UAS News Podcast — 2013-01-25
Transcript
All right, welcome to the next installment of the SUAS news podcast series where we interview newsmakers and discuss news and applications relevant to the global unmanned technologies community. I'm your program host, Patrick Egan. Let's say a big hello and welcome to our co-host, Gene Robinson. Hello out there, Patrick on the left coast.
How are you, sir? I'm doing good, but actually today's show is live from not so sunny, but very cold Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Ah, that's correct. It's cold out here visiting the Raven Arrow Star people.
They have a nice facility. Went out there, checked that out. But yes, it's cold. And when the wind kicks up, that adds a whole new dimension to the weather and me missing California.
But I'm going back today because I think it might be warmer and ice station zebra in here, but that's just a guess. Anyway, so we've got some news on the page today. Yes, I also noticed, you know, I get all my intel from the USA today and it looks like in Aspen, Colorado, they're talking about giving an exemption to helicopter drone operators to do real estate and movie producing and maybe give them an exemption and let them fly, which is kind of interesting because I thought the FAA was going to make those decisions.
But anyway, I'll have to look more into that story. I just caught that at breakfast. What about you, Gene?
You catch anything? Well, it's not that I caught anything, but I'm being caught up in things. It looks like I've gotten a last minute call to go out to attend the AFCEA show out there in San Diego. So I will be jetting out that way on Sunday to participate out there.
Not so much from a vendor standpoint, but an SME. So I will be out there talking UA stuff and regulatory stuff. So that should be pretty interesting. That was a very late breaking development for me as of last night.
So there's where I will be for the first part of next week. Well, that sounds good. Anything back on the safety team thing?
No, you know, I haven't heard anything from them. They said that it was going to be a 10-month program. So potentially they could be lining out who's going to be there and who's going to participate in it. I would certainly hope that's the case.
I've sent my email acceptance and I haven't heard anything back from them. So we'll have to just wait and see what goes with that. All right. Well, you know, keep us posted.
Okay. Well, today's show is commercial UAS operations in the NAS and we have two guests and so we'd better get to it. And I want to bring on our first guest and that is Mr. Gus Calderon.
And he has, as you may have linked to the story or not on the front page of the SUS News, he has applied for an exemption and has a notice in the Federal Register. So what I think we will do without further ado is maybe, Gus, you could please introduce yourself to the audience with a little bio, how you got involved with small unmanned aircraft systems and then kind of, you know, just kind of how you got here. I hope you could do that for us, please. Sure, Patrick.
And first, thank you and Jane for inviting me to be on the show. I began building and flying remote control airplanes back in the 1970s and that's really what sparked my interest in aviation. So I eventually pursued a career in professional aviation, became a commercial pilot in the 1990s. Since I've always had an entrepreneurial spirit, I decided to start my own air charter company.
So I applied to the FAA at my local FISDO for an air carrier certificate. Now at the time, many pilots told me it would be too difficult or even impossible to get that certification, but I persevered nonetheless. After at least six months of writing manuals and working back and forth with the FAA, passing check rides, my aircraft examined by aviation safety inspectors, I was actually granted certification to conduct commercial passenger carrying operations. I worked very closely with the FAA for years and this was an invaluable learning experience.
After 9-1-1, many things changed. The cost of obtaining aircraft insurance for this type of operation really skyrocketed. As we know, fuel prices skyrocketed as well and for other reasons, I had to discontinue that business. Since one of my hobbies and passions was always photography, I pursued taking aerial photos for real estate brokers, developers, even large auction houses like Sotheby's.
It actually did pretty well for a while. As the cost of fuel and operating an aircraft continued to climb, I really got back to the basics. So I began attaching digital cameras to remote control aircraft and realized the enormous potential of small UAS with the advent of these new electric motors, batteries and flight control systems. I recently formed a company, Isoscopter, and we've continued to do research and development on small UAS and with the new developments in technology, really excited about what the future holds for this field.
