UAS News Podcast — 2012-11-28
Transcript
All right, hello and a big welcome to another installment in a series of podcasts where we discuss the issues and news that are relevant to the global unmanned technologies community. I'm your program host, Patrick Egan, and as always, we offer a big hello to our program co-host, Gene Robinson. Good morning, Patrick. Hope things are well out there on the left coast.
Hey, they are. It's rainy, but after spending all those weeks in the desert, I'm digging the rain. I like the rain. I'm one of those people.
Anyway, this week's show, there's a lot of stuff on the plate or on the tip of everybody's tongue, and I thought we would kind of talk about that this week. There's a few issues. I want to go in depth and look at this current news stories, but right before we jump into that, Gene, I want to talk a little bit about last week's show, the RPA Science Show, which I enjoyed. I find it really interesting that we did this and we're doing this, and then to get all that historical perspective and on all of that good work that was being done and whatever else.
I guess everyone else enjoyed that as that one had 15,000 downloads, which again is surprising on one hand and not so surprising on the other, but there's a big community out there that wants to hear the stuff. Even more surprising is the S.A.R.R. show that we did with you and Chris Unions. I thought the audio, my audio was a little less than to be desired, but 17,000 downloads on that.
Wow, that's really significant. Yeah, that's real significant, and even to struggle through the audio, my audio, you know, boy, that's a real surprise to me. Again, it's not every day you can listen to a show being broadcast live from White Sands Missile Range. We overcome, we adapted, we adapted and overcame.
That's what we did, and I guess people enjoyed that because like I said, we got like 17,000 downloads, and that's a good thing. Well, so I think we're going to have a lot of exciting program topics and ideas in the hopper for 2013. I know, you know, you had something planned. Maybe you can go into that.
There is a possibility, of course, we're doing some work in fire research, and there is a very good possibility that we'll be able to do a live show from one of the controlled burn sites that we're going to be working on. We'll be flying out there trying to collect some data, some interesting fire data, from fear, electro-optical, from ground sensors, from drop sensors, and these are all, of course, going to be conducted in controlled airspace on a military base, which always presents a challenge.
So I think that's going to be a fun one to get out there, and what we'd really like to do, of course, is since we do have a satellite link up, is that perhaps, maybe, perhaps, maybe, we can do a live video feed out from the site as well. I'm not going to hold any hopes out for that yet. We've done it before in the past. We've done it from Mexico, and we've done it from the border region, and it worked out pretty well.
Of course, we had a $60,000, you know, satellite uplink system, which we don't have access to now, but we have something that will at least get us that connectivity. So maybe we can get a video out there. It may be, you know, 15 frames or a little bit slower, but that's the way it is when you're working with shoestring technology like we are. You know, we just go out there, and like you say, we adapt and survive and overcome, and it could be a good show, though.
I'm kind of looking forward to it and trying to put things in place, so hopefully that'll happen. Yeah, well, you know, it is difficult to do logistically and everything else, and we'll see what we can pull out of the hat. Again, you know, we're trying stuff that nobody's tried before. It's hard to pull it together.
I have been talking to people about the possibility of doing that show, and I think we might actually be pulling an advertiser for that show, which shouldn't really be a surprise as, I mean, who would want a piece of 20,000 downloads? You know, to me, it's a captive audience who's interested in this technology and what it can do, and, you know, it's a slam dunk. So we may have that and do a little pooch petting here this coming year. I've got to work on working that up, so we'll get that going.
Again, if you're the listener, you have any topics you'd be interested in hearing about or guests you might want to have come on, you know, email either myself, patrick at suasnews.com or gene at suasnews.com, and we'll see what we can do about, you know, getting your idea or, you know, the guest you want to have on the show and talk to them. The other deal with that too is, you know, I'd like to, I've had people want to come on the show and they want to talk about their product, and I've kind of shied away from that.
I don't want this to turn into, you know, something where we're hawking chamwows or slap chop, you know, even though they're great products, I've always wanted a chamwow. But, you know, we could get multiple people on, like multiple sensor makers or, you know, multiple common operator picture software people or even satellite uplink folks. You know, or whatever, and they want to come on and have a couple of them talk about their products and services. I'm always, I'm okay with that.
We have a few people on and we can kind of promote the technology, promote the business, let people understand what they're getting into with that. I'm all for that. So. Well, especially if we can get it in context with what we do.
I mean, we're unmanned aircraft proponents, and if we have those folks that are coming in that have those products and have those sensors, why not? Let's give them a little bully pulpit that they can talk about, you know, when you were on this mission, you could have used such and such. And then, you know, everybody gets a little bit out of that one. Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely. So, you know, if that's another thing, you have a good and or service, and you have an idea for a show. Again, you know, we'd have to have several different people from that same field in or maybe technologies that complement that technology. So it's, it's, let's say, more of a learning experience for the audience.
