UAS News Podcast — 2014-07-21
Audio not available on SoundCloud — full transcript below.
Transcript
Music Welcome to the next installment of the FUS News Podcast Series where we interview newsmakers and discuss the news and applications relevant to the global unmanned technologies community, whether you fly a UAS or an RPAS or anything in between. This week's program, Infamous Theory of Enforcement. I know it sounds dramatic and kind of like a Quinn Martin production, but it's not. I'm your program host, Patrick Egan, and as always, I'll say hello and welcome to our infamous co-host, Mr.
Gene Robinson. What's going on, Gene?
Hello, Patrick, Mr. World Traveler. Glad to see you're back. Things are going well here in Texas.
We're going to be flying again, so I'm pretty happy about that. Well, there's like a long time of stuff going on. You know, I'm too busy these days. I'm, you know, what is that?
We have some of these good things. I've been busier than a tick on a hound dog. I know that... No, that's tighter than a tick on a hound dog.
Yes. Busier than a one-armed paper hanger in a windstorm. That's busy. I'm going to hit a stick for that one.
But yeah, so I, you know, usually this is like the part of the program, right? So, you know, what news stories caught your attention this week, Gene?
But more and more, it's like I should say, what news stories were you in this week, Gene? Well, gosh, I don't know that a lot of our listeners know, but I imagine most of them do, but, you know, the involvement with the cease and desist case that we had with the Federal Aviation Administration and trying to determine how much of that was actually real or, you know, whether they could actually do that or not. And it was disappointing. We did, we went back and forth and I'm sure most everyone knows that I've been, you know, in support of a case.
I have been doing exactly as I was told to do and not fly. And I've got to tell you, this is one of the hardest periods of time that I've gone through because I get calls, several calls a week, to come and help people that have missing loved ones and to have to say, no, I can't, has been a real struggle for me, especially when it's like in my neighborhood. We've had a couple in my neighborhood even that I had to tell my own, my local chief or my friend, no, I can't. That's been rough.
Yeah, well, I know, you know, I mean, you know, again, let me just reiterate. I mean, you do this with RP Search Services and it's a 501C3 and, you know, I mean, I've known you for a long time. It's most of the people that I know that are industry insiders and you've officially made the industry insider list now that, you know, I'm kind of joking about that with people, but like when you're sending messages back and forth to other people in the industry, to the Wall Street Journal or the FAAs, we're listening to press releases about you or stuff like that.
You know what I assume? Do our industry insider now like it or not?
I guess so. It's not, again, it's more of an idealism thing than a full profit thing, you know. Certainly, I... Well, and I know that it must be hard for you to be an idealist to say, no, I can't come out here and help you find little Jimmy or, you know, Anthony or whatever else.
It must be a heartbreaker. I mean, on both sides of the aisle, you can't lay hands off of your own nephew. I mean, dealing with the people and all the rest of that, holy mackerel. That's a tough one.
I go in here, I could help, but I can't help because I got the bureaucracy on my back. I mean, if you don't come up with that, what do you do, watch the Lone Stars or what?
Well, I've even given those up. I mean, I'm no fun to be around anymore like a backcountry song, you know, since I quit drinking. I'm no fun. But it's pretty rough sometimes.
But, you know, we go out there and we do the best we can. We've done a pretty good job of it over the years, and I've gotten, you know, a lot of satisfaction out of that. And that helps more than anything else. But, you know, the frustration of having to deal with the bureaucracy has been one of the hardest periods.
But, you know, I've also learned a lot, you know, and there is a lot of good that came out of it. You didn't find out until you didn't know before. Yeah, and I do think, you know, some folks are, but there are people that are kind of all over the map with this one. You know, anytime something like this happens, well, what does it mean?
And some people are saying, you know, I'm all over that Twitter thing, like think of a monkey. You know, some people are saying, where's the victory on this deal?
And I said, you know, really where it is is one more arbitrary made-up policy vehicle bites the dust, you know. Just because you say so, or send me an email or, you know, smoke signals or, you know, Morris code or whatever, that's not the official, that's not how it's legally done. So, you know, let's get your ass together, clean up your backyard before you try and lay this mosaic on the lease. And I think that that's where the victory is.
