UAS News Podcast — 2013-10-30
Audio not available on SoundCloud — full transcript below.
Transcript
Welcome to the next installment of the XUESdeme Podcast Series where we interview newsmakers and discuss the news and applications that are relevant to the global unmanned technologies community. I'm your program host Patrick Egan and as always let's say hello and welcome to our co-host Mr. Gene Robinson. Hello Patrick.
Well it's kind of good to be back on the show after our week's vacation. I hope you spent yours well. Oh yeah, yeah. Well you know I was trying to launch the drone TV thing and I don't know if people caught that but we kind of launched that with the Maha Pix civilian drone movie which at the last of day we've got about 1500 views on that hour long documentary with a cast of people that we know on this program.
A lot of good feedback on that movie. I know you've been hearing some feedback too. Yes, indeed. And do you like to share?
Well you know the international community has really reached out. I will give them that much. And I think again it's you know like most of the people that search and rescue is one of the more acceptable uses for unmanned aircraft and you know the documentary speaks directly to that so we expected that we would get that. But I have been getting a lot of encouragement from the community out there to continue on and to continue doing what we've been doing and we plan on doing that.
So that's been great. I can't complain at all. You know there's been a couple of folks that you know said you really need to look what you're doing but you know what?
We really do look at what we're doing very closely and that's the key thing. I know. I know. You've been at it for a while.
I will say you know that it evokes a lot of emotions. The program watched it again. I really enjoyed it. I've heard feedback that it's making it up to all five sides of the Pentagon and through the FAA.
Nobody, no feedback as of yet from the UASIO. I've been waiting for someone to say something but nothing yet. So we'll see what happens. But that's great news for her.
Congratulations to Tamaulah and Gus on that one. I think that they're showing a positive light. That's a good feedback. So yeah that was good.
So the Drone TV is still a little wheels off on that one too. I was kind of hoping to do a little bit more but we'll work on that. We've got multiple projects in the works and that's one of them. The other one, I don't know if you saw my article today that was published actually first on RoboHub but down on the farm with drones.
Did you check that out Gene? Yeah I did and I really appreciate that the industry is kind of trying to make this shift into the more positive uses. I really do appreciate that but boy I tell you what, the kill chain is still kind of hurting us on that end. There's still been a lot of media attention on the weaponization of these things and boy I sure wish we could get off of that.
It tends to make a good story and unfortunately that's the way it goes. But yeah the farming issue is going to be big and I think it's going to be a wonderful place for an aircraft to be. I agree. You just can't get away from that.
That's what's in the news. But again like I say, there's really nothing that us in the industry can do to change current presidential administrative federal policy. We don't have that kind of political. Boy how do we be all over that nest like stink on a monkey working this thing like it's going out of style.
So we don't. But anyway what else can you say on that one?
Anything else in the news that gets your attention this week? Well again the UA side of it, we're starting to see more and more robotics involvement and I'm encouraged by that because really these things are robots and we are just kind of directing them. And I like the fact that some pretty serious players in the robotics end of it, especially in space exploration which I know you're interested in, have gotten into it. And I think we'll start seeing a lot more articles about things like the self-driving cars and the ability to do which Jeff, Japan has already got some of those by the way.
And I think we'll start seeing that very soon here as well. Yeah I agree. The automation thing is cool. I was talking about the robot business last week.
Jeff talked to a lot of people, some different people that are in the robotics. There's so much crossover. It's great. And hopefully we're going to draw more of those people in.
Another thing to be looking forward to is a little preview. The Silicon Valley chapter of AUBSI, my chapter, we're getting plugged in. We're going cyber. We're going to have our first cyber chapter meeting that we're going to broadcast live over the internet like we did at the USUS Small Ended Systems Business Expo.
Got to keep the accurate and straight. And we're going to do that November 14th at 6 p.m. Pacific. We're going to be at Tremble.
We're going to see their new UX5 Small Ended Aircraft System. We're also going to hear from another member who is trying to put a group together to do some animal conservation contest. That would be pretty good and you can listen wherever you are or watch wherever you are in the world if you want to kind of be one of our cyber chapter members. So those are the kind of things in the news for last week and upcoming.