And I'm all for that. I would, I'd love to do something like that. And then also you talked about throwing up another page where we could have pictures and video and stuff. And we definitely will work on that.
I think it would lend itself to those types of topics. All right. Well, you know, moving along, this is another one of those interpreting the news. And, you know, we will get to the the test site, the FAA test site privacy thing.
Of course, you know, this is like any other radio or television program where that will come after the break. So we're going to run through some of the other stuff. First, and first thing on the docket, Gene, is the TMZ drone. I don't know if you saw that story.
I was contacted by someone a few years ago, who did some photography work for old Harvey. And I don't think that the legality thing or part of this whole deal would make a difference to TMZ. Personally, I mean, you know, they are out there with, you know, getting these photos and these photos are worth a million dollars, yada, yada, yada. Your thoughts?
I would have to agree with you. I think there's going to be more and more people that are going to be taking that stance, especially as regulation tends to be drug out and move much slower. There are people that aren't going to wait. And along the same lines, Patrick, I don't know if you've seen much of the hoopla that went around the United States only F1 formula one track that just opened here in Austin.
There were several articles in the local newspaper about unmanned aircraft operators who were going to be participating in some way. Didn't say that they were actually going to be flying, but there's been some interesting images come out of that first F1 race that looked awfully aerial to me. So there you go. There's a perfect example that the value is too high for them to pass up.
The aspect of the aerial aspect is just too big for people to let pass by on a situation like this when you have literally multi-billions of dollars in a project like this. Going up and risking a quad or small aircraft to take aerials. People are going to think that's peanuts and they're going to go for it. Right.
Well, some of these photos that, like, okay, here's a good one, Brad and Angelina, Joe Lee's wedding. You go get your quadcopter out there or whatever and you snap a picture of that photo. That photo could be worth a million bucks and there's no joke. My wife has been years, said, oh, you should be doing, and I'm like, I don't really want to, let's say, spike the whole industry for a quick score.
I don't know, again, idealist, but for me, I think that would be detrimental to the industry as a whole to go out there and do the paparazzi thing with this. It'd be another kick right in the shins, maybe a little higher, but that's not going to stop. I mean, there's tens of thousands of people out there doing business and that's not going to stop anybody. Okay.
Mr. Kitty, you know, I work for this guy. I feel like it's personal assistant. I think somebody's got to go outside, but you know what I'm saying?
The other thing I think is kind of funny with all of the droney baloney in the news and people that even insinuate that TMZ is eligible for like a COA or some sort of FAA authorizations. It's kind of a joke, but it does illustrate well how the general public and the media is just missing the boat on this whole subject. Hence, the 20,000 downloads a week of the UAS News Podcast Series and all the people coming to the SUS News website, yada, yada, yada. Agree or disagree, Gene?
Oh, well, you know, I have to agree completely because we've worked so hard to kind of get an aerial, a commercial aerial platform out there that anyone could use and we've gone through the COA process. We've lived through the pain of having to actually fill out all the paperwork and dot the I's and cross the T's and for them to suggest the TMZ can just go get one because of their position is just an insult to me, especially having gone through the process. The COA process is a difficult thing to get through at times.
There are people that have gone through it easily, but there's a lot of detail that has to be taken care of and presented correctly. Well, even worse than that is if you go out there and try and get a COA, you're on the radar and you're going to get the clamp down. And as we've seen with the lack of, let's say, regulation and that's about safety and there's no enforcement and all the rest of that and everybody's out there making money. Well, not everybody, but there are a lot of people out there making money on this deal and it's kind of a drag, man.
It's been a drag for the last five years, six years to be the guy who wants to do this right, be legal, promote the industry and you're sandbag. You're the guy on the sidelines while everybody else is out there making money and everybody knows what's going on. The FAA knows what's going on. We'll get more into that a little bit later, but I agree with you and you agree with me.
We're like preaching to the choir over here, but there's I think some good insights on that. The other subject I wanted to talk about was airship ventures and if anybody doesn't know who they are, they're the ones that had the Zeppelin and T out here hangar at Moffett Field. I think some of the listeners should probably know of the series here, should know that Airship Ventures was a member of the Silicon Valley chapter of AVSI and they hosted a chapter meeting not too long ago and I believe I spoke about this on the podcast.
You did. Yeah, it was a great program. We had all the kids from Carnegie Mellon. A lot of people were really inspired by it, which it is inspiring to see a big airship and all the rest of that and from all outward appearances things seemed really normal and they even offered up a ticket for us to raffle off and raise money for the chapter, which it's going to be hard to get a ride now as it's being boxed up and shipped back to Germany.
The other thing is, last I had heard, they were, oh, we've got an unmanned blimp and you can go on YouTube and see the video. They got it flying around at some event. They developed something that was going to be unmanned. That was their whole thing.
