[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AIRSPACE INTEGRATION OF NEW AIRCRAFT
=======================================================================
(115-53)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 6, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-628 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas RICK LARSEN, Washington
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BOB GIBBS, Ohio GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
JEFF DENHAM, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOHN GARAMENDI, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois Georgia
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
ROB WOODALL, Georgia RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
TODD ROKITA, Indiana DINA TITUS, Nevada
JOHN KATKO, New York SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
BRIAN BABIN, Texas ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana Vice Ranking Member
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
MIKE BOST, Illinois JARED HUFFMAN, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
JOHN J. FASO, New York MARK DeSAULNIER, California
A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
VACANCY
(ii)
Subcommittee on Aviation
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SAM GRAVES, Missouri DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
JEFF DENHAM, California ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Columbia
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois JULIA BROWNLEY, California
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
ROB WOODALL, Georgia BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
TODD ROKITA, Indiana MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania Georgia
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan, Vice Chair RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
VACANCY Officio)
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
WITNESSES
Shelley J. Yak, Director, William J. Hughes Technical Center,
Federal Aviation Administration, accompanied by Jay Merkle,
Deputy Vice President, Program Management Organization, Air
Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration:
Oral statement............................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Thomas Prevot, Director of Engineering, Airspace Systems, Uber
Technologies, Inc.:
Oral statement............................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
JoeBen Bevirt, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Joby
Aviation:
Oral statement............................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Mariah Scott, President, Skyward, A Verizon Company:
Oral statement............................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington................................... 4
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Prepared statement of Chris Rittler, CEO, Cape Productions....... 53
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
AIRSPACE INTEGRATION OF NEW AIRCRAFT
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
We are in the early days of a technological revolution that
will transform the aviation industry and our national airspace.
In recent years, we have witnessed the growing use of unmanned
aerial aircraft, or drones, to improve many different sectors
of our economy, including infrastructure, energy, emergency
response, and agriculture.
This committee has met a number of times to discuss the
opportunities and challenges, including regulatory and safety
issues, that will come with drones. More recently, we have
heard from developers of new ``flying car'' aircraft. These
aircraft may soon fly commuters and across-town travelers above
congested highways, bridges, and roads in our cities.
It was not long ago that flying cars only existed in
science fiction. These aircraft will carry three or four people
short distances, fly a couple of thousand feet up, and share
similar flight technology to drones. It is an exciting time for
the aviation industry in the United States.
Other countries see this potential as well. For example, at
the end of August, the Japanese Government convened a meeting
in Tokyo that included 21 private companies to develop a plan
for introducing flying cars there in the next decade. This
meeting included American and European companies, in addition
to Japanese firms. Companies participating range from tech
companies and airlines to airspace and automobile giants that
we all know.
And Japan is not the only country embracing this new
transportation initiative. Firms in China are also looking to
establish themselves as leaders. The United States must be
active in order to maintain its global leadership in aviation.
That means that the Federal Aviation Administration needs to
stay ahead of these new technological advancements.
One thing that remains unchanged in the face of these
developments is that our number one priority has been, is, and
will be safety. To both ensure safety and maintain our
leadership in aviation, we must systematically address a number
of issues. Today we begin with how we safely and efficiently
integrate new users into the National Airspace System.
Each day, thousands of conventional aircraft fly at
altitudes that can often be measured in miles and fly between
airports located in many of our communities. UAS and flying
cars will fly at altitudes much closer to the ground and more
often than not operate from places other than airports.
These differences raised at least a couple of initial
questions of how UAS and flying cars integrate into the
airspace. First, how will these aircraft physically fit and
operate within the three-dimensional airspace and be kept at
safe distances from other aircraft, buildings, and people on
the ground in urban and other environments?
The second big question relates to air traffic control
systems. Air traffic control and conventional aircraft rely on
a number of procedures, including extensive voice
communications between pilots and controllers over the radio.
Flying cars and UAS will be far different. The concept is that
highly automated systems on these aircraft will communicate
with other highly automated systems on the ground, such as UAS
traffic management, with less human intervention.
So the question here is, how will the new aircraft and
systems incorporate with existing ones and also with each
other? While those are big questions around airspace
integration, there are others. In recent months, we have seen
growing interest in more use of counter-UAS systems in the face
of an emerging risk posed by unlawfully operated drones. There
are many unknowns about the use of counter-UAS systems, which
could impact avionics and air traffic control. Flying cars and
lawfully operated UAS could also be impacted.
Fortunately for us, there are bright and creative people
applying their talents to realize the benefits of UAS and
flying cars in both the private and public sectors. These
include efforts being undertaken in my district by the FAA's
premier flagship technical facility in Egg Harbor Township, New
Jersey, to advance airspace integration. We appreciate all the
work that the industry and the FAA are doing at the FAA Tech
Center to make safe integration of new aviation technologies a
reality.
As this subcommittee continues to look ahead, it is
important that industry engage with the members of this panel.
There are exciting issues, and I look forward to hearing from
our distinguished panel of witnesses.
Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Larsen for any opening
statement.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for calling
today's hearing.
This morning we are discussing issues related to the
integration of new and emerging users into the U.S. airspace.
The chairman and I have ensured this precise topic be a focus
of the subcommittee's oversight work in recent years and with
the particular emphasis on unmanned aircraft, which we are here
to discuss today.
And I am pleased that we will also explore the next new
thing that may soon take the skies: passenger drones. Two of
the panelists today will describe how the previously
unthinkable and only imagined in shows that I watched growing
up, like ``The Jetsons,'' is pressing forward at a rapid pace
and will soon change how the national airspace is used.
According to a recent industry scorecard, U.S. drivers
spend, on average, more than 40 hours each year in traffic
during peak hours. Traffic congestion not only costs U.S.
drivers more than $300 billion each year but results in wasted
hours and lost productivity. It takes a toll on air quality and
the environment as well. This is something with which my
constituents are all too familiar.
A 2017 industry study found commuters around the city of
Everett in the district I represent spent more time stuck in
traffic gridlocks than anyone else in the country. So, yes, we
are better than Washington, DC, but barely.
But with recent advances in design and technology happening
in places like Washington State, more than 50 passenger drone
concepts are reportedly in development and testing. Such
concepts have the potential to reduce traffic congestion and
the demand on roads and bridges nationwide by carrying
commuters through the air at low altitudes.
Some of the new concepts aimed to fly in U.S. airspace by
2020, but before that occurs, several issues need to be
explored. For instance, how and where will they operate? How
will Congress ensure operations are safe for those in the
aircraft and for people and property on the ground? We are
already seeing the risks unauthorized use of small UAS pose to
the aviation system. So in considering passenger drones, safety
must be paramount.
Another important question is how and when will the FAA
develop a comprehensive regulatory framework to integrate these
operations in the U.S. airspace? Is the FAA on track to
accommodate this fast-paced industry so the U.S. remains
globally competitive? There may be lessons learned from the
FAA's efforts to integrate drones.
Initially, when the FAA was not keeping pace with the
global stage, U.S. drone companies threatened to go abroad for
testing, development, and deployment. What can be done here to
prevent that from happening with this new technology? Is there
a role for Congress? And, finally, how will the passenger drone
concepts we explore today become accessible and realistic
options for all once deployed in cities across the Nation?
So I look forward to exploring these topics today with the
panelists and, of course, look forward to discussing continued
integration issues associated with unmanned aircraft.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will submit the rest of my
comments for the record, and look forward to the panelists.
[Mr. Larsen's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen of Washington
Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, for calling today's hearing on
``Airspace Integration of New Aircraft.''
This morning, we are discussing issues related to the integration
of new and emerging users into U.S. airspace.
Chairman LoBiondo and I have ensured this precise topic be a focus
of this subcommittee's oversight work in recent years, and with a
particular emphasis on unmanned aircraft, which we are here to discuss
today.
I am pleased we will also explore the next ``new thing'' that may
soon take to the skies: passenger drones.
Two of the panelists today will describe how the previously
unthinkable, only imagined in shows like ``The Jetsons,'' is pressing
forward at a rapid pace and will soon change how the national airspace
is used.
According to a recent industry scorecard,\1\ U.S. drivers spend, on
average, more than 40 hours each year in traffic during peak hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ INRIX, INRIX 2017 Global Traffic Scorecard, http://inrix.com/
scorecard/ (last visited Aug. 29, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This traffic congestion not only costs U.S. drivers more than $300
billion each year, but results in wasted hours and lost productivity.
It takes a toll on air quality and the environment as well.
This is something with which my constituents are all too familiar.
A 2017 industry study found commuters around the city of Everett,
in the district I represent, spent more time stuck in traffic gridlocks
than anyone else in the country.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ INRIX, Los Angeles Tops INRIX Global Congestion Ranking, http:/
/inrix.com/press-releases/scorecard-2017/ (last visited Sep. 4, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But with recent advances in design and technology, happening in
places like Washington State, more than 50 passenger drone concepts are
reportedly in development and testing.
Such concepts have the potential to reduce traffic congestion and
the demand on roads and bridges nationwide by carrying commuters
through the air, at low altitudes.
Some of the new concepts aim to fly in U.S. airspace by 2020, but
before that occurs, several issues need to be explored.
For instance, how and where will passenger drones operate? How will
Congress ensure operations are safe for those in the aircraft and for
people and property on the ground?
We are already seeing the risks unauthorized use of small UAS pose
to the aviation system.
When considering passenger drones, safety must be paramount.
Another important question is how and when will the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) develop a comprehensive regulatory
framework to integrate these operations into U.S. airspace?
Is the FAA on track to accommodate this fast-paced industry so the
U.S. remains globally competitive?
There may be lessons learned from the FAA's efforts to integrate
drones.
Initially, when the FAA was not keeping pace with the global stage,
U.S. drone companies threatened to go abroad for testing, development
and deployment. What can be done to prevent that from happening here?
Is there a role for Congress?
And finally, how will the passenger drone concepts we explore today
become accessible and realistic options for all once deployed in cities
across the nation?
I look forward to exploring these topics with today's panelists.
And of course, I look forward to discussing continued integration
issues associated with unmanned aircraft.
There is no denying the extensive public and commercial benefits of
unmanned aircraft and their applications continue to grow. For example,
unmanned aircraft have been used to perform inspections of critical
infrastructure, including bridges and railroads, and to assist in
recovery efforts following recent natural disasters and wildfires.
In 2012, Congress directed the FAA to safely and efficiently
integrate unmanned aircraft into the National Airspace System. While
integration efforts and collaboration between the FAA and industry are
ongoing, we are still far from full integration.
For example, just over 2 years ago, the FAA released the long-
awaited final rule on small commercial UAS operations (part 107), which
significantly expanded and standardized the ability to conduct
commercial UAS activities in the United States.
While this was a great first step toward integration, part 107
falls short in several ways.
For example, part 107 includes a waiver process that UAS operators
must follow in order to fly more advanced and complex operations.
An industry group released analysis last week finding that since
the FAA released part 107, the agency has granted more than 1,800
waivers, with only 23 waivers issued for beyond visual line of sight
operations and only 13 for flights over people.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI,
Waivers Under Part 107: Interactive Report, https://www.auvsi.org/our-
impact/waivers-under-part-107-interactive-report (last visited Aug. 29,
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A case-by-case waiver process is not sustainable to keep pace with
an industry rapidly growing.
While the FAA moves forward with UAS integration efforts, it
remains imperative that both commercial and recreational users operate
these aircraft safely.
This is one of the reasons the FAA's UAS Integration Pilot Program
(IPP) is important. It provides an opportunity for the agency, as well
as State and local governments, to partner with the private sector to
ensure safe UAS integration and help better craft regulations.
Further, I remain concerned about the increasing risks of UAS
collisions with manned aircraft, as well as incursions with critical
infrastructure and other mishaps.
I hope to hear from the FAA today about what Congress can do to
resolve these safety concerns and ensure the agency has what it needs
to help advance further integration efforts.
Whether it is UAS or passenger drones, this type of innovation is
why the United States remains the world leader in aviation.
I welcome our panelists' perspectives on how this subcommittee can
help ensure the aviation industry continues to innovate and thrive.
Again, thank you Chairman LoBiondo for calling today's hearing. I
look forward to this discussion.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Rick.
We are pleased to have Ranking Member Peter DeFazio with
us.
Peter, do you have any opening remarks?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do, briefly.
First, I want to congratulate you on holding this hearing,
and perhaps it will be the last hearing over which you preside
on this subcommittee. And I want to thank you for your great
work, and I have enjoyed working with you, and I am sure you
won't be a stranger. So thanks.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. You didn't say that to me
yesterday.
Mr. DeFazio. What is that?
Mr. Graves of Missouri. You didn't say that to me
yesterday.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, you are not leaving, so far as I know,
Sam, unless we come up with a candidate in your district. Oh,
presiding, yeah, OK, I could have said that, but I am just
not--I am not measuring the drapes yet.
So anyway, this is a really important hearing. I mean, it
is mind-boggling to read about, you know, what Uber is
anticipating, what Joby is far along in developing in terms of
new forms of transport which could help solve congestion.
Yesterday we held a hearing on technology, and there are
things which can mitigate ground congestion, but they aren't
ultimately going to resolve it. And as we continue to grow in
population and density, we will be back at this point 10 or 15
years from now, even if the technology can mitigate the ground
congestion. So new solutions are warranted, and there is
certainly a lot of potential in what we will hear today.
The key thing will be the safe integration into the
existing controlled and uncontrolled airspace. You know, we are
making progress on UTM and LAANC, and, you know, we will hear
from Skyward today, who is working on those issues, which is
absolutely critical.
It is kind of interesting that Oregon, which isn't--
although Portland is getting to be kind of a mess, but one of
the most congested places in the country has pioneered in some
of these technologies. The first demonstration I ever saw of
ADS-B was a company in Salem, Oregon, and now we have Skyward
in Portland working on this extraordinary new integration for
less traditional operations commercially.
And I can't help but to again make a point that the key
thing--and we will hear from the FAA today here--is that we
need to be able to regulate so-called model aircraft. Now, the
model aircrafters, who are a responsible, longstanding group of
people--you know, I started out with the little balsa wood
planes with the little engines that wouldn't work, and I know
what they are doing.
But at some point they became petrified that the FAA, which
wasn't considering regulating them, was going to regulate them
in ways that were detrimental, and they got my Republican
colleagues to put a very broadly worded provision in an FAA
bill which prohibits any regulation of model aircraft, which
includes over 1 million drones that have been sold in the
United States of America.
What is the problem there? Well, just last week when I was
home, we had to ground all the aircraft fighting the
Terwilliger fire about 25 miles from my house because some jerk
flew his toy drone into the controlled and prohibited airspace.
The sheriff said, we don't know who the person is or where it
came from. We can't do anything about it. So even though we
have upped the fines, doesn't matter.
And I got a provision in the FAA bill that came out of the
House that would allow reasonable regulation and operator
identification of these drones. It is critical that we take
that step. There is a competing amendment that won't get the
job done put in by the Chinese toy manufacturers.
So I would hope that Congress in its wisdom decides that we
are going to go down the path of sanity here and allow real
regulation, real identification, and not have to wait until we
go back 20, 25 years ago when we used to call the FAA the--they
said they had a tombstone mentality. They investigated and
fixed things after we lost a passenger aircraft. We don't want
to go back to those days, but that is going to happen with one
of these drones being illegally and improperly operated,
whether it is maliciously or someone who is just a jerk.
So anyway, I just thought I would take the opportunity to
raise that point again since we are sort of having a conference
with the Senate which sort of almost kind of did an FAA bill
but now says they had 90 amendments that would have been
adopted if they had taken it up, so therefore we have to deal
with all their 90 amendments that never were adopted and were
never taken up on the floor of the Senate. So I am not sure we
get to resolution.
Anyway, with that, thanks for being here.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Thank you, Peter.
I would like to now welcome our distinguished panel of
witnesses. First on the list is Ms. Shelley Yak, who is
Director of the Federal Aviation Administration Technical
Center. I am going to take a moment of personal privilege
because those of you who have attended any of these hearings or
meetings know that whenever I get the chance.
The FAA Technical Center that Shelley is the Director of is
the premier facility in the world for safety, security,
research, and development. There are somewhere between 3,500
and 4,000 incredible people who dedicate themselves each and
every day to keeping America first. Shelley has done an
excellent job, and we welcome you, Shelley, today.
Jay Merkle, Deputy Vice President of the Program Management
Organization for FAA's Air Traffic Organization; Mr. Tom
Prevot, director of engineering, airspace systems for Uber
Elevate; JoeBen Bevirt, founder and chief executive officer of
Joby Aviation; and Mariah Scott, president of Skyward.
Thank you all for being here. Your full statements will be
submitted into the record. We ask you to do your best to keep
your opening statement to about 5 minutes, and we will proceed.
Shelley, you are up first.
TESTIMONY OF SHELLEY J. YAK, DIRECTOR, WILLIAM J. HUGHES
TECHNICAL CENTER, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED
BY JAY MERKLE, DEPUTY VICE PRESIDENT, PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
ORGANIZATION, AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION, FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION; THOMAS PREVOT, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING,
AIRSPACE SYSTEMS, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; JOEBEN BEVIRT,
FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JOBY AVIATION; AND MARIAH
SCOTT, PRESIDENT, SKYWARD, A VERIZON COMPANY
Ms. Yak. Thank you for your kind words.
Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Chairman Shuster,
Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member DeFazio, Ranking Member
Larsen, and the members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the FAA
William J. Hughes Technical Center and the work that our 3,000
employees and contractors do to facilitate new entrants, new
users, new technologies into the National Airspace System, or
the NAS.
My name is Shelley Yak. I am the Director of the technical
center and the FAA's Director of Research. Accompanying me
today is Jay Merkle. He is the Deputy Vice President of the
Program Management Organization within the Air Traffic
Organization. His organization is responsible for implementing
next generation air transportation system programs and
sustaining the NAS system.
From 1958 to the present, many of the complex technologies
and systems in the NAS were researched, developed, tested, and
began their nationwide deployment at the technical center
through its unique research, engineering, testing, evaluation,
and deployment platforms.
We are able to accomplish these tasks because we are
responsible for managing and operating a one-of-a-kind Federal
laboratory. Our workforce is composed of world-class and world-
renowned engineers, scientists, mathematicians, and technical
experts. We do our work through partnerships with industry,
academia, and other Government agencies.
The technical center has two primary missions: to support
the advancement of the next generation air transportation
system and to sustain the operation of our NAS. In other words,
we keep the NAS operating and running while we are also
building our future.
The technical center is the place where we turn ideas into
value and problems into solutions. The work we do at the center
ensures that the United States continues to lead the world in
embracing, implementing, and integrating new technology such as
unmanned aircraft systems into the NAS.
Unmanned aircraft systems, or the UAS, are at the forefront
of change in the aviation industry. The need for us to fully
integrate this technology into the NAS continues to be a
national priority. In the past few years, we have witnessed the
exponential growth of UAS technologies and market applications.
And we know that the research must keep pace in supporting
their full integration.
FAA's research portfolio in total contains six research
domain areas, which support and align with our UAS integration
roadmap. For example, the FAA's airport infrastructure and
technologies research traditionally includes pavement and
terminal area research, now includes research on the potential
uses of UAS in an airport environment.
Our aircraft safety assurance research area focuses on
aircraft systems and materials, propulsions, and fuels,
including fire safety, which also addresses lithium batteries.
And our digital systems and technologies domain research
researches communication links, electronic systems, and
cybersecurity, all topics relevant to UAS and urban air
mobility.
Also applicable is our environment and weather impact
mitigation research on weather, icing, noise, and emissions,
and our human aeromedical factors research on operator training
and digital interface requirements.
The sixth domain, aviation performance and planning, brings
it all together. This domain performs research on improvements
in air traffic management and integrating new entrants into the
NAS.
In addition to the work in these areas, the UAS integration
pilot program has been busy accelerating drone technology. This
past May, Secretary Chao selected 10 State, local, and Tribal
governments, each partnering with private sector entities, to
participate in the program. This month, awardees across four
different States successfully flew drones demonstrating the
innovative ways drones may assist their communities. These
areas include long-distance drone delivery, agriculture, and
infrastructure inspections, and even wildlife management.
Throughout our history, FAA has adapted to changes in
technology and has successfully integrated new operations and
equipment into the NAS. Working together with you, Congress,
and our stakeholders, we are confident we can balance safety
and security with innovation.
Finally, before I conclude, I would like to take a moment
to acknowledge the support of Chairman Shuster and subcommittee
chairman, Mr. LoBiondo. You have both been instrumental in
providing the FAA with the direction and necessary resources to
maintain our position as a global leader in aviation. On behalf
of the 3,000 employees at the center and all FAA employees, I
thank you both for your leadership, and wish you well as you
retire from Congress.
This concludes my statement. Jay and I will be happy to
answer your questions at this time.
[Ms. Yak's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shelley J. Yak, Director of the William J. Hughes
Technical Center, Federal Aviation Administration
Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the
role of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) William J. Hughes
Technical Center in facilitating new entrants, new users, and new
technologies into the National Airspace System (NAS). Accompanying me
today is Peter ``Jay'' Merkle, the Deputy Vice President of the Program
Management Organization (PMO) within the Air Traffic Organization
(ATO). The PMO is responsible for implementation of all Next Generation
Air Transportation System (NextGen) program activity; all NAS
communications; navigation, weather, surveillance and automation
modernization programs; and all service life extensions to legacy NAS
sensors, communications and navigation aids.
william j. hughes technical center
The Technical Center has served as one of the core facilities for
sustaining and modernizing the air traffic management system, and for
advancing programs to enhance aviation safety, efficiency, and capacity
since 1958. It is the Nation's premier air transportation system
Federal laboratory. The Technical Center's highly technical and diverse
workforce carries out activities to support the full system/service
development lifecycle--from conducting research and development,
testing and evaluation, verification and validation, to operational
sustainment and decommissioning.
The Technical Center's staff develops scientific solutions to
current and future air transportation safety, efficiency, and capacity
challenges. Our engineers, scientists, mathematicians, and technical
experts utilize a robust, one-of-a-kind, world-class laboratory
environment to identify integrated system solutions for the
modernization and sustainment of the NAS. Automatic Dependent
Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), En Route Automation Modernization
(ERAM) and Data Communications (Data Comm) were all developed, tested
and began their nationwide deployment at the Technical Center through
its engineering, testing, evaluation, and deployment platforms.
The Technical Center replicates the entire NAS, with the capability
to support not only NextGen, but all aviation systems. The Technical
Center's areas of focus include air traffic management, communications,
navigation, surveillance, aeronautical information, weather, human
factors, airports, and aircraft safety. More recently, the Technical
Center has been instrumental in the FAA's efforts to facilitate new
entrants and users to the NAS; particularly, unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS or drones).
faa's vision for uas integration
Future aviation operations must accommodate the increasing demand
for airspace access by traditional civil aviation users as well as new
entrants. UAS are at the forefront of change in the aviation industry.
They are being used today to inspect infrastructure, provide emergency
response support, survey agriculture, and to go places that are
otherwise dangerous for people or other vehicles. Entrepreneurs around
the world are exploring innovative ways to use drones in their
commercial activities. To date, we have processed over 1.1 million UAS
registrations, over 230,000 of which are for unmanned aircraft that can
be flown commercially. For perspective, as of July 2018, there are just
under 300,000 manned aircraft listed on the U.S. registry. The need for
us to fully integrate this technology into the NAS continues to be a
national priority.
The Department of Transportation and FAA's vision for integration
is ambitious. We intend to fully integrate UAS into the most complex
airspace system in the world, enabling UAS to operate harmoniously with
manned aircraft, occupying the same airspace and using many of the same
standards and procedures. Two years ago, we established the regulatory
framework-- and set the global standard--for small UAS integration. Our
roadmap for full UAS integration is intended to enable increasingly
more complex UAS operations over time: (1) operations over people; (2)
operations beyond the visual-line-of-sight of the operator; (3) small
UAS package delivery operations; (4) routine/scheduled operations; (5)
large carrier cargo operations; and, finally, (6) passenger transport
operations.
research and development
As the FAA's Director of Research, I oversee the FAA's aviation
research and development (R&D) activities. Effective research enables
the FAA's mission to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace
system in the world. As new technologies change the aviation industry,
our approach to research must evolve as well. Emerging innovations,
such as UAS, require an agile research and development strategy focused
on change driven by technology and collaborative, data-driven
partnerships across government and with industry and academia. Through
this collaboration, we will continue building on our unparalleled
safety record, while increasing the efficiency of our system and more
fully integrating new users.
With the exponential growth of UAS technologies and market
applications we have witnessed in just a few years, we know that
research must keep pace to support full integration. We are aligning
our UAS research activities with our integration roadmap. Safety is and
will always be the FAA's first priority, and continued support for UAS
research initiatives will ensure that UAS are integrated into the NAS
in a safe, secure, and efficient manner.
UAS research activities are coordinated across many different types
of entities, including internal FAA organizations, different U.S.
Government agencies, and nongovernmental entities that perform
collaborative research to support the FAA's overall integration
objectives. Coordination with each type of entity includes the
identification of research needs and current research, governance for
continuous cooperation, and mechanisms for managing progress and
results. Issues and considerations being addressed include detect and
avoid standards and technologies, collision avoidance standards,
command and control standards and technologies, human factors, severity
thresholds (for example, impact effects), automation/autonomy, and wake
turbulence effects. One example of this coordination is the UAS
Standardization Collaborative (UASSC), co-chaired by the FAA and the
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) and
managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). UASSC
brings together over 230 members from the user applications,
manufacturer, safety and emergency response, academic and government
communities to accelerate development of standards and conformity
assessment programs to facilitate the safe integration of UAS into the
NAS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/
standards_boards_panels/uassc/overview#UASSC%20Overview
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA's NextGen organization also has appointed a UAS portfolio
manager to unify and manage all UAS R&D execution. The UAS R&D
portfolio includes UAS research conducted at the Technical Center, the
Center of Excellence for UAS, interagency UAS partnerships, UAS flight
demonstrations and test sites, and all aviation safety research defined
by the Office of Aviation Safety through the FAA's UAS Integration
Office. Additionally, the FAA's ATO is developing concepts and
requirements to address FAA challenges associated with the provision of
air traffic services to UAS airspace users.
The FAA is also gathering operational data and experience that will
inform future rulemaking to enable UAS operations over people and
beyond line-of-sight. While the small UAS rule--14 C.F.R. part 107--has
been largely successful by enabling operations such as crop monitoring/
inspection; research and development; educational/academic uses; power-
line/pipeline inspection; antenna inspections; emergency response;
bridge inspections; aerial photography; and wildlife nesting area
evaluations, it does not permit several potential uses for UAS that are
highly valued by industry, such as operating beyond line-of-sight or at
night. To accommodate these operations, the rule allows operators to
apply for waivers from its provisions. As of August 2018, the FAA has
reviewed almost 12,000 operational waiver applications and has issued
approvals for over 1,800 waivers, significantly reducing the processing
time from almost 90 days to approximately 20 days.
While most of these approved waivers (more than 90 percent) have
been for night flying, others have been granted for more complex
activities, such as for flying over people or beyond line-of-sight. The
commercial activities that typically receive waivers for UAS operations
are for filmmaking, photography, and infrastructure inspections.
The newly launched UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP) sets the
stage to move even closer to expanded operations through enhanced
partnerships among industry and State, local and tribal authorities. On
May 9, 2018, the Secretary of Transportation announced that 10 State,
local, and tribal governments were selected to participate in the IPP.
Each of the participants is partnering with private sector entities to
evaluate operational concepts and provide DOT and FAA with actionable
information that will accelerate safe and secure UAS integration. The
goals of the program are to: identify ways to balance local and
national interests; improve communications with local, State, and
tribal jurisdictions; address security and privacy risks; accelerate
the approval of operations that currently require special
authorizations; and collect data to support the development of
regulatory actions necessary to allow more complex, routine low-
altitude operations. A list of the participants and each of their
proposed operational concepts may be found at: https://www.faa.gov/uas/
programs_partnerships/uas_integration_pilot_program/awardees/.
airspace management
The FAA's primary mission is to provide the safest, most efficient
airspace system in the world. We are responsible for providing air
traffic control and other air navigation services 24 hours a day, 365
days a year, for 29.4 million square miles of airspace. In addition to
this critical operational role, the FAA uses its statutory authority to
carry out this mission by issuing and enforcing regulations and
standards for the safe operation of aircraft--manned and unmanned--and
by developing procedures to ensure the safe movement of aircraft
through the nation's skies.
Automated Airspace Authorization
The basic rules for small UAS operations--14 C.F.R. part 107--set
the global standard for integration and provided small drone operators
with unprecedented access to the NAS. Part 107 creates airspace rules
specific to small UAS operations. It allows line-of-sight, daytime
operations in uncontrolled Class G airspace without the need for
approval from the FAA. Operations in controlled airspace--Class B, C,
D, and surface area E--require prior approval from air traffic control.
Compliance with basic airspace requirements--the ``rules of the
road''--is essential to maintaining safety and efficiency in the NAS
and ultimately will make it easier for our national security and law
enforcement partners to identify a drone that is being operated in an
unsafe or suspicious manner. To facilitate airspace approvals for small
UAS operators, last November, we deployed the prototype Low Altitude
Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) at several air
traffic facilities to evaluate the feasibility of a fully automated
solution enabled by public/private data sharing. Based on the
prototype's success, we began the first phase of a nationwide beta test
of LAANC on April 30, 2018, enabling LAANC services at about 80
airports. This rollout will continue incrementally to nearly 300 air
traffic facilities covering approximately 500 airports. We recently
completed the fifth wave of this nationwide rollout, which now covers
82 percent of air traffic facilities, and we are on track to complete
nationwide deployment in September 2018.
LAANC uses airspace data based on the FAA's UAS facility maps,
which show the maximum altitudes in one square mile parcels around
airports where UAS may operate safely under part 107. It gives drone
operators the ability to request and receive real-time authorization
from the FAA, allowing them to quickly plan and execute their flights.
LAANC also makes air traffic controllers aware of the locations where
planned drone operations will take place, and it can provide
information on aircraft that have requested access to a defined
airspace.
UAS Traffic Management
LAANC is an important foundational step toward implementing UAS
Traffic Management (UTM). UTM is a ``traffic management'' ecosystem for
UAS operations not under FAA air traffic control (ATC), and is separate
but complementary to the FAA's air traffic management system. UTM
development will ultimately identify services, roles/responsibilities,
information architecture, data exchange protocols, software functions,
infrastructure, and performance requirements for enabling the
management of low-altitude UAS operations where ATC does not typically
provide services.
We view UTM as a suite of capabilities that will incorporate
components from the FAA, industry, and our government partners to
create a comprehensive system of low-altitude airspace management for
UAS. Our plan for future UTM capabilities includes a number of
components--LAANC, remote identification, and dynamic airspace
management--that will support the needs of industry, FAA, and our
security partners. The eventual full deployment of UTM services will
create an environment in which the entire spectrum of unmanned aircraft
can be safely realized, including the transportation of people and
property.
UAS in Controlled Airspace
We are also making headway with an Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC) to address UAS in controlled airspace, which will provide
recommendations on UAS integration in, and transit to, high altitude
airspace. The ARC will develop scenarios that will encompass the most
desired operations, identify gaps in research and development needed to
successfully integrate larger UAS into controlled airspace, and
recommend up to five prioritized changes to policies and procedures
that will spur integration and economic growth. The ARC held its fifth
meeting in May 2018 and will continue to meet through the expiration of
the ARC's charter in June 2019.
impediments to full uas integration
The FAA has made significant progress in integrating UAS into the
NAS and, through our ongoing research activities, we are well-
positioned to continue to build on our accomplishments. We know,
however, that there is much more work to do. The FAA's commitment to
the safe, secure, and efficient integration of UAS and the expansion of
routine UAS operations also requires resolving specific challenges to
enable this emerging technology to achieve its full potential.
Statutory Exemption for Model Aircraft
The most significant challenge the FAA continues to encounter is
the perception by many recreational UAS operators that they are not
required to follow the basic rules of UAS operation because they
erroneously believe they fit under the statutory exemption for model
aircraft operated under the programming of a community-based
organization. These unknowing operators present risks to both manned
and unmanned compliant operators. The current exemption for model
aircraft--Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012--
makes it difficult for the FAA to develop new regulatory approaches
that will help expand and facilitate more advanced uses of UAS in the
NAS. A set of basic requirements for all UAS operators are essential to
allow both the FAA and our security and law enforcement partners to
discern between the clueless, the careless, and the criminal--including
serious threats to national security--and to ensure all operators
conduct compliant operations or face the consequences of introducing a
safety or security risk into the NAS.
Remote Identification
As Congress has recognized, remote identification of UAS is another
critical step on the path to full integration of UAS technology. In
order to support beyond visual line-of-sight operations, UAS operators
need to know where their aircraft is and where other aircraft are along
their flight path. Remote identification is also essential to enable
our law enforcement and national security partners to identify and
respond to security risks. Effective integration and threat
discrimination will continue to be a challenge until all aircraft in
the NAS--manned and unmanned--can be identified. Anonymous operations
are inconsistent with safe and secure integration.
Last December, we published the report and recommendations prepared
by the summer 2017 UAS Identification and Tracking ARC \2\. The ARC's
74 members represented a diverse array of stakeholders, including the
aviation community and industry member organizations, law enforcement
agencies and public safety organizations, manufacturers, researchers,
and standards developing organizations involved with UAS. The ARC's
recommendations cover issues related to existing and emerging
technologies, law enforcement and national security requirements, and
how to implement remote identification. Although some recommendations
were not unanimous, the group reached general agreement on most issues.
The FAA is reviewing the technical data and recommendations in the ARC
report to support the development of the FAA's remote identification
requirements. We are currently working on a proposed rule to implement
these requirements as quickly as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/
?newsId=89404&omniRss=news_updatesAoc&cid=
101_N_U
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
Throughout our history, the FAA has adapted to changes in
technology and has successfully integrated new operators and equipment
into the NAS. Our progress in accommodating new technologies and
operations demonstrates that the agency is well positioned to maintain
its status as the global leader in UAS integration. We are committed to
working with Congress and all of our stakeholders to find solutions to
our common challenges. Working together, we are confident we can
balance safety and security with innovation. With the support of this
Committee and the robust engagement of our stakeholders, we will
continue to safely, securely, and efficiently integrate UAS into the
NAS and solidify America's role as the global leader in aviation.