But today's program is, I did tell you that we did hear from the black sheep and today's guests are Brandon Shulman and Raphael Piker. And we're going to have them on and we're going to kind of talk about what's going on with them. And I think I kind of like to start with Brandon. Could you please introduce yourself to the audience?
Give us a little bio and how you kind of got involved with I guess UA's and where you're at now. Sure. And thank you Patrick and Gene for having me on the show. So I'm Brandon Shulman at the firm of Kramer Webman in New York City.
I practice commercial litigation with focus on legal issues that relate to new and emerging technologies, whether it's computer forensics, electronic discovery or more recently, unmanned aircraft systems. With respect to the case that I think you want us to talk about, I first became involved in that when Raphael reached out, I think it was on Facebook and indicated that he was having some legal trouble with the FAA. So although I've been following issues relating to RC and unmanned aircraft law for quite some time as a hobbyist, this was sort of the first time that it was an actual case.
Well, okay. And our next guest, Raphael, is better known as Trappy. And we actually got to meet at the Dark Conference in New York and you don't have horns or a nose ring like the little black sheep does. But Raphael, could you please do the same, sir, for the audience?
Yeah. Hi, my name is Raphael. Thanks for having me on the show. I'm a hobbyist predominantly and only recently we've been turning this into a business and we're developing quadcopters and small flying wings really for the hobbyist sector without much focus on automation or robotics.
But yeah, we're just trying to have fun and I think the popularity or probably why I'm on the show is because we travel a lot and we bring along the ladies and they try to show different places around the world from the perspective. Well, I'm saying that too, just for the listeners out there, for the benefit of the listeners. Call quality is a little lacking today, but Raphael was kind enough to call in from, you're in Hong Kong, correct?
Yeah, correct. So we'll just have to make do. Yeah, well, you know, I know I would say that a lot of people have seen your videos and they're pretty outstanding. And I've watched some of them.
And some folks are a little polarizing within the community, but by and large, you're definitely breaking new ground with the videos that you make. But how did you kind of get into the FPV thing?
I actually started this pretty early. Dennis, he's called from Canada. He's on an ARCYBUS VR flyer. As far as I know, he was pretty much one of the first people to actually make it into the news in terms of FPV.
So he did a flight over a golf course. So I saw that. And coming from the ARC hobby, FPV flying ARC, he's been going six years old. They took pictures of me floating around the internet, crashing small planes.
I really wanted to get into this. I wanted to try it. We've been experimenting with this. I got to know a couple of friends near by the world, friends who were probably using progress that way.
And we started pushing limits, started pushing range. And then we got into the mountain flying. And then later on we went to travel, out to our country. Yeah, I've noticed you kind of make the rounds.
You get videos from all around the world. It's pretty cool, you know, different perspective on, I guess, the planet, you know. So let me ask you, give us a little bio there, Brandon, but do you fly remote control?
Yeah, actually, I've been flying ARC planes for 20 years. So I'm very familiar with the technology. I've got, I guess, a garage full of maybe a dozen planes or so, a sort of nitro-powered sport planes, and more recently the smaller electrical, electric-powered planes. And over the past two years or so, I've gotten into FPV.
I first did that on a six-wing Foamy plane, but more recently on quadcopters. So you too, you got the, because it's funny, because people, I get the question, how many drones do you own?
And I'm like, I've got a whole basement full of them. Yeah, kind of like that in the garage. It's funny how they kind of multiply. So that's cool.
So you have a background, you've been doing this for a long time. You're a view flyer, you're a club flyer, or you're more of a now with the electric, you're kind of out doing your own thing, or?
No, I've been an AMA number for really as long as I've been flying, and I mostly fly at an AMA field, you know, once in a while with a Park flyer, I'll go to an empty park. Right, that's kind of like the electric stuff, that's having a breakaway. You don't have to go too far and fly around. Gene, did you want to jump in here?
Yeah, you know, one of the things that I'll tell you about Raphael's, I've been watching Raphael's progression. I know he's been around for a long time, and one of the things that I always thought about you, Raphael, is that a tourist industry person needs to get a hold of you, because you have been to some of the coolest places, and you've done some of the neatest flying in some of the most bizarre places that I've ever seen, and I always admired you for that. I thought that was pretty cool. Thank you.
