U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–275 PDF 2006

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES AND

THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

(109–60)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

AVIATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 29, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York,

Vice-Chair

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BOB FILNER, California

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Cassidy, Radm Thomas J., Jr. (Ret.), President, General Atomic Aeronautical

Systems ................................................................................................................. 22

Cebula, Andrew, Senior Vice President, Government and Technical Affairs,

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) ............................................... 22

Heinz, Mike, Executive Director, Unite UAV National Industry Team

(UNITE) ................................................................................................................ 22

Kostelnik, Michael, Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection,

Office of Air and Marine, Department of Homeland Security .......................... 6

Mealy, Jay, Programs Director, Academy of Model Aeronautics ......................... 22

Owen, Dr. Robert C., Professor, Department of Aeronautical Science, EmbryRiddle Aeronautical University ........................................................................... 22

Pease, Gerald F. (Fred), Jr., Executive Director, U.S. Department of Defense,

Policy Board on Federal Aviation ....................................................................... 6

Sabatini, Nicholas, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration .............................................................................................. 6

Weatherington, Dyke D., Deputy, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Planning

Task Force, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Defense Systems-Air Warfafe, U.S. Department of

Defense .................................................................................................................. 6

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Boswell, Hon. Leonard, of Iowa .............................................................................. 35

Carnahan, Hon. Riss, of Missouri .......................................................................... 37

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 62

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 78

Marchant, Hon. Kenny, of Texas ............................................................................ 91

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 101

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Cassidy, Radm Thomas J., Jr. (Ret.) ...................................................................... 38

Cebula, Andrew ........................................................................................................ 51

Heinz, Mike .............................................................................................................. 64

Kostelnik, Michael ................................................................................................... 81

Mealy, Jay ................................................................................................................ 92

Owen, Dr. Robert C ................................................................................................. 103

Sabatini, Nicholas .................................................................................................... 123

Weatherington, Dyke D. .......................................................................................... 133

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Cassidy, Radm Thomas J., Jr. (Ret.), President, General Atomic Aeronautical

Systems, responses to questions ......................................................................... 42

Cebula, Andrew, Senior Vice President, Government and Technical Affairs,

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), responses to questions ........ 57

Heinz, Mike, Executive Director, Unite UAV National Industry Team

(UNITE), responses to questions ........................................................................ 69

Kostelnik, Michael, Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Border Protection,

Office of Air and Marine, Department of Homeland Security, responses

to questions ........................................................................................................... 88

Mealy, Jay, Programs Director, Academy of Model Aeronautics, responses

to questions ........................................................................................................... 99

Owen, Dr. Robert C., Professor, Department of Aeronautical Science, EmbryRiddle Aeronautical University, responses to questions ................................... 115
Page

VI

Pease, Gerald F. (Fred), Jr., Executive Director, U.S. Department of Defense,

Policy Board on Federal Aviation, responses to questions ............................... 120

Sabatini, Nicholas, Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, responses to questions ...................................................... 130

Weatherington, Dyke D., Deputy, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Planning

Task Force, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Defense Systems-Air Warfafe, U.S. Department of

Defense, responses to questions .......................................................................... 147

ADDITION TO THE RECORD

Healing, Hon. Richard F., P.E., Former Member, National Transportation

Safety Board, statement ...................................................................................... 155
(1)

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES AND THE

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica [chairman of the committee] presiding.

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I would like to this hearing of the

House Aviation Subcommittee to order and welcome everyone this

morning. I think we have an interesting hearing, a little bit different, and the title of the hearing is ‘‘Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

(UAVs) and the National Airspace System.’’

The order of business today is going to be opening statements by

members, then we have two panels of witnesses we will recognize.

So we will launch our hearing here and I will start with my opening statement and we will begin.

Welcome, everyone. Today’s hearing is going to be a little bit different, as I said, and, like the hearing on commercial space transportation just over a year ago, launches a new era in commercial

transportation oversight.

We have just come to the end of 100 years of manned flight, and

now we are entering a new century where unmanned aircraft will

be used in ways that, in fact, defy even today’s imagination.

I was going to fly this thing this morning. Somebody took the

battery out of it. We got one of these—yes, a little bit of a wounded

prop. But the thing actually does fly in a remote fashion. And it

is not outside the realm of possibility that sometime in the future

we will see pilots located at remote consoles as they fly cargo and

passengers through an aviation system that is yet to be defined.

From the early days of flight to the development of jet engines,

to the introduction of helicopters and now unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and also unmanned aerial systems, progress continues

and the safe integration of new technologies has to be assured in

our national airspace; and that is part of the reason that we are

having this hearing today.

Well, historically, UAS, the systems have been used primarily by

the Defense Department and DOD in military settings, and sometimes outside the United States border, there is growing demand

for both government and commercial operations of unmanned aircraft in our integrated national airspace.

Federal agencies such as the Customs and Border Patrol Service,

the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
2

tion, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal

Emergency Management Agency, and State and local law enforcement agencies are all interested in utilizing UAVs and the UAS

system in our national airspace; and, of course, that creates a lot

of questions and problems and airspace issues. Additionally, UAVs

are also an emerging segment of our commercial aviation industry.

These advancements in aviation technology demand an everchanging and evolving aviation system. Therefore, today, our subcommittee will learn about the development and the use of unmanned aerial systems. We will also hear about the Federal Aviation Administration’s role in safety over flight, and the safe introduction of UAS into the integrated national airspace system.

We all understand that the FAA has sole authority over the safe

and efficient use of our national airspace and is responsible for

overseeing the safety of our civil airspace, including the operations

by military, government, private pilots, and commercial entities.

In considering the operation of unmanned aircraft in the integrated national airspace, the FAA has identified two major safety

concerns that need to be addressed: first, the need for proven unmanned aerial systems command and control redundancies. And

there should be—if there is a disruption, rather, in communications, or should the operator lose contact with the vehicle, what

happens? Secondly, the need for reliable, as they say, detect and

avoid capability so that unmanned aerial systems and vehicles in

the air can sense and also avoid other aircraft. These are a couple

of essential safety responsibilities and jurisdictional responsibilities

for the FAA.

The FAA has stated that unmanned aircraft will need to achieve

the same level of safety as a manned aircraft. Such a level of safety

requires further technological advancements, and maybe we will

hear a little bit today about what is in store in regard to these new

systems. Until this level of safety is achieved, however, the FAA

has been working with DOD, the Border Patrol, and other government agencies to allow limited use of these unmanned aerial vehicles and systems in our national airspace.

The FAA has issued Certificates of Authority (COAs) and created

Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) to allow public or governmental operations of UAS in our national airspace. The FAA has

also issued experimental certificates to allow limited commercial

operations in our national airspace. But these processes deal with

only a case-by-case issue or basis, and they can take time and place

additional demands on limited FAA resources.

The number of requests to operate unmanned aircraft in our national airspace is growing, particularly for operations in support of

homeland and national security. While the FAA has worked hard

to expedite Certificates of Authority and that review process, ultimately, a longer term solution is probably going to be required.

Therefore, the FAA has asked the RTCA, Inc., which is a private

not-for-profit corporation that develops consensus-based recommendations for the FAA on certain technical issues—they have

asked the RTCA, Inc. to help develop standards for operation of the

UAVs and UAS systems.

The RTCA Special Committee 203 will answer two key questions:

How will the systems handle command and control, these un-
3

manned aerial systems handle those two issues? And how will they

detect and avoid other aircraft? Both of these questions are dependent on the development of technology and operational procedures,

and some of those we will hear about.

Certainly, supporting this emerging industry is in the best interest of the United States, especially in light of growing homeland

and national security demands, and also in light of increasing

international competition in this area. At the same time, ensuring

that the FAA fulfills its oversight responsibility with regard to

safety is certainly a priority for this subcommittee.

Like commercial space transportation, the integration of aerial

systems that are unmanned will create new challenges to the safe

and efficient use of our national airspace, and also require our FAA

to address a whole host of issues regarding use of the national airspace by these new unmanned vehicles and aerial systems.

We welcome the witnesses. We appreciate the time they have

taken to come testify before us today, and we look forward to hearing from all of them, and am please to yield to Mr. Boswell at this

time.

Mr. BOSWELL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to

thank Ranking Member Costello for having this hearing. Mr.

Costello is in a markup in another committee, I understand, so I

am privileged to be here with you.

I do feel privileged in this sense. We all have our history, and

some of my history was in charge of the drones flying out of Finton

Army Airfield in Germany in the 1960s. Some of you might remember some of those. Those were pretty yellow, pretty antique-ish, I

guess, compared to what we are doing today, but I did do that. And

then I had the assignment for a time flying the SLAR, the sidelooking radar, under L-23s, the twin Bonanza, along the East German border, trying to keep track of the Russian movements and so

on. And, of course, we were in the soup most of the time flying and

we were depending on radio compass, you know, to ADFD to track,

and the Russians figured out a way to overpower that and make

their needles swing to the right. And then if you slipped over there,

they would just shoot you down because you were violating their

space. So we were pretty attentive to making sure that that needle

wasn’t doing an unexpected swing. If it did, we turned a 240 and

left the area.

But those are kind of exciting times for the young aviator that

I was at that time.

But, anyway, today we are here to talk about unmanned aerial

vehicles, and I do associate myself with what the Chairman said

very enthusiastically, but it is timely because government and commercial operators are starting to compete for the use of our national airspace. UAVs come in all shapes and sizes, from as little

as four pounds. In fact, even this Batcat—I just got a copy of their

little information—is a one pounder, I understand. And they may

be programmed to work autonomously or by a computer operator.

UAVs are currently being used for military, law enforcement,

homeland security, firefighting, weather prediction, and tracking

purposes. According to a recent Aviation Week & Space Technology

article, the UAV market is expected to be worth $7.6 billion

through 2010, with the majority of UAVs being purchased by the
4

U.S. We must ensure that this emerging industry receives the

proper Federal safety oversight without discouraging the development.

The increasing use of UAVs in the national airspace represents

several challenges for the FAA and the community. Of paramount

importance, of course, is safety. The FAA is the sole authority—is

the sole authority, as I understand it—charged with controlling the

safe and efficient use of the national airspace. It is my understanding that adequate detect, sense and avoid technology that will enable UAVs to avoid other aircraft is probably 20 years away. It is

years away, anyway. Therefore, safety must be their top priority as

the FAA makes decisions regarding UAV airworthiness and integration into operations of our national airspace.

Moreover, FAA has recently accommodated the use of UAVs by

implementing large-scale flight restrictions. An example: they established a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) along the U.S.-

Mexico border at Arizona-New Mexico to allow the Department of

Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection to conduct

UAV border surveillance without colliding with other operators in

the area. The TFR is 300 nautical miles long and 17 miles wide;

has an effect of 12,000 to 14,000 feet, and is active from 5 to 7

daily. In my view, the use of TFRs, especially one that is large in

scale to allow for UAV operation, is not a workable long-term solution. It is going to be a challenge for us, I understand that, and

I hope that we all do.