Finally, before I conclude I would like to take a moment to
acknowledge the support of Chairman Shuster and Subcommittee Chairman
LoBiondo. You have been instrumental in providing the FAA with the
direction and necessary resources to maintain our position as a global
leader in aviation. I thank you both for your leadership and wish you
well as you retire from Congress.
This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer your
questions at this time.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Thank you, Shelley.
Jay, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. Merkle. Thank you, Chairman. I do not. Shelley has our
only statement for the FAA.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Dr. Prevot, you are up.
Mr. Prevot. Good morning. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member
Larsen, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the
subcommittee, it is a privilege to be here before you today to
discuss Uber's perspective on airspace integration of new
aircraft. My name is Tom Prevot, and I am excited to lead
Uber's airspace systems engineering.
Uber is developing aviation products because we believe
aerial ride-sharing and drone deliveries have the potential to
radically improve urban life. As a multimodal transportation
company, Uber believes solving the problems of congested urban
environments is core to our mission of making transportation
safe, reliable, and affordable.
Just as skyscrapers allowed cities to use limited land more
efficiently, urban air transportation will use three-
dimensional airspace to alleviate transportation congestion on
the ground. One of the primary challenges in enabling urban air
transportation is airspace integration and air traffic
management. In order to operate at affordable prices and serve
customers well, we intend to fly thousands of aircraft in each
metropolitan area that we serve.
The traditional human-centered air traffic system, however,
is not designed to manage air traffic at this scale. Therefore,
we applaud NASA and the FAA for developing the novel concepts
and technologies for unmanned aircraft systems traffic
management, commonly abbreviated as UTM. We encourage NASA and
the FAA to place the highest priority on extending these
concepts towards other forms of urban air mobility, including
small passenger carrying aircraft such as electric vertical
takeoff and landing vehicles.
These concepts are paving the way for Uber and other
companies to drive innovation and develop airspace services
that manage the vehicles on our network safely and efficiently
without putting an undue burden on existing air traffic
operations.
Our vision is to operate aircraft along precise virtual
route networks that can be dynamically adjusted to the needs of
air traffic safety and control, noise, and other community
considerations, as well as air traffic demand. These networks
will provide high predictability and transparency of our
operations.
Our systems will constantly monitor each flight with
several safety layers handling outlying situations. In
developing these systems, Uber will take a systematic approach
to integration and validation in simulations and field testing
to ensure interoperability and safety.
Uber has signed two Space Act Agreements with NASA, one for
the development of UTM concepts and technologies, and another
to explore urban air mobility, or UAM. Under the agreement
focused on UTM, we are actively collaborating with NASA and a
number of other companies to develop and test the information
exchange protocols between the FAA systems and the industry-
based UAS service supplier systems.
Under our UAM agreement with NASA, we are focused on
assessing the impact of new urban air entrants on traditional
air traffic operations with the goal of developing procedures
and technologies that allow urban air traffic to integrate and
scale into the existing operations. To kick-start this area of
collaboration, a simulation study will be conducted at NASA and
its research center in the Silicon Valley in just 2 weeks.
Uber is participating in the UAS integration pilot program
administered by the Department of Transportation and the FAA.
We are proud to be a part of the team led by the city of San
Diego that was recently selected to conduct flight tests as
part of the pilot program.
We work with many partners in the industry on overcoming
the technological barriers to conducting safe and acceptable
drone deliveries and are pleased with the exceptional
collaboration between industry and the FAA to work through the
regulatory barriers associated with operating multiple unmanned
vehicles safely over people and beyond the line of sight.
Beyond the UAS IPP, Uber is excited about the work the FAA
is conducting through its Low Altitude Authorization and
Notification Capability initiative, more commonly referred to
as LAANC. Uber believes LAANC sets the groundwork for the
future of drone traffic management and is supportive of its
ongoing expansion. We encourage the FAA to extend the approach
of coordinating airspace access through digital data exchanged
beyond the static facility maps.
We commend the Department of Transportation on these
innovative, future-facing projects, and look forward to working
with the Department on these and other exciting initiatives,
including establishing Federal rules on remote identification
requirements for all drone aircraft.
Uber is investing in urban air transportation because it
has the potential to deliver time savings at affordable prices
to consumers across the world. We see exceptional demand across
all markets for safe, reliable, fast transportation services,
and our network can be an excellent supplement to public and
private transit options.
The converging forces of improving battery technology,
massive utilization, and the outset of reliable autonomous
aviation will transform how people and things move around
cities across the world. Working with leaders in both the
public and private sector, we are confident Uber will make a
sizable impact on this challenge and bring about a lasting
positive change for the world.
Thank you for your time, attention, and invitation. I look
forward to answering your questions.
[Mr. Prevot's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Prevot, Director of Engineering, Airspace
Systems, Uber Technologies, Inc.
Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and Members of the
Subcommittee, it is a privilege to be here before you today to discuss
Uber's perspective on the future of air traffic and airspace
integration of new aircraft.
My name is Thomas Prevot, and I am excited to lead Uber's airspace
systems engineering. Our airspace systems will manage both Uber's
Elevate initiative, our future uberAIR product that aims to allow
anyone to push a button and get an urban air flight, as well as our
drone delivery initiative for Uber Eats.
Uber is developing aviation products because we believe aerial
ridesharing and drone deliveries have the potential to radically
improve urban life. Every year, millions of hours are wasted in traffic
on roads globally. In early 2018, INRIX, a Kirkland, Wash.-based
traffic technology and data firm, ranked Seattle ninth among cities in
the United States for time spent stuck in traffic at 55 hours per year
due to congestion. And the Los Angeles Times reports L.A., one of our
Elevate pilot markets, is the most congested city in the world. For
residents of those cities and for the rest of us, moments stuck on the
road represent less time with family, fewer hours growing our
economies, and more congestion polluting our world.
As a multi-modal transportation company, Uber believes solving
these problems is core to our mission of making transportation safe,
reliable, and affordable to everyone, everywhere. Just as skyscrapers
allowed cities to use limited land more efficiently, urban air
transportation will use three-dimensional airspace to alleviate
transportation congestion on the ground. We started this journey 2
years ago, publishing our Elevate White Paper to answer the questions:
why don't people fly in cities today, and what barriers must be
overcome to make such a service possible at scale?
And from our extensive research, we have found that one of the
primary challenges in enabling urban air transportation is airspace
integration and air traffic management. In order to operate at
affordable prices and serve all our potential customers well, we intend
to fly thousands of aircraft in each metropolitan area that we serve.
The traditional safe, human-centered air traffic system, however, is
not designed to manage air traffic at this scale. Therefore, we applaud
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for developing the novel concepts
and technologies for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Traffic Management,
commonly abbreviated as UTM.
We further encourage NASA and the FAA to place the highest priority
on extending these concepts toward other forms of urban air mobility
including small passenger carrying aircraft such as our electric
Vertical Take-off and Landing (VTOL) vehicles.
UTM is paving the way for Uber and other companies to drive
innovation and develop airspace services that manage the vehicles on
our network safely and efficiently without putting an undue burden on
existing air traffic operations or air traffic controllers. Our vision
is to operate our aircraft along precise virtual route networks that
can be dynamically adjusted to the needs of air traffic safety and
control, noise and other community considerations as well as air
traffic demand. These networks will provide high predictability and
transparency of our operations. Our network systems will also
constantly monitor each flight with several safety layers handling
outlying situations. In developing these systems, we will take a highly
systematic approach to integration and validation in simulations and
field testing to ensure interoperability with the FAA's air traffic
systems as well as other UAS service suppliers.
We have signed two Space Act Agreements with NASA, one for the
development of UTM concepts and technologies, and another to explore
Urban Air Mobility or UAM. Under the agreement focused on UTM, we are
actively collaborating with NASA and a number of other companies to
develop and test the information exchange protocols between the FAA's
systems and the industry-based UAS service supplier systems. These
tests are coordinated by NASA as part of the UTM Technical Capability
Level 4 preparations, and utilize simulations to bring the stakeholders
together in achieving interoperability before testing these
capabilities in the field under the UTM pilot program.
Under our UAM agreement with NASA, we are focused on assessing the
impact of new urban air entrants on traditional air traffic operations
with the goal of developing procedures and technologies that allow
urban air traffic to integrate and scale into the existing operations.
To kickstart this area of collaboration, a simulation study will be
conducted at NASA Ames Research center in the Silicon Valley in just 2
weeks. We view this simulation, as well as both our partnerships with
NASA, as critical for devising the path for safely sharing the airspace
amongst all airspace users.
Additionally, Uber is participating in the UAS Integration Pilot
Program (UAS IPP) administered by the Department of Transportation and
the FAA. We are proud to be a part of the team, led by the city of San
Diego, that was recently selected as one of ten State, local, and
tribal governments able to conduct flight tests as part of the pilot
program.
We work with many partners in the industry on overcoming the
technological barriers to conducting safe and acceptable drone
deliveries and are pleased with the exceptional collaboration between
industry and the FAA to work through the regulatory barriers associated
with operating unmanned vehicles safely over people, with beyond the
line of sight operations, and with fewer than one pilot per vehicle.
Beyond the UAS IPP, Uber is excited about the work the FAA is
conducting through its Low Altitude Authorization and Notification
Capability initiative, more commonly referred to as LAANC. LAANC is an
automated application and approval process for airspace authorizations
that uses airspace data, including UAS facility maps, to dramatically
decrease response times on flight requests from weeks or months to near
real-time. We believe the initiative sets the groundwork for the future
of drone traffic management and are supportive of its ongoing expansion
to 300 air traffic facilities and 500 airports across the country. We
encourage the FAA to extend the approach of coordinating airspace
access through digital data exchange beyond the static facility maps.
We commend the Department of Transportation on these innovative,
future-facing projects and look forward to working with the department
on these and other exciting initiatives, including establishing Federal
rules on remote identification requirements for all drone aircraft.
At Uber, we are investing in urban air transportation because it
has the potential to deliver time savings at affordable prices to
consumers across the world. We see exceptional demand across all large
markets for safe, reliable, fast transportation services, and our
network can be an excellent supplement to public and private transit
options. The converging forces of improving battery technology, massive
utilization, and the outset of reliable autonomous aviation will
transform how people and things move around cities across the world.
Working with leaders in both the public and private sector we are
confident Uber will make a sizable impact on this challenge and bring
about a lasting positive change for the world.
Thank you for your time, attention and invitation. I look forward
to answering your questions about Uber's vision and approach to air
traffic and UAS integration.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Doctor, for your testimony.
Mr. Bevirt.
Mr. Bevirt. Thank you very much, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking
Member Larsen, Ranking Member DeFazio, and distinguished
members of this committee. Thank you for your work in creating
the safest and most efficient transportation system in the
world.
It is a great honor to be here today to tell you about the
progress towards my childhood dream of a civilization
unfettered and free to fly. Our small team of dedicated and
driven visionaries has fused a series of technological
advancements into an extraordinary and unprecedented aircraft,
safe and quiet, nimble and fast, accessible and affordable.
We will operate a fleet of these electric aircraft as air
taxis flying from building to building. My mission is to
provide a service so compelling and affordable that everyone
will fly every day. I believe that unbounded aerial mobility
will drive gains in productivity, quality of life, and bring
about renaissance as we turn streets into parks.
We are rapidly growing our team of engineers and
technicians and are venture backed by prominent investors. We
plan to create thousands of high-quality domestic jobs as we
scale from certification into vehicle manufacturing and service
operations.
As a Nation, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars each
year building and maintaining our roads, and yet congestion is
more acute than ever before. The limitations of the automobile
and our ground infrastructure constrain where we can work and
where we can live. On average, we spend nearly an hour a day in
the car locked to one-dimensional trajectories.
Aerial mobility will save us billions of hours per year and
increase access to high-quality jobs. Managing airspace will be
one of the key challenges in delivering this safe, efficient,
and reliable means of air travel to our end customers.
We will begin our operations within the existing airspace
framework with a pilot on board who can coordinate and de-
conflict our flights using a traditional radio-based system to
maintain real-time communication with the FAA flight control
staff. Our initial flights will be very much like helicopter
operations today, following established, safe, part 135
regulations.
However, as the size of our operations scale, we will need
to move to an increasingly automated air traffic control system
that allows for digital de-confliction of airspace in realtime.
We support the ongoing development of unmanned traffic
management at NASA and the FAA.
Given the incredible foresight and hard work over the past
decade by my colleagues at the FAA and your committee, the
certification path for vehicles like ours has been dramatically
improved. Thank you.
We believe part 23, amendment 64, plus special conditions
can provide a basis for our vehicle certification. We have been
working closely with the FAA to establish our means of
compliance. We encourage Congress to provide the FAA with the
resources that they need to support their rapidly increasing
workload as they usher in this new era of mobility.
Alongside airspace management and vehicle certification,
the development of landing sites within both urban, suburban,
and rural airspaces is necessary for the successful deployment
of this service across our Nation. The provisioning of these
locations requires careful consideration of updated standards
relating to landing zone requirements, site, and passenger
security. It is important that standards for these sites are
more uniform rather than less so.
To that end, a patchwork of disparate regionalized
regulation is not in the public interest. We have already begun
working with select municipalities to help define standards and
best practices for takeoff and landing sites and for
operations. We encourage close coordination and cooperation
between Federal, State, and local governments, and regulatory
agencies to synthesize these best practices in formal standards
that can provide a clear, nationwide path to compliance and
authorization.
If I could leave you with one takeaway from today's hearing
it would be that this technology is very real and it is here
now. I want to thank the leadership of this committee and its
members for your time today. We believe this new mode of
transportation will bring about profound, positive impact on
our daily lives and on the productivity of our Nation.
Thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Bevirt's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of JoeBen Bevirt, Founder and Chief Executive
Officer, Joby Aviation
introduction
Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today on behalf of Joby Aviation to discuss electric air taxis, the
promise of next-generation air mobility, and how these aircraft can be
integrated into our nation's airspace.
For more than 10 years, Joby Aviation has been at the forefront of
next-generation air vehicles built around economical and sustainable
fully electric powertrains. In pioneering efforts both with NASA and
the US Department of Defense, we have helped push the boundaries of the
possible in flight through the careful application of distributed
electric motors and large-format lithium-ion batteries to air vehicle
design. Distributed electric propulsion is the efficient use of a large
number of smaller electric motors to distribute sources of thrust to
create redundancy. This increases safety, improves aerodynamic
efficiency for greater range and speed, and lowers the noise profile of
air vehicles for greater community acceptance. One example of our early
work is the X-57 Maxwell--the first all-electric ``X-plane''--developed
in conjunction with NASA and other private industry partners.
More recently, Joby Aviation has been 100 percent focused on the
development of a piloted, five-seat, all-electric, vertical takeoff and
landing passenger aircraft optimized for the delivery of on-demand air
travel. Our design goals for the vehicle were threefold: first,
unparalleled safety through layered redundancy across both the vehicle
design and design of the subsystems therein; second, an extremely low
noise profile via an all-electric powertrain and the careful design of
our propellers; and third, highly efficient operations to maximize
passenger seat-miles per unit of time and drive to increasingly low
cost with higher utilization.
We are a development-stage company venture-backed by prominent
angel, institutional and strategic investors. Currently we are a team
of 180 engineers and technicians and expect to continue to grow
rapidly, creating thousands of jobs in engineering and manufacturing
over the next 5 years. This job growth is in part fueled by our
philosophy of vertical integration where we achieve tight integration,
rapid development, and efficient production by designing and
manufacturing the majority of our aircraft, systems, and components in
house.
the problem + solution
The transportation systems in many of our nation's cities are at a
breaking point. Over the past 20 years, we have seen increasing numbers
of people moving into and around large metropolitan areas. Existing
ground infrastructure--whether bridges, roads, tunnels or mass
transit--is struggling to serve this increasingly concentrated
population. It is still not easy, cheap nor fast to build new ground
infrastructure to match increased demand. The result in many cities
throughout the US is longer commute times, wasted productivity with an
increasing percentage of people's days in cars, and a lower quality of
life for many of your constituents.
We designed our aircraft to help solve this problem.
Our aircraft will have a professional pilot onboard and will
transport four passengers to their destinations more than five times
faster than existing ground transportation at greater safety and, in
time, at equivalent cost without the need for extensive, new, fixed
ground infrastructure. Our vehicles can take off and land from almost
anywhere--including rooftops, parking structures and existing
heliports. They are more than one hundred times quieter than current
helicopters, meaning they can get people closer to their final
destinations without disturbing surrounding communities. They are
significantly more cost-effective, due to lower energy costs and
simplified maintenance. At increasing utilization, we can drive to a
cost per passenger-mile that is on par with the costs of ground
transportation today. We aim to make this a mode of transportation that
is affordable and accessible to everyone.
When deployed as an on-demand fleet with high-volume and high-
frequency operations, we believe these vehicles can have a significant
positive impact on lowering commute times, increasing productivity and
quality of life, and reducing carbon emissions in and around prominent
cities such as Los Angeles, Dallas, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
However, we also believe that the transportation problem we can
address is not limited to cities. Today's hearing is on ``Urban Air
Mobility'', but we believe the problem and our solution is not just for
large metropolitan areas. We aim to deliver fast, efficient and cost-
effective air travel to suburban and rural communities too.
Traditional car-based ride-sharing networks like Uber or Lyft that
rely on ground vehicles require significant population density to work.
Their low prices are predicated on a high volume of passengers in a
small area and a high number of drivers in a geography to service them.
