tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 14, 2015 5:00pm-7:01pm EDT
review internally with dot and other agencies but the issue is locating the operators laissez question of the magnitude of penalties as locating the operators look at the pilot reports they know where the of uas is the with laser strikes than an hour it is coming from so the biggest challenge is to locate the operator in the first place so the emphasis is on education and to beef up that methodology. >> and according to news reports government agencies have acquired and deployed drove detection systems they
utilize radiofrequency, thermal detection, video and audio technology to relocate the uas and its operator. is the faa considering similar technologies as part of the efforts to mitigate the risk of a mid-air collision between uas? >> we just released of what deploys the technology and airports to see that technology is going into testing to detect jurors in the airport environment so with those testing programs you will see how to proceed from there? >> that as well as steel
fencing to develop the approach in conjunction with other agencies that have a security issue as well. >> so those pilot programs can you give us a time line when they will be operational? >> there hasn't been an announcement of a time frame yet but that should be coming shortly. >> mr. whitaker technology suggests to me to require registration of the product individuals purchased and to share that information with
an agency may cause some caution but this is coming so the best way for word we would not be set up to take this level of registration data. >> so an example of my district of orthopods on the san juan islands in did in the aerial photographer for violating to get too close to the orthopods with the aerial photography and video on the web site basically
>> i believe our members understand registration make sense on some level and it needs to be understood there is a broad spectrum i would guess somewhere around two-thirds of what we hear today is in the toy category with a short life span with their limited ability to accommodate that type of technology. so with that registration starts to make sense they would be accepting of that. everyone is required to put the ama number in to help identify for accountability purposes.
>> to put your name and address and contact number and kasich gets loose or someone steals it but you have to do this to be held accountable the same kind of deal. >> du hadrons monitor the crab pots? [laughter] >> that is next. >> to the ranking member university of alaska fairbanks is day to a site does the faa do indeed to shorten the process?
but it takes a long long time or are you improving benefactor? >> we have taken is several steps and ineptitude to defeat us monthly increase that a 400 feet so that streamlines the process dramatically. with that process itself they have streamlined but to have that safety analysis that does take some time. but to take one year or two years. >> those have been eliminated but they should be measured in days. not months or years. >> what type of equipment to
you have for collision avoidance? use they have to look at it but with the object in front to view? >> as demonstrated by the video acquisition is difficult with any aircraft even with the collision avoidance? >> we do have those but they are equipped to operate to highlight other aircraft who are similarly equipped. there will not go up in the cockpit at all. >> how did you get in such a good position with model airplanes? but how did you achieve that?
>> en the approach that people get into this hobby traditionally read their interest to learn how to operate their aircraft purpose of the newer communities are attracted by the functionality and something it can do. it isn't different from the smart phone. it they looked added as an extension of your camera. we have a different mind-set that it does boil down to the educational process as long as they understand the means they can operate safely we believe the american is a descent will do that.
but until we can assure the say the consumer has the information in hand it is hard to assess the mentality of the others. >> what if we require that manufacturers to put the kill button into the aircraft if they got within so many feet of an airport? that is really what we are here for is the danger to the airplane that the pilot flies. >> dear dan by fossil fuels those that come out are battery powered. >> if you can go close to
the green because the communication stops? premier quite can the technology be applied to any of these drums? because then it will fall of the air. >> if you live as a you will not do with it again. the you help us to write the legislation. when we rights legislation 99% it is screwed up they don't understand the problem. said to have knowledge of what works the most
legislation they have written the the legislation is coming mid-year all screwed up. >> to solve the problem of danger. i yield back. >> i was pleased to read the faa is going ahead with cac i. to test in virginia this summer ted has been used in military operations to pinpoint the operator. that's good. numerous things they can force the drone to landor to go back and how to move ahead with this. how many of those were prosecuted or identified?
>> i don't have statistics but it is difficult to track them down. >> you said you cannot handle the volume? then what is that barrier? repairs interagency discussion of how that is used. with a point-of-sale i heard that in my own home town where the peeping tom was operating but we will never know. the you would not necessarily want to disable
them to drop out of the sky and with designated safe sites to use that technology to say go get your drone we will be waiting. i have been through almost 29 years to talk about the tombstone mentality. what this means to the aviation and beyond that i am concerned it will bring that legitimate commercial this industry will grow eight to all three have to get a handle on this. >> a thing you would like to add?
i know that whole area but we're talking a whole new generation coming this save people that cellphone and etiquette don't go together and now i am worried about irresponsible operations. >> i agree. to differentiate those points that i generally believe are responsible. they do have battery is better heavy pieces to read havoc on the aircraft when it hits one there will be a significant event with though windscreen or flight control system or an adjusted for the flight crew it will be challenging to save the aircraft.
>> anybody would to comment on that? >> it is not my intent to scare anybody but it is in the event. >> you cannot point to any particular act is a that is the sole cause political all the risk that we deal with with commercial aviation to a sign risk to each element whether traffic communication and security we look for mitigation on every single element of the risk. should it happen at a time when something else was going on and with flight control malfunction or challenging communication and always in a critical phase of flight to have the
highest risk of the actual accident. >> it has to be a rare defect -- a layer effect. >> thanks for holding this hearing. what is today's date? >> the seventh of october, a 2015. >> of legislation repast in 2012 had a directive and what deadline did it set what deadline did it set to finish the work that was assigned?