I know you have some insight you'd like to share on this one, Gene. Why don't you go ahead and tell us what you think about the demise of Airship Ventures?
Well, have we really actually gotten a statement from them yet? I don't believe we have. Have we, Patrick?
No, nothing official, although there has been people that have tried to contact them or talk to them and they said that it was being boxed up and shipped back. It's an expensive prospect, an airship. Well, you know that they put a lot of money into it and they put a lot of effort into it because they've been around for a little while, but I would imagine that the certification process that they went through drained the coffers. It's a new venture and it's very difficult for a new venture like that to get through the fires.
I'm sure that's what occurred. Well, I know the ship itself leaks a lot of helium. They were voicing that the helium was eating them alive. Helium is very expensive on the open market.
I know that was expensive and I'm sure the insurance and all the rest of that. The unmanned part of it, I don't really know what happened with that. I think that might have been a little too little, a little too late. But I mean, there's billions of dollars out there in military contracts for lighter than air.
But I'm not too sure what happened. We'll have to circle back on that. But I agree. It's hard to be in that business.
It's hard to develop new products. And I also, it's expensive, man. I think we'll talk a little bit more about that too with the test center thing. But especially when you're going with an unmanned or you want to get into the unmanned thing, there's just really nowhere to go.
How are you even going to test your product? No, and when you can't certify yet, it's just so difficult even to get a fixed wing or even a new multi-rotors to a certification level. And now you're going to take the airship and basically be starting from scratch to try to get it certified as well. And we all know that the unmanned portion of it with SINC and AVOID and everything is pretty much the kiss of death right now.
It is the kiss of death. You and I have discussed it now that if anyone were thinking about opening up a UA manufacturing business today, they should really consider that position with the FAA and the position that they've taken with it, which we will get into a little bit later as far as the Center of Excellence. But still, it's very difficult to commit that amount of resources and funding to something that has an absolutely unknown future. Sure.
Absolutely. I think we have mentioned it before, but again, to bring something to market, to have investors, your ROI, one quarter, two quarters, three quarters, four. Beyond that, you know, I just don't see how you're going to survive. Again, I think we'll talk about that a little bit later in the show.
But yeah, a lot of people do not do their due diligence as far as research prior to jumping off with this technology. And you know, it's also it's kind of interesting to know we've done shows about monetizing this technology. And I remember some of the feedback, oh, you didn't really give me the secret sauce. You know, well, you know, I can't give you the secret sauce because I don't have Jedi power.
And I can't deduce these things. And I'm only getting so much information from the regulator. However, I will say that my personal career has turned more towards space. And I really, you know, I think that there's there's sooner opportunities or a sooner realization of opportunities with space.
And I mean, who would have thought that? I mean, you know, I would have said that to you four or five years ago. What would you say, Gene?
I would be a bit surprised considering as NASA seems to be gearing back a little bit. But you know, the private sector has always managed to step into the void where it was required. And, you know, the we've already had one successful cargo launch, private cargo launch. And I think that space could end up being quite the I mean, it's very technically challenging, obviously.
Right. But I think I think it very well could be one of the next places where we'll see a big economic boom. However, I will say that there's going to have to be return on it some way. There's got to be some benefit.
I'm not so sure that it's going to be there real quick. I mean, once people start learning how to mine asteroids and things like that, I think then you'll start seeing folks going for the bigger bucks. I agree. Although there's a huge void now because of NASA's lack of launch vehicle.
And so really, it's one of those things where it's right place, right time. And there's a bunch of money, you know, available for private companies to come in and do these services, come in and deliver products or launch satellites, yada, yada, yada. And the other thing with that too is it's, you know, and I spoke about this a little bit once we did the Space Audit Show, but that community really came together, went to Congress, hit the sucker hard, which we should have done. I've said it for years, we really should have emulated the space people.
They came in and they have the FAA, I would call the FAA, say more of a willing participant wanting to be part of it instead of where we are now with the unmanned aircraft and people trying to avoid this issue. Those are the two different, you know, I guess diametrically opposed positions from the FAA. Now we talk about safety, I'm going to beat the drum one more time, there's no way you're going to tell me you're going to put,
you know, the concept to put strict malls in space and hotels and space stations and even as we saw with the first commercial there, they didn't really get the satellite into the correct orbit.
So this stuff is going to re-enter the atmosphere. You know, and I'm going to ask this as a fair-minded person, Gene, is there any way that you can guarantee, and not you personally, but could you guarantee where that stuff's going to re-enter the atmosphere and fall to earth?
You mean 10 to the minus 9? I think 10 to the minus 9 is even, that's too low. There's no, I mean, there's no way, no conceivable way that a fair-minded person can believe that you're going to say, oh well it'll come down right here in the ocean. I mean we remember the Skylab thing, remember that?