I am pleased that Mr. Sabatini is here to discuss the agency’s efforts in the short term to ensure the safety of UAVs that currently

fly in the space, as well as any long-term solutions to allow for certification of mainstream integration of these vehicles with other

commercial use in airspace without—without—resorting to widespread use of TFRs.

The Department of Defense and Homeland Security, the two primary government users of UAVs, must also work in concert with

the FAA to ensure both the safety of UAVs operating in the space

and that our military and homeland security needs for UAV operations are being met.

Today we have representatives from both DOD and CBP to discuss these efforts, so I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses, on the second panel as well, regarding future commercial

applications, the challenges faced by these emerging industry, as

well as some of the potential procedural and technological solutions

that will enable the full and safe integration of these in the space.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your comments. And

I will just tell you up front I am very, very concerned about general

aviation. It is a big part of our economy and there is a big need

for it, and I hope you keep that in mind every time you sit down

and discuss this, as well as the other needs. Thank you very much.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Any other members have opening statements? None on this side.

Ms. Johnson?

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am due

in the same markup that Mr. Costello is in, so I might leave out

shortly. But I want to thank you and the Ranking Member for
5

holding this hearing this morning on the issue of unmanned aerial

systems.

Without question, the usage of unmanned vehicles in the areas

of surveillance and recognizance missions has proven to be an invaluable tool in the missions of our military. The U.S. military has

demonstrated that the UAV development serves a cost-effective answer to a number of modern military needs. In addition to UAV deployment by the U.S. military, the Congress has also called for the

usage of UAVs to support homeland security and other law enforcement related missions.

Now it appears that there are various segments within the commercial aviation industry interested in utilizing UAVs in the national airspace system. Obviously, this type of demand for UAVs

begs the question that if commercial usage of UAVs are permitted,

how do we, as policymakers, ensure that the necessary safeguards

are in place for the protection of public safety?

It is my understanding that FAA has identified two primary

safety issues with regard to the UAVs’ operation in the commercial

aviation industry: one, the need for UAV command and control redundancy should a disruption in communication arise; and, two,

the need for a reliable detect and avoid capability so that the UAVs

can sense and avoid other aircraft.

I welcome our witnesses this morning and look forward to gaining additional insight into whether or not the FAA feels expanding

commercial UAV usage is a good idea. And, if so, what are their

plans to address safety and oversight issues as they relate to the

UAVs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. MICA. Additional members with opening statements?

[No response.]

Mr. MICA. We have no additional members, so we will turn to

our first panel of witnesses. And we have approximately four witnesses, I believe, on the first panel. Let me introduce them. We

have first Mr. Nicholas Sabatini, who is the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety with FAA. We have Mr. Gerald F. (Fred)

Pease Jr., Executive Director of the United States Department of

Defense, Policy Board on Federal Aviation. We have Mr. Dyke D.

Weatherington, Deputy, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Planning Task Force. He is with the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics Defense Systems

and Air Warfare with the United States Department of Defense.

And then our last witness on that panel is Mr. Michael Kostelnik,

and he is the Assistant Commissioner for Customs Border Protection, Office of Air and Marine Activities, in the Department of

Homeland Security.

So I would like to welcome all of our witnesses. We ask if you

have a lengthy statement or information that you would like to

have made part of the official record of these proceedings, to request so through the Chair. Hopefully, you can summarize in approximately five minutes your testimony. So we welcome you.

Mr. Sabatini is no stranger to this panel, and welcome him back

and recognize him at this time. You are recognized.
6

TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS SABATINI, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIATION SAFETY, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; MICHAEL KOSTELNIK, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, OFFICE OF

AIR AND MARINE, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;

GERALD F. (FRED) PEASE JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, POLICY BOARD

ON FEDERAL AVIATION; AND DYKE D. WEATHERINGTON,

DEPUTY, UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) PLANNING

TASK FORCE, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS DEFENSE SYSTEMS-AIR WARFARE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Mr. SABATINI. Good morning, Chairman Mica, Congressman Boswell, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss a subject that serves to remind us that

the future is now. The development and use of unmanned aircraft

(UAs) is the next great step forward in the evolution of aviation.

As it has throughout its history, FAA is prepared to work with government and industry to ensure that these aircraft are both safe

to operate and operated safely. The extremely broad range of UAs

makes their successful integration into the national airspace system (the NAS) a challenge, but certainly one worth meeting. To

meet this need, the FAA has established an Unmanned Aircraft

Program Office which has the expressed purpose of ensuring a safe

integration of UAs into the NAS.

At the outset, you must understand that UAs cannot be described as a single type of aircraft. UAs can be vehicles that range

from a 12-ounce hand launched model to the size of a 737 aircraft.

Obviously, the size of the UA impacts the complexity of its system

design and capability. Therefore, each different type of UA has to

be evaluated separately, with each aircraft’s unique characteristics

being considered before its integration into the NAS can be accomplished. FAA is currently working with both other government

agencies and private industry on the development and use of UAs.

The number of government agencies that want to use UAs in

support of their mandate is increasing.

In working with government agencies, the FAA issues a Certificate of Authorization (a COA), that permits the agency to operate

a particular UA for a particular purpose in a particular area. In

other words, FAA works with the agency to develop conditions and

limitations for UA operations to ensure they do not jeopardize the

safety of other aviation operations. The objective is to issue a COA

with terms that ensure an equivalent level of safety as manned aircraft. Usually, this entails making sure that the UA does not operate in a populated area and the aircraft is observed either by someone in a manned aircraft or someone on the ground. In the interest

of national security, and because ground observers were not possible, the FAA worked with DHS to facilitate UA operations along

the Arizona-New Mexico border with Mexico. In order to permit

such operations, the airspace is segregated to ensure system safety

so these UA flights can operate without an observer being physically present to observe the operation. The FAA is working closely

with DHS to minimize the impact of the segregation methods on
7

other aviation operations. In the past two years, the FAA has

issued over 50 COAs. With the purposes for which UAs are used

expanding steadily, the FAA expects to issue a record number of

COAs this year.

FAA’s work with private industry is slightly different. Companies

must obtain an airworthiness certificate by demonstrating that

their aircraft can operate safely within an assigned flight test area

and cause no harm to the public. They must be able to describe

their unmanned aircraft system, along with how and where they

intend to fly. This is documented by the applicant in what we call

a program letter. An FAA team of subject matter experts reviews

the program letter and, if the project is feasible, performs an onsite

review of the ground system and unmanned aircraft. If the results

of the onsite review are acceptable, there are negotiations on operating limitations. After the necessary limitations are accepted, FAA

will accept an application for an experimental airworthiness certificate, which is ultimately issued by the local FAA. The certificate

specifies the operating restrictions applicable to that aircraft. We

have received 14 program letters for UAs ranging from 39 to over

10,000 pounds. We have issued two experimental certificates, one

for General Atomics’ Altair and one for Bell-Textron’s Eagle Eye.

We expect to issue at least two more experimental certificates this

year.

Each UA FAA considers, whether it be developed by government

or industry, must have numerous fail safes for loss of command

and control link and system failures. Information must be provided

to FAA that clearly establishes that the risk of injury to persons

on the ground is highly unlikely in the even of a loss of link. Because FAA recognizes the seriousness of this situation, we are predominantly limiting UA operations to unpopulated areas. Should

loss of link occur, the pilot must immediately alert air traffic control and inform the controllers of the loss of control link. Information about what the aircraft is programmed to do and when it is

programmed to do it is pre-coordinated with the affected ATC facilities in advance of the flight so that FAA can take appropriate

actions to mitigate the situation and preserve safety.

The COA and Experimental Airworthiness Certificate processes

are designed to allow a sufficiently restricted operation to ensure

a safe environment, while allowing for research and development

until such time as pertinent standards are developed. The development of standards is crucial to moving forward with UAs integration into the NAS. FAA has asked the RTCA, an industry-led Federal advisory committee to FAA, with the development of a Minimum Aviation Safety Performance Standard for detect, sense, and

avoid, command, control, and communication. These standards will

allow manufacturers to begin to build certifiable avionics for UAs.

Until there are set standards and aircraft meet them, UAs will continue to have appropriate restrictions apply.

Because of the extraordinary broad range of unmanned aircraft

types and performance, the challenges of integrating them safely

into NAS continue to evolve. The certification and operational

issues described herein highlight the fact that there is a missing

link in terms of technology today that prevents these aircraft from

getting unrestricted access to the NAS. Currently, there is no rec-
8

ognized technology solution that can make these aircraft capable of

meeting regulatory requirements for see and avoid, command and

control.

FAA is fully cognizant that UAs are becoming more and more

important to more and more government agencies and private industry. The full extent of how they can be used and what benefits

they can provide are still being explored. Over the next several

years, when RTCA has provided recommended standards to the

FAA, we will be in a position to provide more exact certification

and operational requirements to UA operators. The future of avionics and air traffic control contemplates aircraft communicating

directly with one another to share flight information to maximize

the efficiency of the airspace. This certainly could include some

models of UA. Just as there is a broad range of UA, there will be

a broad range of ways to safely provide them access to the NAS.

Our commitment is to make sure that when they operate in the

NAS, they do so with no denigration of safety system.

In our history, FAA and its predecessor agencies have successfully transitioned many new and revolutionary aircraft types and

systems into the NAS. Beginning in 1937, we completed the U.S.

certification for the first large-scale production airliner (the DC-3),

then went on to certify the first pressurized airliner (the Boeing

307 in 1940), the civil helicopter (the Bell 47 in 1946), turboprops,

turbo jets like the Boeing 707 in 1958, as well as the supersonic

transport (the Concord in 1979), and the advance wide-body jets of

today. It seems appropriate that as we begin a new century and

new millennium, advances in aviation technology present us with

another addition to the fleet with great potential: unmanned aircraft.

Mr. Chairman, FAA is prepared to meet the challenge. We will

continue to work closely with our partners in government, industry,

and Congress to ensure that the national airspace has the ability

to take maximum advantage of the unique capabilities of unmanned aircraft.

This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer your questions.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. We will withhold questions until we have

heard from the other witnesses.

The second witness is Fred Pease Jr., Executive Director under

the United States Department of Defense Policy Board on Federal

Aviation. Welcome, and you are recognized, sir.

Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Boswell,

members of the subcommittee. I do want to thank you for inviting

me to be here today. As the Executive Director of the Department

of Defense Policy Board, I represent the services and the DOD on

policy in working with the FAA. The PBFA, as we call it, was

formed about 20 years ago to not only work more closely with the

FAA, but also represent interests on mission accomplishment in

the DOD.