>> september 2015. >> so we are behind schedule obviously. if you review the record to pass in 2012 but pie next year 2013 you had completed the plan is required under the law. for j yuri 20th of this year. in then it came out in february with february march april may june july august september justin to
october's you had eight months to finalize that rule and now you say, it was just a small aircraft? >>. >> but that differentiation between small and large. but the testimony i have heard some time? >> the comment period open three april we had over 4500 comments we were in adjudicating those rule was faa by the end of this year to pay through the review process isn't the last time we discussed the point we agreed on june 17 dash that is still a solid date cpac
not intel next june? to read the first half of next year. >> what about large? >> large uas will depend on commercial demand and technology so that will develop more dash developed as demand develops. >> i am disappointed that what will. this will be a very serious accident or incident i can almost predict there will be what there are so many flying it is almost inevitable that we have a juror -- a drone hits and aircraft several probably be injuries hopefully not fatalities there up to 55 pounds are remember going to re testing center is a
lack of rosenberg but to do as much damage i don't need another test to show what would happen but what probably will will speed things up. how many incidents of aircraft with drones 200 or 400? >> we don't keep the records >> we're adder rate of 100 per month. >> 1200 per year and so far 20 enforcement actions? >> that involves civil penalties. is your plan to you have a
provision to require that hundreds of thousands of these are sold with a simple warning that says you cannot fly is that such a height is headed your proposal should we do that by law? just letting people know when they purchase one of these that the obligations are important. >> we have been working to put that in the package. >> it deals with commercial operation is headed is the imager operator it to be voluntarily och included but they would have a rule to mandate.
everything that would be too long. >> mr. chairman my first question is for mr. hanson you disagree with the faa regarding uas near miss reports that are received by the faa do they have good data analysis to collect from the pilots and how does this stage yet the statement that the reports are much lower? >> ama does not use that data. handed is important to know
they did not classify those as they did air collision it was determined to a close call to my knowledge security does not have a defined definition or a definitive definition so what we did was go strictly to the language when we pulled out the ones with the person reporting best fighting in their determination and called it a near minister to indicate they had to take evasive action quite honestly there is of large number that could not be termed a year in counter of any kind. >> you have vague definition of nearness to be standardized? >> the difference i believe
before you create that definition you have to do some analysis of the environment and the types of vehicles we talk about. as the captive in cited very small objects when seen from the cockpit it is very difficult to get any type of relative value with the size or feet or its intentions. so there needs to be some study done and more from the perspective of the plight -- the pilots and how he could identify that object to make sure there is no type of their space conflict. >> if we develop a common-sense policy we have to have that good data on upon which to do that. i represent one of the most
forested districts in the country although it is in arizona and we try to do something with prevention but what is the opportunity to use drones of fire prevention? >> is and if -- useful to collect the information and what we deal with that good assessment without taking the time and expense. >> specifically back to suppression how you use those efforts? >> to keep track of what is
going on, the cruise on the ground how the fire behaves to make sure nobody is in harm's way and you can have those communication in case they need to move and move quickly. >> we had a tragic situation with a fire if the crew did not know the direction of the fire and it changed dramatically would uas be helpful? >> that is difficult but i would have had liked to have had it available. >> talk about the need to register drones and
enforcement is that all drones or is there a size limits or to have a tory rather than entering your duty to the federal government spirits go where we of approach it is to keep the capabilities of the vehicle of altitude and range and speed to see if they can go on this year's base. >> this is $45.20 a can have it be - - by friday since i am a prime number with free shipping it is 1 pound with a range of 50 meters. that is 165 pce are not saying that needs to be registered? and a convict than fly to
thousand three. >> better range of 50 meters ? it only gets 165 feet. >> i am not sure if that is lateral or transmitter or the capability apple throttle. >> go to the faa. mr. whitaker i have spoken on agf and seeing. there is a raid that they can get a rich lawyer dash machine readable format is publicly available end pushed out and some manufacturers have included this in their products. >> so there is a standardized database?
tell it is a move the aircraft is seen as a technology you should be able to get basically on the chip. >> with respect to amateur use we want to keep them out of the controlled airspace and under 400 feet with a small role under 500 feet. there is a question of they should also be equipped with something that has a radio signal. anything that operates in a controlled airspace has to be equipped after 2020 but that will be necessary to have the integration for larger uas to talk about the difference between recreation end commercial lot of recreation and users like to put the go pro camera on their drone fed up
blood so where do you cross the line for commercial use? >> i don't think the example that you raised is commercial i think that is pretty common use of recreation commercial as if you were paid to operate or as part of your business model. >> i could see to do a shot at the of lemonade stand and my point is for recreational users with that rule making
process and not over regulating to kill a future industry? >> mr. whitaker in my district the sheriff's department is the only public agency that uses uas aside from the navy rehab of big maple bushes and -- we have a big naval base in but to receive authorization to operate the device search for searchers to and mountains it is helpful from that perspective but every time the shares saba's operates - - the sheriff's office operates they file a notice to airmen and i know
that it is not required but they take it out of the abundance of caution is that something they may require in terms of a requirement? >> the public use is quite mature. the system is the interim step to get through a more realtime ability but that is the appropriate procedure at this time. >> i think i read in the documents there are 1700 documents given.
what do show our backlog gore the current demand? >> i am not sure the actual backlog i can get that for you we have increased but dramatically during over 100 per week sri have cleared that backlogs we can get the numbers to use. >> how many are operated without commercial applications? >> we don't have a way to know that exactly. they gives us a glimpse into what has happened but the numbers are too big to retract. >> you say now it is over 400 feet. >> under the small role is
500. >> if we a sense of pounded the that you are involved in with negotiating a special contract for specific use? >> we try to group these to rue expedite the processing there are thousands on public use. these vehicles are widespread fears. >> you said only the civil penalties? >> several hundred investigations under the compliance policy first try to get them operating with rules if we don't have to use enforcement rigo. 20 cases have required us to issue a civil penalty. >> what is that? >> baseline up to a $25,000 per incident yesterday was
1.9% million involves dozens and dozens of flights over a heavy populated area. >> with wild fire suppression with uas does the faa have a specific legislative recommendations to increase the penalties? >> we are evaluating the level of the penalties involved up to 250,000 that is evaluated a lot of operations are inadvertent and how we locate the operators. >> with the operation in peace is there any legal
barrier that prevents the faa for requiring manufacturers and to include the safety information within packaging? >> we are prohibited for regulating for recreational use permit is possible we could do more rulemaking around that the timeframe is not viable for us so we are focused on voluntary compliance at this point. >> as the pilot that represents a airforce base one of the six sites selected, i suggest there is more unanimity today than i have heard it a long time. we are probably one severe accident away from a public outcry why we haven't done something as has been implied earlier.