Yes, well that's, again, it's funny. So you were talking about this history that you have with this technology and it sounds a lot like the history that I had with this technology except I wasn't running an air charter but the RC part of it. I was feeling all the same stuff, thinking all the same stuff. We talk about it being kind of an old timer in this field that just had this RC plane with a camera on it and then all of a sudden that this thing was turning into a UAV at the time.
I really got a kick out of that. How did you feel about that when you heard about potential regulation and that these RC aircraft were turning into UAVs?
Well, honestly, I was a little disappointed. As a commercial pilot for a long time, I always intentionally follow the FAA regulations. This regulation in particular, I respectfully disagree with but I have to follow it nonetheless, which is why I just continued to do the research and development side and decided to pursue developing an airframe instead because I had a feeling that it was going to be a while until this got sorted out
but I'm very pleased there are advocates out there, gentlemen like you, raising awareness of this issue and it appears that there's some progress in this field now and that does bring me some hope.
Well, I appreciate that and I feel hopeful too. It's a guarded optimism. I do think that it's taken a long time. I agree with you.
I try and follow the policy. I've stated for a long time, a lot of people have been like, oh, well, I don't care. It doesn't affect me. I'm not listening to this yada, yada, yada, which I think is a mistake because in the future, even if you're going to do this as a hobby or whatever, it's not an enjoyable hobby to be looking over your shoulder, one.
And two, I don't want to do a business where I'm operating outside of federal law. You know what I'm saying?
That's me. I'm kooky that way. Well, no, I respect that. I feel exactly the same way.
I have turned down countless aerial photography and cinematography jobs, some with very big name companies, Paramount Studios, other companies making documentaries, and that's been really difficult to do. But I was always raised to do the right thing and hopefully in the long run, that will pay off. That remains to be seen, but I'm just going to continue on this path and see what happens. Sorry, Patrick.
I was just going to say, Gus, since you've gone through the process of getting your 135 operator and have to go through the regulations and stuff to that, in your opinion, what do you think would be an appropriate sort of, we all agree that there's going to be some regulation, but what would you think would be an appropriate start to a regulation for the small operators like us running four to 10 pound aircraft? Well, from what I've read,
and again, I don't know how much of this is going to come to fruition, but I have heard that it may be possible that the regulations will be based on small UAF regs that have been developed in other countries like Australia.
And I do have a feeling also from what I've read throughout the regulations that the FAA is probably going to want an FAA, maybe not commercial pilot, but at least certified pilot to be pilot in command of small UAF. I have a feeling, or at a minimum to have gone through ground school so that they understand the airspace. What I do know for a fact is some of the FAA's concerns, and they don't want any conflict with other aircraft. So I think it's going to be important for small UAF operators to understand airspace.
And I personally don't see any problems with aircraft underneath that weight restrict. I personally don't think there even should be that many requirements because so many people are flying recreational right now with even larger and faster aircraft at higher altitudes. I just don't see any need honestly for much regulation with these very light small UAFs personally. Yeah and you know that touches on another point that I'd like to talk about.
The other one is being a law abiding person and then watching the thousands of people fly all the time for profit and there be no ramifications for that. I don't know if that chat's your guess, but it's your chat's mind. Well it's not only, you know, definitely a major concern but it's also affected my aerial photography business. I know it has.
I know of many many operators in the area here in Southern California that are, and they're not just doing it, you know, kind of, you know, as a low profile. They're putting up websites. They're advertising. I mean they're blatantly doing this and they are well aware.
I've spoken to quite a few of them just to ask them if they're aware. I'm curious. Whatever anybody does is their own business. You know and sure they know and what I hear most of the time is hey a man's got to make a living and you know that's their choice and that's what a lot of guys are doing.
There are some who don't understand what they're doing but most of them do. Most of them by now are aware that it is a violation of, you know, the FAA docket published back in 2007. Right I agree with that. I mean there's those companies that have a storefront in San Francisco.
