UAS News Podcast — 2013-05-29
Audio not available on SoundCloud — full transcript below.
Transcript
Alright, hello everyone and welcome to the UAS News Podcast, actually kickoff of year two, the evolution of the UAS News Podcast series where we interview newsmakers and discuss the news, applications and science relevant to the global unmanned technologies community. I'm your program host, Patrick Egan, let's say hello and welcome to our co-host, Mr. Gene Robinson. Hello Patrick, well it's good to be back on the air after our little two week hiatus.
It is, things have been kind of busy over here. I know that things have probably been busy for you over there in Texas, there's a lot going on. Are you on vacation?
I wish. Yes, well it was a busy week, but even still we did not have a podcast, but me and Gene just participate in a super group call. What did you think of that Gene?
You know that was pretty phenomenal, you know to have some of those guys that were on the podcast in the past and then be able to get them all on a conference call together and have that wealth of knowledge to sit down and talk about all the things they've done, all the things that they're going to do, the problems that they've encountered. Wow, that was just an amazing conference and it went well over an hour, didn't it?
It did, you know everybody was really busy, but that was an excellent opportunity to hear current uses, future uses, issues to overcome for some widespread utilization and expansion of programs within those different groups. I think that was kind of a million dollar phone call for the right company if they were on board on that one. I don't know, I definitely see some of the future possibilities for this technology and especially let's say some contracting type of opportunities. Definitely, Gene's inside the gold line.
I know we got one tentatively scheduled for another six months from now and I'm looking forward to that. I'd really like to do something out in the field prior to that, but we'll just have to see how that works out. How do you think that opportunity?
I think so too, looking forward to that. I think that could be very enlightening. I did want to talk about the Small Unmanned Systems Business Exposition that we're putting on, SUS News and a couple of other sponsors are putting on. You can go to SUSBEXPO.com and check that out.
Great lineup of speakers, business, commercial use only, no military, no police. It's going to be good, just some real heavy hitters. That's July 25th and 26th in San Francisco. Be sure to hit that one.
Gene will be speaking. Any other stories catch your attention this week, Gene?
Well, there's been several, Patrick. First off, I want to give kudos to our northern mounties up there, northern neighbors in Canada. They got their first live SAR recovery using an unmanned aircraft, so good on them. They used a multi-rotor and a thermal imager and they found the guy and it would have very likely have cost him his life had they not had that little unmanned aircraft out there.
Patrick, you know I'm a big proponent and have worked in the search and rescue industry a long time, so I want to give a tip of the hat to the mounties for being able to go out there and do that and save an individual's life, so congratulations to them. I second that. Congratulations. Other than that, another thing that popped up on our radar scope and we've watched it go through both the House and the Senate in here in Texas and that is House Bill 912. 921, I can't remember the number now.
I'm pretty sure it's 912. It's waiting for the governor's signature, right?
It is now waiting for the governor's signature and let me tell you what, I'm about as exasperated as I can be with the due process because Representative Gooden proposed his new law and didn't quite have all the facts that he probably should have. I know that his representative had been out and had spoken with several FPV groups and aerial photographers and they got quite the education in the process
and there were a number of amendments made to it and unfortunately what we've done is we've now had a law that is potentially a law that is going to do nothing but confuse the issue even further on what legitimate use of aerial photography or unmanned aerial photography is all about.
So I'm a little exasperated over that and just don't know really which way to go on this one except to ask the governor to veto it, which I think that's unlikely. The Texas process is even if the governor doesn't do anything but veto it, if he does nothing it's still going to become a law. So I'm afraid that that may be the case. Anyway, there is the first block that's fallen into place in the 39 states that have some sort of legislation and I'm afraid a precedent is going to be set and it could be quite deleterious to the industry as a whole.
What do you think? I would concur with that. I read it over. I read the language over and there are some, let's say, vague references in there.
If I was to really look at it I'd go, hmm, okay, well I could probably still operate. However, I think it kind of puts the operator at a disadvantage that you kind of have to prove that you are not kind of violating someone's privacy or also kind of prove that you're not breaking the intention of that law, which is kind of vague and arbitrary in my book. That's kind of what I get at. It does.