i was just the urgency you have to agree we're one accidental way that will head create havoc without a rush to judgment i have been eight year-old son that has three of these they would be wrecked by tumor night to one -- tomorrow night. but the air emission give the assumption people have perfect separation and do their homework. a lot of people do not. but it is my unconsidered
opinion that they do not belong at airports. you have talked about this with your statement, what kind of training is appropriate that you would like to see? >> if the vehicle is intended to be shared airspace the standard is close to establishing that and did exist to complete training to maintain qualifications if it is not intended to operate air space then it is the matter proper medications to keep that out from unintentional blunders and that is the
importance of the educational campaign we should consider testing to know that they know how to operate the vehicle. >> would you rather pick up the distance? do except that -- and do you except you should have commercial trading to fly is a airspace at low ground levels? >> we take a different approach reconsider all airspace is shared even within 1 inch of the ground with the faa we instruct our pilots it is based upon the fact there is always a
possibility to encounter a manned aircraft interior to take every step necessary not to interfere. >> but there's a light were they the hundred if you're at the airport they and not. >> sharper as we talk about closer proximity then we have other procedures to put in place but the idea is to avoid at all times and to that credit community there has not been significant airspace. >> why is it important you operate in the same airspace as the airport? what drives you to think that? >> not all airports are created equal. there are rural airports with lower traffic counts
counts, communities there welcome to operate actually some clubs are:located at airports. >> that would suggest there are places you would say maybe you should not be in this space but this place you could bet is general in the middle of the grass strip. >> no doubt locations where these devices should be flown. >> i am suggesting to you have a lot in common? you may want to think about what is important for agriculture and recreation at the airports that you just described. my time is expired.
>> the gentleman from california. >> thanks for the hearing is very important. mr. larsen you opened the issue of registration you mentioned picking up the phone at amazon to goes back to the manufacturer some way or other that we need the government to be able to access the registration program it would be very simple to do that but we could spend several years to write that regulation which is probably what we will do because that is our specialty by italy's say all of these must be registered held by the manufacturer or seller the and the
government has the ability to access under circumstances with an accident or incident? where a simple pair public too much -- too easy for work around here. we go back and forth with an airport or wait 20 years for technology to worker simply say if you fly this uas near a hub lot of the face of the hub airport you are violating the law and is subject to a fine or even jail time by the way if you fly near the active fire your subject to a fine and jail time. that immediately educates everybody involved in this sport and commercial activity the other way
around this study study study the specialty of the government for those who don't want interference for proposed legislation introduced yesterday that simply says if you fly uas within 2 miles of a significant airport from your breaking the law subject to one year in jail with a significant fine and with an active fire you're breaking the law with one year in jail. that is a clear message so what do you think of that since to fight fires? >> we do need some help of some kind because when we fight fires here at very low altitudes with a lot of distractions not the least of which is smoke.
to avoid is difficult if that technology is not there then we have to turn education over to regulation >> i cannot wait to read and i think it is the step in the right direction they were concerned of the limitation of 2 miles of the threshold they could be near that approach to miles 900 feet off the ground from the end they do think it should be a little larger especially of a cat around atlanta and miami it drops down onto surface is 67 miles off the airport unless they're talking to air traffic control read one to anybody in that space.
>> what about the hobbyist? >> it has been a lot talk -- a longtime says i have been called little. >> i referred to the machines. [laughter] >> 2 miles may not be far enough others that could be too far or adequate if you are a homeowner and went to buy your grandson a tollway and would hate to see him subject to a one-year penalty for flying in his backyard. :b interested to see the language and having an opportunity to comment. >> you can have been in a few moments. we get tied up in details in the meantime asthma
colleagues have centcom a time will pass and the accident will happen or the incident. not sure it is an accident we know that in california we have had numerous fires and we're facing a situation where they have expanded as a result of drones shutting down aerial operations also other incidents in the air support -- airspace around airports so we just need to lay down a marker to say if he were operating uas in the space is to violate the law is subject to severe penalty. that is the education program some they may pay attention to zero of the grandchildren are near the runway flying back uas that
you bought them that is some not interfering with the approach of the capt. into the atlanta airport, i'm sorry the kid is breaking the law and as a responsible adult you should be held accountable. we're talking about very serious potential problems. i yield back my time i will deliver a copy of the legislation. >> good morning we appreciate your testimony. mr. whitaker is seems that aviation could work closely with trone operators to educate and train on these rules better forthcoming for best practices. have you reached out to any associations? >> i don't have any specific examples.
we're looking at the question of airspace. >> does not my question you think it is a good idea but it is a good idea to reach out? >> the general aviation community. >> like through? >> small airport association and alpa. >> and when we do that by? >>. >> guide is when to get you on record region start moving to build partnerships where they make most sense. when can you do that by? >> i can report back within 30 days of a plan to do that >> when can you make of oh call or write a later at one dash letter? >> in the next four weeks. >> depending on the time of
year farmers may be in the field to want to use the machines in indiana there is farm operations 24/7 probably starting right now the proposed rule only allows day operations are you considering modifying that at all or are you strict on that? i can see in a farm field these machines could be used around the clock. >> night operations is being researched and it could be allowed by a exemption but that is something we would like to allow. >> i appreciate that. thanks capt. for your testimony how much your members know talk about the near miss sightings, how do know that is what they saw first is a balloon that a kid but ago i see that from time to time and try to
circle around that were even a ufo. uc that on cable and what specifically does alpa darr to verify? europe there is a redundant set of eyes their old double sightings? >> but not always some mickey really get the captain of the first officer. we are both moving quickly. >> so how are we so sure? your pick:having 20 civil penalty cases but in all fairness is a very cannot even identify there were all uas? >> we do see a lot of balloons. they are not god. >> needy we should except
elvis sightings are really not even those to begin with? >> not all of them. >> but how do you know, how many? >> we don't know how many. >> with the proliferation of 1 million more next year even if a small percentage were uas we have a problem. >> but we cannot even quantify there is millions of birds. >> reminds me. talk about canadian geese to be heavier and the assumption was that birds are more dangerous but the captain says there are metal batteries can you elaborate? >> it depends on the platform. some drones that came out
last week that can sit on your fingertip to read the same as three pennies. the phantom is one-third of the weight of a canada goose some have a 10-foot wingspan to raise 30 pounds. >> see you cannot quantify. >> going to the commercial licensing structure your organization is recommending a commercial pilot's license but the flight characteristics this all characteristics are completely different i have a commercial license with higher specifications ago understand why read a commercial license? i/o wanting to resume simply because you are worried about job protection that one day they may take away a pilot's job? >> no sir.
