aircraft systems (UAS) are the fastest growing segment in aviation and represent tens 

of thousands of pilots flying aircraft from small systems operated for fun to large drones 

used in many missions across the country. AOPA, the largest community of pilots in the 

world, recently welcomed these new pilots to the organization. In keeping with our 

mission of advocacy, education, safety, and fighting to keep general aviation accessible, 

AOPA is focusing a great deal of attention on the efforts to promote the safe integration 

and operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) within the National Airspace System 

(NAS). 

General aviation has an excellent safety record with an estimated 500,000 pilots 

flying approximately 200,000 aircraft as part of an industry that supports a total annual 

economic output of $219 billion in the United States. Over the last several decades, the 

total accident rate has decreased by more than 85%, down to just seven accidents per 

100,000 flight hours. 

UAS are now a rapidly growing and important part of general aviation. Whether 

performing a search and rescue operation, helping a commercial farmer improve crop 

yields through precision agriculture, or enjoyed as a personal hobby, UAS have many 

existing and emerging uses. They are also another effective, efficient, and affordable 

2 
132 


Insert offset folio 83 here 28672.083

way to enjoy the benefits of aviation. The value of these benefits is reflected by the 

more than 100,000 jobs and $82 billion in economic impact estimated to be created 

within the first 10 years of UAS operations in the NAS. 

Given their potential benefits, UAS must be integrated into the NAS in a manner 

that maintains the level of safety to people and property in the air and on the ground 

that general aviation currently provides. Guided by the understanding that many factors 

must be considered when determining how to best maintain the safety of the NAS, 

AOPA continues to assess the merit of technological and regulatory proposals from the 

government and industry. 

AOPA'S ROLE IN SAFE INTEGRATION 

As an organization representing the freedom of flight for all users of the NAS, 

AOPA believes that safely including UAS operations within the NAS can be achieved by 

engaging collaboratively with the entire aviation community, ensuring all users have an 

appropriate level of aeronautical knowledge, and using technology to minimize safety 

risks. With safety as our first priority, AOPA is working with and supporting ongoing 

efforts by the FAA and the aviation community to integrate UAS into the NAS. 

Engaging with Industry. AOPA appreciates the UAS community's need for a 

regulatory framework which allows pilots to more routinely take advantage of the 

existing and emerging uses of UAS. As a result, AOPA has collaborated and engaged 

with industry to unlock these technological opportunities. AOPA has served on the 

3 
133 


Insert offset folio 84 here 28672.084

Small UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), which laid the foundation for 

enabling the commercial use of small UAS under 14 CFR part 107. AOPA participated 

in the UAS Registration Task Force (RTC) ARC, and has supported the requirements 

for UAS registration as a means of promoting accountability and the safety of UAS 

operations of the NAS. AOPA also worked with industry on the Micro UAS ARC to lay 

the groundwork for allowing small UAS operations over people. 

AOPA is now engaged and collaborating with all stakeholders to address the 

challenges in enabling advanced UAS operations in the future, such as beyond visual 

line of sight (BVLOS) operations and commercial package delivery. AOPA is a member 

of the Drone Advisory Committee (DAC), which recently recommended that the FAA 

could accelerate integration by prioritizing the enablement of BVLOS operations in lowaltitude areas where manned aircraft are already broadcasting their positions. In 

October, AOPA joined 28 other groups in a letter to President Donald Trump, urging the 

Administration to implement a pilot program which would help determine the roles and 

responsibilities of the federal, state, local, and tribal governments for safe UAS 

integration while not compromising the federal government's sovereignty of the national 

airspace. The UAS Integration Pilot Program announced earlier this month is expected 

to provide critical data on how local interests can be addressed while unlocking the 

benefits of these new technologies. 

Technology for Safe Integration. As numerous factors contribute to safe 

operations in the NAS, AOPA is evaluating the merit of a wide range of technological 

4 
134 


Insert offset folio 85 here 28672.085

measures to assist the industry in that effort. First, AOPA is tracking developments 

occurring with airspace design, the low altitude UAS traffic management system, and 

the FAA's Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC). LAANC is 

expected to deliver faster airspace authorizations for commercial UAS pilots, thereby 

enabling more operations. Second, AOPA has participated in the UAS Identification and 

Tracking ARC, which is developing recommendations for digital drone identification 

technologies and how those technologies may address security concerns and public 

safety needs. And finally, UAS manufacturers are working to help limit airspace 

incursions by adding geo-fencing features to their flight management software, 

restricting unmanned aircraft from entering certain airspace by creating a geographical 

boundary based upon GPS or radio frequency identification. 