As you know, the Department of Defense is not only a user—we

operate fleets of aircraft—but we also—some people don’t think

about this part, but we are also a provider of air traffic services.

The DOD has about 4,000 air traffic controllers who are a seamless

partner with the FAA to provide those air traffic services to not
9

only military, but also civilian, general aviation, commercial. Last

year, the DOD controllers provided air traffic services for over 15

million operations, of which 3.5 million were civil, general aviation,

and commercial traffic.

The Policy Board on Federal aviation is comprised of senior executives and general officers from all the services and from the

Joint Staff and members of the Office of the Secretary of Defense,

and this body is supported by various subgroups, one of which is

UAS subgroup, which has recently been established over the last

couple of years and is working harder, believe me, every day as we

go along through this issue.

Although I have been involved in air traffic issues, especially for

the Air Force, and airspace and whatnot for a long time, I just assumed this position with this DOD hat last December, and I can

assure you that UAVs have been at the top of a very small list of

issues that I deal with every day. I work directly with Mr.

Sabatini; my organization works directly with his organization.

And I am confident—and other senior leaders in the FAA, and I am

confident that we are going to be able to work the issues that we

need to work to integrate unmanned vehicles both into the national

airspace system for DOD and working with the FAA, helping them

bring—helping them also to integrate these into the overall system.

As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, we are going through a period

of very rapid technology advancement—you see some of that on

your desk today—and also an awful lot of operational know-how

that you find in any conflict where technology is used in innovative

ways. There are folks in Iraq and Afghanistan that are using that

UAV that you have on your desk today in operations.

As with any technological advancement, it challenges us to provide the policy and the guidance that we have to do to incorporate

this thing, these technologies. I am sure that there will be some

segments of the user community, including perhaps some in my

own user community, that will be a bit frustrated because we are

not going fast enough, but I believe that we are on the right path,

what I have seen over the last couple of months that I have been

doing this, and I am confident that we will be able to provide the

regulatory guidance with the FAA that we need to safely integrate

these platforms.

My colleague, Mr. Weatherington, can provide you some more detailed discussion about the acquisition issues associated with unmanned vehicles in the Department of Defense. And having said

that, again, I want to thank you for having invited me today, and

I will be happy to answer your questions at the appropriate time.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

We will turn next to Dyke Weatherington. He is Deputy of the

Unmanned Aerial Systems Planning Task Force with DOD. So we

welcome you and we recognize you.

Mr. WEATHERINGTON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Boswell, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you today a very important area. As you

have indicated, I am deputy for the Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Planning Task Force within the Office of the Under Secretary of

Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and in that capacity I am

primarily responsible for the acquisition and development of our
10

very robust unmanned aircraft systems. I appreciate the opportunity to provide you overview of our plan to integrate these very

large and dynamic systems into our national airspace and international airspace safely.

DOD unmanned aircraft system are playing a major role in combat operations both in Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring

Freedom. During the past year, unmanned aircraft operations supporting the global war on terrorism expanded dramatically, and

theater and tactical unmanned aircraft flew over 100,000 hours

just last year, and I hopefully have a graphic of that coming up.

Unmanned aircraft systems are playing an ever-increasing role

in a wide range of DOD missions, but they are also playing an increasing role in homeland defense, disaster support operations, as

well as support to civilian agencies such as Department of Homeland Security for Border Security.

Today, the military departments have a force of over 2600 small

unmanned aircraft, one of them you have an example of up there,

and about 300 larger unmanned aircraft that support military operations worldwide.

It is important to note—and Mr. Sabatini made this point—that

our unmanned aircraft system span a broad range of capability. We

have small ones up on your desk and large ones like Global Hawk

that are over 27,000 pounds.

I just have a couple examples of those. The Raven, which is the

next graphic, is an example of a small unmanned aircraft system,

and this is the most polarific unmanned aircraft that we have in

the force today. It is typically operated by one or two soldiers; it

is primarily used for situational awareness at a fixed site location.

The range of the system is typically 5 to 6 nautical miles. It operates at altitudes typically of a couple hundred feet, but up to 1,000

feet; and the endurance is about an hour. Generally, this aircraft

has performance similar to what you might see in a commercial

radio-controlled model aircraft.

The next graphic shows an example of the next level, our tactical

unmanned aircraft systems. This happens to be Shadow, which the

Army operates. It ranges out to up to about 80 nautical miles, typically operates at altitudes less than 5,000 feet and at air speeds

typically less than 80 knots. Its endurance is about five hours, and

its size and performance is similar to many manned ultra-light aircraft. It typically operates from small, unimproved airfields and it

carries an electro-optical and infrared camera system, one similar

to what you might find in a traffic helicopter.

The next level of performance in DOD’s unmanned aircraft are

shown with the Predator A system here. Predator A is about 2400

pounds, roughly the same size as a Cessna 172. And the next figure, Global Hawk, which I mentioned previously, is about 27,000

pound aircraft. These systems generally operate at altitudes ranging from 15,000 to over 60,000 feet for very long endurances, sometimes in excess of 30 hours, and they operate from established airfields. They carry a variety of sensor systems, including electro-optical, infrared, imaging radar, single intelligence payloads, and

some others. They are typically operated beyond the line of sight

in that we operate them through a satellite link. And as an example, the figure I showed of Predator, we have multiple Predators in
11

theater today. Virtually all of these are operated through a satellite

link and they are commanded and controlled from an Air Force

base in Nevada.

The term ‘‘unmanned aircraft system’’ properly identifies the airborne component as an aircraft, which is consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration’s view of these platforms. During the

last year, the Office of Secretary Defense released our third edition,

in August of 2005, of the unmanned aircraft systems roadmap,

which is our broad-range plan for integrating service developed systems and capabilities into the longer-term goals.

I would like to point out that one of our top goals in this roadmap was to foster the development of policies, standards, and procedures that enable safe, routine, and timely operations by unmanned aircraft in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace.

Military unmanned aircraft have historically been flown on test

and training ranges that were restricted, or in war zones, and,

thus, they were largely segregated from manned civilian aircraft.

But this is changing, as has been pointed out recently. In order to

fully integrate unmanned aircraft into the national airspace outside of restricted airspace, there are regulatory and technology

issues that must be addressed by both DOD, FAA, and other industry partners. Our airspace plan for the integration of unmanned

aircraft details these issues and key drivers that must be addressed to achieve the goal of safe routine use of the national airspace certainly by DOD unmanned aircraft and likely by commercial entities in the future.

In 1997, FAA and DOD agreed to allow DOD unmanned aircraft

access to the NAS using the previously described Certificate of Authorization process. The COA process allows for DOD unmanned

aircraft access to the NAS for events that are planned well into the

future, and this process has served all parties very well and continues to do so today. However, it is insufficient to support operations

of an unplanned nature, such as disaster operations or homeland

defense. A significant number of DOD COA approvals recently have

increased in length of processing. and in some cases a few DOD

programs have experienced some delays that impacted the programs.

Now I am happy to report today that I have been informed that

a number of those pending COAs are about to be approved today,

and that is certainly good news to DOD.

While ground-based radar has been the primary means for providing equivalent level of safety for the COA process, it has limitations and, in DOD’s view, it is not a long-term solution. To mitigate

radar limitations, DOD is developing technologies that fall under

the broad category of collision avoidance, also been described as

sense and avoid technologies, and we believe this capability will be

organic to many DOD unmanned aircraft. We also believe that

these capabilities will likely exceed the capability of the human

eye.

Directly related to this technology development is the need for

standards to design and build to, and to collect data to measure the

effectiveness of these specific sense and avoid systems. DOD is

planning to demonstrate optical systems that have a sense and

avoid capability later this year.
12

Our airspace integration plan for unmanned aviation also recognizes that not all unmanned aircraft will likely be qualified to fileand-fly in all classes of airspace, and DOD promotes three categories for unmanned aircraft. The first category fully complies

with Title XIV, Part 91, including the ability to see and avoid, and

systems that would meet that qualification could be Global Hawk

with future technology upgrades.

The next category would be similar to light sport aircraft or

ultra-lights. They probably would not have a full capability and

would likely, at least in the near term, require Certificate of Authorization to operate in the NAS. And Shadow may be an example

of one of those.

Finally, the last category are the small unmanned aircraft, similar to RC model aircraft. We do not believe a COA is probably appropriate for these, at least an individual COA, and BATCAM and

Raven might be candidates for this category.

Standards and technology enabling unmanned aircraft to be

qualified for file-and-fly are still being developed; however, DOD is

investing significantly in this area. Once the technology is developed and proven, regulatory changes will likely be required to

allow DOD unmanned aircraft to file and fly. Regulatory changes

that could allow DOD more flexibility for small unmanned aircraft

we believe, however, could be implemented very soon, and DOD

needs that.

In summary, DOD has safely accumulated hundreds of thousands of unmanned aircraft flight hours, many of which were in

congested airspace in Iraq. DOD unmanned aircraft increasingly

require routine access to national airspace outside of restricted

areas for combat training, homeland defense, and disaster relief operations. Routine access at the current COA process does not accommodate well. Changes to the current COA process can provide

more routine access and safe access to the NAS now, while DOD

and FAA work together to define and implement a long-term plan

for airspace integration for the full range of unmanned aviation.

DOD’s priorities for immediate action are: first, to continue to

work with FAA to approve all our pending and future COA requests in an expeditious and timely manner; second of all, to work

with FAA to provide great airspace access for our small unmanned

aircraft operations outside of restricted airspace; and, finally, to

work with FAA and other government agencies for the development

of standards for sense and avoid capabilities.

Today, DOD and the Department of Homeland Security unmanned aircraft operations in the NAS typically occur over very

low population areas and airspace with very low densities, and our

safety record clearly demonstrates that DOD unmanned aircraft

operations in the NAS have not posed a significant risk or threat

to the public or have been a hazard to safe airspace operations, and

DOD fully intends to keep it that way.

This concludes my prepared remarks, and I would be happy to

answer any questions at the appropriate time.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

We will now hear from our last witness on this panel, Mr. Michael Kostelnik. He is Assistant Commissioner of the Customs and
13

Border Protection Office of Air and Marine under the Department

of Homeland Security.

Welcome, sir, and you are recognized.

Mr. KOSTELNIK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Boswell. Thank you for the opportunity, at a time period when the Nation’s security is on the people’s mind, to have the opportunity to

share with you how U.S. Customs and Border Protection is actually

using UAVs today in the national airspace in concert with the Department of Air Force, Department of Defense, and our good

friends at the FAA.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, now three years old, got

into the UAV business through legislation and direction under the

Intelligence and Terrorism Prevention Act in 2004, and with the

funding that was subsequently provided in 2005 and 2006, we were

able to competitively choose and procure two operational systems.