operations on all modes said pierre a taxicab airplane all require commercial operation. >> see you are worried about the revenue not necessarily the safety spirit there is a higher expectation of a safety when you pay for a service. >> i will say anything that you don't already knows you can go to sleep and it doesn't matter but the fed from comes out of the plane everybody will get sued and you will lose on a jury because we can do something really isn't perfect yet and this is new and evolving but doing nothing is a clear danger and not even an
excuse to be perfectly honest. we should be doing stuff to put an educational packet of to ladrones they're not very big i don't have a clue i am doing i really stink which that is a danger and and no doubt that two mile women i live with than 2 miles i don't know. i would not intentionally try to bring down a plane but christmas presents a drawn you can get out of bridgestone. nothing special. this is crazy. we can do it to automobiles. if i drop this right now some very smart technology kid could figure out robotic who it belongs to read was yesterday to white called, etc., etc. if that happens to a drone nobody knows?
i saw something i don't know what it was. , . you could put the number or tiny technology even as something as small as surfing your if you can i can find people who can to track it down never mind the regulations licensing is not a problem i am not trying to shut down the technology at all is opening a newt -- a wonderful new frontier at all levels but it presents a danger and just because it is difficult as a main we should not do something. i don't really have any questions because i know you can do what i just see your reluctance especially from the faa and i don't understand it at all do something before somebody who's is their life.
i don't want to be here to really you for not doing nothing that is no fun. certainly if it is somebody i know or love or you know, or you love or profession. just get it done. i know it is evolving there are bigger uses i am not so sure that tomato radius sometimes there is no planes at all. i am not sure of the insert the you already know. in not preventing any hobbyist for preventing anything thoughtful and accidents to the stop us from putting numbers on automobiles and 15 different places but some people are bad people we haven't done
anything that allows us to find them in some eight potentially goes out to logan airport implies a intentionally into a plane we have allowed the technology to not exist. you get all the criminal prosecutions in the world that you cannot find them that will not help my phone or by a automobile or my underwear but we cannot find a drone borders because it is a simple item to be installed? by the way you cannot control the geese we have dogs that chased them around they have a great time we do something. there may be better ways to reduce something that is
always better than nothing in the face of a known danger. they give a listening. >> mr. chairman? >> going to opening testimony dr. kay you would talk about the back issues were significant in certain areas and negligible in others and can you elaborate coming from a rural area of north carolina you would assume there maybe save the there are small grass strips >> re maybe save the there are small grass strips >> we got a stream of radar data and the estimated the
density across the united states a lot of areas we didn't see anything in nine months. >> could we put forth in certain counties of drone free zone or drone permissible? are there certain counties where there is relatively -- relatively no interaction with aircraft? that is a loaded question. [laughter] . .
there is nothing magical about this definition. it's just -- >> captain would you agree with a definition of near miss? is that satisfactory? >> currently there exists a criteria for near mess report. >> his definition, would that be satisfactory to the airline pilots? >> i don't believe so because it doesn't provide near what we need to avoid a collision. >> can you give the chairman of the committee what you would estimate a near miss would be? >> i'm not sure we are quick to do that analysis. >> well can you query your pilot
and asked them to opine on it, how about that? >> we can ask them and gather as much information as possible. >> but to go quickly and finish up. mr. whittaker some have suggested your row making has not been expeditious and i believe in your earlier testimony here you were talking about doing rulemaking for commercial drums -- drones and i guess si said the commercial viability and economic viability increases. did i hear you correctly on that? >> i think the question was around large uas. >> so there's a certain mentality that says if you build it they will calm and in your testimony here today is if they build it we will regulate it. >> we are trying to move in lockstep with commercial demand and technology. >> but mr. whittaker let me suggest that you are more
forward-thinking in terms of regulation. the ambiguity of faa doing nothing creates the kind of dynamics that we have here today both on the commercial on the hobbyist side of things and the more finite you can be the better that commercial act 70 will be in terms of meeting your expert patient. if we waited to job expectations and until we have problems as we are trying to do today creates much uncertainty and the market. would you agree with that? >> yes sir. >> how do we best move your rulemaking faster as it relates to the near misses that we are talking about here and allow it to compete in drones because if not we are going to lose out to the drone technology in europe. we have had other testimony sitting at the very table that would suggest that so how do we make sure you do that
effectively and i'm out of time so i will yield back. >> thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from nevada. >> thank you mr. chairman. i believe the faa has a definition of near miss that is an regulation that is a lot larger than what the professor mentioned but anyway we can check that out. i would like to direct my comments to the administrator but if any of the rest of you want to weigh and i appreciate that. i represent las vegas and i was a strong proponent of nevada being named one of the original test centers for this kind of technology. you mentioned that they are there for collaboration and research but what seems to have happened is these test sites have kind of fizzled out. there's not a lot of attention there. they kind of don't know what their goal is and what they should be doing. i would like you to comment on that. what can these test sites be
doing and what is the faa doing to encourage and support them? it seems like the faa has all his attention on granting the section 333 exceptions supposed to working with the test sites. what is the point of them, if you address that i would also ask you when you grant these exceptions do you continue to get information from these facilities that now can fly and how do you use that information to inform this process of regulation development, or is that just once they get the exception there out there and we don't know what's going on? >> yes maam. the 62nd test sites are providing grounds for testing so the private sector can use them and other researchers can use them for flight tests and other. we have tried to streamline the approval process to a large degree which i think we have done but at the same time they are designed to be a marketplace so they have to compete for them
and some test sites have been more successful than others at that. we have been meeting with all the test sites over the last two months to help jumpstart and facilitate some of that work. to your second the tech center has a role in accumulating the data from the operations in collating data data and using it for supporting our research efforts. >> does anybody else care to comment on whether these test sites are working like they should or we are getting enough information from them or doesn't make much difference? >> i think the industry as they start to see the value of the test sites while i'm not a technician and i'm not a designer but the company that comes up with a small lightweight universally powered active collision avoidance system at the point you place on any aerial system that company is going to make a lot of money in the best way to test these are the existing test site so i think it's a good program as we move forward. >> i would like to go back to
the administrator and part of my question was about granting section . an 33 exemptions. does that seem to be where most of your energy and effort isn't supporting technology and data collection? is that accurate? >> i would say those are different functions. 333 has gotten a lot of attention but it's a different group if you will but does that. we have research going on in conjunction with staff and dod at the tech center and the center of excellence. we are focused on all of those things and they are all part of his going forward. >> to get information going back after you granted it extension to one of these companies? >> not necessarily. for commercial exemptions although we do have some commercial partnerships where we are taking that data and analyzing it. >> would that be helpful for making these regulations? >> while it's not a restriction. we have issued 1800, three and
33's exceptions. we don't feel it's appropriate for commercial operators to mandate that kind of work. it might be helpful in some better willing to do that we have a partner with. >> so it's voluntary? if you look at the way the agency is set up is there more priority more ever to more energy put into granting these extensions on the testing and technology in the test centers? >> i would say they are not linked. as a rule gets finalized a 333 process will be dramatically reduced. >> but shouldn't they be linked? they -- you are the one that use the term collaboration about the test sites. >> as far as exchange of information to 333 process is part of workforce and research coordination. >> is not where the priority is instead on the testing and getting the information?