Education. AOPA continues to maintain leadership in ensuring that all pilots, 

regardless of their aircraft, are safe, well trained, and able to enjoy their aircraft. AOPA, 

in partnership with local flight schools, has been conducting drone seminars across the 

entire country, educating all UAS pilots and the public on the new part 107 to increase 

the safety of these operations. AOPA is also actively participating in the Unmanned 

Aircraft Safety Team (UAST), a joint FAA-industry effort which uses data to develop and 

recommend voluntary measures for all UAS pilots to operate safely in the NAS. 

Furthermore, AOPA believes education is critical for hobby and recreational 

users of UAS, who should be provided with clear, comprehensive operational 

guidelines, as well as a community-based educational program concerning the safe 

5 
135 


Insert offset folio 86 here 28672.086

operation of an unmanned aircraft in the NAS. As many people are likely to be 

introduced to aviation through building or operating a UAS, they may be unfamiliar with 

the categories of airspace and other important aeronautical information. To help 

educate these recreational and hobby users of UAS about operating safely in the NAS, 

AOPA officially supported the "Know Before You Fly" campaign, which was developed 

by the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) and the 

Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA) in partnership with the FAA. 

6 
136 


Insert offset folio 87 here 28672.087

"Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Emerging Uses in a Changing National Airspace" 

Prepared Statement of Denis J. Mulligan 

General Manager 

Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District 

Subcommittee on Aviation 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

United States House of Representatives 

December 11,2017 

Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen and members of the subcommittee, the Golden 

Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (Bridge District) strongly urges Congress to 

pass legislation to allow for the regulation of unmanned aircraft systems (drones) flown for 

recreational use. This is an urgent matter of public safety and national security that should be 

addressed in any reauthorization ofF AA programs or as stand-alone legislation. This issue arises 

from the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Sec. 336. Special Rule for Model Aircraft, 

which states: 

" ... the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any 

rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft, or an aircraft being developed as a model 

aircraft if-(I) the aircraft is flown strictly for hobby or recreational use; (2) the aircraft 

is operated in accordance with a community- based set of safety guidelines and within the 

programming of a nationwide community-based organization[.]." 

The Bridge District respectfully requests that this section be repealed, as it has had the unintended 

consequence of establishing a "wild west" where recreational drones are virtually unregulated 

while there remains uncertainty in those places where a state or local government does wish to 

regulate their use. 

Recreational drone users should not be exempt from sensible FAA safety regulations otherwise 

applicable to drones. Moreover, the quaint concept of "community-based" standards that were 

previously applied to hobbyist users of model aircraft is outdated, especially given the prevalence 

and sophistication of drone usage today; a utilization that can be expected to increase and be 

enhanced in the future. Indeed, repeal of this statutory language is necessary precisely so as to 

distinguish modern hi-tech drones from the model aircraft commonly associated with twentieth 

century hobbyists. 

1 
137 


Insert offset folio 88 here 28672.088

The Bridge District owns and operates the Golden Gate Bridge that serves not only as a symbol of 

our community and country, but as a vital traffic artery in our region. Completed in 1937, an older 

facility, roadway lanes on the Bridge are ten feet wide or less, rather than the standard 12 foot 

width of most highway lanes. It has a high volume of traffic and changing lane configurations 

depending on the time of day and traffic volumes. The scenery around the Bridge is breathtakingly 

beautiful. 

Unfortunately, this attracts recreational drone users who, in the absence of regulations, cause 

concern. In this busy environment, we commonly observe drones flying directly over vehicles and 

near the toll plaza. Ominously, on several occasions recreational drones have crashed on the 

Golden Gate Bridge roadway, and those drone operators have walked away without identifying 

themselves or claiming responsibility. It is only through incredibly good fortunate that none of 

these incidents caused a major traffic accident which would likely result in a chain-reaction 

collision. Someday, in the absence of common sense regulation, it seems apparent that such 

tragedy will occur. Based on what the Bridge District has witnessed, recreational drone users do 

not always demonstrate common sense. 

