UAS News Podcast — 2014-04-22
Audio not available on SoundCloud — full transcript below.
Transcript
Welcome to the next installment of the UAS News Podcast Series, where we talk about the news and interview newsmakers. You know what, this has been so long since we've done a podcast, I forgot the intro. Anyway, we're going to talk about the drones today and we're going to talk about some of the things that are in the news. And as we always do, let's say hello to our guest host, Mr.
Gene Robinson. Hello, Patrick. It's been quite a while to be sitting in the old left seat again, but here we are. Well, I've been really busy with the expo.
It's funny how much work that thing is. All the different emails that I get, they're really interesting. Some of the emails I get from people who are coming and sponsorships, but we're pretty much, we're done. I think we're a little sold out on sponsorships.
We're getting close to being sold out on entrance, so if anybody out there listening wants to go, you better sign up now. We've got a few on Friday for the SAR workshop. That's going to be good. Yep, diligently working on the presentation there.
I think that's going to be full up, so you want to sign up for that if you plan on attending. That's crazy. We've got Jim Williams from the FAAs. He asked for an hour so he could do some thorough Q&A.
It's kind of funny, his mom was asking, why do you need an hour to say no? You know, some people have to say no more than once, I guess. Much for me anyway. But we got that going, and there's a couple of late injuries, but yeah, there's no more room for speakers.
I've got people begging me to speak, but there's just no more room. Anyway, there's a lot of stuff in the news. We've had all kinds of different stories going on. I'm running a little caption contest for the 420 flyover, if anybody caught that.
I'll put it on the web page. I've been seeing this guy, there's this guy down in Texas, and you may know this guy. He's popping up all over the place, and he's actually taking more than one or two times saying no about using a drone for search and rescue. Indeed, must be speaking of Tim Norris.
That's exactly who I'm speaking of. So yeah, today's show, we've got Mr. Gene Robinson, our humble co-host, and also a pretty in this new story. We also have Brandon Shulman, who is also involved in this story.
He's a little bit peppered in there. So I figured what we would do is we would talk a little bit about this. But first, before we get kicked off, Brandon, you've been on the show multiple times now. You're almost like our Steve Fatto locker on this thing.
But could you please talk to the people here and tell them a little bit about yourself and your bio and how you kind of got here? Sure. Thanks for having me again. So I'm head of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Group at the Law Office of Cramer 11, and I think as some of your listeners know, we handled the very first commercial drone litigation against the FAA that resulted in a decision from the NTSB judge the other month, finding that there is no basis to find Raphael Crocker for his flight of a five-pound foam aerial photography drone in Virginia.
That decision is on appeal, as you probably also know. And my own background, and this really goes back 20 years, I've been flying drones, or what we really used to call model airplanes for a long time, and building them, and most recently using the chambers and multivoters and the other things that are just for fun, really. So I've had an interest not just in the technology, but also surrounding legal issues that have really come to a head in the past couple years. And so in more recent times, I was retained on behalf of Texas Psycho Search in connection with its dispute concerning the FAA.
I think that's what we're going to talk about. That is correct. I do want to talk about that. And it is kind of interesting, you know, that's good that you gave us that historical perspective.
And it's funny, I mean, I talk to people all the time now that say, oh, yeah, there was this decision, and now it's legal. And I went out and bought a drone, and I'm filming that, and it's great, and the rest is history. And so, you know, I was like, did you catch the next story?
You know, there was an emergency appeal. But anyway, I don't have time to educate everybody. We travel, we travel with it out there. It's up to people to get educated on the run.
But, you know, your last client was a little bit of a, let's say, polarizing personality. Not a bad guy. I met him personally, and he doesn't really have horns. But in this case, there is definitely a lot more support from the community.
And I think, of course, that's just because of the players and applications. What have you been hearing?
Well, you know, the seatback has been supportive in both cases. And I think it's because of the core issue here, which is that, you know, we have the federal agency that has stood in the way for a long time on the basis of policy statements. And, you know, the process in Washington is supposed to work a little differently. We're supposed to have closed rules announced to the public, an opportunity to comment on them, and then a final rule that takes into consideration public comment.
And none of that process has happened. Instead, we've had almost a decade of a federal ban on the use of this technology, both for commercial and apparently for humanitarian nonprofit purposes as well. And I think that's been frustrating to a lot of people. So no matter where you stand vis-a-vis these clients, I think people who work with the technology have been very frustrated.
And they're glad to see some signs of progress, even if that progress, unfortunately, from my point of view, it has to be through resort to litigation. Well, something had to be done. And I told the G curve, I think we've talked about that, but I've been beating on it myself for years about, you know, the cause I or supposed public rulemaking process and policy changes and all the rest of that. I am not an attorney.