>> priorities on the dash. >> how do you measure that? >> we measure the 333 and on the test sites in the research it's not amenable to immediate metric measurement but there's a lot of research a lot of effort going into that. >> okay, thank you. >> the gentlelady of that. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you chair. it strikes me three things. one, the unmanned but that's not the future of flight it's certainly the next frontier of flight. two, there has been a longtime fascination with flight going back to the days of da vinci moving forward to the wright truthers and three that we want to encourage innovation on that front and in general regulation control and other innovation that i think is vital to
american competitiveness. we want to have kids out there with something if we tie these three rocks until will it fly as well? kids at the base level in the garage working with some of the stuff may well lead to innovation and new developments with regard to unmanned flight and they can have commercial applications that are certainly competitive outpatients. what hit me in listening to the testimony today is how do we get to a place that is minimally invasive with regard to unmanned and how do we get to a place that keeps government out of involvement as much as possible so we maximize individual freedom without in any way interrupting commercial flight or a non-commercial flight? and so i was intrigued by what my colleague from california had gotten at than my colleague from north carolina. how do we come up with something that's really simple whether that's the kind of legislation
you talked about so you don't end up with a bunch of you know things being tacked onto this equipment that raises the price and keeps frankly many consumers out of the marketplace? how do you keep up with some massive database and you have to hire more bureaucrats to cover the database. 90% of folks who wouldn't be a problem. how do we do something quite simple whether that's the garamendi language or something else and i guess that begin with you. any ideas grosmaire and doctor doctor on something you may have seen a different country in a best practice or something you may have heard about and talking with other colleagues that would indeed be minimally invasive? >> so i think it's minimally invasive. very easy to implement. something we can do now.
>> if i understand right it wouldn't solve the problem of you go to feet but if you are 400 feet off i know you have got a problem. >> trying to solve the whole problem is very complicated and it will take time. 400 feet. >> that would be your vote? we will keep it moving. mr. hansen your thoughts. quick thoughts most simple remedy would be what? >> i believe that the approach is proven to be an effective way of handling the model aircraft/hobby environment and i would look to that to continue keeping this operation. >> community-based model. >> outside of the community-based those that are operating outside of that restrictions would help but also there was a way to restrict enabling of the vehicle when purchasing it until a code is put in, you need to get that code to pass the test.
i can't go to the airport because i couldn't get my code without passing the test. >> code. >> until technology catches up with public awareness. >> that was in the most efficient way to get there is efficiency be standard so we don't have to go down the regulatory path that involved stakeholder engagement. >> i very much like that idea of industry-standard verses government edict. one quick questions because i see i only have a few minutes and i guess this is directed to you mr. anderson. going back to that idea of industry standards. how would you describe the way in which they develop and educate members and modeling policies for safety? you talk about industry-standard how do you do that? >> currently within our membership a lot if not the majority of our education is done at the local club level but
the local people coming together and gathering at the club and sharing information. in terms of the broader membership we do have through our mainstay magazine there are on line presence and then in terms of the uneducated consumer we are doing the know before you fly campaign. >> i see i have one second left mr. chairman. >> thank you for yelling back mr. sandberg. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. >> thank you mr. chairman. in your cusp -- testimony he said the department of the interior felt the summary of the the -- field season and he made recommendations. when can we expect to see that some right? >> the summary of the incursions? we have that available now. >> all right, it's available now and are you making recommendations from that some
right? >> now, that's just capturing what we have encountered and returned to faa and others are recommendations. >> so one of the instances in california reported that five aircraft were delayed for 20 minutes minutes. as i write? >> yes. >> what impact can a 20 minute delay have on your ability to suppress or maintain a fire? >> and backcountry fires it's not a lot. it gets bigger. in interface fires where you have a loss of property at risk it of course depends on the situation but it could be dramatic. >> to find dramatic. >> loss of property for sure and sometimes putting lives at risk. >> so after we get a chance to review the summary we may do
follow-up with you just to understand better what steps we might take. so then faa and you all work done it. an mou, is that writer writer and ammo a? >> mla yes sir. >> what is and that emma lake? >> how we would proceed to try to resolve these kinds of issues because we know we are an outlier in terms of our statistics and are operating altitude's and it's going to be a little more complicated. so we need some help. >> how many millions of acres did you say were on fire in the west to see her? >> we burned 9 million acres. >> and individual buyers? >> 7000 fires. >> is that an outlier? >> no. mr. whitaker how do you confirm that there are have been
situations where drones have, in a properly closed aircraft? there have been some questions about confirming these whether they are or they aren't. how does the faa confirm them? >> they are difficult to confirm. we don't have that number so we can see. we don't have an ability to locate them the way we would with a laser for example. that's just the nature of the data so it's very raw data. i think what we can say is that the trend in the data is pretty obvious so there are a number reports on a monthly basis now of over 100 and that's a fivefold increase from a year ago. you can argue around the margins but i don't think there's any question that it's a trend. >> e, and how do you confirm these numbers? >> the information we get is on the sole basis and we point our