People were freaking out that that thing was going to, where it was going to come down, they had no idea. And it's going to be the same thing. Well even more tragically, look at the shuttle mission. I happened to be standing on a plateau in the early morning Texas hill country here to see that sparkling object come out of the sky and break up right before my very eyes, and that was a planned landing.
Something went terribly wrong. And I watched huge chunks of that that thing fall to the ground, and it was not a pretty sight. No, you're right about that, and that's going to happen too. I mean I think with the commercials that you're going to have people, you know, it's going to probably happen on re-entry.
They're prepared for that, but I just wanted to use that to illustrate the safety mantra, you know. It's again another double standard on the other end, but something for us to definitely look at and think about, talk about in the future. The other thing I wanted to talk about was the RPAS or the Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Civil Operations Conference in Brussels, Belgium, coming up here in December 4th at BIP. And didn't you submit a technical paper for that, Gene?
I did, as a matter of fact. One of the searches that we went on was for a missile just east of Houston, and we did quite the white paper on that one, just to prove capabilities and sent that over. I haven't gotten any word back. I don't know whether they're going to use it or not, but I would hope they would because it was pretty well documented.
Well, I'm sure it'll be published in the documentation or program that will, let's say, go with that meeting. I do, you know, it is the first of its kind, and my hat's off to UBS International for putting that together. We've got an excellent line up of folks, primarily end users and civil aviation authority people from around the world. I think it's an excellent opportunity for civil aviation personnel to see, let's say, the different cast of characters.
We talk about that all the time where you have the usual suspects and you see the usual systems, you know, and we all know what they are, but you see basically two or three of the same ones. This is giving them an opportunity to see something different. One. Two, you know, it's not conjecture from, let's say, a DOD manufacturer overlaying that Taliban treatment on people.
This is people that actually have con-ops and applications that they're doing out in the real world and can bring this to light, show pictures, do power points, talk about how they want to use their aircraft, which is a novel idea to most of the civil aviation authority people. You know, most of them don't understand at all, you know, what they want to do and when they've had the opportunity, you know, I'm talking about the FAA.
I mean, you know, during the arc, I had someone at ATO was supposed to come and eyeball my operations and they felt it was a waste of their time and money and didn't want to come out and see what I was doing, which was too bad because it was a waste of my time and money to demonstrate my con-ops or my operation with the cracker barrel.
And I spent thousands of dollars out of my own pocket to be there to demonstrate it to people, you know. Yep. So, you know, this is one venue where everybody's going to kind of come together. They're also going to have a thing at the end where you can come in and sidebar, let's say, you know, off the record, talk to people, ask them about their systems, how they operate, yada, yada, yada.
I think it's great. The one thing I don't think is great is I do not see anyone from the FAA on the speaking docket there and I don't really see a lot of participation from the United States, which is too bad. That is so unfortunate. You know, the FAA should be there.
I'm surprised that they didn't step in sooner to try to get on that, but apparently they have bigger fish to fry. Well, you know, again, it's like the show in 2011 when they didn't make it there. I don't know if they made it to the 2012 show. I've been a little busy this year, but it's very hard to, you know, let's say have a maxim that says we're leading the way when you just don't play with the other players.
And I don't know what's going on over there. I don't understand. I know, I mean, personally, I don't really have the money to go over there and, you know, speak about this issue. I'd love to, but again, you know, the business climate over here is pretty bad and it's hard for small business people to, I mean, you know, a trip to Brussels is going to cost you a few thousand dollars to go and speak at that.
So, and there's no representation from any groups there from America. You know, Barcap, of course, we didn't make it. We didn't have the money, but none of the other groups were over there at that conference, too, which I think is a big mistake. Groups should be working together, not bifurcated.
That's another little story we got going later, too. You know, there's something else I wanted to talk about. Well, we'll see what comes out of that. I'm interested to get the after action report.
Everybody, anybody who wants to can check out the website for that, which is www.rpas-civilops.org. And there's a website up and it has a pretty in-depth, let's say, conference program with bios, data and abstracts. It's got some general information. You can go there and spend some time, check it out, see what's going on over there and maybe wonder how come there's not more American participation in that.
Maybe it's possibly something we might want to do here, although, you know, I don't know if we want to do that if we're not going to have any FAA participation. It seems like a lot of trouble to go through to not have the folks leading the way on that one. Let's see here. The other, the next one, and this is probably a lot of people wanted to hear about this and it's on people's mind, is the test site privacy issue.
And you probably have your own thoughts on this, Gene. Have you been talking to anybody about this?
Would you like to start on this subject? As a matter of fact, there have been several people that we've been talking with, you know, from the East Coast and in the Midwestern states here for the possibilities of participating in some of these test centers. And I'm quite taken aback at the position that Huerta has taken. And the privacy issue, even though I don't believe it's within the purview of what the FAA should be looking into, because there are privacy laws already on the books.