We chose a Predator B, which is a larger version of the Predator

A that my colleague just showed, very similarly equipped, but

much more capable in terms of duration. We actually entered into

service with the first vehicle in September of last year, and it has

been very high performing, as was indicated by earlier comments,

in the southwest border under the auspices of the Border Patrol.

Now, the UAV is not the panacea for all our missions. They are

not going to approach manned approaches to border surveillance,

but they certainly are force multipliers, in our view, and we use

them very carefully where they make a lot of sense. We have a lot

of activities and a lot of infrastructure dedicated toward border surveillance, much as Congressman Boswell talked about. We still

have aircraft with standoff radars looking around our borders,

much as we did in the 1960s and later in the 1970s, when borders

were important overseas. But today it is much more sophisticated

and we have other capabilities: we have air stats, airships covering

the southwest border, P-3 aircraft and other smaller aircraft carrying a wide variety of sensors and multi-spectrums, doing border

surveillance. And our UAV use of the Predator B fits nicely into

this approach.

The aircraft we have chosen is a fairly large aircraft by UAV

standards, realizing there are many issues with a wide variety of

UAVs that exist today. It is about 10,000 pounds max gross weight,

a wing span of about 66 feet. So if you saw this in person, you

would pretty much think that you were looking at a light homebuilt type of aircraft.

The issues that have been raised in terms of safety, the continuity of command and control, see and avoid are all issues that we

try to deal with in some way. The Predator B design was specifically chosen because of the specific robustness in this area because

of the size of the vehicles and the design. There are multiple

redundancies built into the programs, multiple options for fail safe

approaches during emergencies. And although the vehicle itself is

unmanned, there are large crews on the ground in the near vicinity

where the aircraft is operated and remote sites with radar coverage

over all of the flying infrastructures in the Country that watch our

vehicles in the areas we choose to fly in throughout all the regimes

of flight.
14

Our specific area of operation is currently in the Arizona border,

participating in a wide variety of activities, trying to secure the

southwest border. The typical missions launch in the evening. We

fly pretty much at night, from dusk until dawn the next day, typically 14 hour missions. The vehicle is out doing surveillance with

both radar, infrared and electro-optic sensors, looking for illegal immigration, looking for illicit narcotics movement, and working with

Border Patrol and other equities on the ground to recover.

I am proud to say that we have had very good result from our

systems since our system has been operational, one vehicle since

September of last year. This vehicle, in concert with Border Patrol

equities on the ground, have been responsible for detecting 1800 illegal immigrants trying to come across the border in the southwest.

Twelve hundred of those were actually detained and apprehended

as a result of inter-relationships between the UAVs and people on

the ground. About 7,000 pounds of illicit narcotics, mostly marijuana, has been recovered, and the seizure of four vehicles. So you

could see if you took just the street value of those things and the

potential issues if some of those immigrants turned out to be terrorists or terrorist-oriented, rather than economic emigres, the significant impact the UAVs are currently having in our border security initiatives to date.

We are very pleased, working very close with the FAA and will

continue to do so in the future to ensure that we not only keep the

national airspace safe, but we keep our borders safe as well. We

honestly believe with greater facilities like the air marine facility

out in Riverside, California, and current connectivity, all the time

we are flying with the vehicle through radar in current connectivity

with the FAA, the way we file with flight plans, the redundancies

of the vehicle, we feel very strongly not only can we operate the

vehicle safely and around the times and the areas we specifically

choose and need to protect our borders, we think we can contribute

very purposely to the learnings and to hopefully the requirements

definition for how other UAVs could be modified with similar approaches to fly in broader reaches of the airspace. We are a member of the group with the FAA and look forward to working with

them to extend the operations through the remainder of the borders.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you, sir.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I have a few questions I will start out

with.

First of all, Mr. Pease, I think I attribute this quote to you, that

the COA, this current process of approval, is not a long-term solution. I think that was a comment that I heard from DOD. And then

I think one of you alluded to the fact that some COAs that have

been pending are about to be approved. I don’t know if it is as a

result of the hearing, but one of the problems that we have heard,

that this current process that we have takes a long time, and we

have current congestion in the approval pipeline, and we probably

expect more in the future. So your comments or DOD’s comments

that this is not a long-term solution, what do you suggest?

Mr. PEASE. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, that I said that. In

fact, I don’t think I did. But—

Mr. MICA. It was either you or Weatherington.
15

Mr. PEASE. Yes, sir. I would like to address it, however. I think

the COA process was a good process when it was put in place, and

it has worked very well over the last—I believe it has been working

since the late 1990s. But in any process, especially when you are

dealing with very rapid changes, as I talked about before, in technology and operational know-how and increased demands, then,

and as Mr. Sabatini said, the numbers of COAs are starting to get

up very—becoming time intensive, if you will, for staffs and whatnot. And we have, again, since I started looking at this last December, we started to look at the process itself to re-engineer the process. So I think up until—in the past the COA process has been adequate, but in the future we are going to have to look at making it

more streamlined. And I believe we are committed—I know the

FAA is committed—to making it more streamlined.

We have looked at the COAs that are about to be approved. We

took about a 90-day look at them again, just to make sure we are

operating safely, because of what we see as there going to be a proliferation of new requirements in the future.

And I will let Mr. Weatherington add anything to that he wants.

Mr. WEATHERINGTON. Sir, I would just confirm what Mr. Pease

indicated. For some activities the COA process still probably fits

DOD’s requirements pretty well if we can fix this backlog that we

have. There are some operations, however, because of their very

time intensive nature, that a COA process does not seem well suited for. Now, we do—DOD and FAA do have other methods to accommodate those. They aren’t well developed yet. So DOD and FAA

will be continuing to work the improvement of the COA process

and the refinement of other options. TFRs were mentioned as potentially another solution. There are limitations and potential

drawbacks to TFRs also, however. So the long-term aspect from

DOD’s perspective is we need to develop the technologies that for

the most case will allow DOD’s unmanned aircraft to file and fly

and gain access to the NAS similar to what commercial aviation

does today.

Mr. MICA. And for the DHS representative, you are being called

on more for border patrol enforcement purposes. Are you seeing the

same problem, the approval process is awkward or out of date, or

we need some expedited means of approval?

Mr. KOSTELNIK. I think for the present, Mr. Chairman, we are

actually in pretty good shape. We are in fact operating under a

COA in Arizona in about a 100-mile stretch, and we do have one

of those pending that is in the final stages of approval this week,

which we expect to get authorities to extend that coverage to 344

miles. But for us, since we only have one operational vehicle and

will not get our second aircraft until summer, actually, we are the

beneficiary of taking time to do this, and I would submit that each

one of these COAs needs to be kind of driven, the time of it, by the

risk associated with the type of aircraft that is seeking approval,

the location and way in which that aircraft will be flown, and the

risk both to civil aviation and the purposes on the ground. So for

us, in the areas where we are flying now, in the Arizona, soon to

be Arizona and New Mexico border, and hopefully downstream in

the Texas border, we will be flying, by and large, late at night and
16

over uninhabited areas, again, with a very sophisticated radar coverage.

So we are comfortable with the process to date, and we don’t

really have the number of assets that DOD has to require such a

fast turnaround, so I think we are comfortable with where we are

today.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Sabatini, having known him for some time, is sort

of Missouri-oriented in his philosophy, sort of like Mr. Show-Me.

He said in his testimony that we do not now have the technology

to monitor these unmanned aerial vehicles. And then I heard—and

again I don’t have names—one of the DOD representatives said see

and sense and avoidance systems are right around the corner. How

close are we, Mr. Weatherington or Mr. Pease? In fact, one of you

testified that—my notes here—it would be better than the human

eye. When can we expect that technology?

Mr. WEATHERINGTON. Yes, sir. From a technology perspective,

DOD has extensive work modeling human pilot performance, and

we have the opportunity then to take that human pilot performance and run it through a number of simulations. And our data indicates that for some scenarios, the human eye, assuming that the

pilot is very responsive to visual cues, still is not sufficient to avoid

some near miss situations. So that was really the basis for a remark that, from DOD’s perspective, the detect and avoid systems

that we are developing we believe need, in most cases, to be an improvement of what the human capability is today.

I also mentioned that—

Mr. MICA. When do you think that you will have something that

meets Mr. Show-Me’s requirements?

Mr. WEATHERINGTON. DOD has been in consultation and has

briefed FAA on—

Mr. MICA. Are we talking a couple of years, a decade, right

around the corner?

Mr. WEATHERINGTON. Sir, it really depends on the performance

of the system. Certainly by the end of the decade DOD believes

that we will have technology sufficient to provide an equivalent

level of safety for a Predator class system in visual flight condition

rules, and hopefully have that onboard the system.

Mr. MICA. Quick question. What kind of safety record do we have

now with both DHS and DOT? Have we had—I thought somebody

told me we had some near misses. Is that the case or am I getting

a bad scoop?

DOD?

Mr. WEATHERINGTON. Sir, for NAS operations, I am not aware of

any incident that we have had in the last seven years that resulted

in a near miss with commercial or general aviation aircraft. Now,

I will say that in restricted areas DOD operates somewhat more

aggressively to simulate combat operations. In those cases we do

integrate manned and unmanned very closely. We have not encountered any unsafe operations, but it really depends on how you

ask the question as to what answer you get back.

Mr. MICA. DHS?

Mr. KOSTELNIK. No, sir. In our operational experience since September of 2005, we have had no incidents, safety or otherwise, with

the Predator B that we have been flying.
17

Mr. MICA. Mr. Sabatini, you are spending more and more resources, time and effort in this current approval process. Is there

anything that can be expedited? You saw from the charts the number of these flights; just in like the last year it looked like they doubled. What are we going to do from your standpoint? You are going

to need more resources just to handle the current processing. Is

this going to be out of control in a short time without technology

to deal that you deem satisfactory?

Mr. SABATINI. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I would agree that

the COA process is certainly not a long-term solution, recognizing

that this has now become quite prominent in terms of unmanned

aircraft seeking access to the NAS. This past year I established an

unmanned aircraft office, program office, with three people assigned to it. Again, those folks are taking out of hide. We had not

anticipated growth so early. So that basically has come out of our

hide, as I say. But in the 2007 budget I am asking for six people

that can add to the processing of COAs and experimental airworthiness certificates.

I believe that we are being quite responsive to the needs of the

different Federal agencies. Where today, again, beginning with a

process that started fairly recently, we had a 60-day turnaround.

We are cutting that down to 30 days as we have gained experience.