members to the web site which helps them refresh their memory on the criteria for near miss collision criteria and in their mind to determine a factor, if they believe they have one with point them to the various links at the faa so they can fill the form out and submit the report. that's beyond the report that happens real-time when the private said hey there is one of those drones. press on its transponder and call the tower at the approach controls as i observed this in the comptroller can say okay that's a data point for us. and kim warned aircraft behind them which is very important. >> you are the technology guy. how would you suggest we clean that up, how to confirm if? >> is really tough if you rely on piloting and i don't want to diminish it but there have been at least one case where the pilot bob a. had a drone and it
turned out later to be a bird so it's very tricky. so what you would have to rely upon this some kind of surveillance system for something merron airport that could actually capture these things. >> can you talk a little bit as well about and this is the final question. i want to understand. without getting into the gory details but the difference between an engine taking on it heard and an engine taking on either composite material drone or a drone that is metal-based? >> i should clarify that engine ingestion is not my area of expertise but i have talked to some people and we don't really know. i was very too happy to hear you were pursuing that but it's not
rocket science. it has probably something to do with the size of the drone, the components is made out of and so forth. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back and the chair recognized the gentlewoman from illinois. >> it's always following my colleagues talking about engine digestion or indigestion so great question. thank you for being here. i apologize. i had multiple hearings today so if i'm redundant with any of my questions please forgive me but i have a concern that ever-present some of the manufacturers of our newer hobby aircraft in uav technology and also home to many possible users for this technology for commercial use and i know a lot of discussion was on the exemption program that is currently being implemented and run through the faa and part of my concerns have to do with some
previous hearings like this where we talked about the exemption process moving very slowly to offer commercial exemptions to those who apply. now since they have sped up what we have seen is some of the older requests being limited, being limited versus some of the newer requests and what can be done but the technology that they have applied the exemption for and mr. whitaker i appreciate that your processes involved with the faa but i think there might be a concern where older applicants and older exemptions that were issued may need to have some of the newer flexibility that some of the newer exemptions that are being issued currently enjoy. so can you tell me, is their process in place at the faa right now to look at some of the
owner applications to see if they need that same type of flexibility and if so are you going to do that unilaterally or says something that the previous applicants have to do? >> so this is not a concern that i have heard expressed before but it sounds like a concern that the newer exemptions have more flexibility. that would normally be triggered by the current holders coming back for some adjustment to their 333 application. >> so they have to come back personally to change the operational conditions? >> i will look into that and respond to your office. >> please do. as a concern for those in my district who have been possibly granted exemptions that may now be outdated and i do believe, and i hope you take this back, we need to have some flexibility in that process because the technology has changed even over
the time that this program, this exemption program is implemented in the technology that is being produced in my district is going to continue to evolve unless we here in the federal government stopped its ability to evolve and to continue to grow into what i think should be commercial usage and a much more flexible commercial usage for uav technology and to do it in a safe way. i think that can happen and while i have time left i will not butcher your name like my colleague mr. larson did since i wasn't here to get the correct pronunciation. i will talk call your doctor came back again. can you give me an idea of how maybe transponder technology can be helpful in avoiding some of the collisions and some of the issues that i think the faa is facing right now and as policymakers?
>> if unmanned aircraft are going to be flying if they level of transporting aircraft or up with general aviation aircraft in order to be seen they need to have some kind of transponder. >> wouldn't that transponder technology work at lower level flights? >> it could work as well. i'm not sure how many helicopters have that installed. but it's a possibility. the problem though is that the cost of these transponders including a dft are pretty expensive and they consume power and they are heavy. so for a lot of these larger aircraft it makes sense and should be absolutely required but for smaller drones may be a couple of pounds. >> the technology for lightweight transponder technology does not currently
exist for the newer versions of uav's? >> there's a lot of interest in developing this and there has been activity with google. >> and entrepreneurs ostream. and entrepreneurs dream. how do you pronounce your last name? >> it's. >> you talked about the difference between going out there folks with serious penalties when they did not learn their lesson versus training folks on thinking about the number of incursions on restricted airspace by licensed pilots, by trained pilots and pilots flying planes with transponders. i've seen those incursions into restricted air brace into the thousands. do you happen to know how many of those folks have faced serious penalties? ..
such that before we start talking about adding technology to $55 drones$55 drones we should be adding it to $55,000 aircraft? >> i think this is a multilayered problem. straying into restricted airspace will ultimately result in you losing your license to operate the aircraft. in tracking who the operator of the unmanned aerial system, that's difficult. that is were part of the conflict is. we have to look at a both. we don't know the numbers either. if you make a mistake in an aircraft forward human and we make mistakes. you have a way of reporting it. that doesn't exist.
having some of the technological restrictions across the board. >> they are both important but to have the database, i lost command of my vehicle, then we can look toward mitigation for the problems of the experience in the future. every unmanned aircraft and altitude restriction, not just that it be left up to individuals that they abide by it or not.