I wouldn't want to be somewhere where I was trying to prove that I wasn't doing something wrong. That would be a hard one to weasel out of. The other thing I noticed in there and I think this might be something that occurred because of the SUAS news and that is I've noticed that they have a clause in there about photographs used as evidence in court cases. I have a feeling that that stems right from the River of Blood story that we broke at the SUAS news.
Your comment? I think it's quite coincidental that Representative Gooden is from the area that that occurred in so I don't think I need to say much more. Winky, dinky, doo or I don't know. I do think it's kind of interesting that you have a situation where you're living toxic waste in my book into the drinking water supply and we're more worried about the privacy in a court case.
Something's a little askew there but I wouldn't want to be in a position where I'm defending myself against that law. It's a little vague and you would probably get out of it or be found innocent or whatever but it's going to cost you some money and it's like you said, I definitely think it's a precedent that's not good for us. We'll just have to wait and see. We will have to wait and see.
All right. Now moving along, we have a guest today and I met our first guest a few years ago. We've spoken over the years about today's topic and the last time we met was at UAS West 2013 and our first guest is Mr. Chuck Johnson.
He manages and works with people, some of the shows prior guests but before we bring him on, I do want to say we put up a PowerPoint presentation that he did at UAS West 2013 on our SlideShare site which is slideshare.net front slash SUAS news and you can find his presentation and follow along. It's on manned aircraft systems and integration into the National Airspace System Project and so without further ado, let's bring on our guest, Mr. Chuck Johnson. Hey Patrick, hey Gene, hey thanks for the opportunity to be part of this podcast and discuss some of what NASA is doing with regard to UAS.
Well you're exactly the kind of guy that we want to try and get on this program and bring to light some of the work and issues and problems and solutions to get this community in the air and working so this is really right up our alley and we're glad that you could take time to be on today. So as we usually do, I want to bring a guest on. I'd like you to, if you could, please give us an overview of your work leading up to this project
and a little bio history of you and unmanned aircraft systems. Okay, so a couple things and I know that you have quite an informed group of listeners which is really wonderful.
So I think most of them know, as you do, that NASA has a long and rich history of working with unmanned aircraft whether termed unmanned systems, unmanned aircraft, remotely piloted vehicles, drones, whatever. We've been researching and flying them in the NASA and restricted airspace for the better part of 50 years. So it's a very long history. For my part, I've been involved in aviation for quite some time, specifically UAS for about the last 10 years.
I actually started my career as an air traffic controller with the FAA back in 1982 and after 11 years including five at Los Angeles Terminal Radar Perfomance and a couple of years at the headquarters, I resigned from the FAA and went to work in MIT Lincoln Laboratory doing human factors research mostly on air traffic control decision support tools. In 1999, I actually left MIT and went back to work for the government for NASA at NASA Ames Research Center up on Moffett Field in Mountain View.
I think it was somewhere around July of 2001, I went to NASA headquarters and I spent a couple of years there working as a partnership manager between NASA and the FAA and it was there that I got involved pretty heavily in UAS.
I was the NASA headquarters lead for a project we had called Access 5 which I helped in the formulation and then started that project. We ran that for about two through two and a half years until it was canceled. So that was back in the 03 to 05 timeframe. And then after that I went out to the Dryden Flight Research Center from headquarters where I currently work and it was back in about 2009 that we started advocacy for this project that
I now, we got final approval from OMB to fund it in 2011 and since August of 2011, I've been the manager, sorry August of 2010, I've been the manager of this particular project called the U.S.
Integration and the NAS. So that's sort of a quick and dirty background for how I got into UAS. It's a long one but it's a good one. Now you know, you touched on something I was hoping maybe you could just kind of elucidate on maybe a little Clipstone nutshell on the Access 5 thing because I mean I know what it is but a lot of people may have kind of just heard about it but it was a while ago and they don't understand what that was.
Could you maybe fill us in a little bit on the Access 5 thing? Sure. So the Access 5 project was NASA's real first opportunity to get into the role of, oops sorry about that background noise, to get into the role of trying to enable access to the National Aerospace System and the activity that we started under this project was really a public-private partnership with industry where at the time the six manufacturers of high endurance, high altitude long endurance UAVs came to NASA and proposed an activity, a joint activity where industry would fund part of it and NASA would fund part of it.