It is also important to note that we have a long history with the

military in terms of they are responsible, as we all know, for the

defense of this great Country of ours. They have been able to access

the airspace, the NAS, to conduct their business on an ongoing

basis, and they have developed an expertise. If you recall the discussions we had a few years ago around public use aircraft, they

have a resident expertise in the certification of their own airframes. As other Federal agencies come online and wish to operate

in public use aircraft over which the FAA has no direct certification

responsibility for the airframe, those agencies need to develop their

own expertise similar to what DOD has done very successfully.

So we are anxious to work with the Federal agencies, and I believe that we can turn around COAs in a very timely way.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. Boswell.

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just to continue there, Mr. Sabatini, how long do you visualize

before final resolution for the regulations for the UAV integration

into the national airspace?

Mr. SABATINI. It is difficult to put a time on that, Mr. Boswell.

We have, again, proactively, engaged and tasked the RTCA to address the command and control, detect, sense and avoid issues because they are—those capabilities are lacking on unmanned aircraft today. The RTCA has been quite responsive in expediting the

process that they are using. Remember, this is a voluntary basis

on the part of industry. They come together at their own expense

and work with FAA and the Federal agencies in determining what

those requirements need to be. And we believe we will have an outline of what those requirements may be by the end of this year, in

2006, and expect further development by the end of 2007 for positioning us then for rulemaking.
18

Mr. BOSWELL. Okay. When you lose control, what do you do, destroy the aircraft, or do you land it, crash it? What do you do with

it if it gets away from you?

Anybody.

Mr. KOSTELNIK. I will go ahead and answer that for DHS. Flying

the Predator B I think is very typical of the Predator A. We fly

these things both line of sight with a C-band and also beyond line

of sight, especially in the DOD, with Ku-band radar. The aircraft

are programmed such that if you lose line of flight, it preprograms

into an alternative. In the case of DHS Predator B, we can fly the

vehicle through another source. Even though we typically have line

of sight only for our aircraft, we can fly them through an Iridium

satcom that allows us to take the aircraft back to a locale where

it can re-establish line of sight. If it cannot establish realignment

with the line of flight [sic], then it goes into an orbit for a certain

amount of time and then ultimately returns back to field and hopefully gives an opportunity to pick up again line of sight control.

And if line of sight is not picked up, then typically it is either landed or purposely crashed in a non-inhabited area.

So you can program and have backups to all kind of contingencies that happen. In the case of DHS, during these kind of

emergencies, we are always monitored by our radar facility out in

California, through local radars in the area where we are immediately following, and through feeds directly that are tied with the

FAA. Everything that happens with a vehicle is watched on radar

with multiple people in the loop. So, today, losing a line of sight

communication is not a big deal, and when it happens usually we

are able to reacquire an alignment shortly thereafter.

Mr. BOSWELL. I am just curious about line of sight. You know,

if you are flying at, for some of us, 200 feet doesn’t reach out there

too far.

Mr. KOSTELNIK. No, that is true, and certainly the vehicle you

have, the actual performance and the design of the vehicle and the

way you operate it are first order effect on this. In our case, we fly

our missions at 13,000 feet, so we are fairly high altitude, and we

fly well within our line of sight range to have margins there which

add to our redundancy to make sure we can maintain line of sight

control.

Mr. BOSWELL. Okay, thank you.

Back to you, Mr. Sabatini. I understand you have issued guidance to require a company to apply for an experimental aircraft

certificate for a particular UAV before it can flight test. I hear that

some companies have suggested that you should develop the equivalent of a company certificate of authorization to allow them to conduct private operations in remote areas for multiple aircraft models. What are your thoughts? What are you doing there?

Mr. SABATINI. Well, for many, many years the experimental airworthiness certificate has been the vehicle that we have used to

allow companies such as those that have suggested that to conduct

research and develop. It is the perfect vehicle. And because it is an

experimental, we then work out restrictions and limitations, and

protect the public and keep those operations in areas where it cannot do any harm to people on the ground or in the air. Safety is

paramount.
19

Mr. BOSWELL. Okay.

Mr. Pease, in the COA process employed by the FAA to allow

military use of UAVs, is it sufficient to ensure our needs, do you

think?

Mr. PEASE. Yes, sir. Up until now—again, when I started my position as the Executive Director of the Policy Board on Federal

Aviation and these COAs were coming up to expiration, I wanted

to make sure that we had—and these COAs, again, as I said before, had been in place since 1997 and a lot of things had changed

since 1997. So we instituted, with the FAA, a review of our process.

Again, I think that the COAs are a good process to deal with for

the kinds of activities that we are conducting. As in any process,

it can be re-engineered, it can be made better. We are trying to do

that. And I think that it will, in the short-term, we will be able to

meet our needs, but in the long term we are going to have to look

at other things, as has already been discussed.

Mr. BOSWELL. Okay, this last question or comment, what is your

consideration to develop these TFRs, general aviation and their impact? How much do you involve that in your decision-making process? Anybody.

Mr. Sabatini, I will help you out. You first.

Mr. SABATINI. Certainly, all those factors are considered and we

work with the various associations.

Mr. BOSWELL. Do you actually contact, like, for example, AOPA

to see what their feelings are? Do you actually engage them at the

table?

Mr. SABATINI. Well, I don’t know that we actually might be at

a table together, but we certainly have conversations. For

example—

Mr. BOSWELL. They are pretty nice folks. You ought to get at the

table once in a while.

Mr. SABATINI. Well, Mr. Boswell, I am a member of AOPA.

Mr. BOSWELL. So am I, but that is not the point.

Mr. SABATINI. But I do know them, and we work very closely

with them, and I will tell you that we certainly consider, very definitely consider their concerns and their issues before issuing a

TFR. Their needs are well understood and accommodated for.

Mr. BOSWELL. Okay. Well, thank you. We will count on that. I

appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. GRAVES. [Presiding] Mr. Coble?

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I have been between hearings, Judiciary and here, and have missed most of this. I just want to thank

the panel for being here, but I have no questions.

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Hayes, questions?

Mr. HAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Congressman Boswell, don’t rush off here, now. Is it true that

they accused your helicopter of being unmanned when you were

flying it?

[Laughter.]

Mr. HAYES. Leonard and I are very good friends and have an extremely high interest, as does Chairman Graves, in this whole

issue.
20

I think the integration into the system—and I apologize for not

hearing the first part of your testimony. I appreciate your being

here and appreciate Chairman Mica holding the hearing.

When will there be routine operations, in the opinion of the

panel, taking place in the national airspace? Well, let us start with

that. When might this take place, or, in your opinion, General

Kosteli [sic], is that happening now?

Mr. KOSTELNIK. No, sir, I certainly don’t think it is happening

now. And I think, given the policy issues with the wide variety of

UAVs, I mean, there are some like the model that is sitting up

there, you know, it is not very capable compared to a 10,000 pound,

66 foot wingspan. So we have everything—and Global Hawk even

larger—we have everything in between. I would certainly, as a professional pilot myself, be more comfortable with these larger systems operating with all the kind of things it would have and all

the redundancies. I would not be as comfortable with that flying in

the routine national airspace with small things.

For us in Homeland Security, the good news and the bad news

for us is we are flying at very specific locales, very close to, in

many cases, DOD ranges that exist, very close to the border, where

you wouldn’t expect a lot of commercial civilian traffic; and mostly

our missions are late at night, when usually the people that are

flying in those locales are up to no good. So a lot of our activity,

which I would say is not routine, is very carefully orchestrated,

using a wide variety of assets, and I think we are probably not

much of an impact or threat to impacts on civilian aviation into the

national airspace. And as we continue to grow this capability, we

will be growing in different border locations, the northern border

in particular, as well as the south and some of the coastal regions,

but typically they will be in locales that are low-density populations and very carefully orchestrated towards very specific ends.

Mr. HAYES. So you don’t really see this, at this point, as being

a major conflict. As is Leonard and Sam, we are all concerned

about conflicts. The general aviation industry is so important to

our economy, the commerce, aircraft manufacturers in this Country

are so important. I want to make sure, going forward, that we don’t

fail to blend this in, but it is an important tool.

I am led to believe, in my home State of North Carolina, recently

a police department had talked about using an unmanned aerial

vehicle. Is that being contemplated, is that being done? Anybody on

the panel now. How common is that?

Mr. SABATINI. Well, it is not very common, Mr. Hayes. We did

have conversation with the police chief at Gastonia, North Carolina, and he has been very cooperative. We helped him understand

the complexities of introducing a vehicle into the airspace, the difficulties in the perhaps unsafe operations over congested areas, and

he has agreed to operate those aircraft in accordance with what we

are doing to help them be successful in those operations.

Mr. HAYES. Anybody else have a thought on that? As long as we

keep the coordination and cooperation going and keep everybody in

the loop.

Mr. Weatherington?
21

Mr. WEATHERINGTON. Sir, yes. I don’t know if you saw the graphic I showed earlier. Last year, DOD flew in excess of 100,000 hours.

Now, most of those hours were in combat operations.

Mr. HAYES. Absolutely.

Mr. WEATHERINGTON. Approximately 30,000 of those hours,

slightly greater than that, were for operations in CONUS. Most of

those were in DOD restricted airspace. However, as DOD continues

to populate the forestructure, more and more of those hours will be

flown outside of restricted airspace. A specific example of that is

later on this year the Air Force will begin regular operations at

Beale Air Force Base with Global Hawk. Beale is Class D airspace

up to 3,000 feet, I believe, but once you get above 3,000 feet of airspace, you are in the NAS.

Now, Global Hawk transitions relatively quickly up to a relatively high altitude at low congestion levels, but those operations

will become very common later on this year, and certainly next

year.

Additionally, General Atomics, which I believe Admiral Cassidy

is on the next panel, has operations very close to DOD restricted

airspace near Edwards Air Force Base. There are regular operations ongoing at those locations also. Typically, they transit into

DOD restricted airspace to conduct most of their operations.

But in answer to your question, from DOD’s perspective, there is

a significant amount of activity happening today in the NAS.

Again, most of that is in restricted airspace today, but the percentage of hours outside of restricted airspace will grow considerably

over the next five years.

Mr. HAYES. If I might, Mr. Chairman, just one more question. Is

it safe to assume—now, I am assuming that military operations are

very precisely choreographed and handled, and the operator of the

vehicle is in contact with the appropriate control facilities as the

vehicle penetrates airspace. If I am correct, assure me that is the

case. Where my concern goes, if there is a significant number of

uncontrolled by various and sundry agencies just out doing whatever Gastonia—not to say that it is anything bad. But that is

where my concern begins to get great.

Thank you all for your testimony. I apologize for going over.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GRAVES. We are going to go ahead and set the next panel

now. We are going to have a vote coming up in about 10 or 15 minutes, so we want to try to get started as quickly as possible. I

apologize all of you being here today.