There are privacy laws that keep unmanned aircraft from collecting spurious data, random data, just for the fun of it, data, just the same way a police officer can't put an apple box down and look over your fence into your backyard. There's a law against that already. And to put that in the purview of the FAA, I think is, I don't know if it's serving their interest. It sure seems to be serving their interest to be able to justify a delay.
I don't know why the selection process can't move forward just because of an issue that already has laws in place. I'm at a loss for that one, as you can hear. I can't figure that one out. Well, I think there's more to it than that.
And, you know, this is another instance on the show and we're wheeling out the or cart. Okay. A lot of people went off. I think half-cocked on the test center thing.
I don't think that the FAA really put enough information out there for people to really, let's say, come up with a concise application to be a test center. I mean, I've heard, you know, I've heard all kinds of things from all kinds of people. And, you know, personally, I wasn't going to get involved with any more integration or not integration, but the test site, let's say, committees, unless someone was going to pony up some money because I'm not sitting through more of these teleconferences with people who do not understand the technology, the mindset,
and what's involved for business with the test center thing.
Okay. I think that even more than the privacy thing, because really, the privacy thing is not going to be an issue for where they pick a test site. Okay. I will be very surprised, extremely surprised if they pick a site like it was proposed in Texas that's right near Dallas, Fort Worth.
I mean, it is right on the outside of Class B airspace. And of course, they want to fly everything from, you know, under a pound through the sidewalks there. What do you think the chances of that happen in our gene?
I would say it's probably a big fat zero considering Class Bravo airspace proximity has always been an issue with unmanned aircraft. Exactly. And, you know, the funny thing with that is instead of hiring people that understand this, you know, shave months of, let's say, work for not off, they're actually trying to charge people to, you know, you want to talk, it costs $10,000. I mean, you know, you want to talk about ludicrous.
To me, that whole notion is just insane. The other thing, you know, they're not alone. You have, I mean, every state in the union and territory has applied for one of these test centers. Okay.
Very political. I think it's an extremely sticky wicket. The FAA is a total box canyon and no matter what they do with this issue, people will be pissed off. Okay.
And there's going to be a lot of people that have a lot of power that are going to be pissed off about this deal. So they really are in a sticky situation. The other thing I want to talk about the, there's still some ore left in the ore cart. Talk about the test center thing.
You know, you really have to define the scope of what you're going to do. I mean, when I was at this, that thing in Lubbock and we had all these people, the economic development people, they were looking for the secret sauce. Give me the one liner. How am I going to get this business to come to my district?
You know, and then they come back and say, well, we're, you know, we can't do venture capital. We can't invest this kind of money. Subsequently, I've talked to some people in another city that will be remain unnamed. And, you know, they offered some incentives to come there and do some business.
But again, when you couple that with the, let's say the indefinite timeline that we're faced with, you know, you can offer me again, some tax incentives, but that's not really going to work. You know, again, the tax incentives are predicated on me having so much money. I don't know what to do with myself in the technology field. We don't have that problem.
That's not a problem we have, but the test center thing, you're going to have a test center, you know, define the scope. Everybody I've talked to one pound global Hawk, one pound global Hawk. If you have the infrastructure where you can fly global Hawk at your test center, small business people like Eugene are not going to be able to afford to fly there. You're correct.
You know, you know, you don't have, I doubt that you have $25,000 or $50,000 a week gate fee to come out there and fly unless you're, you know, playing possum on me. No, and what people don't understand as well is that many of these test centers are proposing that they will write a COA for you and get it approved immediately and you'll fly in their area, yada, yada. And I just don't think that's going to happen as quickly as they think it's going to happen.
And you can't provide me enough incentive to bring a crew, and a crew may be myself and my dog and, you know, my son to come out there to fly for a week at the kind of prices that they're talking about.
These test centers are not going to be the cash cows that everyone seems to think they are. No, I agree with that. The FAA hasn't been funded to do anything to help that other than to just make the selection. Well, and I think that goes back to the root of the problem with HR 658.
The language that was put in or proposed by industry, quite frankly, quite frankly, was amateurish. I'm sorry, you know, it was a mishmash of language that was put together by people who, you know, want to do certain things. It was, you know, I mean, I had had my own proposed language in there about allowing for community-based standards for aircraft under four pounds. I've met the IKO definition of frangibility.
And you can go right out there and start flying today. And I didn't even, you know, I didn't even mention the group, you know, or a group or a proposed group or anything. And that was deemed, you know, that it didn't include everyone. So what you have is what you got in there.
And I mean, right off the bat, there was more holes than that than a wheel of Swiss cheese. There had to be direction. Again, look to the space thing, and I'm paraphrasing, but basically the FAA shall not impede commercial space. Okay, plain and simple.