Only with those two ingredients can they drive value--whether that's
low prices or prompt service.
That is not the case for aircraft like ours. Because our aircraft
can travel point-to-point at high speeds, we can deliver highly
utilized cost-effective service for more sparsely populated rural and
suburban communities as well.
Many companies here are rightly focused on large metropolitan areas
where existing transportation networks are overwhelmed. However, rural
and suburban communities often face a different problem--namely,
limited or non-existent transportation infrastructure. Our vehicles and
our service can help people in these places as well: expanding economic
opportunity by opening up new job markets, increasing quality of life
with better access to health and human services, and strengthening
personal relationships with far-flung friends, family and colleagues.
challenges + opportunities
If I could leave you with one takeaway from today's hearing, it
would be that this technology is very real, very possible, and it is
here now. We are optimistic about the promise of Joby Aviation in part
because our FAA partners--who have for 60 years managed the safest
transportation system in the world--are progressive and forward-
thinking about the future of air travel. They share and continue to
support our mission and timeline. Congress has and should continue to
support these efforts by ensuring that the FAA has the resources it
needs to support the development and integration of this technology.
America is a recognized leader in aerospace technology--a sector
that delivers $143 billion in export sales and supports more than
700,000 high-paying jobs across the country. It is imperative that the
US maintains its position as a leader in the development of the next-
generation of air vehicles.
There are three areas that are worth discussing in greater detail
here: airspace, regulation and infrastructure.
airspace
Managing airspace will be one of the key challenges for us and
others in delivering safe, efficient and reliable air-transportation-
as-a-service to end consumers. Unlike other companies, we made an early
decision to design our vehicle and begin our operations wholly within
the existing airspace management framework. We will have a pilot
onboard from day one who can coordinate and deconflict our flights
using the traditional, radio-based system to maintain real-time
communication with FAA flight control staff. Our initial operations
will be very much like helicopter operations today--coordinated along
current flight paths and following established and provably safe
methods of operation.
However, as the size of our operations scale--whether the volume of
vehicles in continuous operation in and around a given geography or the
frequency of those operations--we will need to move to an increasingly
automated air traffic control system that allows for the digital
deconfliction of airspace in real-time with limited input from either
our pilots in the air or FAA staff on the ground. Some of this work has
already begun with the ongoing development of the Unmanned Aircraft
System Traffic Management (UTM) system led by NASA and the FAA.
We support the ongoing work to develop and implement a UTM system
for drones operating in uncontrolled airspace at low altitudes and
appreciate Congress's continued support for these efforts. We also
believe that UTM should be scalable for operations of larger passenger-
carrying vehicles at higher altitudes. Today, airspace integration
efforts should focus on the communication between users who transition
from a UTM to ATC--uncontrolled to controlled airspace--and vice versa.
We support NASA's work on both UTM and urban air mobility and ask the
Committee to encourage the FAA to make this NASA-FAA partnership a
priority.
regulation
The path to certify for vehicles like ours has already been
dramatically improved by the FAA's adoption of Amendment 64 of the Part
23 Airworthiness Standards. We believe Part 23 plus special conditions
can provide a reasonable basis for our vehicle certification. With
Amendment 64, many of the overly prescriptive means of compliance were
migrated toward consensus-based industry standards that preserve the
safety objectives embedded within the Part 23 requirements while also
allowing for novel means-of-compliance to meet these goals. We firmly
believe that this approach allows for a more adaptive framework to
define and accept new means-of-compliance associated with novel
underlying technologies and vehicle configurations.
At Joby, we have already been working closely with FAA for more
than 18 months to help adapt these new Part 23 and related guidelines
to the certification of our aircraft. We encourage Congress to continue
to support this important work. As in many areas of governance that
have come before your committee--like the development of autonomous
ground vehicles--we believe the most expedient way to safely introduce
new technology is through private and public partnership around clear,
shared goals.
infrastructure
Alongside the airspace management and vehicle certification,
landing sites within urban, suburban, and rural airspaces are a
necessary component of the successful delivery of this service. The
provisioning of these locations requires careful consideration of
updated standards related to landing zone requirements as well as site
security and passenger security. Different locations will have some
unique needs due the local zoning, population density and physical
geography.
Despite the differences in geographies, however, it is important
that standards for these sites are more uniform rather than less so--
both within the US and, ideally, internationally. To that end, it is
important that Federal preemption for the FAA in the area of aviation
is respected both legislatively and judicially. A patchwork of
disparate, regionalized regulation is not in the public interest.
We have already begun working with select municipalities to help
define standards and best practices for takeoff and landing sites and
for operations. We encourage close coordination and cooperation between
the Federal, State, and Local governments and regulatory agencies to
synthesize these best practices in formal standards that can provide a
clear, nationwide path to compliance and authorization.
Furthermore, the FAA, EASA, and other regulators should work
together to develop globally coordinated safety system expectations
through agreed upon consensus standards that ensure the viability of
reciprocal airworthiness acceptance. The relatively recent General
Aviation Manufacturers Association Electric Propulsion Innovation
Committee (GAMA EPIC) has brought both American and European voices
into the conversation together. We encourage both agencies to continue
to seek opportunities for collaboration and joint rulemaking.
closing
Joby Aviation is committed to delivering on a new mode of on-demand
air transportation that offers unprecedented freedom to get from one
place to another for your constituencies--whether in cities, suburbs,
or rural areas.
We are on the cusp of an exciting development for consumers,
travelers, technology and America's global leadership in aviation. It's
not hyperbole to suggest that the introduction of our aircraft and
other electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft like it
have the opportunity to transform the way people travel, where they
live, and how they spend their time. It's a transportation revolution
on par with the introduction of the railroad, the car, and jet travel.
Just as each of these transportation modes had incredible, positive
impacts on economic opportunity and quality of life, so too can on-
demand air-travel with eVTOL usher in a new set of gains.
I thank this committee for this timely hearing and want to
emphasize that the next generation of transportation and technology at
Joby Aviation is closer than you might think. With Congress' support,
we can begin to improve mobility, safety, and quality of life in the
very near future. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much.
Ms. Scott, you are recognized.
Ms. Scott. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen,
Ranking Member DeFazio, members of the subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to participate in this hearing on airspace
integration.
At Skyward, we provide software, aviation expertise, and
consulting services to help companies use drones safely,
efficiently, and legally. I have spent my career bringing new
technology to market in highly regulated environments, not only
in drones, but also in healthcare and secure online
transactions. I understand the tremendous opportunity and
responsibility that comes with the integration of UAS in the
national airspace.
In order to maximize the value that drones can provide we
need three things: one, continued public-private partnership as
we work towards universal traffic management; two, regulatory
innovation from the FAA and adequate enforcement of laws; and,
three, freedom to compete for the best solutions in the market.
There are already a number of effective public-private
partnerships encouraging innovation and reducing barriers for
business, including the UAS integration pilot program and
LAANC.
Last winter, our customer, PBS Engineering, received a
contract with Portland Public Schools to perform roof
inspections for which drones are, hands down, the best tool.
However, many Portland schools are in controlled airspace, so
they were forced to delay and evaluate other methods.
This spring, LAANC went live in the Northwest, and PBS
Engineering was able to quickly get the authorization they
needed for drone use, saving public funds and minimizing safety
risks for employees. Our customers love LAANC because they can
fly more jobs. We love LAANC because it is the first step
towards a universal traffic management system that will allow
manned aircraft drones and eventually flying cars to safely
share the airspace.
Historically, UTM has stood for UAS traffic management, but
universal traffic management includes every vehicle that
operates in the airspace. This is a decentralized network, like
a wireless network or the internet, for coordinating all types
of aircraft efficiently, safely, and scalably.
UTM will require public-private partnerships among aircraft
manufacturers, sensor engineers, software developers, network
providers, and regulators to implement standards and manage an
interoperable worldwide ecosystem.
Google's new InterUSS project, in which we are a founding
member, is an open-source decentralized platform to put
standards into action. The platform will enable any UAS service
supplier, like Skyward, to share standardized minimal sets of
data that protect operator and customer privacy, but provide
flight de-confliction and safe access.
We have the technical know-how, but we have work to do on
the regulatory front. For competition to flourish, current
Federal regulations must be enforced and new regulations must
support industry growth. This is an opportunity for leadership
to enable commerce and safety. We are encouraged by the latest
version of the FAA Reauthorization Act, especially fewer
restrictions for R&D and transporting payloads beyond line of
sight.
We agree that enforcement authority should be given to the
FAA, which has the expertise to regulate both commercial and
recreational vehicles in the airspace. Moving forward, we would
like to see the FAA continue to collaborate with industry on
standards, especially remote identification of all aircraft,
which we believe will directly enhance safety and spur economic
growth. Remote IDs are essential for both hobbyists and
commercial aircraft and are a critical foundational element for
a universal traffic management network.
We continue R&D on networked fleet deployments and UTM. We
believe that operating drones on Verizon's LTE network will be
important to safely and securely deliver functionality like
remote ID, airspace access, flying beyond line of sight, and
remote air fleet deployments.
Verizon is investing billions of dollars in 5G
infrastructure, which will enable secure aviation grade
routing. 5G's latency and reliability, combined with the high
density of micro cell sites, make it a good candidate to
support autonomous air taxis. And virtual network slicing in 5G
protects pieces of the network for safety critical
applications, such as search and rescue.
The technical and regulatory project of integrating the
airspace is enormous, yet small steps are already having a
tremendous impact. Now we need to make bigger strides.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee, and thank you for the support you have shown to
the aviation industry as a whole.
[Ms. Scott's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mariah Scott, President, Skyward, a Verizon
Company
Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this
hearing on airspace integration. My name is Mariah Scott and I am
president of Skyward, a Verizon company. Our aviation expertise,
consulting services, and aviation mapping and UAS fleet management
software help companies use drones safely, efficiently, and legally.
Drones present an enormous opportunity for innovation and our economy,
but the potential can only be safely realized if Congress and the
Federal Aviation Administration lean in with industry.
I've spent my career guiding new technology to market in highly
regulated environments, not only in drones but also in healthcare and
secure online transactions. Nowhere have we had the opportunity to
shape the future--and to get it right the first time--as we do today
with the integration of the national airspace. The drone industry has
come a long way in the past 5 years, but we have only begun to scratch
the surface in terms of the value that drones can provide. In order for
businesses to realize that potential, we need three things:
1. Continued public-private partnership as we work toward
Universal Traffic Management;
2. Regulatory innovation from the FAA and adequate enforcement of
laws; and
3. Freedom to compete for the best solutions in the market.
public-private partnerships for universal traffic management
Historically, UTM has stood for UAS Traffic Management. But we
believe that a more inclusive concept--Universal Traffic Management--
will better enable airspace to be shared safely among all types of
aircraft. We see UTM as a system of systems, a decentralized network
like a wireless network or the Internet, for coordinating all types of
aircraft. We believe this will be the most efficient, cost effective,
scalable, and safest method for managing the national airspace. This
will require aircraft manufacturers, sensor engineers, software
developers, network providers, and regulators to agree upon standards
to create and regulate an interoperable worldwide ecosystem.
This sounds ambitious but there are already a number of effective
public-private partnerships that are encouraging innovation and
reducing barriers for businesses on a smaller scale. One example is the
U.S. Department of Transportation and FAA's UAS Integration Pilot
Program, which is enabling State, local, and tribal governments to
partner with the private sector to develop new systems and use cases.
In another example, the New Jersey Cape May County Airport, in Chairman
LoBiondo's district, received $3 million for a 20,000-square-foot
building to serve as a center for drone businesses to conduct UAS
testing and development. As a result of Cape May's innovative drone
programs, in April 2018, Verizon chose the county to test a 200-pound
drone that serves as a 4G portable hotspot in cooperation with local
emergency responders. Verizon plans to use drones like these as a way
to provide cellular connectivity when natural disasters damage existing
cellular infrastructure.
Perhaps the most compelling example for this venue, last fall, the
FAA partnered with 12 companies, including Skyward, on its Low Altitude
Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC). Previously, the FAA
required companies to apply for authorization to fly in controlled
airspace--which blankets vast swaths of the U.S. population--a process
that took up to 90 days. Now, companies can use Skyward's software to
request flights in specific volumes of controlled airspace and receive
approval in seconds. This partnership--still in its early stages-- is
already an enormous success. Last winter, our customer PBS Engineering
received a contract with Portland Oregon Public Schools to perform roof
inspections and create district-wide roof access plans, a project for
which drones are the safest, fastest, and most cost-effective tool. But
because many of the schools lie within controlled airspace, the firm
was forced to evaluate other methods. This spring, when LAANC went live
in the Northwest, PBS Engineering was able to obtain authorization to
use drones to inspect and map school roofs, saving public funds and
minimizing employee exposure to hazards and fall risks.
The success of LAANC is the direct result of the FAA partnering
with industry to create safe, sensible regulatory processes that have
been automated and delivered by software providers like Skyward. This
is just the beginning. For all its popularity, LAANC is a point
solution that mitigates a specific logistical burden. A system of
Universal Traffic Management that enables safe sharing of the airspace,
from commercial airliners to small drones as well as the ``flying
cars'' of the near future, is what the industry needs to truly
flourish.
In practice, the future of Universal Traffic Management means that
protocols will be baked into every aircraft, ground control station,
and piece of software to ensure safety and reduce human error. Any
drone will be able to work on any aviation-grade communications
network, such as Verizon's LTE network, through any number of
applications, following standard protocols. An operator will be able to
deploy multiple drones at once, autonomously and from a remote
location. Any aircraft will be able to safely navigate among dozens or
hundreds of other aircraft of all sizes that are all going about their
business. By sharing minimal amounts of essential, standardized
information, we can achieve a global Universal Traffic Management
system that will safeguard the integrity of the airspace and allow for
seamless, equitable sharing of airplanes, helicopters, drones, and
other airborne vehicles.
regulatory innovation and enforcement
In the past 2 years, the FAA has been both forward-thinking and
realistic with its approach to commercial drone use, as shown by its
implementation of Part 107 of the Federal Airspace Regulations, the
Part 107 waiver process, and LAANC. Similarly, we are encouraged by
congressional efforts around the pending FAA Reauthorization Act and
are especially excited about provisions that would reduce barriers for
drone R&D as well as those that will permit transportation of payloads
beyond visual line of sight. But more needs to be done to enforce
current laws, especially among recreational drone users. A small number
of bad actors within the recreational pilot community have threatened
the safety of the airspace and damaged the reputation of all drone
users by operating with disregard for regulations and basic common
sense. This can't continue, and we appreciate that the Reauthorization
Bill offers potential solutions. We agree that enforcement authority
should be given to the FAA, which has the expertise to regulate and
enforce activities in the airspace, whether commercial or recreational.
Whether I drive a car down the highway for business or fun, I am still
obligated to follow the rules of the road. The same should be true for
any vehicle operating in the airspace.
In order to maintain its leadership in the worldwide drone
industry, the FAA must also promulgate a remote identification rule
that applies to all vehicles in the air. Remote identification will
directly enhance safety and spur economic growth. But without
legislation requiring remote identification, Universal Traffic
Management will never become a reality, the potential for drones won't
be maximized, and commerce will be restricted, slowing an important
source of economic growth for the country.
Moving forward, we would like to see additional funding for the FAA
that would allow it to continue to develop sensible regulations and a
more efficient waiver process, as well as specific direction to
collaborate with industry and implement standards toward this Universal
Traffic Management system. Congress should also give the FAA the tools
to better enforce the regulations and laws that we currently have as
well as allow it to adapt with industry to meet the safety and security
requirements of future airspace integration. It is imperative that the
industry be safe, and without penalty and enforcement of the rules, we
are likely to see more careless, clueless, and criminal pilots endanger
the national airspace.
encouraging market competition
There are so many different aviation vehicles, customers,
regulators, and service providers that a centralized UTM system or
single UTM provider wouldn't be able to manage all aspects of aviation
traffic, which is why we continue to seek out partnerships with
government and other businesses. Skyward's head of innovation, Jonathan
Evans, serves as president of the Global UTM Association, an
international body of industry leaders, including GE, Sony, and
Alphabet's Project Wing, working to develop consistent standards for
remote identification, deconfliction, and communication that will allow
aircraft, software, and regulators all over the world to understand
what an aircraft is, where it's flying, and the responsible party.
Google's new InterUSS Project, in which we are a founding member, is an
open-source, decentralized solution putting those standards into
action. The platform will enable any UAS service supplier (USS),
including Skyward, to share standardized, minimal sets of data in a
consistent way that protects operator and consumer privacy (no
operational data is stored on the platform). Multiple open-source data
nodes can be hosted by any USS, resulting in a scalable, distributed,
auditable, and flexible way to share airspace and deconflict flights.
Flight information is acquired at the time of need, sharing just the
right amount of information to safely deconflict and inform the other
network nodes.
In the meantime, we continue R&D on the future of networked fleet
deployments and Universal Traffic Management. We believe that operating
drones on Verizon's LTE Network will be critical for creating a
distributed Universal Traffic Management network--for remote
identification, flying beyond line of sight, and remote networked fleet
deployments. Looking toward the near future, Verizon is investing
billions of dollars in 5G infrastructure, which will enable secure
aviation-grade routing and beyond line of sight flights. 5G's latency
and reliability, combined with the high density of micro cell sites,
make it good candidate to support autonomous air taxis. And virtual
network slicing in 5G protects pieces of the network for safety-
critical applications such as search and rescue.