I actually thought, we kind of get away with Turkey stuff, because the video shows the places in a great perspective. Well, that is the reason that, yeah, with this technology, that low-level view, I think it's something that the mind can really understand. It's definitely a perspective that I enjoy, but Gene's right on the target with that. He's been to some pretty exotic spots.
So both of you guys are kind of hobby flyer guys. You got into this. You're enjoying it like much of the rest of us. I mean, I was a hobby guy, and I kind of got into it.
I started doing it as a business, because I was like, hey, got a little hobby here. I'm into photography. I'm into the RC flying, and I got into a business. That's all history, but, you know, that's interesting.
So I guess, you know, mainly we do want to touch a little bit on, let's say, the current situation that you guys are finding yourselves in. And first, I'd like to ask Rafael, you know, I know that even when we met at the Dark Thing in New York, I was kind of asking you, you know, what's the feedback from the community about the situation that you find yourself in now?
Well, we managed to really polarize the community. There's one side that says, you know, what we're doing is dangerous, and there's the other side that just says, you know, a phone call isn't going to hurt anyone, or a small clock call isn't going to hurt anyone, and you can't even know what you're doing, and the images are really cool. So in regards to this case, actually, it's been pretty much identical. There's people who, in my mind, already opposed what we were doing before, and they said, yeah, you know, you had it coming.
And on the other hand, there's our fans or our supporters who said, you know, maybe the SAA is overreaching a bit. So yeah, that's pretty much the feedback I've been getting. So it's pretty evenly mixed, then positive, negative, or more positive. It's certainly more positive, but the negative people tend to post more.
Yes, well, yeah, I have noticed that, and everybody can have their own feelings on it. I do think that one of the feelings that I think, even as it is kind of polarizing, I think there is kind of, I don't want to say sympathy, but I think that people can kind of empathize with both sides of the argument. However, I think overall, as a situation where, I mean, even myself, I mean, I kind of feel that we may have some overreach by the regulator, and that's just kind of my opinion, but you are right.
And then people I talk to about the case, too, they have their feelings on it. But by and large, I think at the end of the day, they kind of see you as the undersheet, if you will, of this argument. And Brandon, would you, anything you'd like to add from, let's say, your perspective and community type of feedback and thinking?
Yeah, I actually find a really positive response from most people, it's not almost everyone who's either reached out directly to me in an email or posting on a forum. I think there's tremendous interest from a variety of people in getting clarity on the legal framework, and a lot of people have been scratching their heads for six years or more about, you know, just what is the FAA's position?
Is it really illegal? What's the basis for saying it's illegal?
What are my risks if I go and do it anyway? And I think there is appreciation for the fact that we are, you know, making the FAA really put its legal position in writing in a way that it really hasn't done before. So I've experienced really a lot of support for what we're doing. Excellent, excellent.
I kind of figured that. I do think that one thing that has been missing for years is clarity, and the other thing that's kind of been missing is, let's say, I don't know what to call it, a situation, but I guess something to focus on to discern that clarity, and that kind of all comes together or culminates here with what I feel, I guess, kind of first. And I do want to, you know, kind of talk about this, but I don't want to get too much into the case, per se, like specifics, and I'd kind of like to kind of go around that.
But, you know, without, and again, if there's something here that you don't really want to get into, Brandon, let me know, but what do you think of the impressions about the FAA's policy construct? I mean, I've gone on record before to say that I thought the policy clarification of February 13, 2007, was more of an edict, and really not, the satire across the eyes were not dotted on, let's say, like following the Administrative Procedures Act. Care to comment on any of that, feelings, impressions?
Sure, let me just articulate to this claimer that I'm not here to provide legal advice, and these are my own views. But with that, Faisal, as we explained in our motion to dismiss, that 2007 policy statement, it was really the first time the FAA had ever distinguished between a recreational use of a model aircraft and the business use of a model aircraft. For decades before that, I think as everyone on the call knows, there had been no regulations. There was only advisory guidelines for how you might be suggested to operate a radio control model aircraft.