Hey, look, we're not going to be pushed around anymore. You know, we actually have people now that will step up to the plate, say, and advocate for this community. And then what would you say about that?
Yeah, I agree. And one of the things that I think is going to probably have a deeper and more pronounced effect is we've known that the FAA really hasn't had an enforcement arm. And as a pilot, I'm sure anyone who has been out there and has had a ramp check, if you know what that is, it's where the safety inspector comes up and he says, OK, he says, I want to look in your airplane and see if you have documents and show me your license. And it's basically like being pulled over by a cop.
Well, interestingly enough, one of the things that came out of this case is that any of those guys that are out there doing that, any employees of the FAA, according to this case, are now acting in an advisory role. They can only advise you that you're in violation of the FARs, but they can't do much after that, because it takes something from legal counsel, general counsel, to make it official. That's interesting because on one hand, if we want to get into that edict or the specialty edict
and some other things that are transpiring with the FAA, but on one hand, it really seems like they're trying to tighten the loose, and then on the other hand, it's like you tighten and you're setting up the trap, but you're really not using the right equipment or you're not doing about it correctly, which again, it goes back and speaks volumes to the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing,
and meanwhile the circus is in full swing out there in the nest.
So I do think that this is a good thing. Again, I'm going to take this opportunity because a lot of people are like, well, you're always beating up on somebody. Well, you know what?
I mean, Brandon's a good guy. I call him a kid. I don't know exactly how old he is, but I call him a kid. It really, you know, I mean, my hat's off to him for what he's doing, and it's a lot of work, and he's going out there, he's doing all this, and a ton of people, you know, I have seen on some of the boards where people are blaming Brandon and Trappy for what's coming out on the FAA.
You know, our cab has been down that road before. This stuff has been in the pipe, and I call it the pipe, but not the pike, since early 2000, after 9-11, and there are some homeland security things that were, you know, and I've made a joke out there that Trappy was probably still playing with Legos when, you know, the government really started looking at this technology. So, you know, just keep, you know, this is not because Trappy came along or Brandon came along that this stuff is happening. The wheels move very slowly, and this is going on here.
This has been going on for a long time. I just did what it does bother me. One thing that does bother me, and I will state it, you know, that there are associations with, you know, millions and millions and millions of dollars, and they have stepped back and did nothing. But I have to say that it has come back to roots because it looks stupid, you know, and I don't think I have to mention any names because most of the listeners probably already know what association I'm talking about.
You know, tons of resources, tons of people, tons of staff, you know, Congress is here and all the rest of that, and they just haven't been able to do anything. What's the problem?
I look at that and it bugs me. I don't know. What do you think, Jane?
Too, an idea? Too critical?
No, no, no, no. You see, we're being failed on several different counts here. Not only the large organization that you talked about who supposedly is the advocacy for unmanned aircraft, but also on the other end for the modelers as well because this has been a natural kind of evolution of the guy in the garage, you know, building up his model and going out and doing it because the electronics have gotten more sophisticated. And I've got to admit that that organization, and you and I both know, has failed in the very beginning with the arc, the first arc because they didn't want to participate.
They said, oh, that's commercial. We don't do any of that. And here we are, history has shown that that has been a very bad move because now they are involved net deep. They have an MOU with the FAA and they're trying to work out this deal, and they should have been engaged from the beginning.
Yes, and in fairness because I don't want to seem like not being fair. But in fairness, I will say, you know, our whole federal government has really changed. This is one thing, you know, I mean, I started out as being a contractor, but, you know, a remodel guy. I did not have any real experience with the Feds.
My dad did, you know, he's an environmental consultant, and so I got a little bit of experience there, how the Feds work. And this is the same playbook. This playbook is the same game with anything. And I will say that the other group that you were talking about took the FAA at their word.
And I will say, you know, we did that with ARCAPA, but early on, remember that? Oh, okay, and I'll take you through it. But it took only about six months for us to figure out that that was butt scrap. Whatever they said, that was, it wasn't worse, wouldn't hold any water.
That bucket had a hole in it, multiple holes. And so I wasn't going there personally. I think that other groups have taken it in the face of, oh, okay, you know, yeah, you know, we'll take you on your word, blah, blah, blah. Repeatedly, that's been a disaster.