Each of these investments could be jeopardized if the FAA decides
to purchase or prioritize one system over another. Rather than stifling
innovation by declaring one UTM provider a ``winner,'' the FAA should
let the providers deliver those services that best meet the needs of
the end users. After all, a networked deployment for urban package
delivery in New Jersey has different requirements than a search and
rescue operation in rural Oregon.
conclusion
The technical and regulatory project of integrating the airspace is
enormous, and small steps are already having a tremendous impact--but
now we need to make bigger strides. It would be nearly impossible for a
single developer to create a ``perfect'' end system up front, which is
why industry-government partnerships and open-source development are so
important. LAANC represents a successful technological-regulatory first
step toward airspace integration, but in the near future we'll need
highly sophisticated, dynamic, and secure technical networks to ensure
safety and competition.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee and
thank you for the support that you have shown to the aviation industry
as a whole.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you very much.
We will now start with questions from Mr. Larsen.
Rick, you are up.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks.
For Ms. Yak, do you have any updates on results that might
be informative or helpful to the FAA or the industry with
regards to the drone integration pilot program?
Ms. Yak. Yes. That is the program I mentioned in my opening
remarks. That is a program that we put in place that allows us
to collaborate with State, local, and Tribal governments.
Mr. Larsen. Right.
Ms. Yak. And the purpose is to advance UAS technology. So
they have been very successful in testing and evaluating UAS in
different use models. In fact, I mentioned the four that just
successfully flew this month.
FAA's role in this program is that we are a facilitator
with these programs, and one of the benefits we receive from
the tech center's perspective is the receipt of data. So that
data allows us to do more modeling, simulation, and
understanding.
But to really get to the point of your question, they have
been working in the areas of detect and avoid, command and
control, navigation, weather. And examples of their use that
they have been approved for is beyond visual line of sight;
package delivery; which we had a successful flight this month,
I believe it was, for a long-range flight of package delivery,
I think it was medical supplies; inspection of infrastructure;
as well as patrol and surveillance.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah, OK.
And then for--is it--I am sorry. We met yesterday, but is
it pronounced Preevoe or Previt?
Mr. Prevot. Preevoe.
Mr. Larsen. And is it pronounced Beevurt or Bevurt?
Mr. Bevirt. Bevurt.
Mr. Larsen. OK. It is Larsen, so it is all clear.
Dr. Prevot and Mr. Bevirt, given what you heard about the
progress on IPP, are you able to utilize that information? Is
that information helpful to you as you are thinking ahead about
conceptually? Let's start here.
Mr. Prevot. Yeah. So Uber is actively participating in the
IPP with our drone delivery efforts for Uber Eats, and we
anticipate that we can carry the learnings that we get from the
IPP also into our area ride-sharing initiative as well. So we
think it is extremely helpful.
We are very pleased with the support that we are getting
from the FAA and the collaboration that we are getting in the
IPP so far. So, yes, I would say that is an extremely useful
initiative.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Mr. Bevirt.
Mr. Bevirt. We agree that it is a very useful initiative,
and we look forward to carrying the learnings into our work on
aerial mobility. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen. Great.
So also for both of you, and actually for Ms. Scott as
well, has the newly written part 23 regulations for GA [general
aviation] aircraft, has that been helpful to you, and how are
you using it, if you are using it at all?
Mr. Bevirt. Yes, absolutely. The part 23, amendment 64 has
been transformative in our ability to move forward expediently
with the FAA. The FAA has been incredibly supportive, and they
are really leaning in and very proactive and forward thinking
on embracing these new modes of technology, which will really
fundamentally revolutionize how we move as a society.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah.
Mr. Prevot. Yeah, the same. We are working with
manufacturers who build aircraft for us, five
manufacturers:Embraer, Bell, Pipistrel, Aurora Flight Sciences,
and Karem, and we expect all five of them certainly to benefit
from the part 23 regulations.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Yeah.
Ms. Scott.
Ms. Scott. We haven't been involved with part 23.
Mr. Larsen. OK. All right. Thanks.
And maybe for--this is a somewhat sarcastic question, but
it gets to a point. So if you are going to have thousands of
these air taxis flying around, will you take the complaint--the
noise complaint calls so I don't have to?
OK. In other words, how are you going to address--it is not
just numbers. It is, you know, noise. It could be, potentially.
So how are you addressing--thinking about that?
Mr. Bevirt. Yeah. So second to safety, noise is our very
high priority, and we have considered it both in the overall
vehicle architecture and also the design of every one of the
subcomponents on the aircraft. And we are incredibly pleased
with the progress. Our aircraft is now more than 100 times
quieter than a helicopter. It is really, really spectacular.
When it is flying over, you can barely hear it. It is----
Mr. Larsen. At what altitude?
Mr. Bevirt. At 1,000 feet.
Mr. Larsen. 1,000 feet, OK.
Mr. Bevirt. In a city you can't hear it at all. It is only
if you are in the countryside. I care very passionately about
noise. I grew up out in the mountains where it was just
absolutely pristine quiet, and I love the quiet. And so as an
engineer developing these tools, this was my childhood dream to
build VTOL aircraft.
And when I started working on this more than 25 years ago,
I realized that VTOL aircraft were incredibly noisy when they
were powered by combustion engines. And so I wanted to build an
electric VTOL, but battery-specific energy wasn't what it
needed to be, and I needed to wait for the batteries to get to
the point where we could build a really quiet vertical takeoff
landing aircraft that allows us to really transform
transportation as we know it.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. I am sorry I am out of time, but other
Members will have similar questions, I am sure. Thank you.
Mr. Bevirt. Thank you very much.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Thank you, Rick.
Sam? No.
Bob?
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman.
I think when I was 5 years old, my favorite TV show was
``The Jetsons.'' I don't know if this is what is going to
happen or not.
Ms. Yak, in your testimony, you discuss a roadmap for full
unmanned aircraft integration into the National Airspace
System, including operation beyond the visual line of sight for
the operator. Can you provide us an update on the progress of
the integration in that?
Ms. Yak. From a research perspective, because that is
pretty much what we do, the UAS integration path for research
is pretty much a step path, but it is not linear. We can do
that in parallel. So you are absolutely right. We are looking
at research for operations over people, beyond visual line of
sight, package delivery. And then that brings us to the next
stage which is on expanded operations, large cargo delivery of
packages, and then ultimately to passenger transportation.
So that is our guideline, and we are doing a lot of
research in different areas. For instance, research that we are
doing that is going to enable UAS integration as well as
support urban air mobility is research in the command-and-
control area.
So command and control is the data link between the pilot
and the aircraft. So we are doing research from that
perspective of frequency levels, the minimum operational
performance requirements necessary for that data link to ensure
the integrity of that link to allow us to integrate these
aircraft into the system.
Mr. Gibbs. I guess for anybody on the panel, just to
further, is technology there where we have collision avoidance
technology that the equipment, the aircraft itself could take
action on its own? What is the technology for that, for all
these things flying around, like ``The Jetsons,'' I guess, you
know? If anybody in the room can remember ``The Jetsons,'' you
know what I am talking about.
Mr. Bevirt. Congressman Gibbs, thank you for your question.
So as we talked about, initially we will deploy these as
piloted aircraft, but from day one, they have a sensor suite
that is embedded on those aircraft that is unprecedented. We
have cameras, infrared sensors, LiDAR, radar, and so they can
sense the environment around the aircraft in really an
unprecedented and exciting way.
And over time, as we prove to ourselves and to the FAA that
these technologies will make those aircraft and the operation
of those aircraft safer than with the pilot, we will begin to
add in protections similar to what you see in maybe a level 3
car where it is a safety net around the aircraft, and it will
help the pilot in the case that maybe there is a small drone
and you don't see it, but the aircraft can see it and can avoid
it. So we see incredible technological progress as we move
forward.
Mr. Gibbs. What do you see the cost? You know, as this
moves on, the costs will come down. But what do you think you
are looking at here when this starts to become more readily
available?
Mr. Bevirt. Yeah. So, again, cost and accessibility to
everyone is the core of our mission. When we first launch this
service, we are targeting the price of a taxi, and so the price
for the trip will be on par with the price of a taxi trip. And
over time, we believe that we can get the cost down below the
cost of personal car ownership. And at that point, this is
transformational and everybody will ride it every day.
Mr. Gibbs. That is pretty exciting. I just was curious on a
timetable. How far do you think we are looking out? Is this 5,
10 years, 15 years, or what do you think, that we will really
see the integration of this?
Mr. Bevirt. Yeah. So we are--I mean, we are currently
working through certification, and we have an incredible
collaboration with the FAA, and that is moving very rapidly.
And once we have a clear path to finalize the certification, we
will ramp production and begin to roll out in cities across the
country.
Mr. Gibbs. So right now, it is really the Government
regulations, bureaucracy, whatever you want to say, that is the
limiting factor, or is it technology, or is it cost, or what?
Mr. Bevirt. It is really about my company doing the
rigorous work, my team doing the rigorous work to ensure that
we have tested every single component and every corner case to
make sure that this is the safest aircraft we can possibly put
into production. We are fielding in levels of redundancy which
are really unprecedented in small aircraft to make this
incredibly safe. Safety is our number one priority.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. I appreciate it. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Bevirt. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Peter.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To Ms. Yak or Mr. Merkle, I mentioned section 336 at the
outset. I mean, we have had an average of 100 monthly reports
of drones in controlled airspace, and I just talked about the
suspension--most recent suspension in my district of
firefighting because of--so remote ID will fix that. But are
there other issues with drone operations other than remote ID
that need addressing by the FAA?
Mr. Merkle. Yes. Thank you for your question, Ranking
Member DeFazio. Fundamentally we have two barriers. The first
is the airspace rules need to apply to everyone equally in the
airspace. And as you mentioned, section 336 does limit the
FAA's authority in that area. We believe that repeal of section
336 is vital to being able to consistently apply all the
airspace rules to all operators in the area. And that in turn
will allow remote identification, our next step in integration
of drones or urban air mobility or any of these other exciting
technologies to be truly fully functional and useful, because
then every aircraft will be able to see every other aircraft in
the area which will be fundamental to safety.
Mr. DeFazio. And, I mean, my amendment does both remote ID,
and it does say to the extent necessary to ensure safety and
security of U.S. airspace. I mean, I think we have heard now
from four agencies that want to be able to shoot down drones on
their own. Have you been in communication with them at the DHS,
DoD, DOE, and----
Mr. Merkle. We have been. The FAA does not want the
authority to interdict or provide counter-UAS measures. We
support Department of Defense and Department of Energy having
those capabilities now. We also support the administration's
proposal to have the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Justice have that same authority.
Mr. DeFazio. Uh-huh. But there are also concerns with what
technologies they might use and how that might affect
legitimate nearby commercial operations or general aviation
aircraft?
Mr. Merkle. Yes. We work closely with our security partners
to ensure that whenever they are employing counter-UAS
measures, that they coordinate with us and ensure that we do
not introduce a hazard into the airspace.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Want to be certain of that.
I have a provision regarding section 336 in the House bill.
Would that fix the problems as far as the FAA is concerned?
Mr. Merkle. I am generally familiar with that, and, yes,
that does give the FAA the authority that we believe we need.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Any of the other panelists want to express
any concerns about the current state of sort of where we are
totally unregulated for all drones?
Ms. Scott. Yes. I would just add support for Mr. Merkle's
position in that we also agree with that position that all
aircraft need to be regulated and registered and we need the
remote identification capability. It is a critical foundational
element for any sort of universal traffic management system for
providing safe integration and for allowing our commercial
operators the comfort and feeling that they are following the
laws and everyone else in the airspace will as well.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Bevirt. We also believe that it is important to have
Federal preemption, and we--although we are putting sensors on
the aircraft that can help to mitigate unregistered drones, it
would definitely be preferable if all aircraft flying in the
NAS were part of the NAS.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Doctor.
Mr. Prevot. I can only second that remote identification to
me is key for us to being able to de-conflict our flight paths
from everybody out there. First we need to be able to see them
to avoid them.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
And, again, just have one quick question, Ms. Yak, or Mr.
Merkle. The FAA has been working on the conflicts, and when I
asked a couple years ago what happens when you ingest a drone
into a jet engine, the answer was, well, gee, we really don't
know. I mean, since then, we have done the airframe testing.
When are we going to do the engine ingestion test?
Ms. Yak. Thank you. I will answer that.
We have partnered with ASSURE, our Center of Excellence, to
do that work. They have completed phase 1, which was basically
an analysis of drone versus birds, and we have a lot of data on
the birds. So the conclusion of that phase 1 was, well, they
are different than birds, and that from the batteries, the
cameras, the motor itself, what effect would that have.
So starting this fall, we are moving into phase 2, and we
will then be live testing by ingesting those components as well
as full drones into a fan assembly. We will be gathering data
from that experience and then we will be putting it into
modeling and simulation.
Better yet, we are using simulations from the manufacturers
on their fan assemblies to be processing that data so that we
can better analyze and understand the effects those components
have or full UAS have on fan assemblies and be able to produce
the results of this research in about a 12-month, 18-month
timeframe.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Thank you, Peter.
Bruce, do you have questions?
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is kind of a general question. As we have this debate,
I can't help but think about ``The Jetsons'' and George Jetson
commuting to work. But how does this physically work? Are there
lanes in the sky, or how do you manage traffic flow? How do you
avoid obstacles, birds, drones, all those things that might be
there? How does this technically work?
Mr. Prevot. Well, I can start. This is a very good
question, and I don't think there is a real simple answer to
this. But we are working with NASA and with the FAA to evaluate
different concepts. And in one of the concepts that we are
excited about is what we call Dynamic Skylane Networks, since
you mentioned lanes. You can think of it as a virtual network
of lanes, overpasses, on-ramps, and off-ramps, essentially,
that can be adjusted to where the traffic needs are, to where
safety and security concerns might be, where noise requirements
exist, and also where the demand needs to go. So in a sense,
you can think of it as a three-dimensional road system in the
sky that you can utilize for your traffic. That is one of the
concepts that we are pursuing.
Mr. Westerman. OK.
Mr. Bevirt. We are also doing extensive work on dynamic
flocking and simulations for high-density operations in and
around takeoff and landing locations. We are very optimistic
about the capacity of the airspace to handle large amounts of
traffic.
Mr. Westerman. But it would be some kind of dedicated path
that you would be on in your flying vehicle?
Mr. Bevirt. Yes. But with the virtue of being able to be
dynamically allocated and adjusted. You think, you know, in
some bridges they will move the center line, depending upon the
traffic patterns in the morning versus the evening.
Mr. Westerman. Right.
Mr. Bevirt. In the sky, the road can go wherever we need it
to go whenever we need it to go, right. And there are many
constraints, weather constraints and demand constraints, that
can allow this to be very flexible, and that is the real virtue
of this.
I think there is also a massive opportunity because air
traffic doesn't require the ground infrastructure and the
hundreds of billions of dollars we spend maintaining ground
infrastructure. That is one of the things that makes it such a
cost-effective mode of transportation, both for the individual
customers but also for us as a Nation. So we are----
Mr. Westerman. Do you envision some kind of a master
control program that each individual has equipment on it so
that it keeps vehicles out of the path of other vehicles?
Mr. Bevirt. We believe that it is a network of
interconnected systems similar to what Ms. Scott spoke about.
Ms. Scott. I think--we think of this concept of universal
traffic management as a system of systems or more of a
distributed network, like the internet or like a wireless
network, where no one company or entity is controlling the
internet.
But we have a set of technical standards that allow for
interoperability. We have a lot of connectivity options. It
could be LTE. It could be Wi-Fi. It could be satellite, ADS-B,
depending on the type of routing that you need. So you have
connectivity and you have dynamic routing. And then we are
relying on the regulator to provide the performance-based
criteria for how we need the aircraft to operate safely and
integrate with each other. But we are bringing the technical
standards and that know-how to provide interoperability.
Mr. Westerman. And just briefly, Ms. Yak, on the part 77
process, how will the integration of drones and flying cars
affect the part 77 process, and any idea on how this might
affect land development?
Mr. Merkle. I think the integrated pilot program is going
to be instrumental in helping us understand that because that
is really a collaboration between your local communities and
the airspace users. And the IPP is really the point where we
get to work with companies like Uber and Joby and the local
communities and determine what is the best balance between
airspace utilization and issues like privacy, land use, and
local concerns, such as noise. And we expect the IPP to be very
informative in those areas.
Mr. Westerman. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Ms. Brownley, questions?
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Yak, I wanted to ask you a question. Can you tell us
about what research the FAA Technical Center is doing to test
the safety of these new technologies that we are learning about
today? And can you comment also if there are similarities or if
there are differences for testing the safety of unmanned versus
manned aircraft?
Ms. Yak. Yes, thank you. Very good question.
Before I start talking, I would like to put the assumptions
out there, and you have heard a few of them. Urban air
mobility, vertical takeoff and landing, that is the technology
that it will be using. It is also going to be using electric or
battery propulsion. And we are talking about initially being
manned flight but eventually being autonomous.
The research FAA does and the reason behind the research
that we do is to collect the information, the data, and provide
the scientific analysis to be utilized for future regulations,
guidelines, or procedures. So that sets the foundation.