And in fact, the FAA had been very hands-off, even in rare situations where people had gotten hurt or even killed. Thankfully, those are rare situations. It was just not an FAA issue, and I think that changed in 2007. It was the first time I ever distinguished between recreational use and what they call business use.
And I think that, whether that's the future or not, I can't say, but at least legally speaking, federal agencies create new regulations and they change the existing ones by undertaking a notice and comment process. That's what's required by the Administrative Procedures Act that you refer to. And the FAA simply hasn't done that. In fact, they've been promising to do that for a long time, to be able to end PRM, the notice of proposed rulemaking, and to tell us what the future will look like in terms of unmanned aircraft systems.
Instead, in 2007, they issued a policy statement, and I think they followed up on that with a number of cease-and-desist letters. And now, for the first time ever, they're seeking a proposed fine on the basis that they object to how Rafael is flying. And I think it's important in terms of your question about impressions and feelings. This is not just a technicality or trivia.
I do believe this is a function of how democracy works at the agency level. So the public is supposed to have notice of what rules apply, and also in terms of regulation and opportunities to comment. The constituencies that will be impacted by any proposed regulations are really wide-ranging. And of course, in 2007, none of them were consulted.
Some of them didn't even exist. And instead, the cease-and-desist strategy and the message that this is simply not allowed, I think has been counterproductive and I think has been disheartening to a lot of people. Well, I would concur with the notion that people talk about democracy and sometimes, blah, blah, blah, blah. But I totally agree with you.
I mean, we're a nation of laws and procedures, and you do things a certain way. It's kind of this democratic process. Or, you know, might as well just have a king back here making the edicts. And I totally believe, like you do, that you've got to follow those rules or are we changing the system of government?
So I think that's – I agree with that, and I sympathize with that. Gene, any comments on that commentary?
You know, one of the things that I've encountered personally, and you know as well as anybody on the call probably except for maybe Rafael, that I've had quite a few discussions with folks directly in that office. And I honestly believe that there's a lot of emotions involved in this. I think that there have been many edicts, if you will, passed down and given directly to me that were based upon emotions that I were uncalled for. And to even go so far as to determine whether you're black qualified based on intent.
I don't know the legal ramifications. I guess if you intend to murder someone, that's one story. But you know, if you actually pull it off, it's another. But you know, we're not doing anything as severe as that.
But the intent portion of it is what always got to me because I've been filled not to fly on a number of occasions on search missions. And when I've asked, you know, what if I go ahead and do that anyway?
And all the answer I get is, oh, you really don't want to do that. Well, OK. It sounds like you're really going to do something terrible to me, but what is it going to be?
And they just say, well, you really don't want to do that. OK. I can completely concur with what Brennan is saying and what we've talked about on intent. Well, you know, some of the other things that had come out of the office there, we'll just call it for, you know, conversation's sake.
You know, some of the things, again, you know, I brought that up to talk about commercial. Oh, well, you know, when you exchange one dollar, that's a commercial flight. And I brought that up about LSA. You know, well, I mean, people are getting money to train people to fly LSA.
I mean, is that commercial? Because that's the same definition or other definitions like what Navigable Airspace is. I don't think that, like, in front of my house down the street here is Navigable Airspace. But I can never get any solid answers.
And even, I don't know if you guys have seen the civilian drone movie, but I've also tried to pin the FAA down on their, on the policy clarification, February 13th of 2007. I actually had, like, all of the FAA lawyers on a call. We talked about it. And I had asked them what process was used to come up with the edict and, you know, how they got to that because they don't have an administrative procedures manual and what the mechanics were and what the mechanics of all of these kind of statements and edicts and changes as the wind kind of blows, let's say guidance coming out of the office.
Have, Brandon, have you noticed that there's some things coming out of the air that don't make any sense or need clarification? Well, I think the whole policy needs clarification through the appropriate rulemaking procedure. But, yeah, and I think the piecemeal process or approach has really led to a lot of confusion. So, for example, in the 2007 policy statement, they referred to business purpose.