So it was an interesting and unique approach that we went down the path of working with industry to try to enable just a segment like the first bite of a very large elephant, the first access that we thought could be achievable within five years, thus Access 5, and that was high altitude long endurance UAVs that are going to operate in airspace that was generally about 45,000 feet, so the really high altitude long endurance. And we thought that could be one of the easiest pathways to take, to put our toe in the water and get some access for some aircraft to the National Aerospace.
That project was run over the two and a half years or so and keep in mind this was a sort of new frontier even for the FAA. This was before there was an RTCA special committee on UAS and before the FAA had established an unmanned aircraft program office, which they did during the first couple of years of Access 5. So we really started the ball rolling with not just within NASA but even within the FAA to really start to open the eyes of those involved that there was this emerging need for UAS access.
So that's kind of the framework for Access 5. And even though we went down the path when NASA, due to some other constraints, ended up canceling that project, it didn't take us very long to get our name back on the table when we started up this project on UAS integration. Right, right. Well, that's some great background because like I said, some people may have heard the Access 5 in passing and they don't really know what that is, but I think that that was helpful there.
And then a couple of the companies that were involved with that was like Aurora Flight Sciences, AeroVironment, Scaled Composites, was it Northrop Grumman and General Atomics? Yeah, Scaled was not one of them. They weren't?
Yeah, AeroVironment, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Aurora Flight Sciences and General Atomics, those were the companies. So there were six companies. They banded together under an organization called UNITE, which still exists, and they were the ones that came to NASA and then ultimately to the FAA as one industry voice that represented high-endurance long, sorry, high altitude long endurance aircraft. And that was one of the things that the FAA really wanted.
They wanted a single voice, which is really one of the big challenges today. There is no single industry voice that can say this is what our needs are. So this is one of the complications as we move forward in this project in trying to gather the right amount of data for the FAA to allow access to the NASA. You don't have the common voice that you would hope to have, which we did back in 2005.
And do you think that, why do you maybe think that that is, you'd like to guess? Is it a diversity of systems and missions?
Is it just there are no players? No, I think it is that there are so many different, and if you think about the potential uses for unmanned aircraft, it's wide and broad and it's hard to get consensus on what the next step needs to be, which is what the FAA was hoping for out of industry. And so everyone has their own interests in this and it's difficult for the FAA to allocate the resources that are required to answer the problems because they can't do everything all at once. So they have to figure out what things to do first.
And it's hard to get consensus in the industry on what the first steps are when you have everyone looking at it from a different perspective. And I think the FAA has made some progress in things like the small UAS NPRM, when that does get released. They've made some progress in terms of RTCA and now RTCS-A228. So they're making some steps, but they have to do it incrementally because they just can't do it all at once.
It's just impossible. Well, I do say that there is probably, from my experience as part of the airspace integration effort, I will say that there are some definitely different perspectives on what that elephant that you were referencing looks like. It's kind of like the parable of the five blind monks describing the elephant. One's got the trunk and one's got the tail and so on.
And it's definitely difficult, but I think it's also something that's been hindered by advocacy through business plans. Of course, they say, well, we don't want to do that. We don't want to look at existing products or whatever. But that's, in my mind, well, from my experience, not even in my mind, but from my experience, that's definitely one of the problems.
There is no objective, hey, now it fits on this product and these are the missions and whatever else. And I think that that's really hindered it. But that's a whole other discussion for a whole other show. So, you know, moving into your presentation, which I did say was up at the slideshare.net SUAS news.
I'd kind of like to go through this a little bit. And, you know, you talk about a problem set and whatnot in your presentation. And most listeners are aware of the issues that prohibit the wide-scale integration of UAS into the NAS. But for continuity, could you give us maybe another nutshell civil barrier issue, if that's possible?
Yeah, sure. I think that there are a couple of angles to look at it. You know, one is certainly there are some technology challenges. There are barriers that need to be broken down, particularly as they apply to the federal aviation regulations like, you know, 91-113 for, in essence, seen avoid and well clear.
So there are some technical challenges that have to be addressed there. Some of those would also include policy or procedural changes. But there's also, from the civil access side, there's the public acceptance barrier, which includes things like privacy. I think that's one of the big and really difficult barriers to break down.