And we will set the next panel, which is going to be Dr. Robert

Owen, Professor of the Department of Aeronautical Science at

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University; Mr. Andrew Cebula, Senior

Vice President, Government and Technical Affairs with the AOPA;

Dr. Mike Heinz, Executive Director of UNITE UAV National Industry Team; Rear Admiral Thomas J. Cassidy, who is President of

General Atomic Aeronautical Systems; and Mr. Jay Mealy, Programs Director at The Academy of Model Aeronautics.

Thank you all for being here. We will go ahead and start with

Dr. Owen.
22

TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT C. OWEN, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF AERONAUTICAL SCIENCE, EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY; ANDREW CEBULA, SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AND TECHNICAL AFFAIRS, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION (AOPA); MIKE

HEINZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITE UAV NATIONAL INDUSTRY TEAM (UNITE); RADM THOMAS J. CASSIDY, JR.

(RET.), PRESIDENT, GENERAL ATOMIC AERONAUTICAL SYSTEMS; AND JAY MEALY, PROGRAMS DIRECTOR, THE ACADEMY OF MODEL AERONAUTICS

Dr. OWEN. Thank you. Members of the Committee, first of all, let

me say, like everybody else does, that I am honored to be here.

These are important hearings and I am glad to be a part of them.

If I may impose on you for just a moment, I want to explain

Embry-Riddle’s interest in unmanned aviation. As the world’s only

university centered on aviation, we take a broad interest in anything that has to do with building aircraft, conducting and supporting flight operations, and managing aviation business. This interest

extends to unmanned aviation as well. Currently, we are addressing UA through a variety of engineering, flight test, human factors,

air traffic and flight simulation, and policy development activities.

In my remarks here, I intend to lay out a few important what

I call truths of commercial unmanned aviation for your consideration and to suggest two legislative priorities springing from those

truths. My hope is that these points will make the case that the

time for more active congressional involvement in this area is now,

not later.

First, it is important that we all understand that private and

commercial operators are flying thousands of unmanned aviation

vehicles and systems in this Country and around the world. I list

a few areas of application here on the slide just for illustration;

there are many, many more. The problem is that there is no body

of law or regulation in this Country that enables the conduct of

routine, safe, and profitable unmanned commercial flight. While

the FAA’s Advisory Circular 91-57 covers the flight of recreational

model aircraft, neither it nor any other document allows people to

fly similar or more sophisticated unmanned aircraft for pay. If, for

example, I use a three pound radio-controlled aircraft to photograph my house for fun, AC 91-57 makes that a legal operation. If,

on the other hand, I use the same aircraft on the same flight to

photograph my neighbor’s house and charge him $10, I am operating outside the bounds of regulatory approval.

Next slide.

Virtually all of the systems operating commercially today are

low-end systems. Most of those are small systems as well. These

are aircraft, often only a few pounds in weight, controlled directly

by the operators, who maintain visual, line-of-sight contact with

their aircraft and their operating environments. As the bullets in

this slide indicate, the commercial advantages of low-end systems

include: their small size; and operating patterns that usually don’t

require flying more than a few hundred feet above the ground, well

below normal air traffic. Not often recognized is the economic benefit of their operation by what I call adjunct pilots, pilots who fly
23

the aircraft as an aspect of their job, but not as the primary focus

of that job.

In contrast, there are no high-end UAS systems that have entered civil government or commercial markets on a routine basis.

By high-end, I mean systems that tend to be large, perhaps tons

in weight, and, most importantly, that operate outside of the visual

range and, quite often, beyond the electronic horizon of the operator. The current barriers to applying high-end UASes to commercial operations are profound. Most importantly, the absence of permissive regulation makes it impossible for operators to put them

into national airspace routinely or predictably. Also, their control

infrastructures, whether terrestrial or space-based, are expensive.

The size of these unmanned systems also represent significant risk

to other aircraft and people on the ground, resulting in high insurance costs. Last, the flight and support crew costs of these highend systems at the moment are more expensive than those of

manned aircraft doing similar missions.

Next slide.

As I believe this panel is aware already, the focus of UA regulatory development has been on high-end systems. This focus has

made sense given the immediate interest of the military and the

major manufacturers providing its unmanned aerial systems. But

from a commercial perspective, this focus is ironic since it serves

realms of UA that are the least likely to be viable economically on

a large scale and in the near term, and ignores the low-end realm

that has become economically active despite the neglect.

The point of this slide simply is that the state of UA knowledge

and regulation today makes it difficult to measure its business attributes and potentials. The absence of a common analytical language, for example, about things like categories of commercial UA

operations and cost calculators, hinders rigorous discussions of

their economic and business attributes. Likewise, we need some

regulator decisions on things like control system, crew member,

and safety standards to provide a basis for making credible calculations of cost and profits. Last—and this is my pet peeve—the manufacturers and operators tend to hold their data pretty close to

their proprietary chests, which makes it difficult for somebody like

me to build up a case for the commercial application of those systems.

This discussion leads to a couple of what I think are legislative

priorities. The first, above all else, is the need for Congress to accelerate the entry of UA into the national airspace and economy.

The next step in that process from the congressional perspective,

I would think, may be to charter a GAO and/or other studies to

summarize where we are now and to suggest things like how to

categorize these operations and certify them and move them on

into the national airspace. This also would be a good time to pull

together a relatively compact tiger team of government, industry,

and academic thinkers to provide a summary assessment of nearterm legislative and regulatory requirements, and perhaps even to

draft language to ease military and civil operations in the national

airspace and to promote the development of commercial UA.

Next slide.
24

Second, I believe that Congress needs to charter a Federal

knowledge manager for civil unmanned aviation. The role of this

knowledge manager will be to provide a single office of primary responsibility for advising and supporting other agencies moving into

UA activities, overseeing, and in some cases funding research and

development of relevance to civil and commercial operators, and encourage the public dissemination of useful information and knowledge. There is an imminent need for such a knowledge manager.

Federal and, as we have just seen, State agencies interested in exploring the application of UA to their missions do not have a single

source of objective and comprehensive advice and support available

to help them make effective and efficient decisions.

With that, I would like to thank you again for the opportunity

to make my comments, and I will be standing by with everybody

else to answer questions. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. [Presiding] Well, thank you for your testimony. I guess

our next witness, having just come in, is Andrew—is it Cebula?—

Cebula, Senior Vice President, Government and Technical Affairs,

Aircraft owners and Pilots Association.

Welcome, and you are recognized.

Mr. CEBULA. Well, good morning. As you said, my name is Andy

Cebula, and I am with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

We are an organization that represents more than 406,000 pilots

and aircraft owners, more than two-thirds of all the active pilots

in the United States.

Thank you, Chairman Mica and Mr. Graves, for holding this

timely hearing on the safety of unmanned aerial vehicles and incorporating them into the Nation’s airspace system.

Although the FAA has been considering this issue for over 15

years, other than these Certificates of Authorizations, which have

been discussed, with governmental agencies, no requirements for

UAV operations have been issued. Meanwhile, various agencies

within the government have made investments in UAVs and want

to operate these unregulated in the national airspace system. Because there is no FAA regulation, the solution has been to use

flight restrictions that prohibit flights within a specific area of airspace, defined by ground references during stated dates and times

as the means to separate manned aircraft from UAVs.

AOPS members are extremely concerned about this approach of

using Temporary Flight Restrictions, or TFRs. The recent use of

airspace restrictions stretching for over 100 miles to accommodate

UAV operations by CBP in the southwest part of the United States

has created problems for pilots in the area. Members tell us that

there are problems maintaining radio contact with the FAA in

areas of high terrain that avoid the TFR. It has added to the numerous restricted airspace in the southwest, and it presses pilots

to fly under the ceiling created by the TFR.

We understand that the TFR will once again be increased over

300 miles later this week. This is just another in a string of airspace restrictions, such as the Washington, D.C. Air Defense Identification Zone, that illustrates the FAA is losing control for the

safe and efficient use of the nation’s airspace. And as we have seen

with these other TFRs, they are anything but temporary. In fact,

just recently I know that this subcommittee made certain that lan-
25

guage was included in H.R. 4437, the border protection legislation,

that ensured that the FAA retained the authority to oversee, regulate, and control the safe and efficient use of airspace in the United

States as UAV operations were implemented. We appreciate your

action, but it underscores the need for the FAA to issue regulations.

A unique problem the FAA faces in doing so is the fact that

UAVs challenge a historic foundation of pilot and aircraft certification because they operate unlike any other aircraft in the airspace system: by remote control. This makes the basic safety principle of see and avoid extremely difficult. I know that the RTCA

special committee is addressing this threshold issue.

In preparation for this hearing, we surveyed pilots, asking them

how UAV operations should occur, by restricting airspace or certifying their operations in the airspace system. Not surprisingly, an

overwhelming majority favored certification. However, pilots tell us

that the following safety concerns must be addressed before UAV

operations should be considered: the inability of UAVs to detect,

see, and avoid manned aircraft; the inability of UAVs to immediately respond to ATC instructions; the absence of testing and

demonstrations that UAVs can operate safely in the same airspace

as manned aircraft; and the need to certify UAVs to the same level

of safety as manned aircraft. There are also questions about the

loss of control by the operator that affects not just the aviation system, but buildings and people on the ground.

Finally, as entrepreneurs are finding innovative ways to use

UAVs, an example appears in the November 28th issue of last

year’s Washington Post that featured a story on Aeroview International’s use for agricultural and environmental evaluations. Just

last week, the University of North Dakota held a summit discussing its development of research in the use of UAVs. Clearly, this

is a technology that is garnering a great deal of interest and building momentum.

Our request to the subcommittee is to press the FAA for expeditious action on regulations for UAVs. Failure for prompt action

threatens safety and the efficient use of the aviation system. Neither accidents between UAVs and manned aircraft, nor the implementation of flight restrictions is acceptable. The pressure for expanded use of UAVs will continue, and we believe that the time for

FAA to act is now. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony.

Mike Heinz, Executive Director of UNITE/UAV National Industry Team. You are recognized. Welcome.

Mr. HEINZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide an industry perspective on the issue of integrating unmanned air systems, or UASs,

into the national airspace.

Today we are witnessing a repeat of aviation history. Military operations in World War I served as catalysts for maturing manned

aircraft. This maturation was necessary to unleash the full potential of manned aviation for civil and commercial applications. Likewise, recent military operations have matured unmanned systems.

Today, UASs are indispensable to battlefield commanders and are
26

now on the threshold of exerting the same influence in civil and

commercial fields.

We can now envision a future in which UASs provide 24/7 border

and port surveillance to guard against terrorist intrusion, or a future in which UASs are deployed rapidly in disaster relief operations to fill communication needs, while normal infrastructure is

incapacitated. Other examples are limited only by our imagination.