You know and you know that's all fine and dandy. You're right. I mean I have people call me and they, you know, especially through the years and they say, you know, could you maybe define this a little bit better for me, you know, but if I stop doing this I can't pay my mortgage. I can't feed my family.
I'm not going to tell you not to feed your family. You could call those people in Washington and have them tell you that you can lose your house and feed your family or you know whatever. That's not my bag. Anyway so I want to because we've already clicked off about 15 minutes here so let's get back on track and one of them, the track, the main reason that we have you on here today is we've noticed that you've filed a foreign exemption and it's in the register.
Someone had mentioned this to me although it was really of no value to me because I'm not running a business or trying to run an aerial photography business for some of the reasons that we talked about. I feel that if I were to, I mean my business is already gone. My investment and all of that, my time and money and the tens of thousands that I spent on that is done and if I was going to do this again I would have to start from scratch and I have all this competition so I'm in an economic disadvantage.
It seems like you've kind of stayed more into it. So what does this mean to you?
What does this exemption mean to you? Well first and foremost it's bringing attention to the matter and the fact that it was published, it didn't mean much honestly until it got published in the federal register last week and really what it means more than anything to really everyone in our small industry and I'll read actually the second line of the summary notice in the federal register states the purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of and the participation in this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities.
Now to my knowledge Patrick and you follow this way more closely than I do, I don't know if there's been an opportunity in the past for anyone you know in the small UAS industry or UAS industry to comment publicly to directly to the FAA about commercial operations in national airspace. Is that true or has there been an opportunity in the past?
No there hasn't and I would say that the I think the February 13 2007 document was more of an edict and I still contend that the T's were not crossed and the I's were not dotted and that they had changed policy arbitrarily and that would have been a perfect opportunity for them to publish something in the registry but that's not how it went down so yes this is to the best of my knowledge this is the first time.
So in my opinion that that's really very very important whatever comes out of this exemption you know may not mean that much it may get denied they may come back I'm hoping with with some guidance on on the next step to do and that's just to briefly get back to when I applied for my carrier certificate it was a back and forth I sent in an application basically a letter of a statement of a letter of intent what
I wanted to do and they said okay you need to do X Y and Z.
I did X Y and Z I submitted it to them they said okay you also need to do A B and Z and I did that it was back and forth. The way that this was described to me it's a similar process and I'm hoping that other people have have followed suit and and are also doing this as well so at least the FAA knows that there are people that want to do this I think it's important that they know that this is really really important this is affecting businesses this is affecting people's lives people want to follow the regulations
so that that's one of the main reasons why I did that to let them know you know a legitimate airman a commercial airman you know who wasn't a had held an air carrier certificate wants to do this and and that's so that's why I did this and why I'm continuing to pursue this.
Right well I think they know that people want to do this because I mean the phone's been ringing off down there for a few years you know who knows all of the gridlock and our second guest we're going to talk about some of the other stuff because he's involved in some of these processes and we'll talk more about what's kind of the official channels going on but you know where to go let me I'd like to ask
you you know what we're thinking about this exemption and it is up on the SUAS news home webpage and the title of that is commercial UAS Ops and the NAS you can go there you can look at the registry documents there were supposed to be more documents that you're looking for an exemption from it's kind of a read ahead for people listening to the podcast and I'm sure it'll be up there you can go look at it what type of small unmanned aircraft system are
you using maybe you could tell us what type it is and then also in all of weights of what you're looking for an exemption to do.