Now, I mentioned in my opening remarks, some of the
research that we are doing on large aircraft also apply to
these aircraft, like the materials, lightweight materials,
composites, propulsion, electric and battery. So the research
question in support of this technology is, what are the
performance measurements or requirements for these technologies
and materials and batteries?
Another good example is the research that we do from a
weather perspective. So we do a lot of research around what is
the weather information pilots need to operate. And we are
doing a gap analysis for UAS.
But the research question for somebody is, what is the
effect of weather in an urban environment? What about wind
gusts? What effect will that have on this new type of aircraft,
let alone cold on the longevity of batteries? So these are the
type of what-ifs.
Now, in regards to the second part, what are we working on,
again, it is a lot about the digital interface, the links
between the pilot and the aircraft, the sensor technology
between the aircrafts, ground, eventually satellite. That
allows us to know where the aircrafts are so that we can stay
well clear and provide that information for the pilot. We are
focusing in those areas.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
And to the panel, in terms of what Ms. Yak said about the
what-ifs, do the what-ifs have impacts on what you are doing
today in terms of moving forward with your innovations?
Mr. Bevirt. Yeah, as we have spoken about, safety is really
our number one priority and ensuring both the safety of the
individual aircraft and also the operation of the service as a
whole.
And the work that the FAA Tech Center has done and the
collective aviation industry over the past 100 years has
created the safest transportation system in the world. So not
only is air travel the fastest and the lowest cost but also the
safest, our safest mode of transportation. It is really
stunning.
And incredibly grateful to the work of this committee and
the FAA over a long period of time which has steadily improved
safety. And I think it is incredibly commendable and really
spectacular, the achievement.
Ms. Brownley. Is there anything that the FAA is not doing
that is impeding your progress, with regards to the tech
center?
Mr. Bevirt. I think the FAA has been incredibly supportive,
very forward-looking, very innovative in embracing these new
technologies and looking how to make them as safe as we
possibly can.
Ms. Brownley. Very good.
Any comments, Mr. Prevot?
Mr. Prevot. I just want to back up to the weather problem.
I do think there is research that has to be done that is not
tech center research, but I don't think we have enough of an
understanding about the microclimates in urban areas. And so
there is certainly a gap that needs to be filled.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you for that.
And I just have a few more seconds, but, Ms. Yak, I noticed
that the Drone Advisory Committee has changed somewhat in terms
of membership. And so I just wanted to know, given those
changes, what can we expect the DAC to focus on in the near
term?
Mr. Merkle. Yes, thank you for that question.
The Drone Advisory Committee is being somewhat
reconstituted. But I was at the last meeting, and it is still
very active, and it is very much focused on how can industry
help the FAA with the integration of these exciting
technologies. So I believe they are at the stage right now of
identifying how industry can help.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Doug?
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For Ms. Yak and Mr. Merkle, I represent a very, very rural
district in northern California, most of which is on fire right
now. A new one last night just turned into 15,000 acres in
about 10 hours. So the use of drones and aircraft that can
remotely do the type of work needing to be done, expecting
power lines, especially with that interface with forestry, or
dams, anything that is very remote, very tough terrain, you
know, sending them in for helping to spot fires where
visibility is not good for normal aircraft, it is a great tool
for many, many areas in remote and, again, rugged terrain.
But what is the current status of allowing more beyond-the-
line-of-sight technology with drones being approved by FAA and
being able to be more widely used, you know, other than what
you have in the military and other limited uses, something that
could be used more privately with proper certification, et
cetera?
Mr. Merkle. Thank you for the question.
We are currently operating--or our partners are operating
flights that are beyond visual line of flight. Working with
BNSF, the railroad, they are doing linear inspection under a
COA. So we are seeing progress there.
We also----
Mr. LaMalfa. Is that more of a pilot situation, or is it
becoming more mainstream, widespread, et cetera?
Mr. Merkle. It is setting the foundation for spreading that
technology and those procedures to other operations.
Likewise, we recently had a flight at NASA, a No Chase COA,
which was operating in the airspace with other manned aircraft.
So it is really a major step towards full integration into the
airspace.
But, again, this is why remote ID and repeal of section 336
is so important, especially in these rural areas where you
would likely see general aviation or crop dusters or other
things operating at the same altitudes with these type of
aircraft. It is very important that all the operators in the
airspace see each other.
Mr. LaMalfa. With the ID that you were talking about and, I
think, Mr. DeFazio brought up initially too, how far and wide
can that aircraft ID? I mean, to every, you know, toy-store
drone? Or, I mean, how far can we go with this stuff in order
to have it not be impractical but also be helpful with, you
know, people with these vehicles?
You mentioned the one that somebody flew around near a fire
zone up there in Oregon that completely shut down the
operation. It could have been as simple as just a toy-store
drone or something like that somebody was fooling around with.
How far down can we regulate or track every single vehicle like
this?
Mr. Merkle. We would certainly like to track it, at a
minimum, down to the same requirements that we have in part
107, the 0.55 pounds. Potentially, there may be some different
performance characteristics that come in as people develop new
aircraft. We might have to revisit that.
But we are currently in the process of--we are post the
Aviation Rule Committee on the remote ID, and we are in the
process of developing a rule on that. And I expect that some of
these details will come out in the notice of proposed
rulemaking.
Mr. LaMalfa. Do you anticipate, then, some type of a device
on every possible drone, putting out a signal of some sort
that----
Mr. Merkle. We do. Much like every car has a vehicle
identification number and all of us who drive them have
registration and license plates, we believe, based on the
recommendations from the Aviation Rule Committee, every drone
should have an identification.
Mr. LaMalfa. A transmitting signature.
Mr. Merkle. Transmitting the signal and available via
network to all the other operators in the airspace.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. With all this flying-car business being
talked about, every prototype ever seen is neither good at
being a car or at being an aircraft. They are very low-
performing as a car and low-performing as an airplane.
So how is this integration with, you know, a purpose
aircraft, you know, the modern, private-pilot-type planes with
the integrating and the lanes we are talking about, with an
aircraft that cannot perform nearly at that level? As well as,
when you put it on the street, I mean, you know, you have wings
and everything. What is the practicality of trying to do both
in one vehicle?
Mr. Merkle. We have a----
Mr. LaMalfa. And up in the airspace with other higher
speed, you know, more normal aircraft.
Mr. Merkle. Right. That is a challenge, the integration of
these vehicles. But much like we integrate helicopters in busy
metropolitan areas or general aviation, which have very
different performance characteristics from a passenger
jetliner, we believe that the concepts like under UTM and the
dynamic routes will provide us with the structure that will
allow us to safely manage these aircraft in the airspace.
Fundamentally, the routing addresses the structure and
procedures portion and allows safe integration. And the
automation behind UTM allows that solution to scale to the
number of drones.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Andre, questions?
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, sir.
When we talk about operating drones beyond the operator's
line of sight, that means pretty much relying on some high-tech
computer software and other technology.
After we have all seen the staggering number of flight
delays or even cancellations in the past few years during very
high-profile computer outages, particularly with Southwest and
even Delta, I wonder what risks there are or there may be for
drone and even UAS systems as it relates to similar outages.
And, secondly, what are the lessons learned from the
airline outages, from our subcommittee perspective and your
perspective? And what can be done to prevent these outages and
future sloppy housekeeping?
And are drones subject to mass outages?
Mr. Merkle. We are in the very early stages of UAS traffic
management. We are really moving from the NASA research in the
concepts into operationalizing that. So the specifics on how we
design the availability really aren't there yet.
However, we do know that the concepts behind UTM, such as a
distributed network and many actors, are much more resilient
than, say, a single data center. So we believe that the
concepts have the kind of resiliency built into them. And as we
partner with companies like Uber and Joby and Skyward, I
believe that their innovation and what they bring to the table
will provide the solutions that bring that resiliency.
Mr. Carson. OK.
Mr. Prevot. Yeah, I think it is also key for us to design
our systems for exactly these cases so that even if outages
were to occur and the drones were disconnected from the
network, that we could be sure that we can still safely land
them in safe locations.
Mr. Carson. OK. Thank you.
Anything from the engineering mind?
Mr. Bevirt. I wholly agree that a distributed network with
diverse communications and then additionally with the aircraft
able to fly and land themselves safely and de-conflict safely
without the centralized control system is critical, so
multilayered redundancy is really, really important.
Mr. Carson. OK.
Gentleladies, nothing?
All right. I yield back, Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Scott, you are up.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Merkle, Pennsylvania has faced a series of disruptive
weather events this year, resulting in a lot of power outages.
One utility in the district I'm privileged to represent, PPL,
has used UAVs effectively in the recent storms and flooding
events to assess dangerous situations and reduce response
times. They did this without the benefit of beyond-visual-line-
of-sight, a capability, as you know, that improves safety and
response time for power restoration.
And, of course, I urge the FAA to continue to work, as
directed by Congress, to give utilities the ability to employ
the beyond-the-visual-line-of-sight operations to respond in
emergency situations as well as routine maintenance, inspection
efforts, et cetera.
But short of beyond-the-visual-line-of-sight, hurdles
remain for utilities' use of UAVs even within a line of sight
in Class C airspace. And I am just wondering--I certainly
understand--I am a helicopter guy, so I understand the
sensitivity in Class C airspace. Is there some way utilities
can be granted a blanket approval to fly the UAS below the
energized utility? So we are talking power lines. I don't know
that any commercial or otherwise, quite honestly, other than
the military, is flying below the utility even in, you know,
Class C or other towered airspace.
Mr. Merkle. So we are working towards that goal. As I said,
the BNSF partnership has identified the kind of underlying
technologies that will make that capability possible throughout
the airspace. And really it comes down to the specific
utilities and companies coming in and applying to the FAA and
working through.
These cases tend to have unique characteristics around
them, and so it does take some human judgment and collaboration
with the applicant to figure out the safest way to integrate.
But we are actively integrating aircraft like this in Class B,
Class C, Class D airspace all throughout the NAS.
Mr. Perry. So is that something that they can apply for
now?
Mr. Merkle. Yes, it is.
Mr. Perry. Is that right? OK.
Mr. Merkle. It is. And we have companies doing similar
things now.
Mr. Perry. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Bevirt and Ms. Scott, I am just curious, regarding the
remote ID and tracking, are we talking about current
transponder technology with a Mode C, or are we talking about
something completely different for that?
Ms. Scott. Most current technology is not going to be
suitable for the smaller drones. But the Remote ID Aviation
Rulemaking Committee that Mr. Merkle referenced, we also
participated on that committee and made recommendations for
technical implementations that can meet the performance
criteria that the FAA would like. And there are a number of
different ways that that can be done.
There are also a couple of different technical standards
bodies--ASTM, 3GPP, CTA--that are also working on technically
how can we adapt existing technology for these different form
factors.
Mr. Perry. So just, you know, the guy that is curious--and
I think probably other people are too--are we talking, like,
cellular technology?
I am picturing, like, a transponder head, right? And then
the radio itself is either right there in the console or it is
in the back, and it is heavy, you know, and so on and so forth.
Are we talking cellular technology or something other than
that? What are we talking about?
Ms. Scott. Certainly cellular technology and cellular
connectivity is an option for providing that kind of
connectivity.
Mr. Bevirt. And then there is also, in the near term, ADS-
B. Of course, ADS-B has its limitations, but it is getting
deployed rapidly, currently, on the existing aviation fleet,
and it provides an important first step.
Mr. Perry. And just out of curiosity, you know, this is a
commercial enterprise, and I think it is a fascinating concept
to just ponder and to see happening. And I am assuming that you
are planning on all-weather capability, right? It sounds like
it, right?
So I am picturing myself, like, wanting to get in this
machine, right, that doesn't have a pilot in it. And there is a
thunderstorm; you can see it coming, right? I mean, you have
been in the aircraft when the--you know, it is one thing,
maybe, sitting in the back, but when the rain is pounding on
the windscreen at a buck-20 or whatever you are at, it is
unnerving.
And what is the--I mean, do you do, like, customer surveys
or studies? You know, I would think this would be somewhat
fearful for a lot of people.
Mr. Bevirt. Yeah, I think the weather research and the
sensing--there are a lot of really exciting sensing
methodologies--airborne LiDAR--that give the aircraft the
ability to see vertical windshear and see thunderstorms that
the human eye can't see.
But I think before you are getting into an autonomous
aircraft in a severe weather situation, there is a huge amount
of work that has to be done on the artificial intelligence
algorithms to prove that they can make decisions around weather
that are better than a human pilot. And I think that that will
be many years to come.
Mr. Perry. My time has expired. I thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Steve?
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you--I
appreciate you for many of your votes. One time, one of these
magazines paired the Democrat who voted most with the
Republican, and I was with you. So you are going to have to run
for reelection, so I can make it more public now.
Mr. LoBiondo. I will have to work on that.
Mr. Cohen. Yeah. Thank you. I was honored, though.
But thank you and Mr. Larsen for holding this hearing. The
emergent drone industry is gonna make a big difference in our
country, and it is imperative we set the framework right.
We also have to pass the FAA authorization before the
September 30th deadline. That is the big work of our committee.
As a matter of health and safety, I urge the Senate to adopt
the SEAT Act provision included in the House bill that was
passed, H.R. 4. The U.S. Court of Appeals found that the FAA's
justification to not review the safety risks of more cramped
passengers as ``vaporous.''
And now the inspector general is auditing the FAA for its
failure to take the issue seriously. There is a safety and a
health problem with the size of seats, the pitch of seats, and
all of that. And the FAA needs to do its duty and make sure
people can evacuate airplanes in the required time.
We need to pass a longtime FAA authorization and include
the SEAT Act that was passed unanimously by this committee and
overwhelmingly by the full House.
In May of this year, Memphis was 1 of 10 areas selected out
of 150 applicants to participate in the Department of
Transportation's drone integration pilot program, and I was
honored to be at the announcement. According to the Department
of Transportation, the potential economic benefit of drone
integration into the national airspace will be upwards of $82
billion and create up to 100,000 new jobs. Big news for Memphis
and the Nation.
In Memphis, some of these airspace integration
demonstrations include airport, runway, and aircraft
inspections; perimeter surveillance and geofencing; medical
device and consumer package delivery; and environmental
protection efforts, such as coastline erosion detection. The
airport authority is partnering with industry giants like
FedEx, General Electric, Intel, and others.
Just this past Thursday, 901Drones, FedEx, the Memphis Fire
Department, and others, including officials visiting Memphis
from the FAA, successfully completed a demonstration of
important perimeter geofencing safety measures to keep drones
from flying into the designated zones and critical safety
redundancies to keep the public safety and airport operations
unaffected.
Drones have boundless real-world applications, and Memphis
is now at the center of this rapidly growing industry. It is
important we get the policy framework right. It has to be
absolutely, positively right, as FedEx would say.
First question is for Director Yak. The University of
Memphis is a close partner in the Memphis drone program and
brought to light an insightful concern: The role of local
municipalities is not mentioned in the hearing summary of
subject matter. It seems clear that local municipalities will
play a large role in future airspace integration efforts.
While programs such as the FAA's integration pilot program
go a long way toward helping that develop, does the FAA have
any plans to work with Congress or request Congress to help
communities develop the necessary infrastructure that will
allow the potential benefit of drones to be realized?
Ms. Yak. I was checking with Jay because I thought that
actually fell into his arena.
I think the DOT and FAA, as you can see by the
establishment of the Integration Pilot Project, is
understanding and seeing that there is a wild world out there--
``wide,'' not ``wild.'' And what I mean by that is, whenever
you take technology regulation, particularly from a safety
perspective, you need to look at it from a societal perspective
too. What is the impact on society? What is allowed? And what
should the rules be?
We are progressing in a number of partnerships with
industry as well as with the local governments and that to be
able to understand this world that we are entering in. From a
research perspective, we got the technology down. We are
looking in that--we are looking at that with our partners. We
are looking at that and how to better regulate. But it is the
IPPs and the working with the local governments and the Tribal
communities to understand the use and then what are the ways to
enable this technology in their area.
Mr. Merkle. I would just add to that, just as we do with
manned aviation today, we actively work with our local
communities when we are planning new airspace utilization
projects, and so we would expect that to continue.
And, as you pointed out, the IPP is critical to opening
those relationships with the local communities around drones
and identifying the issues that are of concern to them and
working with them. And we fully expect the research and the
actions coming out of the IPP to inform how we adapt and evolve
to the future for the drones.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
And I think my time is about up. And I came late, so maybe
I am taking a little risk, but, Dr. Prevot, I understand you
talked about Uber doing Uber Eats by drone?
Mr. Prevot. That is correct.
Mr. Cohen. You know, about 30 years ago, I was in the State
senate, and somebody showed me a phone. Of course, it was like
this, it was gigantic. And he said, we are going to have--like
Dick Tracy, we are all going to have phones. And I said, you
are crazy. Well, I was wrong.
Mr. Prevot. Yep.
Mr. Cohen. So Uber Eats by drone, is this--I mean, does the
drone go to the restaurant and then kind of knock on the door?
How does it get in? I mean, The Rendezvous is downstairs. How
does the drone get downstairs to get my ribs?
A Voice from House Dais. To your balcony.
Mr. Prevot. We were experimenting with different concepts
there that can involve couriers, as well, in the process.
Because we already have a food delivery business, and so the
drone may also only take the food from our courier to another
courier, potentially, on the other side. Or we can have fixed
infrastructure.
Part of our integration pilot program is experimenting with
different concepts and seeing what works best. But the main
idea is, yes, you push a button, and you get your burger or
sandwich a little bit faster.