Anyway, this special edict, I do want to say that all of the groups kind of come together, you know, you have AMA, ARCAPA, RC groups, some of the other forums and whatever, and people really tiffing and bull by the horns as far as trying to get the word out there. And I just checked over there at the comment page, the federal comment page, and there are over 23,000 comments about the special rule. I'm wondering with this edict, that is as far as the FDA is concerned, that's what I've seen in interviews
and whatever else, that that's the law, that's as far as they're concerned, that's an effect.
So this is like an NPRN where you get to comment. But I still think that it's worth it. With the United States, we had those 23,000 comments going to people's federal elected representatives, I would suggest that if you're listening that you go to one of those pages, find some of those that, whether it's in there or craft your own, send it to your congresspeople, House Senate members, and say, hey man, what gives?
I know I plan on doing that too in my spare time. I'd have to start typing in my sleep because it's getting heavy. But you got to say, hey man, you know, mainly my thing is where's the data?
Where's the data that suggests that this is a problem and I need to do something? You know what it reminds me of, Gene, is that you remember, I know you remember the 70s. You know, I was just a kid, but I know that you recall. Okay, Robert, go ahead.
Well, you know, now in the 70s, remember when you had like close encounters and all that UFO stuff? Remember how many times pilots were reporting UFOs?
Yes. I mean, it was all I knew. I didn't happen to remember that. Well, I remember too, you know, it was just kind of the whole space thing at the late 70s.
Oh man, UFOs everywhere. Bigfoot, on the rest of that. Pilots weren't seeing Bigfoot. They were seeing UFOs.
And it's just like the same thing with drones now. Anybody sees anything, you know. Oh my God, it was a drone, you know. Well, you actually, that brings up that latest piece that was issued by the FAA on reporting.
I mean, that whole document is kind of a lead up to the enforcement part of it. But what really kind of disturbed me about the whole thing is they said to report not only suspicious activity that could be conducted in a hijack situation, but they also included unmanned aircraft in the same document. So we ended up being compared, you know, hijackers and unmanned aircraft in the same document. You know, if you see anything suspicious like this, report it to us.
You know, it's sensational, isn't it? But I think the other thing is you're going off this deal too. I mean, the train's coming off the tracks. And I really think, and I've been saying this one for years too, by turning this whole unmanned aircraft thing over, people are going to be retiring.
And I think people will retire quick because they're going to find out that, you know, there were opportunities to do things that would have saved them more cost-effective, timely, things like that. And again, you know, first mishaps, it happens. I'm not blaming it on some chucklehead that bought something off of the Internet, and I'm blaming that right off the bat. You've had a handful, you've had years, they've had, not you, but they've had years to get their arms around this thing.
It's just been one task after another. Now, I did want to talk about this especially. I called this coming out of the arc, and I know that I'm sure I told you many times, and I've talked about it and put it out there, that this is exactly the way that the FAA, the only way the FAA can move forward and enforce the commercial drug rule. Basically, with the EDIC, what's going to happen, for those of you who haven't heard the deal, what's going to happen is that anybody who's not flying on an AMA field is now going to be suspect.
And that's just all there is to it. So any, oh, okay, well, you know, we're going to have FAA people out there now. You're going to have to enlist law enforcement, not even the law enforcement, in the enforcement effort. Finally, you're going to have to free up some cutlers.
You know, you're going to have to let, you know, let's say these first responders in place and whatever have an easier route to the cutler process or to be able to use this technology. And that's exactly what's going to come out, I think, what you're going to kind of see in November or December. If the NPRN comes out, you're going to see a kind of focus on the first responder, let's say government user, go first. They don't know what rules are about.
They don't know how the cutler thing works. They don't know how the certification thing works. They see somebody out there flying around that's not on an AMA field. They will know what to ask for.
If you have your permission, what is that permission? Is it written or is it my word?
I don't know what it costs to take my word on things, but, you know, it's not my word personally, but, you know. Oh, no, the bank manager told me I could take whatever I wanted. You know, I'm cool. So that's how this thing is going to line up.
That's how they're going to do the enforcement. The NPRN is going to come out and just be like, oh, go ahead and try and catch me. Well, that's how it's going to work. And that's how it's been working all along with the DOD guys, wanting to go out of the gate first and go out there and that the game's been, this is the whole rigged game for years.