That's what was needed here, not, you know, oh, we're going to do this. We're going to have the test centers. And I will say the other thing with the test center concept, and you know, this is the bottom of the order card here. That's all you're getting.
But this whole test center concept was been for from the small unmanned aircraft systems arc. Okay. The idea was, and it was put in place, and it was, you know, kind of thought of and crafted to be test centers for manufacturers. Okay.
And bigger manufacturers than you. The idea was, and this was the mindset again, that these test centers would be out in the middle of absolutely nowhere. Okay. So if you did have an issue or a mishap, you're testing a new platform under 55 pounds, I hope everybody got that, there was a problem.
It would, let's say, come down in an area where there was nobody, and no one could be affected either in the air or on the ground. And you would have some sort of electronic fence or high fence or whatever that this aircraft couldn't get out of. Okay. So if you look at that mindset and you look at the precedent, you say, okay, well, let's think about our test center idea where I want to fly my global Hawk, any infrastructure that's going to be needed there.
Radar, roads, you know, someone operate the radar and radar is not free. You know, radar is pretty expensive. There's a lot of issues that you're going to have to overcome to fly that size aircraft there, but people should really think about that the idea is out in the middle of nowhere. And then I'm going to ask you, you know, again, fair minded person, what other concern don't we have when you're out in the middle of nowhere, Gene?
Which one? There's many. That's true. And I kind of set you up with that question, but privacy, you know, who's out in the middle of nowhere?
Well, yeah, there's definitely not a privacy issue. No, or you know what?
Here's another one. How about a test site over the ocean?
You know, there's places over the ocean that can be done. There's places in, you know, Alaska and Nebraska. I mean, you know, there's a ton of spots. I do think it's more political and I think they're going to be in trouble anyway.
I did, you know, I wrote a very, let's say candid and frank article about this situation with an accompanying letter to the co-chairs of the Unmanned Systems Caucus. Luckily, I got a call from someone at the FAA yesterday afternoon and that person will remain as an unidentified source. And they had talked a little bit about the, let's say, thinking behind this privacy thing. And I want to say that really what they were talking about is remember how the noise, how the FAA had to deal with noise around airports, whatever else.
And that's how they're kind of looking at this because I said, you know, isn't this privacy thing outside of the purview of the FAA? And they agreed, but you know, the noise thing is too, but they had to deal with that. But again, I think it's more of a political issue. The other thing I have to say with that is I did invite this person to come on the podcast or do an interview with the SUS News.
They said they would be interested in that. I need to get to public affairs. So I think it would be bad taste to harpoon them until we get to their side of the story. Well, you know, Patrick, as a pilot, I remember the noise abatement program very well and they came up with it.
But as I recall, there were millions of dollars on the line for this one and they got the noise abatement program in place fairly quickly using two-stage descents, very steep descents, that sort of thing, putting up the blast fences around the airport. It got done fairly quickly. Right. Well, that's what I say.
I think that this might have a little bit more to do with more, let's say more topics than just privacy. But we do have a, oh, well, we had a caller, but they hung up. All right. You know, impatient.
Anyway, I do believe that there's more there. I will say that, you know, I would like to give them the, again, extend the benefit of the doubt, have them come on. Our caller's back. Let's bring on the caller here.
Hello, caller. Hey, Patrick, it's Marcus. Hey, Marcus. Sorry about that.
I was running a meeting, had a flat, just all kinds of different problems here. Not a problem. We're, you know, we're going a little long, but right now we're talking about the test sites and the privacy issues. And both Gene and I have expressed our views on it, gave a little background on that.
I did talk to someone at the FAA yesterday and they did try to, you know, offer some insight that it was kind of likened to the noise abating issue. And we were talking about that. And since you're on, I mean, I know you're following the story I've seen that you did a post over at LinkedIn about it. Do you have any views on this test center privacy thing?
You know, I gotta be honest with you. I mean, I think there's a lot of noise about the noise. That makes sense. That's just my personal observation.
Well, I agree with that. I also think it's more political. There's everybody in the, every state, the union, I've heard that there's actually even been interest from every congressional district in the United States, has at least called and inquired about this test center thing. I kind of believe that the FAA is doomed no matter what on this deal.
They're going to make somebody angry. That's my first feeling. I'm pretty much in agreeability. I know Gene doesn't agree with me, but I'm teasing.
I don't know, you know, we are going to try and get them on here, have them talk about that, some more again, you know, every lot of that what they talk about will have to be, you know, they'll have to run that through public affairs. The other thing that was mentioned is it's taking a lot of time and trying to answer all of the FOIA requests. And I think even including mine, which was a big one where I've requested all of the financials for the, let's say, Unmanned Aircraft Program Office since inception
and the yearly reports that describe in detail the progress that was made for every calendar year.
And I was told that that's creating quite a workload. But Gene, you may remember from years ago when we were doing a lot of grassroots work and going to Congress, you remember what they were saying about that?