Mr. Cohen. I am all for it. I use Uber Eats, and it is
great. I just can't imagine some drone going into a--the
future.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. The gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I may have missed it at the beginning, but all this talk
about moving people and places, I hadn't heard any mention of
part 135 and what the impact is there.
Can someone help to lay out for me, from an expert
perspective, what the evolution is going to be, from the part
135 requirements we have today for charter aircraft to the fact
that I can climb in an Uber with absolutely anybody today and
get to where I need to be?
Mr. Bevirt. Yeah. So one of the things we are planning is
to launch our service as a fully piloted aircraft and with a
professional pilot on board from day one. And over time, our
sensing systems and our software systems will provide that
pilot increasing levels of automation. And one day, we may end
up flying these fully autonomous.
But we are really focused on operating fully within the
existing part 135 standards. And we expect that those--in our
conversations with the FAA, it has been confirmed that we have
a path forward to launching this service and this operation.
Mr. Woodall. Now, I understand that within the current
bandwidth of regulation. Though, there was a time I had to find
somebody with a taxi medallion in order to do ride-sharing, and
now we trust a much broader pool of people.
Do we expect, as we are training autonomous--not
autonomous--as we are training remote pilots, as we are
training more and more ordinary, everyday drivers to be in the
sky, do we expect an evolution in a regulatory framework? Or
are we expecting part 135 to remain with us for a generation to
come?
Mr. Merkle. We believe our current regulatory framework can
address these challenges and can be adapted to provide
operating certificates for--operators-type certificates for
aircraft and pilot licenses as well. It is really a matter of
understanding what was intended by a regulation like part 135
and working with the applicant to ensure that their
implementation meets the intent.
Mr. Woodall. And as you all are looking regulatorily and
through the lens of technology, do you expect me to be flying
in an autonomous aircraft or in a remotely piloted aircraft
first?
Mr. Merkle. I will let my colleagues answer that.
Mr. Prevot. Uber is also intending to fly with pilots
first. But the model is probably going to be more remotely
piloted than--not necessarily with a single pilot per aircraft.
Kind of as another transition period, actually, we will manage
our fleet very precisely, because it has to integrate into a
multimodal trip. We have the first mile, we have the last mile
that we need to connect into. So there is really not as much
flexibility for the aircraft to do anything themselves, at
least in our model. We believe it is going to be very highly
remotely piloted, but it might be remotely piloted by a largely
automated system.
Mr. Woodall. And in order to get the broad adoption that we
would all like to see, is the expectation that we are always
going to be talking about electric aircraft, that we concede
there is no place for combustion aircraft in airspace close to
our homes?
Mr. Bevirt. That is certainly our view, that both from an
emissions standpoint and, even more importantly, from an
acoustics standpoint, that fully electric is necessary to make
this technology ubiquitous.
Mr. Woodall. And given those range challenges as they exist
today, a remotely piloted aircraft certainly seems to speak to
ROI, if I could put two people in an airplane to get to where
they need to go instead of just one.
As you are looking for capital, as capital is being
attracted to these ideas, where is that capital flocking today?
Is it on the autonomous side? Is it on the remotely piloted
side? Is it all going to piloted proof-of-concept projects?
Mr. Bevirt. So our particular aircraft is a five-seat, so
it has a single pilot and four passengers. And we are fully
electric, and, as you mentioned, that reduces our range
capabilities. Today we can only fly about 150 miles, plus an
FAA reserve, a 30-minute reserve for safety. And so that limits
our operations to--this is not something you are going to take
cross-country.
But we do have ambitions to be able to fly from DC to New
York or from New York to Boston in the not-too-distant future.
So we see huge improvements coming on the battery front that
will extend that range and make this not just, you know, for
one geographic area, but be able to network different
geographic areas together, which we believe will have a really
profound effect on the economy and the ability for people in
geographically disparate locations to communicate and work
together more effectively.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you all for your pioneering work and
your expertise today.
Mr. Bevirt. Thank you.
Mr. Woodall. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Donald?
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and to the ranking
member. I appreciate this opportunity to be here.
And, Ms. Yak, it is nice to see you again. I had the
pleasure of touring the Hughes Technical Center in Chairman
LoBiondo's district a year ago and was very impressed with the
work being done there.
As you know, I represent a densely populated urban
district. Noise from trucks, buses, Newark International
Airport, and helicopters are a constant concern for my
constituents. I would like to hear more about the FAA's work on
noise-mitigation research, specifically with regard to UAS and
flying cars.
I know we are getting in the future with George Jetson and
his boy, Elroy. And so, you know, obviously, it is not very far
off. So, you know, I know it is really not a big issue now, but
as this technology becomes more common, we should not be adding
to the seemingly intractable problem of aircraft noise in urban
areas.
Can you----
Ms. Yak. Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
As I mentioned earlier, balancing technology with community
concerns is a very important part of the process. Our UAS
implementation plan does include in it obtaining and
researching noise information, noise data. In fact, the
integration pilot program is also providing us the data
regarding noise so that we can start using that noise
information to start analyzing it and determining how to use
that information for certification requirements and affecting
the aircraft performance of the future.
With that, I will hand it over to--oh, Jay said I hit all
the points, so I must have done good. But my peers, I think----
Mr. Payne. Yeah, if anyone else could elaborate, I would
appreciate it.
Mr. Bevirt. Yeah. So noise is near and dear to my heart,
and specifically for operations in and around urban areas, we
expect it to be significantly below the background levels, such
that the aircraft operations will be inaudible. In suburban and
rural areas, the noise levels are very low, but you will be
able to hear the aircraft in a very quiet environment.
But for your constituents, we have done a huge amount of
work, again, making these aircraft more than 100 times quieter
than a helicopter.
Mr. Payne. Yeah, because, I mean, you know, if you have bad
weather in Newark Airport, they shift the runways, and it comes
right over the South Ward, where I live. And, I mean, you would
think the wheels are going to hit the top of some of these
homes, you know, on the trajectory that they are coming in.
And believe me, we really get hammered, you know, about
this and the helicopter issue. In Jersey City, it has become a
big problem. These tourist helicopters are flying closer and
closer into areas across from New York to get the view, so they
straddle the river in New Jersey. And, you know, these
constituents are just going crazy. So it is something that is
very important, and, you know, I need to continue to stress the
need to continue to work on this.
So I see the potential for flying cars to reduce the stress
on our roads, infrastructure, and help mitigate congestion
issues facing districts like mine. But I am concerned on how
the law enforcement and homeland security experts will deal
with this emerging technology in the hands of bad actors.
If you walk around Capitol Hill, you will see the curbs and
streets are lined with barricades, in part to prevent cars
driven, you know, by bad actors from accessing this critical
space.
How do we engineer our cities to deal with cars that can't
be blocked by ordinary barricades? What discussions is the
industry having around that aspect?
Mr. Bevirt. So we can put up--just like with cars you can
put up a physical barricade, because of the control systems in
these aircraft, you can actually put up digital barricades. And
so we can constrain these aircraft so that the control system
physically can't create a trajectory that can go where we don't
want it to go. So the aircraft can, whether it is the pilot or
one of the passengers in the aircraft, if they try to----
Mr. Payne. Deviate from the----
Mr. Bevirt [continuing]. Deviate from the trajectory, it
just physically won't go. So these are digital barricades.
Mr. Payne. What happens to it? It just stops?
Mr. Bevirt. Let's say this is the barricade, you know, this
is the no-fly zone. It will just find a trajectory around----
Mr. Payne. Oh, it will force it away from--oh, OK. All
right. Well, that's pretty interesting, pretty neat.
Well, with that, I will yield back. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bevirt. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Lloyd, you are up.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Yak, over here. I may have missed earlier testimony
along the lines of my question. I have been back and forth
between two hearings. But I wanted to specifically follow up to
your written testimony in regards to UAS, small drones.
Just as you mentioned, there are a lot of commercial
application entrepreneurs who are finding more and more ways to
use drones to make their operations more efficient. Two
particular areas in my community: agriculture for crop
assessment and then inspecting infrastructure like power lines,
for instance.
And, you know, what I hear from them is line of sight has
been an issue, the ability to operate beyond line of sight. And
I read in your testimony that there is an ability to get
waivers today. And I guess I wanted to understand a little bit
more about that.
Generally, who is receiving those waivers, and for what
purpose? How easy is it to get a waiver? And do you think we
will be changing the regulations to make that easier?
And I certainly understand the security concerns as well.
We are seeing, you know, potential use of drones by terrorists
or in other activities that we obviously don't want to see.
But I would just like to hear your response to that.
Ms. Yak. Mr. Merkle will respond to that.
Mr. Smucker. OK. Great.
Mr. Merkle. Thank you for the question.
Let me first address the evolution. Last month, the FAA
published an updated version to our UAS roadmap that plots the
evolution towards beyond visual line of sight, package
delivery, urban air mobility, passengers, that sort of thing.
But the fundamental next step and necessary next step is
remote identification and the repeal of section 336, because
that allows us to identify every aircraft in the airspace. And
then that will make it much easier to move towards beyond
visual line of sight.
We also have had recent success with flights, such as our
partner, BNSF, the railroad, which is now doing linear
inspection beyond visual line of sight, a No Chase COA. So we
are seeing that emerge. It really isn't tomorrow; it is today.
And you are correct, it is done by a waiver process. And,
yes, anyone can apply. And depending on whether you need a
waiver for the aircraft or for airspace, you apply, actually,
to the same website. It is on the UAS website for the FAA you
apply.
Mr. Smucker. So it is a website application, and what is--
--
Mr. Merkle. It is a website application, yes, and then
humans get the email.
Mr. Smucker. What is the criteria for receiving a waiver?
Mr. Merkle. The criteria for receiving a waiver--it depends
on what you are asking for. So it really does take a case-by-
case analysis for each waiver. Because it may have implications
for the specific airspace you are in or other hazards or other
things going on around there or the particular aircraft. So it
really does take human analysis at this point.
But as we move down the path towards UAS integration and we
get things like remote ID and beyond-visual-line-of-sight, then
the waivers will no longer be required.
Mr. Smucker. Yeah. All right. Thank you.
And a second question. Mr. Prevot, in regards to the
airline industry, there is today a severe shortage of pilots.
And I know that you had mentioned in your testimony one of your
key business challenges is pilot training.
And I am just curious, with the introduction of aerial
ride-sharing, do you think that will increase the demand for
pilots? And how will you address the issue of a limited
workforce?
Mr. Prevot. Yeah, it will definitely increase the demand
for pilots, as we want to operate for quite a while with
pilots. And, initially, we will only utilize pilots that are
certified by the FAA, starting with certified helicopter pilots
most likely.
We would like to get the vehicles simpler to be operated so
we might be able to extend this to fixed-wing pilots as well.
And there might also be an opportunity to basically create a
new training program and train up new possible pilots for this
job.
Mr. Smucker. This is a common issue that we hear about here
in Congress. Do you have any suggestions for what we can be
doing here to better address a labor force issue like this?
Mr. Prevot. I am supportive of some of the simplified
vehicle operation type things.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you.
Mr. Bevirt. Can I----
Mr. Smucker. Sure.
Mr. Bevirt [continuing]. Add something to that?
So one of our investors is JetBlue. And we are actually
looking at this as a huge opportunity, where we can provide a
training ground for pilots that can then, after flying with us
for several thousand hours, transition and begin flying
commercial operation, similar to the partnerships that part 135
operators have had with part 121 operators historically.
And so there is really a fantastic opportunity to drive a
huge amount of interest into becoming pilots and then for those
pilots to have long careers in the part 121 operation. So we
think this is a huge feeding ground and a really spectacular
opportunity, which we are very excited to be working on.
Mr. Smucker. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Bevirt. Thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Are you yielding back?
Mr. Smucker. Yes.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK.
Ms. Norton?
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate
this hearing. Always excited to hear about the subcommittee
thinking futuristically, because it is happening anyway. So I
am very interested in autonomous cars and autonomous aircraft.
This is a very controlled space in the Nation's Capital that I
represent.
Recently--and I suppose this first question is for Mr.
Bevirt or perhaps Dr. Prevot--we have seen how, with or without
the Congress--and it looks like without--autonomous cars are
moving, some of them being tested on the streets, and there has
been an occasional mishap. That gets a huge--if we had the kind
of publicity that gets to the daily accidents on the road, we
would be reading nothing else in the paper. But what we do know
is that these autonomous cars are far safer than you or me at
the wheel.
Given the fact that the public gets scared off, perhaps, by
one single accident, as we have had in the recent months, how
close are we to moving toward remote or pilotless aircraft? Is
this still something that needs a lot of work, even though, to
our credit, the subcommittee is thinking about what you are
doing now? I mean, this is not anything that is going to happen
within the next 10 years, or what is your best estimate on
that?
Mr. Prevot. I think there are many pieces in place.
Aircraft basically today are flying highly automated already.
But I believe we have to collect a huge amount of data,
actually, with pilots on board to make sure that we can prove
that these systems are ready to be autonomous, that we have
covered all the cases. So that is kind of the approach that we
are taking, having the pilots on board.
And then it may also not be a one-size-fits-all. It could
be that we can prove that certain routes, certain circumstances
have never had the need for a pilot to intervene and we have
got everything covered there, so we can incrementally start
removing the pilots from those vehicles.
But I do think it is certainly a number of years out.
Mr. Bevirt. Yeah, I would wholeheartedly agree that the
goal is to demonstrate, as you spoke about, Congresswoman, that
these systems have the potential to be much safer than human-
piloted aircraft.
But there are things like weather, for example, that we
talked about, where humans and our cognitive abilities to make
really complex decisions are really quite spectacular. And so
we want to leverage the skills and the capabilities that the
human pilot has as well as the skills that the autonomous and
automated systems have. And so----
Ms. Norton. Yeah. Well, I want you to help us think, for
example, if there are autonomous cars and autonomous aircraft--
remember, we have pretty close to autonomous planes and
autonomous underground railroad. We just had a spectacular
accident here, I don't know, about a dozen years ago with
somebody at the wheel. But our underground subways basically
drive themselves and have been doing so for a long time. And
when a pilot gets in the air, you know, he is not sitting there
driving the plane. That plane is on automatic pilot as well. So
it is pretty clear we are already there.
But if we go to autonomous planes and everybody can have an
autonomous plane--you don't even have to drive it, because now
it is autonomous--we may be into--Mr. Prevot, perhaps,
understands this--we may be into what we have here in the
District of Columbia, and I would dare say perhaps my
colleagues have the same as well. Now we have a lot of
congestion on the roads because anybody can get an Uber or a
Lyft. And those of us who ride them are very glad they are out
there.
But, Mr. Prevot, what we have done here in the city is--or
at least there is a proposal to put a tax on Uber and Lyft so
that we can help fund our underground Metro, as we call it, our
underground railroad, which is going broke, so that we would
have a choice and not be left, as we are now, with one or the
other.
And what Uber and autonomous cars and the like provide are
choices. Yet there may need to be a whole new set of traffic
rules, a new set of who gets to drive. Perhaps we in the
Congress ought to be thinking about this or even more so at the
local level. And I realize I am asking you to think in the
future, but that is what we are trying to do here today.
So when you think about how we would have to deal with
congestion--perhaps we would have less congestion, perhaps, in
the air. Perhaps we would have more. Perhaps we would have
fewer accidents, perhaps more. Who needs to be thinking about
that, who is thinking about these kinds of issues, as we get
excited about autonomous vehicles?
Do you want to begin, Dr. Prevot?
Mr. Prevot. Yes. I believe that going to the air gives you
more choices, just as you said. I mean, now you have another
way of doing a multimodal trip. And we certainly have to think
about the congestion that it might create in the air, that it
also might create around the skyports.
As we optimize trips through our network, we see Uber, for
example, as a platform, where we also want to integrate with
public transportation and with all these other means.
Ms. Norton. So you understand why the District thinks that
Uber ought to help us pay for underground transportation even
as we have had to make room for more Ubers on the road here.
Mr. Prevot. Well, I would say that is not necessarily my
area of expertise.
Ms. Norton. I would like you to submit to the chairman what
those whose expertise it is to know about this think about
using some form of transportation to help fund another form of
transportation.
But go ahead.
Mr. Bevirt. So I think that there is an incredible
opportunity. Just as Congress funded our National Highway
System and then funded the construction of many of our
airports, there is an incredible opportunity here, as Congress
looks forward, to think about how to support this new and more
efficient mode of transportation.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Jason?
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank the ranking
member as well for having this hearing. Very, very informative.
We are, indeed, embarking on a brave new world here, which is
really, really exciting.
But I do want to drill down a little bit as to, you know,
what I describe, and for lack of a better term, as a common-law
nuisance, to make certain as we embark on flying cars or
package delivery or however we use the airspace, that people
aren't using their property to the detriment of the enjoyment
of other people's property. And, traditionally, that has been
regulated at the local level, as you know. So whether we are
talking about passenger technology, as you have, or package
delivery or, in the case of public safety or public use, the
concerns of privacy.
And I will just give you a quick example. In San Francisco,
we thought we could relieve congestion by putting these shared
and dockless bikes on every corner. We have them in Washington,
DC, now. In San Francisco, they are saying, get them off, they
are a nuisance. So, you know, the law of unintended
consequences may have a role to play here.