Sure well I actually have a number of small unmanned aircraft system that I use for a variety of different research and testing purposes I have you know from a small as a small styrofoam aircraft that weighs two pounds I put you know fixed wing but primarily I'm building and designing my own multi-copters right now that are designed specifically to carry high-end cameras for the film industry they use very specific cameras up there they don't use
you know camcorders or go pros or any of that kind of thing and so they need a larger platform to carry these these cameras which have a separate recording deck because they record in raw and record a tremendous amount of data and so I've been working closely up with the company up in Los Angeles that develops these they're called POV point of view cameras so I've basically developed a multi-copter platform around their cameras that they have
and that they're developing the indie cam for example and the silicon images si2k so that's what I've been doing the platform is also capable of carrying many other cameras as well because it's larger and very rigid and and very stable it's 1.4 meters motor to motor span so it's a pretty good size aircraft we keep the weight down using aircraft aluminum center frame carbon fiber tube so that's that's what I'm primarily working on
right now well and and I guess a follow-up question to that would be was this suggested to you or did you dream this up I wish I had that kind of imagination but honestly I was told this directly from an fa representative of the uas integration office in Washington DC I so this this is not secondhand information in fact I met several members of the uas integration office at the auvsi conference in las vegas back in back in august they did attend that show
and I was exhibiting there along with another company and I went to talk to them and I introduced myself I said I'm a commercial pilot I I have now obtained my own 135 certification and honestly a couple of the members kind of put their head down oh boy this guy's you know not going to go away easily and then one of them one of the one of the reps actually you know came up to me and said hi I'm from the fa
and I'm here to help you because you're not I laughed and it really broke the ice and and we talked for a while and I was told by this representative that they at that show they were announcing a new procedure for people to apply for this petition for exemption and it was previously not available this is what I was told and it was to be available now and I had even printed up some special business cards with an email address
and I was told just to send an email to that address and you would receive a response on how to get started with your petition for exemption so that's that's how this this all began so and I was told if you do it rapidly you know there may be a lot of people who do this so you might want to get started right away so I did and I did receive the email and just want to read a quick line from you it says we one of them says we want to be upfront petitioning
you know for exemption these are not easily granted you may go through the whole process and and not receive an exemption one other thing that I found was interesting in that first response is commercial UAS operations will also need to have a current and qualified FAA license pilot with appropriate ratings so that that does probably limit a lot of the exemptions that they would accept or find appropriate or to have merit
I believe they if it gets to the point of being publisher published in the register it has to have a certain amount of merit so I think my having a commercial license and being current is probably what helped my petition along to get to the point where it is and being published in the national register.
Yeah okay well you know that's interesting information and I think we'll probably follow up on that I do think you know we you had talked about you know knowing airspace and whatever else and I think we'll talk a little bit to Mr. Jewell about this here and in the next segment but you know it if I might be jumping again at Jim you could jump in here but if the regulations come out and we're talking
you know 400 feet and 1500 feet laterally I do not agree especially for aircraft that are frangible and under four pounds I do not think that a pilot's license is something that's warranted I did I think personally and this is my slant on the deal the envelope is too limited and it's not like I'm flying point to point from airport to airport it's easy to it's easy to get on the interweb these days
and look at where you're going to fly especially in such a limited area I really feel that that's a double standard and I feel that way too because of the LSA thing where you can just have a driver's license and fly something that could potentially kill people too but anybody have any any any feelings on that that they'd like to discuss?
I think we can all agree on that that one Patrick because of the small guy standing close you know are doing essentially the same thing as the recreational modeler I think Gus does make a good point though that the FAA are looking for credentialed people they are looking for people that that have and going through the processes that they are familiar with and I think that's probably the most important aspect of it. Anyone else?
I agree with you Patrick and Gene as well I mean you have so many recreational modelers flying right now I mean I don't know if you're familiar there's a RC model flying field just south of Van Nuys airport here in southern California and I was there a week ago yeah and and unbelievable guys flying turbine jets you know almost 200 miles an hour and and meanwhile aircraft are flying literally just a couple hundred feet above that and and there's no conflict you know they everybody's working harmoniously flying having fun together I don't see any problems.