However, to realize this future, we must first solve the challenge

of operating UASs safely and routinely in the NAS. Currently, as

has been already discussed this morning, the FAA allows temporary and restricted operations of UASs in civil airspace through

the COA process or through experimental certificates. These impose operational constraints, such as observers being within visual

range of the UAS, which negates the inherent advantage of unmanned systems: that is, being able to operate remotely from a

human.

For the promise of UASs to be fulfilled, we must find a way to

gain file and fly access to the NAS and do it with no compromise

to safety. As you heard earlier today from Mr. Sabatini, FAA has

embraced this goal. The FAA in fact is, it is in the FAA flight plan.

However, the FAA must continue to restrict access until evidence

is developed that UASs can operate safely in the NAS. This requires a combination of technology, systems development and flight

demonstrations to guide the development of regulations and standards. This job requires multi-agency collaboration and a Government-industry partnership.

There is an urgency of action dictated by DOD and DHS mission

needs, some of which were addressed earlier today. There is also

an urgency in maintaining U.S. aviation leadership. U.S. leadership in manned aviation has contributed directly to U.S. national

security, global trade and quality of life. The potential for unmanned systems to make similar contributions has not gone unnoticed by the rest of the world. Indeed, the European Union has

sponsored a road map for Europe to have a major influence in civil

UASs.

U.S. industry is eager to retain leadership and to satisfy its customers’ needs. However, it is disadvantaged by the inability to conduct industry-sponsored flight tests of new or improved UASs. Experimental certificates are a great step forward. But industry ultimately needs more flexible and timely flight test access to the NAS

to remain competitive.

Also, as noted in the Committee’s DHS authorization bill last

week, the FAA faces challenges when certifying new products. This

challenge also applies to UASs and needs resolution for sustained

U.S. leadership.

To effectively deal with this national need, UNITE makes the following recommendations. First, developed a unified plan in which

the efforts of multiple Government agencies are coordinated,

redundancies are eliminated and gaps are filled to generate a

sound technical basis for informed rulemaking and certification

standards.

Second, define an organizational construct within which all relevant Government agencies, industry and academia can participate

in a collaborative environment, but in which one agency is assigned
27

as lead to integrate the overall effort or each major element of the

plan. And third, provide the Federal funding necessary to implement the plan through the appropriate agencies.

Thank you once again for this opportunity. Industry looks forward to a participative relationship with Government to solve this

pressing national priority.

Mr. MICA. I want to thank you for your testimony.

I will tell you what we are going to do, we have two additional

witnesses. I have asked Mr. Graves to proceed and vote and return,

rather than have one of you start your testimony and me walk out

if he is not back. What we will do is stand in recess for just a couple of minutes until Mr. Graves returns, and then I will vote. We

will do a little tag team here. But he should return shortly, and

I have a limited amount of time to get to the floor to vote.

So we apologize for this interruption in this panel’s testimony.

But Mr. Graves will be coming back and he will recognize Mr.

Cassidy and Mr. Mealy at that time. So we will stand in recess.

I would not disappear, I would say three to five minutes, Mr.

Graves will reconvene the hearing and we will hear from our other

two witnesses, and then get to questions.

So we will stand in recess until that time.

[Recess.]

Mr. GRAVES. [Presiding,] Admiral Cassidy, I believe you are up.

Admiral CASSIDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a

pleasure to be here today to discuss this very important subject of

flight of unmanned aircraft systems in national airspace.

Predator, the unmanned airplane controlled by an instrument

rated commercial pilot, first flew in June 1994. This event was the

beginning of a new era in powered flight. This same airplane type,

and variants of it, have been involved since that time in supporting

our military services in combat operations worldwide. Numerous

types of UAVs, most without professional pilots at the controls,

have actually been flying in confined areas for years before that,

but the serious effort to fly unmanned aircraft type missions for

very long periods began about 12 years ago.

Predator type airplanes have now flown close to 200,000 flight

hours. They have operated over five continents, providing situational awareness and defensive strike capability to our military by

performing missions that cannot be performed by manned airplanes. These aircraft, depending on the type, can fly for 30 to 50

hours up to altitudes of 50,000 feet. They carry cameras and radar

systems and weapons and are controlled by a ground-based pilot

through an electronic satellite link.

Most aircraft operating over Iraq and Afghanistan are controlled

by pilots and sensor operators in the Las Vegas, Nevada area.

Some are controlled locally line-of-sight.

The numbers of these aircraft and the number of daily missions

required to be flown in the continental United States to prepare pilots and system operators in the global war on terrorism has dramatically increased in recent years. The real problem is pilots that

operate these aircraft must be trained in the United States before

they deploy. Most of the 200,000 hours I talked about are flown

overseas. But we have to prepare people in the United States to get

them ready to go.
28

Military pilots typically fly in restricted airspace adjacent to

these bases. Our company pilots, who deploy into combat areas,

must train at our company airports, which are not always in or adjacent to the restricted areas. Our company has some 70 deployed

personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in various combat areas supporting the U.S. Government. They must be trained

at our airports and we must also fly airplanes between locations in

the U.S.

The capabilities of these aircraft systems are continuously being

improved with the addition of new sensors that must be developed

and tested. These operations, often on company-owned airplanes,

are conducted at company airports. The prop-jet Predator B is now

flying near daily missions on the U.S. southern border for the Department of Homeland Security. The success of this operation is so

impressive that you can expect tremendous growth in the number

of Predator Bs operating over the borders of the continental U.S.

in the near term.

The U.S. Air Force is standing up 15 new Air National Guard

Predator and Predator B squadrons throughout the United States.

These aircraft must fly where they are needed, which may include

border protection missions. But they will be operating in probably

12 different States.

Now, these activities will dramatically increase the number of

unmanned aircraft systems that must fly in national airspace. The

problem is with us now and the solution must be provided now. Up

until October 1st, 2005, our company operated under a COA which

allowed us to then file with the FAA and fly. It was a workable solution. After October 1st, the FAA memorandum stated an intent

to only issue COAs to military services.

We met with the FAA and Congressional staff and argued that

since our company provides pilots to fly military Predators over

Iraq and Afghanistan in combat, that our company should be considered a semi-military organization for the purposes of the COA,

and under these rules be issued COAs so our company pilots can

be trained in the U.S. for overseas deployments.

Our company still does not have a COA, and under the current

rules cannot obtain one. The Air Force and Army now have COAs

to fly. The DHS now has a COA and a very small operating area

approved down in Arizona. And the Navy does not yet have a COA,

even though we have the Navy Predator B sitting on the ramp

ready to fly right now, but we don’t have a COA to fly it.

The COAs for each user tend to be different, even though the aircraft are flying from the same locations. I might add that the Predator B flying the U.S. southern border had to fly in a confined,

military restricted area south of Fort Huachuca for the first two

months of the operation, able to only identify people and material

entering the U.S. illegally that had the misfortune to select the

route into the U.S. that happened to underlie a restricted area. The

other 2,200 miles of border were off limits to the Predator B surveillance airplane, since it could not fly in national airspace.

So in the immediate near term, we need to expand the capability

of these types of unmanned aircraft systems capable of filing and

flying an IFR or VFR flight plan to routinely fly in national airspace and on IFR flight plans under positive control. TCAS or other
29

collision avoidance systems can be installed with a few months lead

time. In fact, we are in the process of developing a TCAS system

to go into Predators as we speak.

The FAA must provide COAs in order to fly aircraft of the type

we produce to any Government agency, including our company,

who have a need to fly those airplanes to support national defense

objectives. We need to issue one COA, one COA, to our company

to operate airplanes in support of all military and DHS operations.

We need to establish reasonable and expanded operating areas over

and adjacent to our airports at Gray Butte and El Mirage.

We need to allow company owned and military, DHS and NASA/

NOAA owned airplanes to operate in these areas and also file and

fly IFR flight plans on support missions. And we need to develop

a quick response process that will allow our company-produced unmanned airplane systems to be recognized as airworthy for purposes of operating in low density areas in national airspace.

In the long term, realistic operating criteria must be developed

by the FAA that will allow unmanned aircraft systems capable of

IFR flight clearance to operate in the NAS clear of heavily congested airspace.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments.

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Admiral. Mr. Mealy?

Mr. MEALY. Thank you, Mr. Graves.

We have submitted our formal testimony previously to the Committee. That form includes three documents that I will refer to in

my summation here. I thank you for allowing us to present this

morning.

The Academy of Model Aeronautics has been in existence since

1936 and has grown to represent more than 170,000 members nationwide who participate in the sport of building and flying model

aircraft. Prior to 1936, we were part of the National Aeronautics

Association through which we were represented to the world governing body of sport aviation, the Federation Aeronautique Internationale. Since our establishment, we have represented our members to the FAI directly.

The Academy charters over 2,500 clubs and sanctions more than

3,000 flying events annually, the largest of which is the National

Aeromodeling Championships. We are also responsible for supporting our national teams, representing the United States in world

competitions and hosting numerous world competitions in this

Country on a regular basis. These programs and activities have established the United States as a recognized leader in the sport of

aeromodeling.

The Academy’s mission as a world class association of modelers

is focused on promotion, development, education and advancement

of modeling activities. The Academy is also dedicated to model

aviation as an educational tool for the formal classroom as well as

the informal after school clubs activities and camps. Through the

active educational outreach program of the Academy, we support

classroom teachers and leaders of communities who wish to infuse

topics of math, science and technology with engaging aviation activities.

Since our inception, we have worked closely with local, State and

Federal agencies to establish and ensure the high level of profes-
30

sionalism and safety that our members exhibit and the general

public has come to expect in a sport as beneficial as building and

flying model aircraft. The sports spans all socioeconomic boundaries and brings together families, friends, communities and even

countries in an atmosphere of camaraderie, competition, education

and recreation.

Building and flying model aircraft develops such important life

skills as creativity, patience, goal setting and perseverance, no matter what age it is entered into. The Academy has established a long

and cooperative working relationship with such Government agencies as the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Transportation Security Administration,

to name a few. These relationships and interactions have demonstrated the valuable resources and talents possessed by the

Academy and the Academy’s willingness to utilize those resources

and talents in a meaningful resolution to provide for the preservation of this sport, and for the benefit of future generations.

In 1972, the Academy realized the need for guidance for modelers. ‘‘FAA was interested in the fact that AMA had proposed safety code which could be utilized as a set of standards for addressing

the operation of model aircraft within the national airspace system.’’ That is when the original National Model Aircraft Safety

Code was adopted, an historic event.