This is how the deal's been going down. And I will say that even this edict that came out was talked about in the arc. You know, R.D. Williams stood up in the arc during the small U.S.
arc and said, MTL is going to write the rules for RC hobbyists. And, you know, I got that meeting shut down because I said, that's, you know, what have we been doing over here for the last six or seven months?
We've been sitting in this committee and working on these RC regs and all the rest of that, and you're just going to come in here and, you know, lay out the seat that the FAA is going to make the rules. And this is basically exactly what they were wanting to do, you know. And when you're flying in class B, five miles from an airport, you don't really know about the SPV thing at the time. They kind of, you kind of didn't understand it.
They still, the FAA thinking is who in their right mind would want to do SPV? And I would say, well, you know, it's a guy that doesn't want to spend $50,000 on a license, you know, $50,000 to $500,000 on a plane. You know, this is the personal generation. Those people are out there and they want to fly SPV.
I mean, you know, what do you think, Jay? I couldn't agree with you more. The 3D full immersion capability is there. It's become readily available.
And, you know, if I was a gamer, you know, at that age, and I did my share of gaming, but if I had that capability to go out and do it in 3D, I think I'd be saving my allowance and mowing my lawns and getting that so I could get one of those too. So I understand it. I get it because as a pilot there is nothing better than flying as far as I'm concerned. Maybe you could just do it a little bit cheaper and it's something that's, you know, less involved.
So there's that. You know, the thing that I think is kind of funny is you're down on this SPV thing, but that's how you fly Raven, you know. Yep, there it is. The whole deal makes no sense.
You're going to start to go to a hobby camp, can't have a buddy box and have an observer and fly around, but the guy with the Raven or Puma or Scanning roll can be inside the shelter and he's okay with a guy outside. He's not even connected with a court. The whole deal, it's bizarre. I mean, really, I'm encouraged by what I'm seeing people kind of circling the lines or whatever else.
So you've got to jump up and just say, no way, Jose. This is just go back to the drawing board and get it together because it's just not working. I just don't see any of it coming out of this working. I want to kind of lead me into the next story because Gene said I just came back from overseas.
I was over at the Farnborough Air Show, which is a great air show. People should go over there if they can and at least see that or the Paris Air Show. And, you know, while mentioning Paris, I'm going to have to tell you that London, and I never saw every other state in a million years, but London makes Paris look like a bargain. The bargain is expensive.
It's crazy. The exchange rate is pretty rough. I was stationed over there in the military and even back then, you know, 100 years ago, as you say, the exchange rate was $1.78 and I think it's still like $1.68. And yeah, you know, when you have to, when they say, you know, oh, it's 20 pounds for breakfast.
Okay, that's 40 bucks for, you know, an over easy egg and glass of orange juice. Well, and some beans and weenies, you know. I went in there to check out the hardtack before I laid down the 20 pounds for breakfast, you know. Oh, no, no, you have bangers and mash, not beans and weenies.
You have bangers and mash. Well, whatever, it looked like beans and weenies to me. But yeah, I didn't not take the 20 pound breakfast. It was too nice for me, you know, not that bougie as they say.
Well, you thought it was 20 pounds of food, right? You Americans. Okay, I like to put it on the feedback. But it was good.
It was interesting to go out there and talk to people and get a different view, especially if we're all native English speakers and that was kind of good. I got to meet Gary for the first time for anybody who didn't know that. That's right. Gary had been doing the SQS News now for, I guess around 2009.
I'd never met Gary in person, and I figured, you know, I was curious and I wanted to get out there because I don't think I'll be in South Africa anytime soon. Yeah, great guy. You know, totally on the same page with all of this. I gave my hats off to him too, put some lot of effort into this.
And I told people this. I know some people think it's like a shameless plug, but I have to say it, and I'll say it again, that the SQS News and the efforts that Gary's put into this had probably done more for global airspace integration than anything else I can think of at any cost. With millions of dollars a budget, nobody's done more than the SQS News. And you know, for him to be in – and another thing, for him to be in South Africa – oh,
I don't know who goes back and forth between South Africa and the UK – but for him to be displaced as far as he is away from us, he is very knowledgeable about what is going on over here in the airspace, in the NAS, and the proceedings that are occurring with all the agencies.