Isn't that the Sepulveda basin right? Yes that is the one yeah Apollo 11 field yeah it's incredible to go there and watch I mean it's yeah it's a total menagerie but isn't that that's in class Bravo airspace is it not?
I believe it's in Bravo and it's also in Delta for Van Nuys I mean it's in a very very busy area I'm there literally DC-3 flying overhead Gulfstream, Cessna 152s and you've got hundreds and hundreds of modelers flying below and I as far as I know there hasn't been any conflict people were flying all day long everybody got along because like you said Patrick we're flying pretty low altitudes I mean even 400 might even be a high for a lot of people doing just simple photography I'm below the treetops almost all the time when I'm just
you know flying for fun or recreationally I'm really not above 50 to 100 AGL and and that's not going to cause and I know this as a pilot and professional pilot that's not going to cause conflict with aircraft it's simply not.
Yeah and I think you know a lot of this stuff is self-evident too it's the same thing with the 400 feet 1500 feet laterally I mean you know even the the class two medical thing I think is ridiculous I mean you know it's such a short space and even in this example here of the Sepulveda Basin I mean they've been flying down there for a long time there hasn't been any conflict I do agree you know there's got to be some rules
I think we're all on the same page with that but I really that's ridiculous as far as I'm concerned and the airspace deconfliction as far as being able to see people you know obviously I think we could see better than people in you know 172s but you know it's an argument for another day I noticed how Jim didn't jump in here but that's okay we'll give him his chance here in a minute anyway is there guys that
you know wrapping this up before we move into the other segment and you're welcome to stay on board because there might be something you want to comment on is there anything the listeners can do to help your effort sir yeah I think they can help all of our effort if they go to regulations.gov and they they could make a public comment on this notice and and let the FAA know how how they feel about commercial operations in national airspace all they need to do is go to that website
and they reference the the docket number which is FAA-2012-0897 and that'll immediately bring you up to a page where the docket is and the documents and there's a comment link and go ahead and make a comment there you have to it's necessary to reference the docket number in your actual comment so that it gets listed in the same place and we can all view each other's public comments but I think as this
and if other exemptions come up which I hope they do I will do my best to to comment positively I think that's what we can do right now we only have until February 4th to comment on my exemption there may be others like I said coming up I don't know but I hope that there are and if any of these get accepted that it would set a precedent and that could affect rules down the road so I think it's good for all of us to get involved if we can
and make a comment whenever possible all right well I think that that's a that's something that we should do as a community we should jump on board this is a chance to put your I guess your your frustration where your mouth is and write something and put it in there and support your own industry and I think that's a good thing and I look forward to seeing how this this pans out and I'm glad that somebody took the initiative
and did this so we'll step we'll stay tuned with that story and you know you'll have to update us we'll probably have you back on when you find out what happens either way sounds good thank you Patrick all right well and all interesting stuff you got something that a listener at home can do you have you have an avenue to to do something so in segment two here I want to bring on our second guest Mr.
James Jewell. Jim are you out there?