we really want to prevent things like that. but we should be allowed to be overridden. >> that was the very 1st line of the is written testimony. safety of pilots and how we can come together on that. in the context of terrorism, the unlimited number of folks who want to do us harm -- sorry, an unlimited number of ways to do us harm, but a limited number of folks who want to do it. unlimited number of ways that accidents can happen by untrained personnel, limited number of folks who are out there day in and day out to
violate the rules as the faa has indicated just this week. is that the challenge, doctor, not to find a one-size-fits-all aircraft solution but to go after those folks who would intentionally violate whether the industry standards or federal regulatory standards? >> ii worry a lot about the naïve users and the reckless users. i think that actors are separate category. i would have to say there is relatively little that we can do about that right now. >> should we be focused on the naïve users of the bad actors? >> intentional act need to be dealt with. existing laws and such. the naïve were educated community. our experience shows us that the users are good-natured
and conscientious individuals they just need the proper information. >> if there are no further questions i think all the witnesses for the testimony, indulgence today, and the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> taking a look at the votes of the white house, join us in about 25 minutes or so for march and donald trump 's. the billionaire is leading the republican pack and will speak in richmond, virginia at the international raceway. coverage goes live at seven pm eastern here on c-span2. now, to take us to the top of the hour, here's a look at how the economy will
affect the presidential race. this is from today's washington journal. >> host: douglas holtz eakin, back at our table this morning. mr. holtz eakin, i want to begin with last night's debate. something that bernie sanders has talked about a lot, how you grow this economy in the issue with income inequality. want to show our viewers and get your reaction. >> do i consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much in so many have so little, but which wall street greed and recklessness no, i don't. i believe in a society where all people do well, not just a handful of billionaires. >> is there anyone else on the state you is not a capitalist? >> let me follow up on that, anderson, because when i think about capitalism i
think about all of the small businesses that were started because we have the opportunity and freedom for people to do that and to make a good living for themselves and their families command i don't think that we should confuse what we have to do every so often in america which is safe capitalism from itself. i think what sen. sanders is saying certainly makes sense in the terms of the inequality that we have, but we are not denmark. i love denmark. we are the united states of america, and it is our job to rein in capitalism so that it does not run amok and does not cause the kind of inequities that we are seeing in our economic system, but we would be making a grave mistake to turn our backs on what about the greatest middle class in the history. [applause] >> everyone is in agreement that we are a great entrepreneurial nation. we have to encourage that. of course, we have to support small and medium-size businesses, but you can have all of the growth that you want, and it
does not mean anything if all of the new income and wealth is going to the top 1 pe. what we need to do is support long and meeting size business, the backbone of our economy, but we have to make sure every family gets a fair shake. >> host: douglas holtz eakin, this is something that the democrats talk a lot about on the campaign trail in those small town halls in new hampshire and iowa command issue that they think will get democrats about. >> it certainly animates the democratic base, but if you recall, the president basically asserted that income inequality was a seminal issue of our time about a yeara year and a half ago and then dropped it entirely. i think that that is quite revealing because if it does not turn out to by and large animates the american public , that, that debate, let's take everything from the 1 percent and give it to
the american people is not something that they support. another problem,problem, the analytics of these arguments, there are two things that could asserted, one is that somehow greedy capitalism wreck to this economy, the financial crisis in the great recession. the financial crisis was global in scope. wescope. we had housing bubbles in new zealand, france, the united kingdom, the us. and weand we had them in radically different regulatory environments. a single regulator for all its banks and is unified with its equipment of the federal reserve. there is nothing that is uniquely american that caused the crisis. the same is true for income inequality. this is been happening for 30 years and socialist, capital economies, seeing a widening income distribution understanding global forces and what you can do about them, i think, is the key's
if not tax cuts, the minimum wage, the kind of things you hear. people working command we have seen a decline which is the difference between being poor and not poor command for those who work, the difference between success and not success is really skills and education which we must be honest about and do a better job of lifelong learning and making sure people get into the labor force with skills and upgrade them as they go. >> what are some of these global forces you are talking about? you say republicans are not talking about. prescriptions for remedying the wage gap the people are feeling wage gaps, and equality. on the mobility front, one of the remarkable findings, social mobility in the united states and concluded that it has not changed in
the past 50 years. now, as 50 years ago, your chances your chances of getting from the bottom 5 percent of the middle class and. >> frankly from the top to the middle class, that really has not changed. it is not the case that somehow the american dream is out of reach in a way that is new and unique right now in the data. on the campaign trail those things get pushed aside. let's have the economy growing give everyone a chance to get ahead. the remedies are going to be tax the rich and have bigger government programs for the poor. >> global commerce, the fact that we have entered into the global economy populations the size of india and china, we had just change that dramatically. that is a good thing from
the perspective of the globe the largest you have ever seen. a much better standard of living we should celebrate that in the big picture. but it's a different world in which we now compete and americans no that. >> states that are moving this direction that would like to see the minimum-wage increase. what do you think about that and tell us why you think it would not work? >> i am not a fan, and i am not a fan for a couple of reasons. it will, in fact, harm job growth in america and will be targeted on low skill jobs in restaurants, bars, places like that, retail. and the best estimates out of the ceo,ceo, for example, something below $15, it would cost about 500,000 jobs.
>> host: we are talking to douglas holtz eakin about what we heard from democrats and their 1st debate and what republicans are saying on the campaign trail on their solutions for economic problems. mary 1st and slippery rock, pennsylvania. go ahead. >> thank you for taking my call. why is the answer always to raise taxes from the democrats? lower the cost of college. here is an example. we have a friend who is a professor at a pennsylvania college he said to us just this summer, i don't enjoy teaching, but the best part of my job is my five months paid vacation. come on. i also want to say that our daughter worked hard to graduate college early, and
we paid half and she paid half. i was the agreement. she now has a good job, car, apartment, car, apartment, and just started paying $299 a month. she is notshe is not a burden on us and not a burden on the taxpayers. >> can i ask you to hundred $99 a month for loans. how does that compare to her other bills? >> like i said, she has to pay an apartment, a car payment, furniture payment, insurance. she payment, insurance. she just got a good job at a local bank that was her colleague. >> all right. >> am delighted to hear from you because i am a native of pittsburgh. nice to hear from that part of the country. why do democrats always answer higher taxes? i can't answer that. and the goal should be to
decide which government programs are essential, what infrastructure will the government build, education we provide, national security to protect americans with and then pay for that with the tax system that interferes in the lives. that is the way we think about the problem. taxes are not the solution but the price you pay. >> let me ask the inverse, why do republicans respond with lower taxes? >> two reasons. number one, some believe that it will lower the size of government. i don't think that is right. the whole notion of cutting revenues to starve the beast , if you want to have a smaller government, have a smaller government. though substitute for that in my view. republicans in washington dc in general, most talk about taxes.
will need to improve the tax code. think back to 1986 and we had a big tax reform, but that started in 1976 when democrats like bill bradley and republicans started saying, look, thissaying, look, this is bad for america. it took ten years of both sides making the case that the average american will be better off. that isthat is what gets it over the finish line. we have not done that yet. >> what do you make of donald trump's tax proposal? >> it would feature some things you would expect, lower rates, four brackets, not a lot of details.