But as far as I know, business purpose isn't defined anywhere. And if you talk to one person at the FAA, they'll tell you, oh, that's what they're talking about is commercial. So the analogy, if you will, is to having a commercial pilot license and a certified airplane for commercial use and everything that goes with that. If you talk to somebody else, you might hear that business is broader than just the definition of a commercial use of an aircraft and to cover things like a nonprofit using it in a humanitarian mission, even if it's not for money or profit, it's for some other purpose.
So I think that the vagueness and the ambiguity that exists as well as the conflicting answers that you get when you try to reach someone to get guidance has really led to a lot of confusion. I would concur with that. You know, people talk about a gray area. And, you know, us being part, me, Gene, and myself, we're part of the ARCAP thing.
We were part of this. We've been part of this effort, let's say, for common sense regulation prior to the 2007 thing. And, you know, we had a lot of questions. We kind of, we were trying to work within the system, kind of had to follow the party line, let's say, not that we agreed with it.
But, you know, we're going to interface with these people. We kind of got to go with the program. However, trying to do that has been very frustrating in that it's almost like a whack-a-mole type of thing. If you ask one question, one person's got one answer.
Then that person leaves, a new person comes in, and they've got a different answer. Oh, well, this is my interpretation for that. Well, this guy changed jobs. Now, I've got an interpretation for this.
And I think Gene could probably speak to this even more than I can, because you have more, let's say, interaction with them on permissions. We have been through the revolving door of personnel since 2007. I think everyone is aware of that. It appears as though the office is essentially an off-ramp into the private sector, because as soon as you get one group of them trained up, it just seems like they transfer out and you have to start all over again.
And it's been very frustrating in the past. And I think what they've done is they're trying to spoon feed us a little bit. Brendan, I'm sure you've seen the new N8900.227 that came out in July. And it appears to me as though they're trying to promise that, you know, if you can't meet military specs, then you're not going to fly.
I think this is onerous, and I think it's something that we're going to have to probably be vigilant and make sure that folks like Raphael, myself, and other folks who are out there that are doing this on a shoestring or on a hobbyist basis don't get caught up in this, because I think it's a very real possibility. Yeah, well, I mean, you know, to be, for the benefit of the audience there, I mean, a lot of the things coming out that look like middle spec, I mean, that's basically who's been at the forefront of the integration effort, is you have the EOD vendors that are there.
They already have, you know, programs that have manuals and procedures and all the rest of that and their own certifications and their own factory-certified training and all the rest of that. And that, as we have seen with the limited time certifications, is Robert stamping these programs. And we can get down to the semantics of it. Well, they're not programs unless they're programs of record, but I'm talking about anything that was funded through the government or the military or DHS or whatever else.
A lot of us don't have that benefit, one, or the proliferation in systems that those other people have. So I do think that that's where that stems from. And I do think it's onerous, and I've kind of groused about that for the last several years, and that was one of the reasons that I left the ASCM at 38. Another reason I left the RTCA, SC203, which is now 238 or whatever.
The names of Ackerman's get changed and numbers and whatever every so often, and I think that that's kind of a smokescreen for not getting anything done. But anyway, I digress. I think the clarity that comes out of this, no matter what, no matter what the outcome of this is, I think that any clarity that you guys can kind of peel back the layers of the onion and we can see something is going to be great either way. And agree, disagree, anybody want to jump in on that one?
That's not all it was. Well, I was going to ask Rafael if he has some perspective internationally, since he I think is at least somewhat familiar with approaches taken in other countries, whether there's been an outright ban or a more reasonable approach, and how that might compare to what we're seeing here. Yeah, I mean, we've been trying in a lot of countries, and we just recently published a video in Singapore, and it got contacted by their aviation authority, and they certainly have a bit more insight into what we were doing.
And on the other hand, I actually moved out of Austria because they put a 500 meter limit on anything that flies and arms to the limits and basically damages into the woods. So I'm not really seeing any practical country that's going to stand in our business. On the other hand, it's just amazing we've talked to their aviation authority, and they seem to lean on whatever the FAA is doing. However, they have very clear rules in place, and they're also a little bit better on enforcing them.
So for this case in particular, I think any kind of clarity as to what is going to be inbound is a tremendous benefit, not just nationally to the US, but I think also internationally because the FAA is huge and aviation authorities all over the world are at least looking at what they are doing and kind of taking their local policies or maybe changing their local policies based on what the FAA publishes. So the hopes are really there that they can turn this around somehow and get some sort of rules in place that helps the business side of what we're doing with the tables.