And I think that's a pretty amazing accomplishment. So he's got some good stories. Well, then he's reading the stories. And then I'll be on it.
I am so expressive and un-readable. He's not going to have the bandwidth, but he's reading the stuff. He's reading it all, you know?
I'm just proud to say that I was coming up with that thing that kind of slowed down after the expo. It just – it's like an avalanche. But you know, it's okay. We'll get it all done.
One thing that I do think, you know, the comparison to Farnborough and Paris Air shows is being a Parisian bigger, little less of a buzz at Farnborough, and very light on the OAS. Paris Air show was lots of them manned aircraft. I mean, the Israelis have a pavilion, and Dana, seriously, they have something for everyone across the spectrum of manned aircraft systems. So I'll bring that one.
And tons of different companies. I did hear the last iteration of the show was a little less, let's say, populated by smaller manufacturers. But I think that there's two things going on with that. One, talking to the people that were at Farnborough, that are English companies, it totally upbeat business.
You know, we're looking at an increase of about 1,000% business. We're hiring people nowhere but up. The CAA UK is great. Those guys, you can – they're really approachable.
And, you know, in the back of my mind, I'm thinking we've got this medieval, you know, unmanned aircraft systems business climate here in the United States. And over here, you know, here's an example of how this is all working, and the sky is not falling. What is the problem?
You know, the FAA will say, oh, there are air spaces that are like our airspace. I mean, we're talking about jobs at Heathrow, man. People are doing jobs at Heathrow with unmanned aircraft. It is working, or downtown London, or, you know, wherever it's working, or even at the air show.
Well, you did see this week that the CAA came out with another revision to their policy concerning standard air flights for 20 kilos and under. That was an interesting little – yeah, that was an interesting little clarification on their part that they're obviously seeing the upswing of unmanned aircraft use. And if you're going to be out there in the hills and the dales and the whales, out there in the UK, and you're far removed, then they're not going to require you to go through a whole – jump through a bunch of hoops.
So it's to go do it even commercially, which I thought was fantastic. And if you want to fly in London, you know, if you want to fly in a populated area, then you have to go through some of the certification hoops that are still in place. And that's fine. That's the way it should be.
And my hat's off to them. Yeah, and that's just going to be right back to the sky is not falling in. I mean, it's just like I'm saying right now, where is the data that proves that all of this is so unsafe and there are all these problems?
I mean, I know, I realize everybody's risk averse and they don't want to jeopardize their career or whatever. But I also believe that we're on beyond that point. That big mishap that I talked about is going to be laid directly on their lap. This is your fault.
It's their fault because they did a poor job of doing anything with regulations. It's their fault because they've done a very poor job of putting out information. I mean, just lately, even the stuff that they're putting out, with the E-H or whatever else, okay, well, you know, they tell you to go get trading. And there's a link to the AMA page and you look at the education link there and there's people doing trading there and they're charging money.
Right after the FAA says you can't get any compensation unless you're a lender. So what's the deal?
I mean, are you suggesting FAA that people go and break the law? It's crazy making. Or are you suggesting that somebody should be teaching people for free?
Are you suggesting that? I mean, I just don't get it, Gene. The numbers just started adding up. So it seems like a due diligence thing is really missing.
Is it missing because, you know, I'm speculating, but is it missing because people don't understand the technology? Is it missing because people from the Air-to-Air Traffic Organization don't want to come out?
Like I already said, I'm not going out and wasting the taxpayers' money to see RC aircraft fly. I think that's a red herring there. I would have to think that there's a bias. Obviously there's a bias towards manned aircraft.
And that's understandable. They've been a manned aircraft agency since their inception, period. End of story. And anything smaller or unmatched has been kind of an incidental sideline.
And as we've stated before, we did a pretty good job of managing ourselves and keeping things pretty sane. But, you know, the technology has changed. And they're trying to play catch-up. And they're trying to maintain the paradigm that they've maintained for years.
And it's going to be a difficult thing to do. I agree. And I do think there's a bias. I don't know if I've expressed that story here on the podcast, but during the arc, I was going to take the Cracker Barrel, and if anybody can see it, you can Google Cracker Barrel UAV.