And you're a public agency like NAS or like DOD or like DHS, you know, you can always say we're doing it for science or we're doing it for public defense or, you know, homeland defense. And so you get through, you know, the public side says, okay, you know, we understand that. But why would we allow these things to apply, these things that are deemed by many as being unsafe or being, you know, only used for spying or killing people?
Why in the world would we allow those? And getting through that public acceptance barrier is one of the big challenges that we as a community, whether it's us, you know, NASA, us as a public agency or the industry at large, we have to overcome that. And we have to come up with common logical messaging that can be explained in terms that the general public understands and kind of resonate with. What are the real values of these unmanned aircraft?
Why is it, is that going to trump any of the concerns about things like privacy and spoofing and every other thing that comes up that that would be a barrier? And I think that's one of the things that we as a community need to focus on. But from a technology standpoint, which is where NASA has a big role, as I mentioned, we own and operate a lot of unmanned aircraft, about 100 unmanned aircraft. But we also are on the side of doing the research that's described in that presentation.
And so a lot of those things are, we believe, long poles in the tent technology-wise to get access. So certainly some sort of a sense and avoid system that could be compliant with the rule for seeing avoid and or well clear, that's one of the long poles. Communications, there is no, I mean, there is some civil spectrum that has been allocated as part of the World Radio Conference, but no one's looked deep into that to see if it's scalable and secure. And then there's also the human factors implications of all this, which are really pretty profound.
It's not, you no longer have the pilot in the cockpit. So what does that mean in terms of human factors?
And we think that a lot of these challenges can't just be solved as individual components, but they have to be solved as an integrated solution and be tested in an integrated way so that you're not just looking at the comm by itself, but you're looking at the comm with latencies that would be generated. And how does that have implications for a sense and avoid type system?
What are the human factors characteristics of that? All of that has to be done in an integrated way. So that's why you'll see in that presentation that we're approaching this as really an integrated systems problem and not a bunch of component problems. Well, I think you've got a good handle on what the issues are.
And definitely have your work cut out for you with some of those technology issues. Gene, did you have a couple of comments?
Yeah, actually I think probably the one that's looming the largest for me, Chuck, is that you issued the privacy and the public perception issue. Unfortunately, the only thing that the public really gets to see is a picture of the Predator B with the Hellfire missiles hanging from it. And it really has a negative connotation. And I really think that that needs to be addressed first or we're going to have a hard time getting out of the starting blocks.
NASA has always had a pretty good image with the space program and with the PR that you guys have got going. So if anybody's got a shot at doing it, you guys have got the best shot at doing it. Yeah, so Gene, I totally agree with you. I think that that is one of the real initial stumbling blocks that has to be successfully addressed.
And I think that NASA plays a key role there. But I do think that it's the community. It's not just NASA by itself. And this is why we're working with a lot of organizations like AVSI to make sure that they're – that the good news stories, whether they come out of NASA, and we've got a lot of those, or other parts of the community like the one you were just talking about with the Canadian Mounties
and the search and rescue, those are the kind of good news stories that need to be pushed through the front page that really people need to understand how it is that these unmanned aircraft can really help humanity.
And I think on top of that, and this is something that we've been working with at NASA, is sort of try to tell the story of the future applications and what the benefits are. So I think everyone can envision the jets in days where everyone's got a personal air vehicle that's fully autonomous. That's a long ways away, though we believe it's something that we should be thinking about. But it's those stepping stones that get described of how you make unmanned aircraft more and more valuable to society.
And I think that just in leveraging off the search and rescue things, I mean it's not unreasonable to think in the foreseeable future with the advances in unmanned system and in robotics that you could have a situation where you do the search and rescue, but when you have a patient that can't get on the aircraft by himself, you actually could deploy off this unmanned aircraft a robotic doctor to go do what emergency procedures are required to in essence stop the bleeding and then actually transport the passenger, the person that is injured, onto the vehicle and fly them back to the hospital.
Well that's just a small extension of the current uses of unmanned aircraft for search and rescue. And I think people can visualize how that could be a real benefit to society if that's what you're going to use unmanned aircraft for. So I think that there's a way to tell the story in terms of not just what we're doing today and what the good is, but what we can do tomorrow if we enable access to the NAS for these aircraft. I concur with that.