Hi Patrick, I'm here yep. Okay I owe Jim for a long time few years now Jim was on one of the work groups for the small unmanned aircraft systems arc that the FAA stood up in 2008 he's been around for a while he's been working this issue you were doing some stuff with ASTM and now I don't want to speak for you with the stuff that you were let's say involved with because I've seen you around a lot of different stuff
so what I would like you to do Jim if possible is you to introduce yourself to the audience again a little bio what you've been up to how you got here okay thank you very much for inviting me to participate I'm a scientist businessman I'm on my third career in UAS I started out getting a couple of master's degrees one in organic chemistry another as an NDA in marketing spent the first 10 years in chemistry as a science working scientist
and in pharmaceutical research management and then I transitioned into technology management technology marketing with a company on Long Island Paul Corp and I was the vice president of new market development for them and in 1992 I went out on my own as a consultant and spent several years consulting for the software industry and throughout I have been an advocate and participant in model aviation
and with build and fly large scale models and it occurred to me around the turn of the century that these military drones could have immense impact for commercial operations so I went through I went through a learning curve which I posted online in essence that's what uavm.com is it was an information resource or intended to be an information resource for the industry so that newcomers you know these wouldn't have to replicate my my learning curve
and that website now has over 7000 page loads averaging about 2500 a week and I haven't added anything to it in about five years so I've been a consultant now for the past seven years consulted for the coast guard locking deltree I'm currently working with the California UAS portal and archived engineering with their all weather sensing board system interesting so are you doing any are you are you still doing any work with any of the standards groups or or have
you moved away from that because you're busy with other things I've act I've left an active role with with ASPM as you know I was vice chairman of f38 for two years and membership secretary for four years but I sort of phased out of that I still keep my hand in with SC203 both WG2 the command control work group and particularly WG3 headed up against the zeeland the sense and avoid work group that when
I when I first came in I just assumed I was going to you know start making money with commercial UAS and undenounced to me the effort I had no intent of having small UAS's flying anywhere in the NAS so that's how I became involved with the standards group I thought we had to provide a technical foundation to make the safety case for these systems yeah I agree with you and it's kind of you know doing this podcast
and you know me and Gene have been doing this since May the common thread a lot of the points that you're making are a common thread for most of the people in this community there are a lot of people that saw that what this technology could do especially with the electric revolution as I call it and what's possible and you know there there's been I would definitely say there's been a little bit of a void with the technical expertise
and the empirical knowledge there was a there was a divergence most of the FAA's long-range standards work was being conducted by FC 203 however they were looking at you know predator size the global hawk sized airplanes and it's always been my view that the small UAS has perhaps 90 percent of the capability for commercial applications than any any large airframe in carry so and that has been addressed more or less by F-38
and in support of the FAA's FAR 107 which has still not yet come out for NPRM but that is intended to allow small UAS as you know to fly 55 pounds under some unknown level flight level we're still waiting to hear what the FAA has in mind and no one can cite that they've been very secretive about it so when the NPRM comes out we want to know what they have in mind yes you're touching on a few points
and one of them is that document is very very secret as far as only a select few have seen it I think that they know it is going to be something that is is going to be controversial the recommendations that you guys put together on first arc well once it became a fodder for internal review yeah I doubt if many of them made it for the cut all right you know that the recommendation was to have a simple web-based or web-mediated operating certificate granted
and the small airplane director decided well they weren't going to give up their turf so it wasn't going to be web-based and on and on so I'd be interested to see what they do come out with yeah me too I mean I have to be I have to be honest even the recommendation that was put out I wasn't happy with that there were people inside spiking that thing I didn't really understand all of the the nuances of what was going on in the arc while it was going on
but you know it came to light after you know there was there were different forces at play inside the arc and the people that were on that arc there were so many people on that arc that shouldn't have been on that arc because they had no idea how these systems operated they were you know let's say manned aviation people and all they knew is you're not doing this you're not doing that it didn't seem like an open process economic vested interests exactly
now the new arc that's going on I have problems with that for the same reasons if you look at the people on there I'm not saying that you know we got snidely whiplash on there and he sees he's you know totally trying to cut us out of the picture but there's nobody on that arc that's looking out for the small business guy and I've talked to other people just recently who still are espousing that the vendor the DOD vendor is really looking out for the small commercial guy