And Raphael, you kind of hit on some good points because a lot of people do look to the FAA and have looked to the FAA for kind of to lead, and the FAA in this case is definitely leading from behind, and we see that there are several European countries where you can do this legally. If you want to start a business, you can go out and you can do it legally. There's a path to legally doing this, which we don't really have here in this country. Now,
I have seen on some of the boards, and I'm out there all the time, out there, and this is kind of a funny one because we kind of got hit with this one too, but I want to ask you, some folks are suggesting that there might, this case might be kind of just poking the bear and maybe make things worse from the community and that, you know, there could be some blowback where the FAA is going to haphazardly throw some regulation at the wall
and hope it sticks.
Have you heard anything like that? Yeah, I've not, sorry, is that to me or?
Go ahead. Well, I certainly haven't heard anything credible like that, and I believe the FAA knows that it's tasked with issuing regulations that are sensible and balanced in all the interests and not just responding to a single incident where, by the way, you know there was no injury or property damage. So I, and of course the proposed rules, whatever they are, are going to be subject to public notice and comments, so, you know, I think that, you know, with that in mind, what we see coming out of the FAA in the future ought to be reasonable and allow for commercial uses.
I don't think it's in their interest or really anyone in the country's interest to be overly restrictive about new technology, especially here where so much of the new technology involves low-level flight and very lightweight devices. And also I'm not sure that it's really possible with respect to, you know, they're going to rush something out the door and see if it sticks. I don't think federal agencies work that way. There's actually a really good example from a while back that really shows you.
So in 1987, Congress had passed a statute requiring both the Department of the Interior and the FAA to come up with new regulations that were supposed to restore, I think the phrase was natural quiet of the Grand Canyon, which had been disrupted by aviation and air traffic. And Congress thought, you know, this is easy, we'll give them 120 days to do it. And it actually took them 10 years to issue the rule, and the rule had a 10-year phase-in period. So it took 20 years for the FAA to do something very narrow and specific that people thought could be done in a matter of a few months.
If that's what we're dealing with in terms of the timeline here, then I really fear that our country is going to completely miss out on this unmanned aircraft revolution. And many people share that view about the technology. And I threw that out there because it is kind of funny. And we had heard that before, Gene and I and the other members of our staff, oh, if you talk to the FAA, you're going to be poking the bear, and they're going to come up with something draconian, and we'll never be able to do this again.
You know, that was... I think these are deliberative, and they move very slowly. We've seen that already, and I would be very surprised if anything we do in defending against a $10,000 fine would have the impact of really changing anything they're planning to do. Well, I'll bring in...
Go ahead, Gene. The only thing I've got to say to that is they're slow, and then they're glacial. Which period are we in?
That's funny. Is that a done yet, or no?
I do think it is going to take some time. But if for some reason, because I used to say this too, if I had that kind of impact and influence where I could affect federal policy and like the speed of light type of scenario that people are talking about, I think you've got a bright future ahead of you. There's lots of federal regulation that needs, you know, let's say some urging along the way that you might have found a connection to make that happen. Well, I think that the case does have the benefit, you know, people are talking about it, at least in certain circles.
And I think to the extent that there are people in this country who care about economic development and creating jobs and exploiting technology for beneficial uses of economic and humanitarian, and want Americans in particular to be part of the new age of aviation, I think, you know, the case is getting people talking. Now, whether that has any actual impact on regulatory or agency rulemaking, I don't know. But I think it is an important discussion for us all to have. We are really far behind where this is in Australia, Europe, Canada, and I think it's a problem.
I would agree with that. And I do concur with you that this conversation, this instance has started a dialogue. You know, that dialogue is all around the country and it is in D.C. and it's in the different, let's say, federal branches.
And people are talking about it, and there are people who are waiting to see how this unfolds and what transpires. And I know I am, you know. I kind of, I can't wait to see when it gets done. Now, I know you had a shutdown in the government, the federal government.