I went right into the belly of the beast. You said you worked at Moffitt. Me and actually Chad Partridge, I've gone to UC Berkeley School of Law and talked about this subject, and also the Berkeley Drone Town Hall meeting. And we had our work cut out for us, Chuck.
I wrote an article about it. I was kind of amazed. But the topics that you're talking about were met with people calling, hey, that's cool. I mean, hey, we're here.
We want to talk about feeding the hungry world. Oh, yeah, that's cool. We want to talk about feeding the hungry world. We want to talk about anti-deforestation efforts or anti-poaching efforts.
There's a lot of good. And unfortunately, as a community, I think this community has kind of sat back on the DOD laurels and, you know, it was easy money and all the rest of that. And we weren't talking about these other uses over the past few years. It really took a backseat.
And I think it really hurt the industry as a whole. There were some of us out there talking about that, but that all fell on deaf ears. And that's a great story for another podcast. But I do want to say, and I do want to give some kudos, is we had Mike Logan on and we had Jeff Bland on.
And that was a while ago, but we had them on and they were talking about some of the uses for RPA, for science or whatever. And that was our most popular show with almost 27,000 downloads. Well, both those guys are very experienced and knowledgeable. And Mike Logan in particular, who is really associated with our project, Jeff Bland is more on the science side.
Those guys, they know what they're doing and they understand the value of unmanned aircraft and can speak about it in terms that most of your listeners can really resonate with. Absolutely. Those guys are great guys, smart guys. They were doing some work when I was on the small UAS arc that the FAA put together.
And those guys really had some good ideas. Logan's a sharp guy, he's an engineer. So it was great to have them on and talk about that. And obviously with those numbers, what that suggested to me was that people outside of our direct community were also very interested in what NASA was doing, like you're saying, in the future.
Thinking about the future, thinking about what these guys are doing. We actually had Jeff on a couple weeks ago talking about that science work they were doing down there, flying in the plume of the volcano in Costa Rica. Perfect application, you don't have to put anyone at risk. You get all the sulfur dioxide samples, your large desires.
And we'd like to see more of that and some of the stuff that you guys are doing. The science side, though, is very interesting, but also the work that you're doing is really interesting and I don't want to get too far off that. Maybe some of the capturable goals and objectives for your project. Maybe you could speak to that a little bit.
Yeah, so one of the keys, first off, what we are trying to do is we want to make sure that, for a couple reasons, one is we're all civil servants and we do our research with public dollars that we get from, that are allocated to us from Congress. So we want to make sure that we are doing unique work that really NASA is well equipped to do. So we want to capitalize on those unique capabilities that NASA has. And in this case, as I mentioned, we think one of the real important things that we can bring to the table with NASA is our ability to do this integrated system level testing.
And so in order to eliminate or reduce, in some cases, those technical barriers, we're taking the approach that it has to be done in an integrated manner and not in a component way. And so we're trying to develop this, you know, what we refer to a lot as a body of evidence, which really is a lot of different things. It's validated data, it's algorithms that could come down to the recommendations.
But we're trying to get this body of evidence collected that would allow decision makers, whether they be a standard organization like RGCA or ASTM or the FAA, to make decisions that would enable access to the NAS.
So that's a big part of what we're trying to do is collect that data and organize it in a manner that those decision makers can use it to actually say, okay, this is safe enough, right? So NASA, you're somewhat of an unbiased, honest broker. You've done all this work, you've collected this data, you've built a case that we can take and say, yeah, these aircraft are safe enough in these conditions. And so that's what we're trying to do here just generally.
So that's one of the big, you know, statements that we're trying to make as part of this project. We're looking at other things, help the FAA in terms of new and creative methodologies for airworthiness requirements. We're certainly spending a lot of time and a lot of focus on trying to get to a true national roadmap where we can lay out who needs to do what, by when, how much it's going to cost, and how you're going to manage it. And those are all necessary things, particularly for us as a public agency, to figure out how to get the right funding.
But for the community of interest, including industry, to say, this is what needs to be done, I'm going to step up and do it. But unless there is some form of a national access roadmap, then you're not able to do that. So those are some of the key things that we're working on to shape the technologies and get those technologies into actually into implementation. That's pretty interesting.
Now, when you're talking about this, I mean, it sounds like it's a pretty encompassing approach, but is this kind of a holistic thing as far as the, let's say, spectrum of aircraft? Are you looking at everything shooting for that September 2015 deadline, open the NAS up to all UAS?