and wants everyone in the NAS you know I'm flabbergasted to still hear anyone espouse that notion because that is not the case at all from from what I've seen and they've invested millions of dollars to secure themselves a position in the NAS and in this in this upcoming regulation and that's fine it's business I understand that but I don't think it's a level playing field you know as far as I'm concerned
and I don't see you know in furtherance excuse me go ahead sir no go ahead well in furtherance to making the safety case the congress directed the FAA through the federal aviation administration modernization and reform act for 2012 to among other things set up six test sites they were to have been selected operational at the first of 2013 and that is on hold now because of privacy issues which the FAA is not in their charter directed to resolve
I think we can agree that privacy is a topic that's probably not going to be resolved in my lifetime so why can't we start making the safety case plan in these six sites well you know I think a lot of this stuff is diversionary myself because you know there's already laws on the books for privacy you know we've gone round and round on this issue I think we as a as a community really missed the boat earlier on
you know someone I had heard some other scuttlebutt that even with the FAA and the test site thing you know well we're we're going to resolve some of these lawsuits well how long is that going to take why are we dealing with that why are we go ahead it's a loser if you want to have a good understanding of how this came about I direct you to the Brookings institutions monographed by Wells Bennett you just go to Brookings.edu
and search drones Bennett and he has an issue in governance studies which very clearly documents how poorly the law was written and the dates that were entrenched were questionable a big big jumbled timetable there were there were no no teeth in the law there was nothing in the law that would there's no formal compliance mechanism are you talking about the congressional mandates for the FAA for integrated oh yes that
you know I got to tell you that one too I you know you can't it's hard for me to get on here and spill the beans but I will I'm going to tell the community right now that that language is if you go back in there and read that it's kind of hard to discern but a lot of that language was put in there by vendors okay I saw the language prior to it going to or becoming HR 658 and I had noticed that there were big holes in that the stuff that was going to be submitted
I said you get you know you got holes in here you got holes that the FAA can drive a truck through it's I equate it to telling a teenager because I have a teenager to go clean his room or do some other task without any direction or any consequences for not doing the said task that's what we have there I had well if you want to understand that I would direct you to that Brooklyn study it's very clear detailed
and even even reading it you end up confused but it's a good history well and and I thank you for the link I think people should get over there and eyeball that but I will say that you know that this effort to me has been one that's been based on business plans of DoD vendors and it's and it's definitely a reason why things are slow I agree with you too everybody you know it's like you get one step forward with the smalls
and then you go okay well we've done so much on that now we'll toss that over the side and we're back to the business plan for Global Hawk you know but if you're if you'll notice nothing has gotten done exactly because I agree you know if we're going to flag Global Hawks around yes you you know all the cents and avoid and the commercial pilots license and all the rest yes yes filing agreement you need all of that for the Global Hawk
well we we got way off topic we did get unfortunately I wanted I wanted to convey some information about next gen ADS-BIN I don't think we have too much time left but next gen is the FAA's architecture for the future but instead of using radii radars which have become way too expensive to maintain the FAA is turning to a GPS augmented ADS-B system right among its other virtues it has great potential to resolve the issues about the issues about sense
and avoid and also in one of its implementations could actually assist us in in resolving the privacy issues but it is coming and I would suggest that everyone become more knowledgeable about ADS-B and the wide area augmentation system which allows GPS to be precise down to about three meters three meters it's a it's a step that we are going to take it's the ADS-B is the core architecture of next gen
and it's going to impact our industry in a significant way I think that's going to be another good show for us Patrick I think we need to have Jim back on there because he's right and that's the way we're all going to be flying because it's technology that's available to us down to the smallest guy well you know two things on that Jim and if this is possible in the future maybe we could do another show about ADS-B because
I do believe there's a lot of promise there but there were some issues and and maybe those have been resolved so I'd like to talk about that the other thing that I'd like to talk about and maybe you could facilitate this is possibly having someone on from the RTCA SC203 and give us an update on the work that they've been doing you think that's possible sir yeah I think it's possible they they tend to shy away from publicity about where they stand
but I can talk to Andy Zitwin and for for sense and avoid all right the command and control was this probably well I yes yes okay well we're down to about three seconds so we have to say our goodbyes but we'll talk to you again in the future thanks Mr.
Calderon and thank you Mr. Joel Jean we'll see you next week stay warm Patrick we'll see you next week bye bye