The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology listens to unmanned aircraft systems industry experts on Jan. 21, 2015. Photo: House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

by Scott Kesselman

Yesterday, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology heard testimony from industry experts on unmanned aircraft systems research and development and their integration into the National Airspace System. 



The hearing was held to inform lawmakers on the ongoing progress in unmanned aircraft systems research, identify important areas of research moving forward, gain insight on the programs and regulatory climate most suitable for advancing research, and to inform Federal Aviation Administration and National Aeronautics and Space Association reauthorizations. 



The panel included Dr. Ed Waggoner, a research director at NASA; Jim Williams, manager of the FAA’s UAS integration office; Dr. John Lauber, cochair of the committee on Autonomy Research for Civil Aviation, National Research Council; Bryan Wynne, AUVSI president and CEO; Colin Guinn, chief revenue officer of 3D Robotics; and Dr. John Hansman, professor of aeronautics and astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.



Waggoner first identified sense-and-avoid technologies, reliable communication systems and ground control systems as near-term research areas. He also mentioned a NASA project, UAS Traffic Management, which will be a complete air traffic management system for unmanned aircraft.



Sense and avoid was a reoccurring topic over the course of the two-hour hearing, with many speakers reiterating the technology as one of the most important and immediate areas for research. The FAA’s Williams said the organization is developing technical standards for sense-and-avoid, or detect-and-avoid, technologies with the Department of Defense and NASA. His team also has interagency partnerships with the Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security. However, he says that for real progress to occur, there has to be a cost-sharing relationship between industry, government and academia.



This sentiment of joint responsibility for the research and development of unmanned systems was one of the biggest takeaways from the hearing. Lauber also called for industrial, government, and academic entities to cooperate and combine the capital of industry with civil entities’ ease of access to the air to improve the current research climate.



“A deeper, national commitment to UAS R&D has three main components — a comprehensive industry-government UAS research plan, more resources for the federal government to coordinate UAS research and intellectual property protections for the companies that participate in UAS R&D,” added Wynne.



Many companies are hesitant to pursue testing at one of the six FAA-authorized UAS test sites around the country because of intellectual property concerns. Rep. Suzanne Bonamichi from Oregon, the site of the Pan-Pacific UAS Test Range, asked the panel how test sites could be improved to allow easier access to small companies. She noted that use of the test site was prohibitively expensive for small businesses, and other logistical barriers have prevented the test site from being properly utilized.



Guinn discussed how there is no way to easily schedule time for the test ranges and that the process did not make sense for companies trying to rapidly prototype new technologies that must get reapproved with each iteration. He also knocked the value of test sites by referring to the program as “testing in a bubble.”



To improve the test sites Guinn thinks operations should be expanded to include a company’s private property where geofencing would prevent aircraft from leaving company grounds. Wynne called for greater transparency, better accessibility, low costs and focused research to get the most out of test sites.



Yet, “testing in test sites is not necessarily going to give us the necessary data,” says Guinn. He recommended that the FAA start somewhere by allowing the commercial use of below two-kilogram UAS. Similar exceptions for micro-UAS have seen great success outside the U.S. and would provide thousands of hours of flight time and the associated data. These data could be used to identify fringe cases and failure points for scaling regulation to larger models and would allow for immediate benefits from this emerging technology.



Hansman agreed, saying that one size does not fit all; different types of UAS require different concepts of operation. A risk-based approach would see these very small aircraft having little to no danger attached, but risk from midair collisions and ground impacts scale significantly with vehicle mass, making integration of larger UAS a much more difficult task, heavily reliant on advanced and redundant technologies.



The MIT professor added that concepts of operation have to be developed, especially when coordinating unmanned aircraft with manned aircraft. He questioned which should have the right of way when approaching shared airspace or heading a similar trajectory. Typically, he says, one would defer to the manned aircraft, but what if the UAS is operating in a life-and-death rescue scenario and the manned airplane is sightseeing?



Lauber agreed that these are the right questions to ask, and the roles of personnel and systems need to be examined and adapted for the context of unmanned flight. He also brought up the importance of cyber-physical security, which takes into account the safety of software and hardware from potential attacks.

Ruling the Air

Only one committee member, Rep. Steve Knight from California, had concerns about privacy. Guinn squelched any concerns by listing high-tech surveillance equipment previously available on the market. “There aren’t tens of thousands of would-be criminals waiting around for this technology” as the right opportunity to start breaking the law, he said.  



When Rep. Frank Lucas was given the floor for questions, he was confused about the regulatory processes and the state of the technology. After asking a few questions to clear up his conception, he said, “So what we have is that the technology is far past decisions about standards and rulemaking.”



When repeatedly prompted by Chairman Lamar Smith to reveal a timeline for the small UAS notice of proposed rulemaking, all Jim Williams would say is that he hopes it will be released as soon as possible but they are making sure it is done right. He would also not speculate on how long comments and revisions would take after the notice of proposed rulemaking is released. 



Williams took a more defensive stance when Rep. Dan Newhouse asked if he could explain why other countries have thousands of commercial UAS approvals and the U.S. only has roughly 14. 



“I don’t agree that we are behind,” said Williams. He cited the different regulatory framework and the complexity of our National Airspace System as reasons why it appears the U.S. is lagging behind.



The chairman asked what industry is contributing to research despite, as Wynne confirmed, there is not as much financial support from the industry as there could be due to lagging regulations. He did say that companies like 3D Robotics are developing the “lion’s share” of the technology solutions for the industry. 



Guinn jumped in to reveal the domain droneshare.com, a website that logs flight data from all 3D Robotics users. This project is helping to collect the necessary data for large-scale UAS integration.



Without collaboration, though, the website's data will not be utilized to inform regulatory decisions, significant barriers will remain to testing technologies being developed by industry and academia will not have the resources necessary to create advances of their own, he said.



At the close of the hearing, Smith thanked everyone, saying how informative and beneficial it was for the committee — with the exception of Williams refusal to give a timeline for the small UAS rule. The subtle jab mirrored the sentiment of much of the industry.

<< Back to the News