[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OPERATING UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM:
ASSESSING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
EFFORTS TO ENSURE SAFETY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-5
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-819 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
DANA ROHRABACHER, California EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
RALPH M. HALL, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
Wisconsin DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia DAN MAFFEI, New York
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOSEPH KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland SCOTT PETERS, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DEREK KILMER, Washington
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana AMI BERA, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC VEASEY, Texas
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona MARK TAKANO, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky VACANCY
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
RANDY WEBER, Texas
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
------
Subcommittee on Oversight
HON. PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia, Chair
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., DAN MAFFEI, New York
Wisconsin ERIC SWALWELL, California
BILL POSEY, Florida SCOTT PETERS, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
C O N T E N T S
Friday, February 15, 2013
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Paul C. Broun, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Dan Maffei, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 10
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Karlin Toner, Director, Joint Planning and Development
Office, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Dr. Edgar Waggoner, Director, Integrated Systems Research Program
Office, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 25
Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director, Civil Aviation Issues,
Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Oral Statement............................................... 37
Written Statement............................................ 39
Discussion....................................................... 61
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Karlin Toner, Director, Joint Planning and Development
Office, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).................. 70
Dr. Edgar Waggoner, Director, Integrated Systems Research Program
Office, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)... 75
Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director, Civil Aviation Issues,
Government Accountability Office (GAO)......................... 80
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Requested material for the record submitted Dr. Edgar Waggoner... 88
OPERATING UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
IN THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM:
ASSESSING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
EFFORTS TO ENSURE SAFETY
----------
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Broun
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Broun. The Subcommittee on Oversight will come to
order.
In front of you are packets containing the written
testimony, biographies, and Truth in Testimony disclosures of
today's witness panel. I will recognize myself for five minutes
for an opening statement.
Good morning, and welcome. This hearing, titled ``Operating
Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace System:
Assessing Research and Development Efforts to Ensure Safety,''
is the first hearing for the 113th Congress's Subcommittee on
Oversight. During our break, our name changed but our general
and special investigatory authority to review and study, on a
continuing basis, all laws, programs and Government activities
dealing with or involving non-military research and development
remains the same.
I would like to extend a warm welcome to our witnesses
today. We really appreciate you guys being here. I also want to
welcome our returning Members and our new Members, including
the Subcommittee's Ranking Member, the distinguished gentleman
from New York, Mr. Maffei. I look forward to working with you
all, and Mr. Maffei, I look forward to working with you as my
Ranking Member on this Committee.
Today's hearing focuses on integrating unmanned aircraft
systems, or UAS, into the national airspace. As a pilot, I am
extremely interested in this issue. Specifically, we hope to
gain a better understanding of the safety risks, current
technological obstacles and key research and development
efforts being undertaken to overcome those obstacles. UAS has
garnered a great deal of attention lately. In fact, if you
watched the news this morning, there was a lot of news about
this issue. In January, PBS's NOVA aired a documentary
entitled, ``Rise of the Drones.'' Last week's Time magazine
cover carried the same title, and of course the
Administration's use of drones for targeting terrorists to
confront our war on terrorism has come to be a central issue in
the confirmation hearing of the proposed CIA Director, the
nominee John Brennan. However, privacy issues and military
applications of UAS are beyond the scope of this hearing.
I use the term ``unmanned aircraft systems'' or UAS,
instead of UAV or drone, because it is a more complete and
accurate term. As the name suggests, UAS are complex systems
made up of not only aircraft but as well as supporting ground,
air and communications infrastructure. UAS comes in a variety
of shapes and sizes and can carry out a wide range of missions.
Aviation has come a long way in a relatively short time
thanks to American innovation and ingenuity. The list of
American pioneers of aviation and aerospace is very long. You
may not know the details of their achievements, but I am sure
you will recognize names such as Clyde Cessna, James McDonnell
and Donald Douglas, Howard Hughes, William Boeing, Charles
Lindberg, Kelly Johnson, just to name a few. Unmanned aircraft
are the next step in the evolution of modern aviation which all
began with two American brothers at Kitty Hawk in 1903. Just as
UAS has sparked a revolution in military affairs, they will
also very likely transform civilian and commercial sectors.
The Teal Group, an aerospace and defense industry market
intelligence firm, predicts America will spend over $49 billion
on UAS just over the next decade. In 2010, the Association for
Unmanned Vehicle Systems International estimated that over the
next 15 years, more than 23,000 UAS jobs, totaling $1.6 billion
in wages, could very well be created. This does not include the
tens of thousands of secondary jobs in sensor manufacturing,
software development and other complementary industries.
That said, the addition of thousands or tens of thousands
of additional aircraft into the national airspace certainly
poses safety concerns for all us. There is no guarantee that
accidents will not occur, but we need to take every precaution
to reduce the risks involved in the UAS integration.
Last year, Congress directed that federal agencies,
including the FAA and NASA, collaborate in accelerating the
integration of UAS into the national airspace. The FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 contains provisions
designed to promote and facilitate the use of civilian unmanned
aircraft. We on this Subcommittee know you have been working
hard and have made progress toward meeting the prescribed
objectives, but we also know there are many unresolved issues,
both technologically and regulatorily.
Again, our goal here today is to better understand the
research that is underway to overcome these technological
issues and mitigate the risks involved with UAS integration
into the national airspace system. We are particularly
interested in hearing about any advances toward eliminating
vulnerabilities in command and control communications, new
sense and avoid capabilities, and agreements on technological
standards.