There was a little shutdown. And it didn't really affect me at all. I didn't really have any, there were no ramifications for me. But I would assume that there were some ramifications for you guys.
Well, yeah, there's a slight delay. So the time that they weren't working, the FAA has been granted an extension to respond to our motion to dismiss, which corresponds to the time that they weren't at work. So it's really a small impact. So have you heard when you're going to have your day, when Raphael is going to have his day?
Well, if you're afraid of the decision, there's no specific deadline or date for that. But we do expect to hear, well, really to see a written opposition from the FAA in probably the next week, week to Sunday. Interesting, interesting. Yeah, we'll all be waiting for that.
Raphael, I kind of cut you off there a little ways back when we were talking about some of the regulatory side of that. Was there anything else that you wanted to add, sir?
No, I think Brendan put it quite nicely. He did. He put a nice little bow on that. Well, I do think that we're all waiting for this to kind of come out and see what shakes out of this.
In any event, Raphael, what are your plans for the future? Well, we're developing a lot of new stuff. That's pretty much from my timeline at the moment. I hope I can get some flying done here in Asia.
China is wonderful. Yes, and not much else. So we should be looking for some videos to be posted from Asia then, I figure, what you're kind of saying. Well, I've been in Europe now.
I did the two-week location and New York. There's certainly going to be a video about that, but also certainly about Asia, yes. Well, that's good. I look forward to seeing those and seeing what you guys come up with in the future.
It seems like you're really kind of nailing down the FPV thing, and I know that that's very popular. There's a lot of guys that do that, and I think that that will grow in the future. Brendan, any plans for you?
Or you just really don't work in here? We'll continue to defend the case as needed, and we'll see where it goes next. I think it has generated some interest in gotten people to think about their legal rights in other contexts, and I can't speak to any potentially confidential work that I'm maybe dealing with, but I think there's more to come. Excellent, excellent.
Well, you know, the conversation was definitely lively and enlightening, and I'm glad that we had an opportunity to have both of you gentlemen on here. You know, there's lots of interest in the community, and I hope that this deal all works out and that we can talk more about it in the future. But before we go, I want to give everyone an opportunity to, you know, have a closing statement, and I think maybe we'll go with Gene. Gene, did you have something you wanted to say in closing?
Well, I am keenly interested in this process, very, very keenly interested in it, and this is going to pave the way for a lot of things, and we've got to all be prepared to stand up when it comes time to stand up. And, you know, this is going to happen in our backyard, so everybody out there that's listening, be prepared. We are going to need your support. We need to keep moving forward with this, and keep this in.
I would concur with that. Raphael, anything in closing, sir?
Yeah, just if you guys want to follow the whole case, we're going to publish a lot of info on the forums and on our Facebook page. And if we do need anyone's support, we'll probably let everyone know through our Facebook page as well, so if anyone's interested or wants to help out, just let us know. Excellent. And Brandon?
You know, we've said a lot of this before, but I can't say it strongly enough. I really think government is supposed to enable the growth of new technology and the creation of jobs, and this sort of just-say-no approach is serving to me. And an analogy to keep in mind is if you would shut down the Internet and said, you know, don't use it for commercial purposes until we figure out all the things we're going to need to regulate, whether it's security
and privacy and bullying in the schools and all the things that have come along since the advent of the Internet, to try to figure out in advance what those things are and take the approach that we'll just shut it down until we know how to do that, I think is not only backwards but un-American.
And could you imagine if, you know, if you had done that for the Internet, you wouldn't have Google based in the United States. You would have some other company known as Google overseas basically running the Internet and all of our searches and making millions and millions of dollars and creating jobs somewhere else. And I think that would be a real shame if the story about this technology plays out in a very different way and as it seems to be doing there, it would be really an American failure story.
I concur with that notion and so I feel the same way. It is a tragedy. It's what we do here and I agree with your analogy. And I will offer this and say that if there's anything that the SOS News can do, you know, please let us know.
We are happy to help. That's what we're here for. I want to thank both of you for coming on today and kind of giving some insight into what's going to transpire here and some thoughts behind that. Okay, thank you and I thank you, Dean, and all of our listeners and we'll see everyone next week.
Thank you. Adios. Thanks. See you.
Bye.