Or are you taking the smaller bite of the elephant and saying, you know, okay, well, we're talking about 55 pounds and down, 150 kilos and down? What are you guys trying to capture?
So it's a great question that leverages a couple of different things. The language that's in the legislation doesn't say all access for all aircraft by 2016 or 2015 rather. It's talking about safe integration. And so the FAA's approach to what they're going to do for safe integration is probably very different than what some people might perceive.
And they're doing it based on that, you know, small bite, right? So they're looking at a couple different things that they can do by 2015, by September 30, 2015, including the small UAS rule and including opening up class A airspace to larger unmanned aircraft. So that's kind of the stepping in position for the FAA to say we're going to meet the legislation by enabling safe access to some segments of the airspace based on certain criteria, certain equipage. So there's nobody that thinks, at least no one that I know, that thinks that we could have this by 2015.
It's just not possible that safely. Okay. And, you know, that was exactly the answer I was hoping for. And you hit the nail on the head because, you know, I guess the circles that you're traveling in are maybe a little bit more realistic or more in the know.
You know, you just, this is the kind of goals that you get on this show because there's a lot of folks. I've been in the Bay Area here doing speaking engagements, talking about NASA integration and these unmanned aircraft and the NASA. And there's a large group of people who believe that September 2015 is like, you know, you remember that you might have seen the movie where they have all the wagons lined up and they blow the whistle or shoot the gun. And so the westward ho land grab is on and it's all good.
You can do whatever you want in 2015. And I was kind of surprised, too, to hear that. I was like, huh, where'd you use that?
Maybe I didn't get the memo. I don't know. Yeah, thank goodness that's not the way it's going to happen because that, there's no way to do that safely on the time frame. The FAA, whose primary job is safety of the national airspace, is definitely going down the path where they will make sure that these aircraft are safe before they enter the national airspace.
And that's why the incremental approach is the only way to do it. And so for our part, while we are doing some work on small US, we're doing a lot of work on trying to come up with what the requirements are for a sense and avoid system which would be manifest in the early time period on a large aircraft. But certainly if you define what the requirements are, then it's up to industry to kind of figure out how to miniaturize that or how to meet the requirements through other methods of compliance with smaller aircraft.
So at least we're taking the first step at something very manageable and obtainable in a time frame of this project. Now I want to step back just for a second and talk about the project in that unlike many NASA activities that we have in research where it just goes on forever and you spin off products as time goes on, this project has a finite time frame. In September 30th of 2016, the project will be discontinued. We have on our charge to get everything we're going to get accomplished by the end of fiscal 16 and then we're done.
The project's over. NASA may have some other project after that, but this project will be done. So everything that we have in our portfolio has to be completed and in essence handed over to be implemented by the end of 2016. So we're looking at very bite-sized pieces that can reasonably be accomplished in that time frame.
And that's why we are looking at developing the requirements for a sense and avoid system and for a communication system and some of the human factors interactions. But we're not looking at a solution that's going to work, that we're going to take to the point that it's implementable for every aircraft in the system. Well, that makes sense. I think that unless you have a large army of engineers, I don't think you could accomplish all that in that time frame.
But I do kind of like that. Very interesting thing. Look, and I want to give Gene another chance. Gene, any comments?
Sorry about that. You're on mute there, so I wouldn't have the machinery going in the background. Sorry about that. No problem.
No problem. Yeah, any comments on that?
Quite honestly, I missed that one. Sorry. Oh, you know, okay. Well, we were just talking about the approach.
I think it makes sense. It's pragmatic. Now, you know, launching back in here, Chuck, I noticed on slide eight and nine, you have some references to the RTCA and the different working groups, one through four. And, you know, I'm doing another story here.
You did kind of allude to that too in the beginning. And it looks like SC203 is going to get an extreme makeover and go to SC228. And what does that mean to the project?
Are we going to like restructure and refocus or is it just going to change the name and march forward? Do you know?
No, it's not going to be a name change. So I think that first off, when RTC SC203 was stood up, they were given a very difficult task of really looking at, you know, everything UAS all at the same time, coming up with a minimum aviation system performance standard for the whole ball wax. And then they whittled it down a little bit to look at the focus in certain areas, which was a good thing. But when SC203 was stood up, NASA was in the game providing data.