The Washington Post recently reported that at least nine
American UAS crashes occurred near civilian airports overseas
as a result of pilot error, mechanical failure, software bugs,
or poor coordination with air traffic controllers. In August of
2010, the New York Times reported that a Navy UAS violated
airspace over Washington, D.C., when the operators lost contact
due to a software issue. While this may be more acceptable in
remote areas overseas, we need to do much better here in our
own skies. The threat of command and control link jamming, GPS
navigation signal spoofing, and system hacking is a real
concern that has to be addressed before any UAS integration
into the national airspace. Overcoming these challenges will
require significant research and development investments by
both the public and private sector. Given our Nation's current
financial state, this demands more efficient coordination
between all stakeholders.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Broun follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Paul C. Broun
Good morning and welcome. This hearing, titled ``Operating Unmanned
Aircraft Systems in the National Airspace System: Assessing Research
and Development Efforts to Ensure Safety,'' is the first for the 113th
Congress's Subcommittee on Oversight. During the break, our name
changed but our general and special investigatory authority to review
and study, on a continuing basis, all laws, programs, and Government
activities dealing with or involving non-military research and
development remains the same.
I would like to extend a warm welcome to our witnesses. I also want
to welcome our returning members and our new Members, including the
Subcommittee's Ranking Member, the distinguished gentleman from New
York Mr. Maffei. I look forward to working with you all.
Today's hearing focuses on integrating unmanned aircraft systems,
or UAS, into the national airspace. Specifically, we hope to gain a
better understanding of the safety risks, current technological
obstacles and key research and development efforts being undertaken to
overcome those obstacles. UAS have garnered a great deal of attention
lately. In January, PBS's NOVA aired a documentary titled ``Rise of the
Drones,'' last week's TIME Magazine cover carried the same title, and
of course the Administration's use of drones for targeting terrorists
was central to the confirmation hearing of CIA Director nominee John
Brennan. However, privacy issues and military applications of UAS are
beyond the scope of this hearing.
I use the term unmanned aircraft systems or UAS, instead of UAV or
drone, because it is a more complete and accurate term. As the name
suggests, UAS are complex systems made up of the aircraft as well as
supporting ground, air, and communications infrastructure. UAS come in
a variety of shapes and sizes and can carry out a wide range of
missions.
Aviation has come a long way in a relatively short time thanks to
American innovation and ingenuity. The list of American pioneers of
aviation and aerospace is long. You may not know the details of their
achievements, but I am sure you'll recognize their names: Clyde Cessna,
James McDonnell and Donald Douglas, Howard Hughes, William Boeing,
Charles Lindberg, Kelly Johnson, just to name a few. Unmanned aircraft
are the next step in the evolution of modern aviation which all began
with two American brothers in 1903. Just as UAS have sparked a
revolution in military affairs, they will likely also transform
civilian and commercial sectors.
The Teal Group, an aerospace and defense industry market
intelligence firm, predicts America will spend over $49 billion on UAS
in the next decade. In 2010 the Association for Unmanned Vehicle
Systems International estimated that over the next 15 years more than
23,000 UAS jobs, totaling $1.6 billion in wages, could be created. This
does not include the tens of thousands of secondary jobs in sensor
manufacturing, software development and other complementary industries.
That said, the addition of thousands or tens of thousands of
additional aircraft into the national airspace poses safety concerns.
There is no guarantee that accidents will not occur, but we need to
take every precaution to reduce the risks involved with UAS
integration.
Last year, Congress directed that federal agencies, including the
FAA and NASA, collaborate in accelerating the integration of UAS into
the national airspace. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
contains provisions designed to promote and facilitate the use of
civilian unmanned aircraft. We on this Subcommittee know you have been
working hard and have made progress toward meeting the prescribed
objectives, but we also know there are many unresolved issues, both
technological and regulatory.
Again, our goal here today is to better understand the research
underway to overcome these technological issues and mitigate the risks
involved with UAS integration into the national airspace system. We are
particularly interested in hearing about any advances toward
eliminating vulnerabilities in command and control communications, new
``sense and avoid'' capabilities and agreements on technological
standards.
The Washington Post recently reported that at least nine American
UAS crashes occurred near civilian airports overseas as a result of
pilot error, mechanical failure, software bugs, or poor coordination
with air traffic controllers. In August of 2010, the New York Times
reported that a Navy UAS violated airspace over Washington, DC when
operators lost contact due to a ``software issue.'' While this may be
more acceptable in remote areas overseas, we need to do much better
here in our own skies. The threat of command and control link jamming,
GPS navigation signal spoofing, and system hacking is a real concern
that will have to be addressed before any UAS integration into the NAS.
Overcoming these challenges will require significant R&D investments by
both the public and private sector. Given our nation's current
financial state, this demands more efficient coordination between all
stakeholders.
Chairman Broun. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Maffei, for an opening statement.
You are recognized, sir, for five minutes.
Mr. Maffei. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am excited
about the opportunity to work with you on this important
Subcommittee. I particularly want to compliment you for your
leadership in calling this hearing today. It hopefully won't
surprise you that on this issue I will be echoing a lot of your
same comments, and I thought your opening statement very
articulate.
Addressing the research and development efforts regarding
the integration of unmanned aircraft systems, or UAS, into the
national airspace is serious issue and presents daunting
technical challenges, possible economic opportunities, as the
chairman mentioned, but also potential threats to our civil
liberties and safety.
I know firsthand what a complicated issue it is and the
challenges it presents. An unmanned aerial vehicle unit
operates out of my district at Hancock Field Air National Guard
base on the military side. Now, while these are commonly
referred to as drones, the future of unmanned vehicles goes far
beyond what that word implies. There is a real human element to
unmanned flight of this kind just as there is an increasing
robotic element to manned flight. There are tremendous
potential technical risks and public concerns associated with
integrating UAS into the national airspace, and my constituents
express those concerns on a daily basis. These aircraft
represent an emerging technology with broad possible uses among
many industries and government agencies. They could potentially
provide benefits to many industries from our farmers to
firefighters, search and rescue, researchers, meteorologists
and scientists.