he asserts that it is revenue neutral. a more complete explanation of how this work. and it is an example of what you should wanted a tax code in the sense that it is very clear what he is trying to do. it's about growth and getting the tax cut out of the way because it equalizes the tax treatment of corporations and noncorporate business and equalizes tax treatment of 1st and 2nd earners, husband and wife's coming is rid of the marriage tax, interest deductibility which will drive business committee crazy, but that gets rid of a lot of the financial gaming that allows people to avoid taxes. and the one thing he said i
will make sure we have the spending restraint. >> it does not seem like on either side any of these candidates are too crazy about losing the mortgage interest deduction. >> caller: yes, i want to give you a little thing to think about. we believe that one point in time we were making a dollar and $0.35. of course if we never raise,
some kind of standard, we could not have lead. that would have been impossible. i do remember a couple of things. i remember, they could buy a car. they bought homes. they had savings. the same people right now are making money. a making the same salary. that means the salaries did not go up. but our money, we don't have any disposable money. if you can pay sco $4,000 an hour, you can find a way
maybe not to go to $16. have it at some point for certain amount of years and then rates start over again, but you have to make enough money. take a paycheck for somebody making 40, 50, or $60,000 and taxes come out and expenses. take one and do an experiment, anybody, see how far it goes. >> host: okay. >> guest: she is right that there are some places where the minimum wage could be raised. we have high wage industries and areas and would not have much impact.impact. you have seen some municipalities say we will wait on the minimum wage. i think all of that is fine. i worry about the federal mandate that is
one-size-fits-all and is not tailored to the local economy and hits the people i am most concerned about, attached to the labor force. we should all want higher wages. no question that people have to have real wages go up, but they have not gone up. there is a lot of clamor, but if you look at the data, that is not quite accurate. that is not a big deal. >> should they be making 4,000 an hour? i don't know if that is the correct amount. >> better competition. you should be able to get on corporate boards and set salaries in ways that make sense. the idea that somehow i would know sitting in the studio or a senator would know sitting in their office what the ceo should make, i have no idea, but the shareholders in the end forking out the money should have a better say in what they get paid. >> host: collar in
mississippi, james, independent. >> caller: yes, good evening. >> host: go ahead. you are on the air. >> caller: i just wanted to say, watching the debate last night, i feel like misses somers and ms. clinton really portrayed the revision in this country pertaining to the democrats and also i think donald trump and mr. carson also portrayed a division when it comes down to the republican party. and this is the issue right here. people that does not have a lot, you know, you are the emphasis on the poor or the middle class. come to a lot of these politicians. just like this man on here now is saying that the debacle with the banks and
all of that came from overseas. so it's a lot of propaganda going on. >> not enough. >> guest: interesting that when i look at these debates you can focus on the division, and theredivision, and there is a lot within the republican party. we see it every day. but there is also a remarkable agreement on what you would like to do. you are candidate clinton talk about the importance of small business, both sides worry about poverty and have talked about income inequality and mobility in the chance to get ahead in america and the american dream. where they differ is in the solution. there is not disagreement about the problems we face, challenges we want to approach but how we will solve the problems. and the biggest divide among candidates and politicians is, are you the kind of
person who wants all or nothing, my way or the highway, or will you sit down and actually get half of what you want, how to deal with the other side, make what you perceive to be some progress in turn around and try again next year. a lot of all or nothing politics next year. >> one debate. do you think republicans should agree to strike a two-year budget deal? >> the model for what we need to do with the budget politically. senior leaders in the party, but also from a budget point of you the federal budget has many ills, born of the things that is going on right now is the big spending programs, the ones on autopilot, medicare,
social security, medicaid, farm programs come all of those things, so-called mandatory spending are crowding out the annual spending on national security, instructor education,, instructor education, basic research, the kind of things our founders would have recognized's. >> the kind of things that lawmakers get a say on. >> and the democracy ought to be able to change. the fact that so much of this is on autopilot doesn't make any sense to me. he gave more flexibility in the annual spending and made that flexibility possible. they need to do that again. >> host: georgia democrat your next. >> caller: i always talk about lowering the corporate tax rate. we know corporations pay the whatever it is and that job creators will create more jobs paying lower taxes if they paid any, but they don't put it back in and invest in job creation. 's. >> worried about the corporate tax because we
have managed to construct the worst of all worlds. our corporate tax with the highest rate in the developed world, damaging growth and our international competitiveness, losing there headquarters in particular because of the rates being too high and it raises almost no revenue. lowering the rate makes a lot of sense. the averages between 20 and 25 percent. and with the last country. so those changes are intended to make sure we stop losing the headquarters and we harm the average american. >> lower corporate tax rate also have the loopholes? >> the definition of tax reform is lower rate, broaden the base. >> watching it.
>> good morning. >> host: you are on the air, sir. >> caller: i would like to make a comment. yes. i would like to make a comment. ii would like to make a comment about what bernie sanders said last night's. bernie sanders made a comment about the income inequality and he likes to make a comparison about what he equates to the billionaires. how many billionaires is getting so much of the money
in this economy today, and i agree with him about that. there are about 400 billionaires in america today. >> caller: okay. thisokay. this idea that most of the wealth is going to the 1 percent. >> guest: big numbers have been comparison of wealth of the 1 percent of the top 5 percent. the 1 percent have gotten richer at the expense of the others are very rich. middle-class most of the action sadly is the middle class going down. most middle-class people, the wealth is there house. with the housing crisis in the crash and in many cases partly a recovery, that is where the wealth went which is especially true among minority americans whether wealth was right down. so it was concentrated because they got hammered badly. >> savings accounts. gone. ..
environment where saving with very low interest rates -- there is no sense that there is recovery. i think it is important to recognize the frustration israel. we have not seen real wages rise in this economy. people have given up to a great extent in some cases. we aren't seeing the traditional vehicles for rebuilding wealth workout very well. i don't blame anyone for being terribly frustrated. host: so if there is no solution that is politically realistic from washington, what does the average american do to try to catch up on their wealth? guest: there is no magic, right. what do you do? you work and you say. and you have to figure out what is your tolerance for risk when you save your -- you say.