And so the anticipation was that we would provide the data to SC203 to have them validate their masks. Well, unfortunately, NASA dropped out of the game and only recently came back. So there are many in the community that, you know, thought that 203 wasn't making very good progress. In reality, they actually continued to have a forum where many things were discussed and many, you know, a lot of progress was made in a lot of different areas.
That aside, a new decision was made by RTC GA fairly recently that they would develop, they would come out with the masks to the greatest extent possible and get those published and then sunset 203 and start up a new activity that would be looking at the minimum operational performance standards, the MOPS, for sense and avoidance for command and control communication. And so they have now sunset, they're in the process of the last transition, sunset 203
and stood up a new committee, 228, with new leadership, with a new terms of reference to really get to a MOPS by, at least for part of it, by 2016, which happened to coincide very well with our project so that we were going to be feeding that data that we would have fed to 203 now to 228 with a slightly different twist in not just going after the aviation system performance standards but the operational performance standards
so that at some point in maybe a year or two after that, the FAA could come out with, assuming they accept the recommendations of 228, could come out with a rule or a TSO that would allow a manufacturer to build a box that could meet those sense and avoid requirements and or those communication requirements.
So it's the next step and it's the next logical step that 203 could have taken on but instead they decided to repackage it and make it more focused on specifically getting to the MOPS. So that's what's kind of happened with 228. I believe the terms of reference were approved maybe yesterday so I think that they're ready to move out. They've got the leadership team that's already been established and vetted and approved and so I think that's, you know, we're going to move forward on that.
So we're going to play a really key role there in making sure that 228 has that body of evidence that I talked about so that they can validate their recommendations to the FAA. Right. And, you know, I would kind of, I'm going to just ask you this question. Do you think that there's some of the, let's say, larger players in this are already working on that magical box that are working on that magical box on their own and in the dark?
Yep. So we know quite a few of those and they're a part of the community of interest so we want to leverage all that and so to the extent that we're leveraging that within the public entities, the NASA and FAA are working very closely together but we're also working with the likes of General Atomics. There are a number of others that are building equipment already, mostly for due regard for the DOD, but building the equipment already that can be leveraged. And of course we're also leveraging the work we've got with Rockwell Collins on the radio set.
Right. Yeah. You know, I kind of know that but I think that's interesting. You know, we didn't really get into it, you know, the ADS-B.
We had some people on the show. We talked about the ADS-B. We've got about a minute left. Do you think you could give us 30 seconds on what the promise of ADS-B?
I'm sorry, the promise of ADS-B? Yes. Yes, sir. So I think we all kind of have seen a lot of different research that's been done on ADS-B and the fact that in my mind and I think in the minds of many, ADS-B is certainly part of the sweetest solutions that could be used to get to sense and avoid.
But in and of itself it is not the solution. There are a number of reasons why I think that, you know, a small amount of research can discern that. I think that there have been tremendous activities by organizations like MITRE with LD CAP and they've gone out and they have demonstrated that that ADS-B is a viable risk reducer. But again, it's not, you know, even if we mandated equipage for every aircraft in the system, which some couldn't even comply, of course, just like with any other, you know, like mostly transponder.
But even if we did that, you'd still have to get to the point where an unmanned aircraft could be separated from an aircraft that somehow lost electrical and didn't, and the ADS-B wasn't working. And so by itself it's not a solution, but it certainly is part of a risk reducer that you could say that if you have other things, including ADS-B, your risk is going to be lower of having some sort of a collision. Right. Well, and it was kind of unfair of me to throw that ADS-B question to you with so little time to go.
But as always, these programs, you think, oh, hey, you know, 45 minutes, oh, that's forever. But really it goes by ultra quick as soon as we start getting into it. But I do want to thank you, Mr. Johnson, for coming on this week and being our guest.
It was very informative. I want to also say, you know, if there's anything that we can ever do, you know, get out the word or any information or whatever else that we can help you with, I want to extend that. We're always happy to help. And...
Happy to be involved, and I'll keep you in mind as we go forward. Thank you so much. We'll see you in the future, Gene. Thank you for being on, and until next week, everyone, we'll see you later.
Keep it in the air.