However, regardless of their specific use, we need to
ensure that unmanned aerial systems operate in our national
airspace safely and securely. But first they must overcome the
technical challenges that exist, and indeed, there are many. A
2012 GAO report detailed several critical areas which must be
addressed before UASs can fly safely in our skies. Chief among
them is the stark reality that the technology to provide
unmanned aircraft the ability to ``sense and avoid'' other
aircraft and airborne objects does not currently exist, and
this is a serious concern. Other technical challenges range
from lost-link scenarios where communication between the pilot
and UAS is severed as a result of environmental or technical
causes or even by human actors whether they are inadvertent or
intentional. Acquiring dedicated radio frequency spectrum in
order to secure the continuous communication for UAS
operations, particularly as the spectrum needs of the onboard
sensors expand, is another challenge, and I look forward to our
witnesses addressing some of these challenges in depth today.
There is a real and critical human element of unmanned
flight of any kind. Highly skilled pilots who once sat in the
cockpits now sit in ground stations detached from the sensation
of flight and the G forces while remaining integrally connected
to the outcome of the mission. We need to ensure that these
human elements from proper training and medical certifications
are appropriately incorporated into UAS integration as well.
A year ago, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
was signed into law. It required the FAA to establish an
integration plan permitting unmanned aerial systems to operate
in the United States by September of 2015. I look forward to
hearing from the FAA today on their progress in the last year
as well as a realistic report on what challenges remain and
where the FA stands in meeting these deadlines.
Now, 20 years ago, cell phone technology was in its
infancy, and within ten years these devices have transformed
from simple mobile phones to the pocket accessories used to
help small businesses and owners expand. While security and
safety concerns about the use and growth of these devices--they
almost all have cameras on them now--have existed since the
beginning, their proliferation and technical advancements have
not slowed. Today, there are more than 315 million cell phones
in the United States alone and most of these devices not only
carry those cameras but also GPS, or global positioning
satellite capabilities as well. And while these technical
advancements have not been hindered or restricted, there are
reasonable and legitimate limits on the use of cell phones in
hospitals, secure facilities, on airplanes and while driving
your car. So this should be an analogy to us.
Despite all the recognized challenges with UAS, whether we
like it or not, for better or for worse, this technology is
here and it is not going away. Both the public sector and
commercial sector remains interested in this technology and
that interest continues to evolve and expand. As a result, we
must develop the necessary framework to handle UAS emergence
safely and securely. We must also ensure the protection of
individual rights and personal privacy in the air and on the
ground. Like any new technology, it is impossible to predict
the ultimate path UASs will take.
In tackling the tremendous task of ensuring the safe and
secure operation and integration of UAS into the domestic
airspace, we are once again presented with the challenge of
balancing all these important issues. There are private sector
issues which might help grow the economy. The government's
interest is to provide domestic security, and we as
representatives are charged with safeguarding the public's
interest and protecting their civil liberties. Developing an
effective regulatory framework could be an arduous process but
this hearing is one step towards ensuring that this is
happening in a timely and effective manner. It is our
responsibility, and we don't take it lightly, to recognize the
need for oversight, to ensure the proper steps are being taken,
proper procedures are being created and federal agencies are
meeting the critical timelines to address the rapid emergence
of these UAS systems in our national airspace, and that is why
I again want to compliment the chairman. Thank you for your
leadership in calling this hearing today. I want to thank the
witnesses, and I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Maffei follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ranking Minority Member Dan Maffei
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Broun. Mr. Maffei, thank you so much and I look
forward to working with you as we go forward through this
Congress, and just from your statements, I can tell that you
are I are going to be close colleagues protecting civil
liberties and privacy issues, because those issues are
extremely important to me and have been for a long time, well,
since I have been here and before I came here.
At this time I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our
first witness is Dr. Karlin Toner, who is the Director of the
Joint Planning and Development Office at the Federal Aviation
Administration. Our next witness is Dr. Edgar Waggoner,
Director of the Integrated Systems Research Program Office at
NASA. And the final witness today is Dr. Gerald Dillingham,
Director of Civil Aviation Issues at the Government
Accountability Office, or GAO.
As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited
to five minutes each after which the Members of this Committee
will have five minutes each to ask questions.
I now recognize Dr. Toner to present her testimony. Dr.
Toner.
STATEMENT OF DR. KARLIN TONER,
DIRECTOR, JOINT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
Dr. Toner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman
Broun, Congressman Maffei and Members of the Subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Federal Aviation Administration's current research
in support of unmanned aircraft systems integration into our
national airspace system.
I am the Director of the Joint Planning and Development
Office and will touch upon the role my office plays in
facilitating and coordinating UAS research efforts throughout
the government with partners including the Departments of
Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security, NASA, and the FAA.
I would also like to take this opportunity to speak to you
about the solicitation the FAA announced yesterday that
requested state and local governments, eligible universities,
and other public entities to develop six UAS research and test
sites around the country. This solicitation was done in
accordance with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,
which directed the FAA to establish the test sites in order to
conduct the critical research that will help determine how best
to safely integrate these systems into our NAS. Once the sites
are selected, which will be later this year, we expect to learn
how UAS operate in different environments and how they impact
air traffic operations. The test sites will also inform the
agency as we develop standards for certifying unmanned aircraft
and determine the necessary air traffic requirements.
In addition to the test sites, the FAA is publishing a
notice in the Federal Register asking the public to review
draft privacy language and provide input. The broad outline of
FAA's privacy proposal will require each test site to ensure
their privacy policies address the following: notice or
awareness, choice and content, access and participation,
integrity and security, and finally, enforcement mechanisms to
deal with violations of these policies. The FAA thinks the test
sites will provide important information that will inform our
UAS integration process moving forward.