So I guess I would start with Ms. Scott on this. There is
disagreement in the community on preemption, on who should
control this so that we can maximize this brave new technology,
as I say. There are some at the Uniform Law Commission that
came out that do not agree with the position of Federal
preemption on some of the regulations below the national
airspace or below 300 or 400 feet. And there are others that
say that is the only way to go.
You have been looking at traffic management, obviously. Do
you see a solution for this?
Ms. Scott. Thank you for the question.
We believe the FAA is best suited to provide regulatory
oversight for all aircraft in the airspace--hobbyists,
commercial, manned, unmanned, passenger drones--and that there
is also an important role for States and municipalities to play
in that. But we believe that there should be common operating
rules. And just as there are for manned aviation, you have the
FAA setting a Federal regulatory framework, but you have an
important role for States and locals to play in how they
balance concerns around privacy----
Mr. Lewis. But if someone next to an airport is tired of
their dishes being rattled every time a plane lands, they
usually go to the local authorities first.
Ms. Scott. And we agree that there is a role for State and
local law enforcement with drones, which is why we are such
proponents of the remote identification for all aircraft that
would allow a local law enforcement to be able to look up and
see and easily distinguish who is a participant in the system
and who might be a bad actor.
Mr. Lewis. You know, it cuts both ways too. It is not just,
oh, gosh, we have to allow the locals to regulate your
particular industry or your endeavors. It cuts both ways. As I
understand it, the Low Altitude Authorization and Notification
Capability right now allows for single drone use. There was a
group in my home State that wanted to use multiple drones for
some air show or something, and they had to wait 100 days.
So one common rule that has one jurisdiction across the
country can actually operate to the detriment of what some of
you are trying to do, as well, on the other side.
Dr. Prevot, let's get your input on all of this.
Mr. Prevot. I do believe that it would be very difficult if
we have very different regulations across the country,
especially for people who want to operate pretty much
everywhere.
You mentioned the Low Altitude Authorization and
Notification Capability. I think it could be extended to handle
these other cases as well. We are in the early stages of all
this, so I believe we have to learn and see how the things work
right now.
Mr. Lewis. So, if somebody on Sunday morning at 5:30 is
delivering a package to my next-door neighbor and buzzing
around my window or buzzing around my backyard picnic later
that day, I should call the FAA?
Ms. Scott. I think, just as we have common operating rules
for helicopters but municipalities might set rules about
operating hours for when a helicopter can land downtown on the
designated helipad, I can envision a similar balance between
State and local implementation of those rules with a common
Federal operating structure. I think the----
Mr. Lewis. Let me just interject. I think we all agree that
the common Federal operating structure is you can't allow a
local rule to interfere with interstate commerce or the
national airspace. So a municipality can't just come in and
say, oh, let's just ban landings and takeoffs. That would
obviously interfere. But below that, those rules and
regulations, that is the question we are going to have to face,
in my view.
Ms. Scott. And I would say that I think the UAS integration
pilot program is a great project for us to figure out how best
to balance those local community concerns with Federal
operating rules and collect data and really, real-time, see how
does it work when you try to implement----
Mr. Lewis. I certainly agree with that.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Jimmy?
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And maybe some of what I am asking about has already been
answered. I was in another committee hearing for, I guess, the
first hour or so.
What I am wondering about, though, is this tremendous
explosion of drones in number. I understand that the official
FAA prediction on registered drones, it is now somewhere over 1
million, and it is going to be 2\1/2\ million by 2022. The
growth has been so fast over the last 3 or 4 years, I think
that 2\1/2\ million may be a low estimate. And then I am told
by staff that there are tens of millions of unregistered drones
that hobbyists have and so forth.
Are we going to, at some point, see a day where there will
have to be some sort of limitation on drones? I mean, they, so
far, already exceed the number of fixed-wing aircraft. So, if
we have a 100 million drones in this country in a few years--I
mean, do you foresee a time when we are going to have to limit
the number some way? Or is the number just unlimited?
Mr. Merkle. Thank you for the question.
Just as in manned aviation we deal with capacity and
efficiency all the time, there will eventually be some point
where airspace capacity will be reached. We don't know where
that is or when that will be. But until we actually evolve the
concepts around UAS traffic management, we really won't know
fully where those limits are.
One of the fundamental principles of UAS traffic management
is it uses automation to scale to the number of drones that we
are anticipating. So we think that we will get far more
capacity for the airspace with concepts like UTM than is
reachable with our traditional air traffic control or air
traffic management techniques. So we think the number will be
much, much higher.
But working with our partners as they evolve their concepts
and they bring applications in, we will all together move
forward in understanding how to manage capacity and efficiency
safely.
Mr. Duncan. And I also have seen articles about concerns
about privacy, and I am wondering, does the FAA--is the FAA set
up--Mr. Lewis got into this a little bit--is it set up to
accept complaints now about drones? And are you getting very
few complaints, many complaints?
I would imagine that most people would call some local
official. I don't think their first thought would be to call a
Federal agency, but are you getting complaints about drones
now?
Mr. Merkle. We do, yes. Thank you for the question. We do
get complaints. We get concerns. Our advice to anyone,
particularly in areas of privacy or where they feel that a law
has been broken, is to contact their local law enforcement
first. That really is the best way to deal with these
instances, because, of course, the FAA's mission is civil
aviation safety.
So we have no authority to enforce, you know, local privacy
laws and that sort of thing. So always we refer them to local
law enforcement, and we continue to try and educate the public
that that is the correct way to deal with these concerns.
Mr. Duncan. And are the number of complaints, would you
classify them as very few or very many, or are the numbers of
complaints going up some or rapidly or----
Mr. Merkle. Unfortunately, that is a little beyond my
particular expertise, but I would be happy to work with you and
your staff to get you the specific numbers.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Shelley, is there any work being done at
the tech center to address and mitigate the possible security
risks posed by UAS and other emerging aircraft technologies?
Ms. Yak. Yes, there is, particularly from a cybersecurity
perspective. And the work that we are doing does not
necessarily begin and end with the drones. It is also for
aircraft in general. And what I am referring to is the
establishment of a cybersecurity safety threat and risk
assessment methodology.
You may ask, well, you know, what does a methodology do?
Well, the methodology is the background that the procedures,
the process that we use to be able to do risk assessments,
measure what the risk is, what the vulnerability assessments
are, what the threats are.
By understanding what the threats are, then we can identify
the mitigations. That is important twofold: one, from an
industry perspective by understanding what the threats and the
vulnerabilities are and what the potential mitigations are,
they can start remedying them early in the life cycle. And from
the FAA perspective, we can use that data for any rulemaking,
certification, or guidelines.
Now, that is the foundation for security and particularly
cybersecurity. We are also looking at the technologies itself,
again, with our industry partners, on security protocols to be
used in data links, on data exchange rates, minimum operational
performance on these systems that we have been talking about.
Cybersecurity is all about security and resiliency, the
human aspect if something happens, what is the reaction, the
data availability and accessibility. So that is the type of
research work that we are doing in regards to the cybersecurity
and security of drones as well as urban air mobility aircraft.
Mr. LoBiondo. So, Shelley, for you, and really for anyone
else on the panel, what technological developments must be
implemented before these new aircraft technologies can be
safely introduced or integrated into the NAS?
Ms. Yak. So you have heard a lot about remote ID, and I
would say that every panel member here subscribed to the need
for remote ID. We need to know where the aircraft is so that
our pilot can stay well clear.
We need the technology understood and in place for sensors
and frequency management, a communication between the aircraft,
the pilot, the pilot in controlled space with the controller.
Those are essential.
I am intrigued. I learned a lot from this panel. I enjoyed
it as to the technologies that our colleagues are working on in
the aircraft makeup itself, and we will be working with them
closely on the performance requirements for those aircraft from
the material they use as well as the propulsion method.
So there is a lot of work to do. I think the UAS traffic
management arena is blossoming well. We have a demo coming up
in the 2019 timeframe, where the technical center will be
working very closely with NASA on--and industry will be flying
drones through our test sights, and we will be simulating
drones out of our laboratory, our NextGen Integration and
Evaluation Capability Laboratory.
So that will be a lot of learning and a lot of data that we
can use for future concept use and development.
Mr. LoBiondo. Anyone else? No.
So a brief sort of statement and then a question, Ms.
Scott, for you. A couple of years ago, we had a devastating
superstorm by the name of Sandy, and we have also had some
devastating hurricanes in Florida and Texas and Puerto Rico.
And I was very impressed when Verizon undertook the initiative
to understand that in these devastating storms our ability to
communicate is basically wiped out and witnessed in my district
the--sort of the test of the flying cell tower on a drone,
which was absolutely remarkable. So I want to commend you all
for taking that initiative.
But listening this morning to some weather forecasts from
back home, there is a storm that is possibly moving up the east
coast next week that has the potential to be a hurricane, not
saying it is, which got me thinking, is that sort of drone cell
tower operational now or limited basis, or where do we stand
with that technology?
Ms. Scott. So I haven't been----
Mr. LoBiondo. Microphone.
Ms. Scott. Excuse me. So the flying cell phone tower work I
am familiar with is an R&D project, and I know that the ongoing
research into characterizing how to do that, how the network
performs, and what drones are suitable for that, that work is
ongoing. I would be happy to refer you to some of the experts
who are working on that project more closely.
Skyward is actually used by Verizon to manage hurricane
response operations, so we used Skyward to manage the
deployments and the drones that we used at Verizon to respond
to Hurricane Irma and Harvey, but that was more in a response
surveying and inspection capacity.
Mr. LoBiondo. Obviously the next 2 months are critical for
hurricane potential, and I would be curious as to a followup
from your folks to know the capabilities, if, in fact, we are
hit with one of these again.
Ms. Scott. I would be happy to follow up with you.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. Rick.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks.
Ms. Scott, in your testimony, you said for all its
popularity, LAANC is a point solution that mitigates a specific
logistical burden. That being the case, what would be the top
three steps needed then to expand that or to get to the
universal traffic management idea that you believe needs to
happen?
Ms. Scott. Great. Thank you for that question. We were the
first service supplier to be approved to provide LAANC as a
service, and it has had tremendous growth for the industry
because it has opened up so many controlled airspaces to be
possible for drone use, for safe drone access.
What we would like to see in terms of improvements for
LAANC specifically, first, it is still in beta and the FAA has
been tremendously innovative in rolling it out and rolling it
out quickly. We would like to see it move into a full
deployment with the robust and secure funding that it needs to
maintain adequate performance. We would like to see the
inclusion of DoD and Federal contract towers in the LAANC
system so that we can offer safe authorization to those
airspaces as well.
And we would like to see the ability to attach existing
waivers to LAANC authorizations. So a number of our customers
might have an existing waiver perhaps for night operations, and
those authorizations currently can't be attached to a LAANC
authorization. So that is just an additional system enhancement
that would make it easier for our customers to get quick access
to the places they need to fly.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Great.
Mr. Prevot, do you have the top three things that need to
happen to get to a traffic management system that you all can
take advantage of?
Mr. Prevot. I agree with the remote ID that was mentioned
before. I also agree that we need to have a right communication
and spectrum management infrastructure. And, again, we have to
prove out that we can properly interoperate between all the
systems where we are working on already.
Mr. Larsen. And, Mr. Bevirt, the big three.
Mr. Bevirt. I would concur with Dr. Prevot and that we--
it--on UTM it is--we need to continue the funding for the work
that the FAA and NASA are doing. And additionally, you know,
for us to roll out this service, it is not predicated on UTM.
We will be operating within the existing part 135 framework,
but we do very much look forward to those tools becoming
available so that we can scale to much denser operations.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. So just finally, I have been paying
attention this whole time. You have probably seen me texting. I
was texting my sophomore engineering student son in college and
telling him about what this hearing is about. And he had a very
interesting question that I wanted to pass on, because I think
it is absolutely relevant, about getting from point A to point
B and how the drone, with people in it, communicates to get
from point A to point B. And I said, it is probably satellite
communications. So he goes, I don't like it. If it is
communicating through a satellite, why not just hack the
flight?
So the question really is kind of a fundamental one about
not just the safety of will it fall out of the sky or is it
safe to fly in, but the security--the secured communication to
ensure that even a piloted drone or a pilotless drone has to
get from point A to point B. And what--how are you thinking
about the security of that communication of that flight so that
flight gets from point A to point B?
Mr. Bevirt. Yeah. I think that is incredibly important and
including the--it needs to be redundant and diverse
communication. So you have cellular connections. You could
potentially have multiple carriers--cellular connections from
multiple carriers and satellite communications. So that
diversity in each of those links is secured such that the
ability to have all of those communications simultaneously
compromised is very, very low.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. Ms. Scott, have you--do you have some
thoughts on this as a carrier or----
Ms. Scott. Certainly, designing for security and
reliability should be a top concern for any UTM system
development and for the technical standards that support those
systems. We are excited about the potential of LTE networks to
provide that secure communications link and have been doing a
lot of R&D work on that in the context of UTM development, and
look forward to collaborating closely with the FAA and other
regulators to understand the performance-based criteria that we
need to meet and then being able to design for that security
and resiliency.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah. That is fine. I will just make one note.
Next year, about the time you are rolling out the pilot on
maybe the simulators and so on, maybe it would be a good time
for the subcommittee to get back up to the tech center in the
later winter, early spring.
Ms. Yak. Great. That would be wonderful. And thank you
again for coming out and seeing us about a year and a half, 2
years ago. The employees at the technical center really
appreciated your attention and taking time to see the great
work we do. So thank you.
Mr. Larsen. Whatever Frank wants, Frank gets.
Mr. LoBiondo. Next year or two?
Mr. Larsen. You will have to talk to your spouse about
that.
Mr. LoBiondo. All right.
Mr. Larsen. And your dog.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. I would like to ask unanimous consent
that the record of today's hearing remain open until such time
as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that
may have been submitted to them in writing, and unanimous
consent that the record remain open for 15 days for additional
comments and information submitted by Members or witnesses to
be included in the record of today's hearing.
So I want to thank our entire panel. I think this was very
interesting and informative. I thank you for your commitment
and expertise to this particular issue.
But, Shelley, if you would pass on a particular thanks to
the thousands of men and women at the tech center who are doing
such incredible work each and every day to keep our air system
the best and the safest in the entire Nation.
And with that, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Chris Rittler, CEO, Cape Productions
Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and members of
the Subcommittee, on behalf of Cape Productions, I appreciate
the opportunity to provide a statement for the record for the
Aviation Subcommittee hearing on the integration of new
aircraft into the national airspace system.
Today, organizations across industries ranging from oil and
gas and public safety to agriculture, telecom and construction
rely on the Cape Aerial Telepresence platform, which removes
the limitations of traditional commercial drone technology to
unlock the full potential of drone integration into operational
workflows. Our technology, which is deployed in the United
States, Mexico, the Middle East, and Australia, saves lives,
prevents incidents, and makes people and property safer.
Our technology allows remote users to manipulate a drone in
real-time and with minimal latency (subject to the approval of
Cape software and a remote pilot in command). While there are
many applications for our platform, it is quickly becoming the
preferred tool to help public safety professionals gain
situational awareness and improve response times. For example,
Cape recently worked with the police department in Ensenada,
Mexico, to use drones for Aerial Intelligence-Led Emergency
Response. When a call comes in to the police, a Cape drone is
immediately dispatched to the scene, helping the commander put
eyes on the situation and make informed decisions about whether
and how to respond. The live feed is also available to the
responding officers on their mobile devices, allowing them to
monitor the situation in real time. After only four months of
operation, the drone program has conducted more than 1,600
operations and is credited with reducing crime by more than 10
percent.
Police, fire departments, and other public safety
organizations across the United States are interested in
adopting similar programs, but the current Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) rules and guidelines prevent public safety
professionals in the U.S. from taking full advantage of Cape's
technology. The restrictions on flying over people, at night,
and beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) limit the use of drones
to specialized operations (e.g., launching a drone from a fire
truck on the scene of an event) rather than using drones as a
complementary first responder on a scene. While Cape recognizes
communities can apply to waive these requirements, the process
is arduous--each community must submit its own application--and
the FAA has yet to approve a waiver to fully enable this type
of operation.
Cape applauds the Administration for launching the Unmanned
Aerial System (UAS) Integration Pilot Program (IPP). The IPP is
an opportunity for state, local, and tribal governments to work
with the drone industry to accelerate safe UAS integration. The
program is also designed to inform future FAA rulemakings to
allow more complex drone operations. Cape is participating in
the San Diego, California, IPP and is hopeful the FAA will
provide the necessary waivers to fully deploy Cape's technology
with public safety professionals in San Diego and surrounding
communities.
As the Subcommittee looks at how to more rapidly integrate
UAS into the national airspace system, we recommend
prioritizing public safety uses and creating an expedited
pathway for Federal, state, and local public safety
organizations to conduct more complex operations. For example,
similar to Part 107 for commercial operations, Cape recommends
the FAA allow public safety organizations to conduct more
complex UAS operations (i.e., flying over people, at night, and
BVLOS) without receiving a waiver, as long as certain criteria
are met (e.g., maintaining appropriate coordination with local
air traffic control operations, limiting flights to pre-defined
areas bound by a geofence, conducting appropriate community
outreach, etc.).
We applaud the Aviation Subcommittee for examining the
barriers to integrating drones into the existing airspace
system and would welcome the opportunity to engage in further
dialogue about ways to unlock the full potential of drones for
improving public safety.