And I thought I was going to be able to fly over here at the Dryden facility. And I got shot down because I had to take a piece of paperwork and it was a freaking shoe and I could not fly there. But I need special dispensation from the ANA Executive Council to fly my commercial system at an ANA field. Okay?
I go out there, I fly the Cracker Barrel, I take a couple of snaps, yada, yada, yada. And, you know, again, the woman from ETO didn't come out, didn't even send a representative to see my operation. And again, that was when she said, you know, I'm not going to spend the taxpayers' money or waste it on RC aircraft. But, you know, I got this commercial system.
You know, she said she knew how they operated. I said, well, you know, commercial operation works. Have you seen me do my operation?
No. Okay. So, you know, in other words, I just dropped $1,500 or $2,000 of my own money to put on a demonstration for the FAA, and you didn't even have the courtesy to send?
Yeah, you didn't come. Okay, you didn't got that. You're busy. But you didn't even send out a representative.
Does that sound like a square game? Does that sound like you're really trying to learn or figure out a problem?
Or does it seem like, you know, hey, I got things to do that are more important? I don't know. I tried to hold up my end of the bargain. But that's, I think that's another good example of how this effort has gone since day one.
I got to agree. And it's been frustrating. And, you know, the only thing that we can do is we've got to put pen to paper. And we've got to encourage all our listeners to take one of those letters, manufacture your own, produce your own, write it, get it to your elected officials.
That's the only way we're going to change anything that's where our system works. Well, then you should use the special interpretation as a harbinger for things to come. I mean, if you really distill this down and read this edict, I mean, the hobby for non-AMA members is over, as you know it. You know, and it's going to kind of go hand in hand with the commercial thing.
If you think you're going to be out here doing this as a business in the beginning, again, I've said this for years and years and years, you know, one, I can't enjoy myself in a hobby where I'm looking over my shoulder all the time. Two, I don't really want to do or be in a business that is outside of federal law. That's me. You may be a little bit different.
Oh, yeah, I'm an outlaw. When you get there, you're just friends. No. Anyway, I appreciate your time today and some explanation about the police and the dismissal and everything else.
Maybe you just give us, you got to go forward. Don't you want to discuss before we sign off?
Well, we're really trying to figure out which way to go forward and how we can do this. I mean, we still feel like as a 501c3 nonprofit charity, we don't take any compensation for what we do. We're still kind of caught between. I guess you could say that search and rescue could be my hobby.
But again, it's purposeful intent, I think, is the term that is used. Are you concerned about, let's say, punitive action now that you've kind of, let's say, the story's going mainstream?
Are you a little apprehensive about that? No more so than I was in the past, to be honest with you, Patrick. We know what the capabilities are. Of course, they can send out the letter under general counsel in order to cease and desist.
And if you continue to do so, they can potentially fine you $10,000. We know they can do that. But they have to fine you for careless and reckless operation. And it is, as we've seen in the other case, the other case that Brendan handled that ended up getting ruled in his favor, was that the agency had to prove careless and reckless.
And if you have procedures and if you're following an example, and more than anything else, if you have a track record like we have for the last 10 years, it's going to be a difficult thing to prove, careless and reckless. So... And I agree with that. You have the potential of playing with the 800-pound gorilla.
Remember that old, what was it, the Samsonite commercial where the luggage went back off the belt and it went into the gorilla cage and then throw it around? I will say that I don't personally fly because I really, I don't, I think, probably, roughly enough that they got wind of it. They would probably turn it into a federal case. What do you think?
Well, I'm going to take a note from Davy Crockett's book, you know, a long time ago. He says if you think you're right, then go ahead. And if somebody calls me and says that they have a missing loved one and I can help, I think that's right and I think I should do that. So it may be with an aircraft, it may be with side-scan sonar, it may be with Moen 2 feet, but I think that that's right and I'm going to follow old Davy's words and see what happens.
All right. Well, I, you know, could have skinned the cabins off, you know, to you again. And, you know, thanks again, Gene, and, you know, we'll be talking soon. Hopefully we're going to do another podcast this week and, you know, we'll go from there.
Okay. Thanks again, Gene, and see you soon. Y'all take care.