With respect to FAA's research and development efforts, we
are working in four areas: sense and avoid, control and
communication, maintenance and repair, and human factors.
Research in all four areas is critical, as the opening
statements have mentioned. My written statement contains more
details on each area, but I would like to take a moment to
highlight the work we are doing with NASA in the area of
control and communication.
The FAA is collaborating with NASA on prototype
architecture that will be used to develop a high-level security
risk assessment. Our joint work will define the network
architecture and candidate security mechanisms for protecting
the air-ground communications that can eventually be used to
develop security standards and requirements. Likewise, all of
our partner agencies have mission-related incentives for UAS
integration to succeed. The JPDO enables leveraging the
research being done by different agencies to ensure that all
agencies are aware of and can benefit from the work being done
throughout the Administration. This synergy, such as the FAA-
NASA partnership I described, ensures that all research dollars
are being used as effectively as possible to reach our common
goal of safe UAS integration.
I certainly understand the desire to safely integrate UAS
into the NAS. Because FAA's mission is to ensure the safety and
efficiency of the NAS, integration can only occur to the extent
the FAA is satisfied that the safety of the NAS will not be
degraded by the introduction of these new aircraft. This is an
extremely complex endeavor, but the FAA has been challenged
with complex problems in the past, and the aviation safety
record is a testament to the fact that we have been able to
meet those challenges.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I will be
happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Toner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Broun. Thank you, Dr. Toner. I appreciate your
staying within five minutes. That was perfect. Thank you so
much. That is excellent.
Now I recognize Dr. Waggoner for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. EDGAR WAGGONER, DIRECTOR,
INTEGRATED SYSTEMS RESEARCH PROGRAM OFFICE,
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Dr. Waggoner. Chairman Broun, Ranking Member Maffei and
Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for this
opportunity to testify on NASA's research and development
activities to ensure safety in the operation of unmanned
aircraft systems, or UASs, in our national airspace.
There is a growing demand to routinely fly unmanned
aircraft in the NAS, our national airspace system, and I am
sure that you are aware that unmanned aircraft are increasingly
being used for applications where it is not feasible or
practical to rely on extended human-piloted flights. We often
refer to these as dull, dangerous or dirty missions.
The application of unmanned aircraft to perform these
missions is just part of what is driving the critical need for
safe, less restrictive access to the NAS. Safe, routine access
represents enhanced capabilities for the public sector but also
the promise of new capabilities for commercial or civil
aviation sectors as well. NASA is performing research in the
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate that provides an
opportunity to develop and transition our concepts,
technologies, algorithms and knowledge to the FAA and other
stakeholders to help them define the algorithms, regulations
standards for safe, routine NAS access.
In my testimony this morning, I want to make three key
points. I will define the research that NASA is doing to help
solve this problem, how we are working to transition our
research results to the stakeholder community, and looking
towards the future of what NASA considers some of the areas
where additional research is required.
So one might ask, why aren't UAS routinely allowed in the
NAS now? For unmanned aircraft, access to the NAS is hampered
by various regulatory and operational challenges, making it
difficult to establish common applicable standards and
requirements. Now, the FAA has established a process for
enabling public agencies to request a certificate or
authorization (COA) or waiver in order to operate unmanned
aircraft in the NAS. As a matter of fact, this is how NASA
received permission to perform our science missions in flying
the NAS. However, for civil, non-public UAS operations in the
NAS, the FAA requires a special airworthiness certificate in
the experimental category. Experimental certificates are
limited to an individual vehicle rather than a class of
vehicles and severely limit the uses of the UAS, for example,
commercial operations are specifically excluded under an
experimental certificate.
The majority of the research work that NASA is performing
is organized under the UAS integration in the NAS project and
it is focused in the following areas: sense and avoid
separation assurance interoperability, developing reliable
communication systems and protocols, design of ground control
stations and their displays for effective and safe operation,
and the requirements necessary to define criteria for avionics
communication systems and ground control station certification.
In each of these areas, we are addressing critical research
questions and delivering research results to our stakeholders.
Now, the work that NASA is performing is dependent on
external government agency and stakeholder interfaces as well.
I would like to identify three key interfaces where we are
significantly involved: the UAS Executive Committee (UAS
ExCom), the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), and
the UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee (UASR). In each of these
cases, NASA is playing a significant role in supporting the
activities from the executive level down to our working level
subject matter experts. In addition to this, we have built
effective partnerships with the FAA, the Department of Defense
and RTCA's Special Committee 203 that is focused on unmanned
aircraft systems.
Finally, I would like to identify some future research
areas where NASA is undertaking studies to evaluate the
implications of safe integration of UAS into the Next
Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). So
understanding the tradeoffs between remote control and
computerized automation of unmanned aircraft, referred to as
levels of autonomy, is a relatively immature research area that
we think could generate some additional focus.
In addition, the second area I would like to point out is
that of airborne-based sense and avoid. Issues associated with
sense and avoid are particularly relevant when the aircraft
involved are not under positive air traffic control. So we know
about the work that the DOD has performed. We would like to
assess that relative to civil applications.
So in conclusion, I would like to leave you with this
thought. Granted, NASA doesn't build unmanned aircraft nor do
we develop policy or the regulatory framework for their safe
operation in NASA. However, through our research we conduct in
cooperation with other government agencies, industry and
academia, NASA is addressing barrier technology challenges for
safe UAS integration in the NAS and ensuring that our research
is effectively coordinated with and transitioned to the UAS
stakeholder community.
Chairman Broun, Ranking Member Maffei, other Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement, and I will
be pleased to answer any questions at this time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Waggoner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Broun. Thank you, Dr. Waggoner. I appreciate it
very much. Excellent testimony from both you guys, and I am
sure Dr. Dillingham is going to give us an equally excellent
testimony.