Oh, oh yeah. Well, most times we didn't, we weren't going to get a FOIA at all. Because we weren't too much. And because the, and then did we get, I think we were quoted the Patriot Act once and there was some national security concerns as well?
There were, there was that. There's been a myriad of concerns. The other thing was, I remember being told, because remember we used to have those weekly calls or monthly calls with the FAA, the RCAPA and that went on for a few months. But remember, I remember distinctly hearing all of these letters and phone calls to the Congress people.
It's taken all of our time. We don't have any time to do our work and yada, yada, yada. Could you please stop?
And I think that was really the impetus for the monthly up-to-date calls and what was going on. And so it's kind of funny, you know, the thing is cyclical, the FOIA requests are too much. I'm not going to stop. I already tried that one and where did it get us?
Same place we're at now, nowhere. Unfortunately, that's the way it works. Exactly. And that leads into the next topic, which is the, every year when there's something like this happens, and it's funny that you mentioned, you know, Homeland Security and, now it's privacy.
And I think it was, you know, there were so many different issues with this over the last several years. Whatever the case, I got the annual call where the phone rings and I got some guy on the other end of the line and he's pissed. I can't believe this. What do they take us for?
They must think we're fools. You know, okay, well, you know, I got to go along with it. I listen, but it's the, what I call the annual, we need a new advocacy group call. Nobody's doing anything.
What the hell's going on? What have you been doing?
You know, and I'm like, well, you know, I'm trying to feed the family over here. And, but you know, I'm still kind of stunk in the fire and I'm fed up with the progress too. But usually where I get people to fall off the turnip truck is where I talk about that, you know, you can't have any hidden agenda. We need some money, you know, and that usually I get everyone to fall off the turnip truck there.
I've gone to other groups that are advocating for this years ago. I, hey, now if I had some lettuce for the kitty, I could probably affect some change. It's very hard to do this type of work with no money. It is also very hard to do this kind of work for the aforementioned reasons of all of the delays and different roadblocks that have been thrown up here.
And Gene, you've witnessed them, you know. Long term. And now we've moved into something where we're, we're fighting multiple battles on multiple fronts. And I believe that even the battles that are being fought are adding insult to injury.
I, you know, some people say I'm adversarial with the FAA, you know what, I'm not, you can say that, but I'm not going to be the FAA's lapdog. Besides being unbecoming, where does it get you?
Nowhere. Why does it get you nowhere?
Because this effort's been a one way street. And, you know, still going to hold people to task. I know, you know, I asked if, you know, some other people I talked to yesterday at the FAA, if my picture was up on the dark board and they, you know, know that everybody, they respect me and, you know, they understand where I'm coming from and that I'm just trying to move the business ball forward. And that may be the public face, but I don't really care.
I'm not trying to win a popularity contest. What I'm trying to do is take down the barriers to business. And, you know, I don't really think that's a wrong approach to take, Gene. No, it's not.
And it hasn't been. And when you get back into the history lesson, when we were first told that we're 13th, 2007, that we're going to be grounded, I think if you will call that we're given the six to eight month timeframe and all this will be over with. 60 to 90 days is the time first. Well, they began stretching it very quickly after that. And we discovered five years later that this is a very long, drawn out process.
The target keeps moving. It's like playing a game of whack-a-mole. And you got to get seven quarters into the machine to keep playing. And we've been seven quarters into the machine for a long time and we still don't have any tickets coming out the other end that let's us go to the Cupid doll prize.
I know it's frustrating. And then, you know, I want to get some fresh perspective from Marcus. Marcus, I know you're out there, part of your job and people that may not know who you are. I mean, we're getting a boatload of listeners here.
You know, I know that you're very involved. You're talking to a lot of people. What are you hearing about this issue, Marcus, and how it's affecting business?
Actually, I don't have a lot of knowledge to comment on it. Hearing it from what you guys said is pretty much, I'm going to be ostracized. It's going to have to be another time for me to come up with something. What are you hearing from people out there at these conferences about wanting to do business?
Do they think that they're ready to jump off and it's any day now? Or are they growing cynicism?
I mean, I think it's a little bit of both. I mean, you know, it's not taking a different topic matter, but using the same, I mean, using different examples under the same topic matter. We had, for example, a microgrid and smart grid event symposium not too long ago. What the government guys are saying here to the private industry guys, all the business money's out there, funding's there, we can do it, we just got to get it together, you know, a lot of, a lot of, a lot of, you know, we got to come up with a better product.
The government's coming out here saying, no, yes, there's money there, but not for funding, for purchasing only. From now on, we're not going to fund you guys. You guys need to be self-sustaining. Self-sufficient, prove it works, and then we'll buy it.