In addition to safety issues that fall naturally within the purview of the FAA, the increased 

presence of drones also poses a significant security threat, and is of substantial concern to those 

of us charged with the security of the Golden Gate Bridge. Camera-bearing drones have been 

witnessed flying into security-restricted areas, such as behind security fences, beyond intrusion 

detection sensors, and near the Bridge towers and anchorages. If the Bridge District discovered 

an individual with a camera in any of these restricted areas, they would be cited and arrested 

immediately. However, recreational drone operators are not subject to similar restrictions when 

operating their devices within security sensitive areas. 

There is no way to discern friend from foe when it comes to such drones, and no reason why 

recreational drones should be free from regulation where security of critical infrastructure and 

national landmarks is at issue. A clear regulatory framework needs to be authorized to protect 

critical infrastructure from potentially nefarious drone operators who may currently escape 

regulation by invoking a "hobbyist" designation that does nothing to assure the safety and 

security of the Bridge and its users. Certainly, there is no "community- based set of safety 

guidelines" that could ever justify such potentially dangerous and threatening use of drone 

technology. 

The ability to regulate the safety and security of all drone use should surely be a key part of the 

FAA's mandate. Unfortunately, under current law, the FAA is barred from doing its job when it 

comes to recreational drones. To make matters worse, and despite the absence of federal 

regulations, entities such as the Bridge District generally lack the legal authority to prohibit the 

hazardous and dangerous operation of non-commercial drones near their facilities, and even the 

municipalities in which they are located may be prohibited from offering suitable protections. 

There is no more noble, or generally less controversial, task for government than saving lives. 

So, the Bridge District respectfully asks Congress to pass legislation providing authority to the 

FAA to regulate recreational drones. If given such authority, the FAA will be able to promulgate 

rules that distinguish recreational operators of technologically sophisticated unmanned aircraft 

from hobbyists flying model airplanes of yore, without limiting the ability of professionally 

2 
138 


Insert offset folio 89 here 28672.089

trained, certified, and insured commercial drones from operating in the national airspace system 

for interstate commerce. 

Public safety necessitates a clear regulatory framework for recreational drones. Today a 

completely inexperienced individual can order a drone online, have it delivered within a day, and 

then say to a friend, "here hold my beer and watch this" and fly that drone over the Golden Gate 

Bridge. If that drone crashes on the roadway causing an accident, we will all, in hindsight, wish 

that federal law had not blocked the adoption of sensible regulations of recreational drones that 

could have prevented a tragedy. 

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. 

3 
139 


Insert offset folio 90 here 28672.090

Statement 

of the 

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies 

to the 

United States House of Representatives 

Hearing on 

"Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Emerging Uses in a Changing 

National Airspace" 

November 29,2017 
140 


Insert offset folio 91 here 28672.091

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) is pleased to provide 

comments to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Subcommittee on issues 

surrounding the growing use of unmanned aerial systems. 

NAMIC is the largest property/casualty insurance trade association in the country, with more 

than 1,400 member companies. NAMIC supports regional and local mutual insurance companies 

on main streets across America and many of the country's largest national insurers. NAMIC 

members represent 39 percent of the total property/casualty insurance market, serve more than 

170 million policyholders, and write more than $230 billion in annual premiums. 

NAMIC has been a leader at the intersection of insurance and VAS/drones, and the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) has estimated that by 2020, insurance will be one the four top 

markets for unmanned aerial systems. NAMIC was a stakeholder in the Commerce Department's 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration program to develop i best 

practices for privacy issues regarding commercial and private UAS use, is a member of the 

FAA/Industry Unmanned Aircraft Safety Team, and is member of the Steering Committee of the 

NUS TAR- National UAS Standardized Testing and Rating alliance. 

As the Committee's hearing will examine public policy issues related to the safe integration of 

unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system, including privacy and safety 

implications, NAMIC is providing the attached white paper on action that we believe is 

necessary to define private airspace. 