Sir, you are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Dr.
Dillingham.
STATEMENT OF DR. GERALD DILLINGHAM,
DIRECTOR, CIVIL AVIATION ISSUES,
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO)
Dr. Dillingham. We will do what we can, Mr. Chairman.
Ranking Member Maffei, Members of the Subcommittee, as you
requested, my testimony addresses three areas related to
integrating UAS into the national airspace system.
First, the roles, responsibilities and coordination among
the key stakeholders; second, Faa'sprogress in complying with
the UAS requirements in the 2012 FAA Reauthorization Act; and
third, R&D efforts by FAA and others to address key integration
challenges.
With regard to the first area of stakeholder roles,
responsibility and coordination, Congress has tasked the FAA to
lead the effort of integrating UAS into the national airspace
system, and successful integration requires the involvement of
several other agencies including DOD, DHS and NASA as well as
industry stakeholders. FAA has taken several important steps to
facilitate collaboration among the stakeholders. For example,
they have established several working groups, various
memorandums of understanding and Cooperative Research and
Development Agreements to address a range of integration
issues. FAA has also recently created the UAS Integration
Office with one executive to coordinate UAS efforts across the
FAA. Although we did not evaluate the effectiveness of these
efforts, our work on other federal and industry collaborations,
such as the implementation of the Next Generation Air
Transportation System, has shown that early and continuous
involvement of stakeholders is critical to project success.
With regard to the implementation status of the FAA
reauthorization provisions, our written statement contains a
chartof selected requirements and the status of FAA's efforts
to meet them. Most of the requirements must be achieved between
May 2012 and December 2015. Our work shows that while FAA has
efforts underway to meet these requirements, they have
completed only two of the nine requirements with completion
deadlines that have passed as of this morning. Of the deadlines
missed, FAA has not yet established a program for the six UAS
test sites or released a comprehensive plan. Stakeholders
including the Congress consider these actions among the key
gateways to moving closer to safe and efficient UAS
integration. While it could be argued that some of the
provisions are complex undertaking that requires significant
amount of effort by FAA and the partner agencies, meeting
established deadlines can help increase stakeholder confidence
in FAA's ability to lead the UAS integration effort and
contribute to the continued participation and collaboration
among all stakeholders.
Regarding research and development efforts, FAA's UAS R&D
roadmap identifies the various organizations that have efforts
underway to mitigate obstacles that prevent UAS from being
allowed to operate safely and routinely in the NAS. Some of
these obstacles and related research include vulnerabilities to
UAS operations such as sense and avoid, command and control
including lost link, GPS jamming and spoofing, and human
factors. While progress is being made to address these
obstacles, the lack of necessary data has seriously hampered
the development of safety, reliability and performance
standards which are needed to validate the R&D efforts. In
addition to the technical and R&D obstacles that I have cited,
government and industry will need to work together to address
issues related to the public acceptance of UAS in the NAS,
especially as it relates to privacy and homeland security
concerns.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Maffei and Members of the
Subcommittee, the potential impact of this industrial sector on
the Nation's aerospace industry and overall global
competitiveness could be significant. As the Chairman noted, in
addition to their life protection and lifesaving potential,
according to an industry forecast, over the next decade, the
worldwide market for government and commercial use of UAS could
potentially grow to be worth $89 billion, and the United States
could account for nearly two-thirds of the $28 billion
projected R&D investment for UAS technologies. With this kind
of growth, it will be critical for FAA to continue to make
progress in integrating UAS into the national airspace system,
and oversight hearings such as this one highlight the
importance of issues that need to be addressed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Dillingham follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Broun. Thank you, Dr. Dillingham. You did an
excellent job also, and all three witnesses, I appreciate you
all being here and the excellent testimony and hopefully Dr.
Dillingham's questions that they brought up at GAO are going to
be answered not only through this hearing but also through
written questions that we will ask you all as we go along.
Reminding Members that Committee rules limit questioning to
five minutes each, the chair at this point will open the first
round of questions and the chair will recognize himself for
five minutes.
On December 4, 2011, the United States lost an RQ-170
Sentinel near Iran. Iranians claim to have spoofed the global
position system, GPS, signal that was in operation with that
Sentinel. Last summer, Professor Humphreys from the University
of Texas at Austin demonstrated that it is possible to spoof
the GPS signals to take control of an unmanned aircraft. GAO's
testimony states that military GPS signals, unlike the non-
military GPS signals, unlike the military GPS signals, are not
encrypted and transparency and predictability make them
vulnerable to being counterfeited or spoofed. I ask, what R&D
is being conducted to address this concern, and are there any
R&D gaps that you are aware of? Dr. Toner, if you could start
off answering those questions, and Dr. Waggoner, if you could
fill in any gaps that Dr. Toner leaves out.
Dr. Toner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You mentioned the very careful experimentation that was
conducted by Dr. Humphreys and his students in Texas. We are
aware of the experiments. Believe me, the security of the
communication and control system is one of the key challenges
we have looked at for UAS. I mentioned in my testimony projects
that we are working on. What I want to point out about Dr.
Humphreys' experiments is that I believe in his paper he even
points out that they were very carefully conducted and would be
hard to repeat. That said, we must be cognizant. The FAA has
initiated a group that is looking at spoofing and jamming.
There is also a position navigation and timing excom that looks
across the government at GPS systems and would be concerned in
that area. We are working on multiple levels to address it.
Chairman Broun. Dr. Waggoner?