But we're not going to fund you anymore. Yeah, that's a good analogy because that's exactly what the FAA is doing. You know, go out there, find all the solutions to all the problems, and then get back to us. Very expensive, as Gene was just saying.
You know, he's been putting all these years' worth of quarters in the whack-a-mole machine, and there's no payoff. Still waiting. And, you know, I just don't, I don't see the American or US effort, I don't see it going anywhere. I don't think that there's enough money to fight all the battles.
I think that, you know, the Chinese are coming on strong. We have our head in the sand over there, you know. Again, we're leading the way. I mean, there is, if you go to the, that RPAS civil operations website, you'll see the list of countries that allow people to do commercial flights.
And, you know, we're not hearing the skies falling. We're not even hearing the skies falling here with all the flights that are going on every day. So something's to put, got to move the ball forward, and I think it's political will. I really do.
And I do agree with the advocacy, we need a new advocacy group call. And I've been saying this for a few years. I think we need to scrap everything that's been done and restart. And really come together all in one circumstance.
Some credible people that aren't for sale go in there and start working this political issue. Gene, agree or disagree?
That's a difficult thing to do, Patrick. I agree that it needs to be done. But when you consider the groups that we have out there now that are promoting unmanned vehicles, it's so easy for them to be drawn to the larger players that can do, make the contribution. And again, this goes back to your money statement that you made.
If the large guys that are out there that are working toward the commercial market weren't interested in this, it wouldn't be an issue. But they are. They're very interested in it. And they're putting a lot of money toward it.
They're paying for the lobbyists. They're making the contributions to the right campaigns. They are doing the things that they need to do to move ahead. And if you get an advocacy group that is willing to work in this field in the same mode, those same people are going to put money toward them and exert their influence.
And it's very difficult to get past that. And I don't know if we're going to be able to keep a group that is sterile enough and can be as staunch to be able to pass up the kind of funds that they need to operate without being influenced by them. You know what I mean?
It's Catch-22. That's exactly what I was going to say. It's a Catch-22. You can't do anything about it.
Well, and it is true. But I do believe that that example, that Catch-22 that you just laid out, has cost us years. Because every time everybody talks about airspace integration, we talk about integrating the smalls and cracking the door open. And the next thing you know, you're hearing about a business model for Global Hawk.
It's not working. It's round peg square hole or square peg round hole, harder to drive. But that's exactly what we have here. And if it's going to keep up like this, you're going to watch the Europeans, you're going to watch the Chinese, you're going to watch the Asians, just actually be at our own game.
And that leads into the... Well, go ahead. Well, I was going to say, if you look in our own backyard, remember AUVSI?
I mean, we were there in Vegas. And if you recall, I've never seen so many Canadian companies. Well, they can get an FSOC and fly commercially in Canada. Yeah, and we can't.
Exactly. So you can go get your own test somewhere, yada, yada, yada. And that kind of leads into the last topic of today, which was the Obama administration developing a drone policy. And I think it kind of plays just into what we were talking here.
And I think that the striking folks in country, sovereign country airspace isn't going to play for long. I think the handwriting is on the wall. The days of being the only delivery company in game in town are waiting. And I think that that is also a direct result of what the Chinese are doing and other countries are doing.
I mean, it was in the news today that Egypt's buying unmanned aircraft from Turkey. Egypt. So, you know, you guys agree, disagree?
You think I'm on target or off? I think you hit me right on the nail on the head. Yeah, it's obvious that this administration, and I'll inject a little personal opinion here, hasn't been as transparent as they have promised to be. And the drone policy was done well before the election.
And it was intended to be a legacy policy that would carry forward, regardless of who was elected. I think there's been many more things that have happened in that same time frame that we don't know about that will slowly but surely come out. And that's just the way the politics and the government is working these days. It's an interesting concept.
I do think as the other players come on, I mean, you know, you try this stuff in some other countries and it's going to be a declaration of war. I mean, I, you know, I just don't see it playing. And I don't know if you see what the Chinese are doing as far as aerospace is concerned, but they've got new helicopters, they've got, you know, new planes, they've got new unmanned aircraft. They're really coming on strong, putting stuff in space.
And I just don't think that, you know, going welly-nilly and hitting people is going to work. And because other countries are going to want to do the same thing. And I think, you know, there will be some regulation on the international stage about that. It's just it has to be, has to come.
You just can't go, you know, whacking people anytime you want. So it's almost like that whole board identity thing. Yeah, exactly. As the other players come online, you know, and we lose, let's say the air superiority with unmanned aircraft, I think that dynamic is going to change.
And I'm going to put that right at regulation. But we don't, we're not, we don't have as many people working on this technology as we should. And look at this, an hour, we did an hour today and it's gone. We got four seconds.
I want to thank Gene and I want to thank Marcus for coming on. Sorry about the flat tire. We'll see everyone next week. All right.
Okay. See you guys. Thanks a lot.