As detailed in the attached document, serious question regarding the regulation of unmanned 

aircraft systems continues to evolve, and recent developments with respect to UAS and private 

property airspace have resulted in fundamental questions being raised about private property and 

private airspace that will impact UAS use and insurance coverage. 

While the FAA maintains that the FAA can regulate navigable airspace from the ground up, 

NAMIC has serious question as to whether this position can survive as a legal or a political 

matter. We believe that a strong policy position is needed to help navigate this debate, as it is 

almost certain that the existence of private airspace will eventually be questioned and confirmed 

by some courts, regulatory agencies, or legislatures. NAMIC believes addressing this predicate 

question sooner rather than later will result in clear rules for the continued proliferation of UAS. 
141 


Insert offset folio 92 here 28672.092

The FAA's decision to reject the concept of private airspace has drastically changed property 

rights and exposed virtually every American's back yard to unwanted drone intrusion. 

Historically, common law doctrine was that ownership of the land extends to the periphery of the 

universe, with owners said to own the land, everything below it, and all the airspace. In the age 

of commercial air traffic the heavens became a public highway. The Supreme Court rulings have 

established a safe and effective floor for airplane flights, but the FAA has gone far beyond, 

concluding that- with few exceptions- the navigable airspace for drones under FAA 

supervision includes all airspace that is not indoors. This means that there is no longer private 

airspace. 

The elimination of private airspace equates directly to a lack of privacy, given current statutes. In 

general, if you are legally permitted to be where you are, it is not a violation for you to see what 

you can see or even photograph or record what you can see. If an FAA-compliant drone can fly 

in what the FAA has determined is navigable airspace, including over your yard, five feet from 

. your window, then that drone has every right to be where it is and every right to see or record 

whatever it can see. 

While the FAA has claimed not to have authority on the issue of privacy, local and state 

governments have taken action. As a result, concurrent efforts at the state and local levels 

threaten to create a patchwork of varying standards that would hamper the legitimate use and 

development of drone technology. 

While property/casualty insurance companies see the benefits in using unmanned aircraft 

systems to serve policyholders, as well as to provide coverage for policyholders that use UAS, 

the industry is stymied by a smorgasbord of differing and often competing standards of privacy. 

Questions surrounding private airspace must be resolved in order to define how insurers will use 

and insure UAS, as well as to determine what regulations are needed to facilitate both. If the 

FAA won't take action, then it's up to Congress. 

The leading role insurers will play as commercial users of UAS, coupled with the need for 

policyholders to obtain adequate insurance for hobby and commercial use, makes it certain that 

insurers must help develop standards of good practice for operating UASs, particularly where 

there is a lack of regulatory specification. To facilitate the ongoing development of commercial 

operation ofUASs for their own use and for policyholder use, insurers will look to cover 
142 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 93 here 28672.093

responsible operators. "By requiring proof from the insured of a safety and privacy conscious 

mind-set, insurers can help protect against cases of misuse, which at the formative stage of the 

market could set back UAS acceptance considerably," according to Lloyd's. By applying 

business sense and hazard expertise, insurers will be critical to earning the trust of the public, 

regulators, and opinion leaders in a UAS field, where both risks and opportunities will continue 

to be defined. 

When damage or injuries result from a UAS, a key question will be who is responsible and liable 

for damages. NAMIC member companies want to provide comprehensive policyholder 

protection, but many serious questions continue to go unanswered about UAS regulations and 

civil liability. If the regulation of drones remains unclear and incomplete, it will be very difficult 

for insurers to meet policyholder needs. 

There will always be risks in the commercial use of drones, and property/ casualty insurance will 

be a critical consideration. Responsible insurance coverage for this emerging area will require 

more development of federal, state, and local regulations, as well as related standards of liability, 

negligence, and property rights. 

NAMIC is committed to working with its members and federal, state, and local regulators to 

promote responsible UAS development that protects aircraft, people, businesses, and property. 

As UAS regulations and civil liability standards evolve, NAMIC will work to ensure that these 

regulations provide the necessary clarity and breadth that its members need to provide 

policyholder protection. As these legal and regulatory gaps are addressed, NAMIC wants to 

ensure that its members can be in the business of providing effective protection and 

compensation.