In addition, and as an example of cooperation and joint effort between the Academy and the FAA, an advisory circular titled

‘‘Model Aircraft Operating Standards’’ was created in July of 1972,

designated AC-9134 and later revised in June of 1981 as AC-9157

for the purpose of outlining and encouraging voluntary compliance

with safety standards for model aircraft operators.

I am before you today to speak on behalf of the AMA and its

members, to preserve our privilege to operate in the National Airspace System, a system which is being asked to make room for the

burgeoning UAV community and the vehicles they are creating for

commercial and military purposes. It is not the intent of the Academy to in any way impede such development, evolution and acceptance. We are fully aware of the market and utility of such vehicles

in enhancing the lives of us all.

We do, however, note that because of the superficial similarities

between model aircraft and UAVs the potential does exist to look

at them as one group. They may look the same, but they are definitely different. And that difference is not in their appearance, but

grounded solidly in their intended use.

The focus of the AMA is on recreation, sport and competition, activities that are available to model aviation participants. Our 70

years of overseeing this sport speaks highly of the ability of the

Academy and its members to continue to operate effectively in a cooperative manner with related governmental and non-governmental agencies. Model airplanes may have been a huge contributing factor in the development of UAVs, but model airplanes are

still model airplanes, fulfilling their intended purpose of recreation,

sport and competition, as they have for decades.

Our request to this Committee is that model airplanes be permitted to continue operating within the National Airspace System

as we have for more than years, as we commit to tirelessly working
31

with all pertinent Government agencies and in particular, the FAA,

as we have always, to guarantee the safe and sound operation of

model aircraft in this Country. We request that model aviation not

be innocently sucked into a black hole of regulation, a place in

which, based on its long and successful history, it does not deserve

to be.

Thank you for your understanding and consideration in this very

important matter. I look forward to providing answers to any questions you may have. Thank you.

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you.

Can you all, and I guess it’s directed to everyone, I would be very

interested in ultimately what we are looking at, how far we are

going to go with this. Obviously the commercial applications of

UAVs are incredible. There is a lot of things that can be done out

there, which concerns me a little bit as a pilot, which is the reason

for this hearing.

But I will direct it to, and we will start with you, Dr. Owen, what

ultimately are we going to be seeing? I think in your testimony we

saw that already in the world we are seeing crop dusting operations and we already know that things are going on with the military and INS, things like that. But I’m talking about commercial

operations. What are we ultimately looking at?

Dr. OWEN. I am told by my engineering buddies that for a million

dollars they could convert a Boeing 747 into a UAV for cargo operations. I can’t verify those numbers exactly, but they would say

that that is certainly within the realm of possibility.

We held a conference on the commercialization of unmanned

aviation at Embry-Riddle last October. We will hold a second one

next March. And one of the questions we asked was, how much or

how willing would people be to commit their lives to a robot, to an

automated system. We had a historian give a very good paper, his

point was, looking back historically is that with the right kind of

performance and the right kind of publicity, people will put their

lives in the hands of machines.

So I guess I am one of those people who say it is in the realm

of possibility that we could see passenger aircraft flying somewhere

out there some time in the future, not with me on board, but without pilots. Whether or not we would ever get social permission to

go that far, I don’t know.

More to the point now, though, is that I think, in fact, I know,

there are literally hundreds of people out there who are either already performing commercial operations outside the bounds of regulation, generally without insurance, but who are more than ready

to do so. So as you point out, this could be, I think particularly at

the low end of the short term, it is a large industry waiting to be

born. In fact, it is already born to some degree.

Where we will go in the long run depends on a lot of essentially

non-technological issues, sociology, politics, economics, business,

human nature and so forth, that have not been well explored. So

I don’t know the ultimate answer.

Mr. GRAVES. Anyone else? Admiral?

Admiral CASSIDY. We have actually been involved to some level

in forest fire monitoring with these airplanes. I don’t know all the

details, but I know we had Predators deployed down in the Louisi-
32

ana area for Katrina and also in Texas. I don’t think they were

ever flown because of this National Airspace problem.

But the people that own these airplanes, in this case the U.S. Air

Force, felt that they could contribute and they moved the airplanes

down there but never got to use them. So there is a lot of potential

out there. I think if we move faster that we are moving on this

problem that we will get a lot of use out of these airplanes.

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Heinz?

Mr. HEINZ. I think as in any embryonic industry the applications

are limited only by our imagination at the moment. But some of

the near term applications that come to mind, probably one of the

most promising would be, since these systems can operate, let’s

say, in near space for very long periods of time, they could potentially serve as communications satellites for all practical purposes,

not necessarily replacing space-based satellites but certainly complementing them and filling in gaps and allowing that last mile

problem to be fixed.

Someone mentioned unmanned cargo. That is certainly in the

realm of possibility out in the future. There are many other commercial applications that have already been mentioned.

So it is embryonic, it is waiting to be unleashed. Only time will

tell exactly where the market forces take us.

Mr. CEBULA. One of the big issues, and I think the Subcommittee

has done a great job in bringing the issue to the forefront, because

I don’t know that most people in civil aviation have really thought

about what may be the future for UAVs or what’s even the current

reality. So this is a very good start.

But there are some really significant issues and ones that really

concern us, which is, the Customs continued desire, and we certainly can’t fault them for what they are attempting to do, but it

all requires temporary flight restrictions or, in the case of year-long

flight restrictions. And when they are talking about the entire

southern border, and I think he also alluded to, the previous witness alluded to Canada, in that order.

That could have a very significant impact on aviation. I think

one of the things that has to happen is that the FAA must have

a regulatory framework for the operators of UAVs to know what it

is that they have to meet.

Mr. GRAVES. Well, this may be a question that is more appropriate with the last panel, but I will ask it, because, Admiral

Cassidy, you brought it up VFR versus IFR. How often are flight

plans filed VFR as opposed to IFR? Can you tell me that, or do you

know?

Admiral CASSIDY. Well, when we transit any place in the in the

Predator, the Predator B, it’s typically on an IFR flight plan at

high altitude, above 18,000 positive control. The pilot is talking to

an FAA controller the entire time. He takes vectors just like the

airliner in front and behind him are doing. And they fit, the controller really doesn’t even know it’s an unmanned airplane. He is

talking to an instrument rated pilot who can follow his direction.

We have never had a problem with it.

Now, VFR, we really don’t transit VFR. We always go IFR. And

that is the way I think we ought to be doing this, under positive

control.
33

Mr. GRAVES. VFR is what I am worried about. If you are loitering over an area or whatever the case may be, and VFR is what

I am worried about more than anything else. You are obviously

going to be changing altitudes, you are going to be moving, it is

just, that is what I worry about, I guess.

When you talk about restricted areas, and using those areas to

train, are you looking at, I mean, what would you ultimately like

to see, more restricted areas? Or my belief is, we have restricted

areas out there for military personnel to train in. That is what they

are set up for. We as regular pilots, private pilots, are supposed to

stay out of those restricted areas.

Are you looking at, or would you like to see more restricted areas

or access to those restricted areas for your company, that is trying

to train pilots and obviously having a problem with that, trying to

get that access?

Admiral CASSIDY. The airports we operate and own are within

about 20 miles of the Edwards restricted area. When we do operate

at Edwards, we have to pay a tremendous amount of money by the

hour to use the restricted area. So to me, that is not very desirable.

Plus, the rules for using it and the oversight border on, I don’t

want to say the word, but it is extremely complicated. I would prefer we didn’t have to use restricted areas. I would prefer we have

temporary flight restrictions. Any time we are operating, put a

NOTAM out. If we had TCAS in the airplanes, that is a step forward. I would even go so far as to add another camera gimble to

the airplane that you could use to rotate 360 degree continuously

to see and be seen.

I fly a KingAir. I can see about this much in front of me. I can’t

see anything behind me or above me. If you have a camera gimble

on these unmanned airplanes that is rotating, you can see a lot

more than the typical commercial or general aviation pilot can see.

So I just think we need to get a little more aggressive in what we

are asking the UAV operators to do and let’s get on and do it.

Mr. GRAVES. Personally, I would rather not have the TFRs. I

would rather have you in a restricted space that is just yours and

we will stay out of it and leave your training to that. But that is

a personal opinion, I guess, or what I would think. I am a little

concerned about it. I understand the use. I understand how important it is, and I know it is doing wonderful things in Afghanistan

and Iraq. I can see, I am a little frustrated by the fact that it would

cost so much to train a pilot that is going to be doing military operations. If it is commercial operation and you are training somebody

for commercial, I can see a little bit different, obviously a difference

there. Maybe we need to set something up for that.

I do have a question for Mr. Mealy. This is, what right now, and

I know you sanction clubs and you sanction flying. I know there is

a lot of flying that goes on. For the most part, when you are talking

about model airplanes, it is all line of sight. I used to do that, radio

controlled, in our city, used to do a lot of it. What are the restrictions right now with the use of, and I am curious, because I know

in my home town, a lot of the guys that fly RC, they come out to

the airport and they use the airport. If somebody is flying, they

pretty well shut down.
34

What is the restriction right now? I know with your organization,

you obviously have to have a field for insurance purposes and that

sort of thing. But what is the restriction on use of a public use airport?

Mr. MEALY. At the present time there is no restriction. If you

refer to the AFD, there are approximately 150 general or public use

aircraft airports that in their note section of that document report

model aircraft activity upon their premises. What we do is encourage safety procedures, the following of the National Model Aircraft

Safety Code, and the agreement and consensus of both parties.

In other words, the club has to be appreciating the activity of full

scale pilots and vice versa. There has to be a common agreement

between the tenants of that airport, the users of that airport, both

full scale and modeling, that those activities can happen safely

without compromising the safety or utility of that general aviation

airport.

Mr. GRAVES. I certainly recognize the difference between the

AMA and what you all are doing. And obviously what we are talking about here with UAVs, it is a completely different situation. I

know you all want to be kept out of any possible restrictions that

might be placed out there. I hope that is the case.

Mr. MEALY. On the other hand, Mr. Graves, if I may, I also want

it to be known that understanding the complexity that seems to be

entering into the National Airspace System, we are willing to work

with the responsible agencies, so that we can all benefit from the

use of the airspace system and maintain that same level of safety

and utility that we have all become used to.

Mr. GRAVES. Absolutely.

I do not have any more questions. We will keep the record open

for two weeks to allow members to submit questions for the record

and accept any additional written testimony. I might point out that

all the statements made by the witnesses and the members will be

placed in the record in their entirety.

I do appreciate you all coming here. This is an extremely interesting subject, something that is dear to my heart as a pilot and

it concerns me. I am excited about the potential, but it concerns

me. More traffic in the airspace, particularly traffic that doesn’t

have somebody sitting in the cockpit, concerns me a lot. Hopefully

we can work something out and take a look at this as it continues

to develop and air traffic continues to develop.

Thank you all for being here. This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156

Æ