Dr. Waggoner. Yes, sir. We are also aware of the work that
Dr. Humphreys did at the University of Texas. Just to frame
this problem, the issue with GPS is far bigger than just UAS. I
mean, this would have economic implications. Our economy is run
on GPS actually now. So we are aware of this. We are certainly
in our work that we are working to make sure that there is
adequate redundancies in any systems that we would test so
positioning is not only reliant on the GPS signal and other
situation awareness issues associated with that as well. Our
focus is more on security at the command and control signal to
the vehicle and making sure that within these frequencies that
we are operating in, that those are secure and the data that we
are transmitting is reliable and is valid data. So from that
point of view, we have a very robust research effort going on
in that.
As far as spoofing of the GPS signal, we are aware of it.
We are cognizant of what Dr. Humphreys did, and as part of our
knowledge base and the constraints that we are operating under
but we don't have any particular research efforts going towards
spoofing of the GPS signal.
Chairman Broun. Certainly, this is of great concerns to
Americans not only because of the safety just generally but
also because if Dr. Humphreys and his students can spoof the
GPS system, what could other nation-states or terrorist groups
do also.
Will civil and commercial UAS operating in the national
airspace use encrypted command, control and navigation links?
Dr. Toner?
Dr. Toner. The military today uses encrypted links, and I
believe that solution may not be as viable for the commercial
market. That is the reason so much research is being done
today.
Chairman Broun. Dr. Waggoner, do you have any additions?
Dr. Waggoner. No, sir.
Chairman Broun. My time is just about out, so please answer
this question. In 2010, the Navy lost control of a Fire Scout
UAS, which eventually violated the airspace here in Washington,
DC. What work is being done to address the challenge of
ensuring the safety in the event of a lost link? Anyone?
Dr. Waggoner. So the work that we are doing, there would be
certain lost-link protocols that would come into play so that's
where autonomy would take over if there was a loss of the
command control link to the UAS so that the UAS would either go
to a predetermined position in order to reestablish the link or
return to base.
Chairman Broun. Weren't there protocols in place for this
particular incident, though, and we still had a problem. Is
that correct?
Dr. Waggoner. That is correct in that case.
Chairman Broun. Okay. Well, hopefully we can have that
taken care of so that this doesn't occur anymore. I am sure it
caused a lot of consternation here in D.C.
With that, my time is up. Mr. Maffei, you are recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Maffei. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I found your
questions and answers very enlightening. Clearly, there are
some real national security and homeland security elements to
this, and of course, on 9/11, it was not military airplanes
that were taken over, it was the civilian airliners, and the
same thing could be true; our biggest threat on these may not
be a military craft being taken over in the Middle East but
maybe a civilian one being taken over here. So we want to look
at those things.
Dr. Toner, you said in your testimony that the FAA will not
integrate UAS unless and until we can be assured that the
safety of the national airspace will not be degraded, and I
assume you mean in all these respects, and Dr. Waggoner echoed
that. But given the fact, Dr. Toner, that we have a very
aggressive timeline set out for you and the FAA has already
missed many of those deadlines, do you believe that you will be
able to safely and effectively integrate the UAS into the
national airspace by the current deadline of September 2015,
and if you are not sure you can, are there things that you need
from us in Congress to help make that happen or expedite it?
Dr. Toner. Our approach is a phased in approach, and we are
very cognizant that the FAA Act of 2012 called for safe
integration by 2015. We view that as a beginning. If you look
at aircraft such as the F-22 today, it is a manned aircraft but
it is not fully integrated into the air traffic control system.
We are taking a phased-in approach. In 2015, we will have
integration beginning, but as we move towards the NextGen
system, there will be new capabilities that make this an even
more efficient integration for more varieties of aircraft. So,
I think it is important that we consider a rolling approach as
we focus on the safe integration and safe interaction of manned
and unmanned aircraft.
Mr. Maffei. Well, what do you need from us? Nothing?
Dr. Toner. Congress has given us a lot of attention and
support. We would ask for the opportunity to continue to
explain the difficulties and challenges and our progress as we
move forward.
Mr. Maffei. Okay. Thank you very much.
The chairman and I both have expressed concerns about
privacy and civil liberties related to the equipment on board
of these UAS aircraft, surveillance sensors, et cetera, and
then I think there is--well, let me ask you this. Who is
responsible for regulating these issues such as privacy
concerns? Dr. Dillingham, do you have an idea of that? Everyone
can answer if you have opinions.
Dr. Dillingham. Mr. Maffei, we looked into this, and I
think at best we can say, it is unknown at this point. When we
did our work, we asked FAA about it, and FAA said our area is
safety and that is what we are going to focus on, and of course
there are already existing a number of different privacy
regulations and laws but none of them have been tested with
regard to UAS. I think the recent SIR that was put out by FAA
to seek comments on privacy issues will be a start on that.
From our perspective, that is one of the big obstacles to
integration, that is, public acceptance, public education, and
public concern about how that data will be used.
Mr. Maffei. The other two witnesses are free to answer, but
if you want to also address that public acceptance issue
because it also seems there is no agency that is working on
education of the public, et cetera.
Dr. Dillingham. Not so much an agency but some of the
industry associations, some of the model airplane associations
are trying to educate the public or at least inform the public.
One of the things that we keep in mind is, no matter what kind
of technology is out there for good, there will be some who
will find a way to misuse that technology, so it becomes very
important that the public recognize those issues as well.
Mr. Maffei. Anything to add from the other two witnesses? I
have one more question, so quickly.
Dr. Waggoner. Yes, sir, just real quickly, while I am not
an attorney or certainly a legal expert on this, we go to a lot
of forums where this subject is discussed, and sort of the
consensus opinion that I have drawn from this is that yes,
privacy is not the FAA's responsibility. They are focused on
safety. There are legal precedents that are set relative to
technology and surveillance if these exist, and the legislators
and the community really need to identify what the ethical
issues are and how these differ from a UAS to a manned aircraft
relative to flight operations. Then this issue that Dr.
Dillingham mentioned, the public and the media really need to
be educated about UAS operations and missions.
