Streamed Event Dec. 10th UAVs: Integration, Oversight, and..

[knuckles]

For those interested this event will be streamed Dec. 10th

U.S. Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Integration, Oversight, and Competitiveness
http://transportation.house.gov/calenda ... tID=398520

 

[Great Pumpkin]

Re: Streamed Event Dec. 10th UAVs: Integration, Oversight, a

The "witnesses" are heavily stacked AGAINST UAS, at least judging by the agencies they represent.

 

[SteveMann]

Re: Streamed Event Dec. 10th UAVs: Integration, Oversight, a

The "witnesses" are heavily stacked AGAINST UAS, at least judging by the agencies they represent.

Here are notes I made while listening. I missed the opening statements, but I did hear the Q&A between the witnesses and the committee.

Ironically, the only prop in the room was a Phantom brought by the ALPA representative.

The Congresscritters on the committee seem to be sympathetic to our perspective, both hobby and small commercial uses, particularly Rep Farenthold from Texas. He hammered the FAA on their geological timeframe. Another asked if the FAA wasn't facing an enforcement nightmare because of their delays and would look like the FCC's enforcement of rules in the CB radio band. "You buy a walkie-talkie and in the box is an application for a license, but no one ever sends them in". An observation critical of FAA delays was made that "there will be thousands more of these things flying after Christmas". The ALPA rep was especially hostile including requiring a commercial pilots license even for the farmer watching his fields. He would not reply to how is knowing how to recover from an accelerated stall has any relativity to flying a quadcopter over his farm. The ALPA also wants to see more enforcement, fines and jail time for drone operators near passenger aircraft. He made a reference to the green lasers that had been a serious problem recently where increased enforcement and fines have reduced that problem. There was a lot of discussion of 333 exemptions, and the FAA was criticized for their glacial pace of approvals, but no excuses were offered. The FAA also would not drop any hints about the pending rules, taking basically the fifth, "we can't comment on rulemaking before the public comment period", again and again. Pressed for a timeframe the FAA representative said that the NPRM would be released soon and then the 90-day public comment period would commence. She added, "I can't talk about it because it's in executive committee review now". Rules could be finalized before the end of next year (2015) but they expect a large community response [understatement] that could delay the final rules even longer. One congressman on the committee asked the FAA representative "If we're talking about a risk based approach, what actuarial data are you using?", and none was offered.

The committee members, and a number of them are pilots, were surprisingly hostile toward the FAA. One of the committee members said that he has a drone on his Christmas list. "Let's say I put a GoPro on my drone and fly at my friend's ranch. I'm perfectly legal at that point. Then, I post it to my blog that has Google ads on it. Have I crossed into the grey area of commercial use?" Farenthold asked Dillingham. "That's a lot of fine line distinctions to have to educate the public about."

Most disturbing (to me) from the groups testifying was the frequent referrals to "industry sources" and "industry leaders" in the same sentence as the AMA. It was ironically obvious that the Congresspeople on the panel were generally much more open minded than the AMA, particularly on the bLOS issue.

Privacy issues barely got mentioned.

I read through the written statements of the witnesses and the ALPA is, as expected, the most hostile toward commercial use of small UAV's. It includes statements like:

... should be required to be equipped with safety-based technologies designed with “Well-Clear” and “Collision Avoidance” functionalities at the heart of their system architectures.

... pilots must be commercially licensed with an instrument rating

... certification standards, continuing airworthiness standards, and Minimum Equipment List requirements for UAS aircraft

Any person or persons in direct control of a UAS/ RPAS must be limited to the control of a single aircraft

Here's some links for more reading:
Summary:
http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2014-12-10-aviation_ssm.pdf

Witnesses and their written statements:
• Ms. Peggy Gilligan , Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration
http://transportation.house.gov/UploadedFiles/2014-12-10-Gilligan.pdf

• Mr. Matthew Hampton, Assistant Inspector General for Aviation Audits, Department of Transportation
http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2014-12-10-hampton.pdf

• Dr. Gerald Dillingham, Director of Civil Aviation Issues, Government Accountability Office
http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2014-12-10-dillingham.pdf

• Captain Lee Moak, President, Air Line Pilots Association
http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2014-12-10-moak.pdf

• Mr. Jesse Kallman, Head of Business Development and Regulatory Affairs, Airware
http://transportation.house.gov/UploadedFiles/2014-12-10-Kallman.pdf

• Dr. Nicholas Roy, Associate Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
http://transportation.house.gov/UploadedFiles/2014-12-10-Roy.pdf

Here's the whole thing recorded on You Tube, the hearing begins at 11:50 into the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_1U0VRscH8#t=705

 

[sdtrojan]

Re: Streamed Event Dec. 10th UAVs: Integration, Oversight, a

Wow, thanks so much for your synopsis. I plan to go through the links and read on my leisure time (aka...while on the pot).

 

[ianwood]

Re: Streamed Event Dec. 10th UAVs: Integration, Oversight, a

Steve, thanks for that. Sounds almost promising. Seems there's a few people who share our frustration with the onerous requirements and lack of momentum. Maybe they'll be compelled to take further steps to fix this mess.

 

[garrock]

Re: Streamed Event Dec. 10th UAVs: Integration, Oversight, a

... particularly Rep Farenthold from Texas. He hammered the FAA on their geological timeframe.

He compared Internet Speed to the FAA's Geological Speed.... LOL. I listened to the whole sub-committee hearing.

The Single Item I Found Interesting:

• 
  A congressman asked why only 6 test sites; and those site are not producing anything yet. Small startups have to drive many hundreds of miles to be in one of those highly artificial test site locations when it would only take a relatively small plot of land in the region of the country for them to carry out tests for drones weighing a few pounds.
  
  This single item (a measly qty 6 test sites) directly stifles small start-ups and favors big or well funded ventures. Of course corporate-lobby America likes government induced market-blocking tactics; and the heck with other competing country's moving faster as long as corporate America gets their lobbied legislated protective slice.

If J.G. Wentworth was a drone pilot, he would say: "It's my air space and I want it now !"

 

[SteveMann]

Re: Streamed Event Dec. 10th UAVs: Integration, Oversight, a

Massie:

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ms. Gilligan, you mentioned that a rule would be coming out shortly, and Mr. Hampton you've documented the ways that we're kind of behind schedule. I understand that things rarely go according to schedule, whether you're in the private sector or the public sector. But when you say that rules will be coming out shortly, to quote a colleague,'is that in a geoligical timescale or in Internet speed?'

Gilligan:

The proposal is under executive review at this point sir, so I really can't tell you exactly what the timeframe is. But as I said, I think that all of us who are involved in the project understand how important it is to get this out as quickly as we can now.

On the test sites, the FAA was criticised for delaying 333 exceptions for people who wanted to go to the test sites. They were also criticised because every flight at the test sites had to be approved. One couldn't make a flight then tweak the aircraft then fly again, they are required to get a new approval.

If the FAA were in charge when fire was discovered, we would still be seeking permission to cook dinner.