Mr. Maffei. Dr. Toner, do you have anything to add? You
don't have to. Okay. Thank you very much, and Mr. Chairman, you
and I may have to roll up our sleeves and do a little bit of
bipartisan work to maybe set a legislative beginning to it, I
don't know, but I would like to look into that with you.
One quick question, and it can be answered in writing, but
Dr. Toner, I really appreciate the fact that the FAA took the
first formal step in selecting the six UAS test sites yesterday
by releasing the screening information request document to the
public. While I realize that this may not be your exact area,
nonetheless, can I--I may have some additional questions on it
once we sort of review it in terms of trying to get more
precision on what you are really looking for. After you get a
chance, can I get your commitment that we will receive timely
written responses to that?
Dr. Toner. We will provide a timely response, sir.
Mr. Maffei. Thank you very much, Dr. Toner. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Broun. Mr. Maffei, all the Members of the
Committee will have the opportunity to give written questions
to the witnesses and hopefully--in fact, I have already talked
with them about that and they are all willing to give us those
expeditious answers to all these questions because I know all
of us have questions and all of us have concerns about this.
The American public are just frightened, frankly, about the use
of the UAS to possibly have invasions of their privacy and
invasions of their civil rights, and I am extremely interested
in making sure that we protect those privacy issues and civil
rights issues. It is something that I have been focusing on for
a long period of time not only in this issue but through
cybersecurity and everything else. I am eager to work with you
on this issue. Mr. Maffei?
Mr. Maffei. Me too, and certainly, Mr. Chairman, I think
you will agree, we have to at least figure out who the go-to
person is in the Administration so that, you know, we have--it
doesn't fall through the cracks.
Chairman Broun. Absolutely. No matter who is in the White
House and whatever the Administration is, this is an extremely
important issue and it is a constitutional issue for me.
Mr. Cramer, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
of the witnesses. You really have done an excellent job of both
efficiently and thoroughly answering the questions in the
charter, so I appreciate that very much. I especially
appreciate the opportunity to meet you before the hearing, and
Dr. Toner, to have somebody who has actually spent New Year's
Eve in Hazen, North Dakota, as a witness on my first hearing is
extraordinarily fortuitous for me because, as you know, in
North Dakota we were quite pleased yesterday when the SIR was
released. It has been a long wait. Nonetheless, we are grateful
for the opportunity to be one of at least the 26 states that
applied for the designation, and I would say, given that you
spent New Year's Eve in Hazen, North Dakota, at one point, you
understand how extreme our climate can be and I hope you take
that into account if you are on the team that chooses where a
good place would be to test extreme weather. But I also assure
you that in the summertime, the other extreme is the same.
I would be interested in just exploring a little further
this juxtaposition of the privacy issue with the safety issue
because as I understand it, while the SIR has a--is it a 60-day
window for public comment on the privacy question? Am I correct
in that, Dr. Toner? Do you know?
Dr. Toner. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Cramer. But does that--thank you. And does that have
anything to do then with the designation of the test sites? In
other words, is it part of the SIR but not part of the criteria
to be considered?
Dr. Toner. We are looking to get public input on the
privacy policy. We will be evaluating the test site proposals
as called for in the SIR. We are looking to make sure that we
are doing a good job, and that the authors are doing a good job
in meeting the criteria in the SIR.
Mr. Cramer. And so then getting back to some of your
earlier criteria, I guess in your opening statement about the
collaboration, the coordination and cooperation of various
institutions, that would certainly, I think, fit into some of
that.
Dr. Toner. I cannot comment on the collaboration in terms
of the proposals themselves. However, from my office's
perspective, we need everybody rowing in the same direction on
this issue since it is so complex.
Mr. Cramer. Sure. Well, the point of the question is
probably to make the statement given that you have answered all
the questions, the technical questions, so well. Again, going
back to the criteria, we are in North Dakota, again, speaking
for my constituents who are very interested in this topic
because we are a big aviation state. As you know, we have the
School of Aerospace Sciences, Dr. Waggoner at the University of
North Dakota and the aviation school that is very much a part
of a team that the governor has put together called the
Airspace Integration Team. This is a state effort to do
exactly--unify all of the institutions under one collaborative
effort to try to get this designation, and that we think is
second probably to the extreme weather in terms of the
criteria. I would have a question, though, about our proximity
to Canada. Is that--would you consider that a concern or an
asset, being a border state, and what kind of collaboration do
we have, if any, with the Canadian government if the--as we
test the airspace, national airspace, realizing we deal with a
lot of international airspace.
Dr. Toner. We have laid out in terms of the test sites what
we believe are a wide range of criteria that we hope will
attract a wide variety of offers including North Dakota. I
could not comment today on the interaction with Canada and any
international implications, and I could get back to you if you
needed.
Mr. Cramer. If you could, that would be great.
And Mr. Chairman, again, they have done such a great job
answering the questions that I had earlier that I think I will
yield back.
Chairman Broun. Thank you, Mr. Cramer.
They have just called votes. We have some time. We will try
to get through as many questions as we can. Mr. Peters, you are
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to serve with you and Mr. Maffei on this Committee.
I look forward to it.
I had a pretty simple question about spectrum. You know,
San Diego supports more than 7,100 jobs in the UAS industry,
and we are interested in seeing these vehicles being able to be
used for environmental monitoring and scientific research. We
think they have got great application there. In addition, we
are also the home to Qualcomm and interested in the wireless
industry. That is our largest private employer. So my question
is about the bulk of spectrum resources required from the use
of these aircraft and whether any of you has reviewed what the
potential spectrum need will be for the various unmanned aerial
systems operating in the United States 5, 10, 15 years down the
road.
Dr. Toner. The FAA worked with the FCC to reserve some
spectrum for the command and control of UAS. We could get you
the specifics on our work. We believe, based on our assessment
of the market for operation today, that spectrum should be
adequate. However this is a point that we will continue to
study to ensure adequacy down the road.
Mr. Peters. I think that is fair, and I appreciate in
addition to looking at the privacy concerns raised by the
previous gentleman who spoke previously, I would appreciate an
update on that as we go along.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity and yield back.
Chairman Broun. Thank you, Mr. Peters.
Mr. Posey is next in line but he said he is not interested
in asking questions. We appreciate you joining us. Oh, he has
one question. Okay.
Mr. Posey. Mr. Chairman, I just want to apologize for being
late. We rolled votes from yesterday in the Financial Services
Committee and I had to go do that first.
Chairman Broun. Thank you for being here. So Mr.
Schweikert, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Schweikert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is one--when you are from Arizona and, you know, we
actually have a number of manufacturers producing products and
those things. I have a couple different questions. First one,
particularly for the FAA, sort of the R&D roadmap and the
deadlines and the mechanics that are supposed to be built in
there, where are we time-wise? What should our expectations be
of deliverabilities? What do we expect to see in the next year
or two out of that?
Dr. Toner. Thank you. That is a great question, and I will
probably run out of time to explain the answer. I am assuming
you are talking about the UAS research, development and
demonstration roadmap that we published about a year ago. At
that time we said that the challenges we had identified were a
good start, they were a snapshot in time, and that we would
need additional vetting and additional insurance that we would
be meeting the needs of the regulatory folks with our research
program. During the past year, we have worked tirelessly along
with the government partners. We are, I think, very close to
the coordination of a set of national goals and objectives of
getting a single point of view, or concept of operations, that
we can use as a measuring stick for our progress. We have set
up a framework for how we can prioritize the R&D challenges. We
know we have many of them. We want to make sure we cover them
all. Quite frankly, we are looking forward to the point where
we can share that with the full community.
Mr. Schweikert. Mr. Chairman, as you go through those sort
of challenges, are you going to be publishing updates saying
look, here is what we are seeing, you know, here is our latest
status? And I know that is always hard around here. One of the
things we have great frustration with is the number of missed
deadlines. I think you had one, what was it, September that you
missed?
Dr. Toner. Yes. In our roadmap report, we did push
ourselves a little bit and promised some September data.
Mr. Schweikert. Would we be seeing some incremental
updates, some incremental publications telling us where you are
at?
Dr. Toner. We have not released incremental publications
because it is very important to us, and the five agencies that
we have been working with as partners, that we have coordinated
with the agencies. We are in the last steps of coordination,
and then we think we can release a very comprehensive package.
Mr. Schweikert. All right. My friend from civil aviation?
Dr. Dillingham. Is that me?
Mr. Schweikert. Yes.
Dr. Dillingham. I just wanted to add to Dr. Toner's
comments that we did a report a couple of years ago and we made
a recommendation that when the comprehensive plan is developed,
that it also include the ability to show progress, to monitor
progress towards goals, and we have not seen that comprehensive
plan yet. It has been delayed as well. But if our
recommendation is adhered to, the kinds of things that you are
interested in and asking for should be included.
Mr. Schweikert. Okay. Doctor, a slight lark but it sort of
ties in. Being from Arizona, and I actually have this gentleman
as a constituent who is a high-end engineer, has lot of
resources, has built himself about a nine-foot-size flying wing
with constant uplink, and I appreciate it when he flies over my
house and sends me a text message with photos of my house and
what I am doing in my backyard. What are we seeing also from
the hobbyist world? Are they running ahead of us? Are they
heading towards a dangerous conflict? What is going on there,
and are we about to see also some clash of cultures of people
going off on their own?
Dr. Dillingham. This is a very sensitive and difficult area
but let me try and respond. The 2012 FAA Reauthorization Act
actually prohibited FAA from making regulations related to
model aircraft, and persons who operate model aircraft. There
are existing regulations that suggest that if you operate it in
accordance with the principles that are now inforce, that that
would be okay, and there is a way for FAA to intervene if you
operate them dangerously. The Model Aircraft Association has
issued some guidelines, though voluntary, that their
membership, which I think is over 150,000, adhere to, but it is
a different world in terms of modeling and, you know, how they
are going to come together is to be determined.
Mr. Schweikert. Well, I know I am beyond time but, Mr.
Chairman, what you and I grew up thinking of as a model
airplane, these things ain't model airplanes anymore. They are
stunning in scale and complexity. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Broun. Absolutely, and the American public are
very fearful, concerned, and that is the reason that the news
media has been focusing on this issue so long, and I appreciate
you, Dr. Dillingham. I wasn't trying to ignore you and neither
were any of these Members, but I trust that you guys are going
to continue to monitor and report back to us on an ongoing
basis what you find, and please keep us informed.
Also, Dr. Waggoner, if you would, please provide for the
record all of NASA's UAS R&D projects as well as the FY 2012
and 2013 funding levels for each project. The FAA has been kind
enough to provide those for us but we have not got those
records from NASA, so if you would, please provide those--that
information to us in an expeditious manner.
I thank all the witnesses for you all's excellent testimony
today. It is not only interesting but extremely valuable for
us. Members of the Committee may have additional questions, as
I have talked to you all in private. We ask for you to respond
to those very expeditiously in writing to us. The record will
remain open for two additional weeks for additional comments
and for written questions from Members. I thank you all. I am
disappointed that we have a vote on that is going to interrupt
this extremely interesting topic for me and for the Members of
the Committee, for Americans all over the country, and I thank
C-SPAN for coming and helping to broadcast this to the American
public so we can get that information out and you all's
valuable testimony. Thank you so much for being here.
The witnesses are excused and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Karlin Toner
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Requested material for the record submitted Dr. Edgar Waggoner
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]