I did not stay at a holiday inn, any of that. But I had raised a lot of same questions. I'm like, wait a minute, this, you know, this doesn't seem right to me. I thought there was an administrative procedures act, yada, yada, yada.
But anyway, I didn't really get too far, probably because, you know, I didn't have the law degree going. But definitely something that I'm glad and there are most people in the community are very glad that you are, you're taking up these cases. Some people, I heard a little bit of feedback, oh, you know, you get the EORs and, you know, and then on about how we don't want to force the FAA's hand. And, you know, at this point, it's like, you know, there's really, we've waited around so long for the wheel of lawmaking to kind of turn.
And if it goes on much longer, I'll be retired before anything happens. So I say go get them, you know, go ahead. But I, you know, we have talked, you know, with Gene here being our co-host and we know that he's been out on searches. And you read some of the accounts of these searches, like some that are in the, what you file there.
And it's just heartbreaking. And we've been running around on it. But Gene, I mean, what kind of came about?
Well, you know, Patrick, we've been trying to work cooperatively with the agency for, since 2006, you know, to develop the new standards. Yeah, and that's for, you know, for a very long time anyway. And we've, I have been told no more times than not, even in a most cooperative state. And it really is difficult to be able to attend a search or go to a search to try to assist and be denied the ability to use the technology.
And it's even more difficult to have to tell a parent or loved one that, you know, we have something here that we could use and we can't. That's got to be the worst. And, you know, you hear that so many times after a while, you just say, okay, enough's enough. Well, and you have, and I believe that was in the Civilian Drone movie, you've actually put the parent on the phone with the person from the FAA.
Is that correct? That is correct. And it was pretty scary because I didn't think I was going to get my cell phone back because by the time the individual got done explaining to the father what was going on, he was in a pretty agitated state. So being there and being real and being with those folks, it's, you know, you'll do just about anything you can to help them out.
Well, of course, of course. And then, you know, it's kind of a, that's a sad situation, you know, scary and all the rest of that. So how did we, can we talk about how the, is this latest filing kind of happened?
And then I'll leave that to either one of you to field. Sure. It was, it's in the document there that Brendan filed, but back in February, we had another search come up. And in light of the situation, we figured, I figured that maybe we should ask again and see what the position was.
And since we have done COAs before and that sort of thing, we thought maybe, you know, we might catch a break. And that wasn't the case. We asked and we got the answer that we've always gotten. And since Brendan had represented so well in the other case, we thought that, you know, maybe this is a way to move forward rather than have to wait through another period of X number of years.
You know, maybe we can find a way to get this done so that we can go out and do these humanitarian work at the very least. Is that a fair assessment, Brendan?
Yeah, I think in the past, there have been various phone calls either to you or other volunteers or local authorities about, you know, whether you should use the drone or not, or, you know, to put mildly discouraging you from doing it. This is the first time that there was a writing to you and to Texas Tech Research saying that it's illegal and it must be stopped immediately. And, you know, to me, that's an important distinction. These are not phone calls.
This is, this really has the weight of the agency behind it as we've seen in various other documents that have been issued or posted to the website. It's really the agency's policy. And, you know, I think in light of the lack of regulation, it's something that can be challenged. And, you know, we're prepared to do that, although, you know, as we tried in the first instance, we wrote a letter just asking them to do the right thing.
And, you know, and we addressed it to the chief counsel's office, lawyers there, people who are, you know, familiar with legal doctrines. And we thought that perhaps that would elicit a, you know, sort of more legalistic response. And we didn't receive any response at all. So, you know, at this point, we really had no choice but to sue.
And that's what we've done. Well, somebody who's been writing letters to the FAA for many years, I'm still waiting for stuff like six, seven years ago. Yeah, I'm by the mailbox. I'm picking any day.
But it's not fair to drop through the slide. And I'll be here to get the answers that I need. And I hate to be polite in this situation because this one is really a humanitarian thing. But, I mean, we've talked about this before on the show.
No learning changes hands. You're just out there with your brain trying to do the right thing and help people, Gene and their bus to new jobs. Well, I mean, it's an extremely efficient use of the technology. Not to mention a very, you know, a good use of the technology.
And since we're flying, basically an RC profile, we're not doing waypoint navigation, we're not doing any of that sort of thing. It's one of those things like, huh, you know what, I can go out here and I can fly in a park and it's okay. But if I do it on a quote, official basis, it's not okay. It's really kind of an odd paradigm there.
It's very odd. And, you know, it's funny, you know, I talk to people, of course, all the time, and they talk about, you know, these guys that are the hobby guys doing this, doing that, yada yada. It's all going crazy. And, you know, I mean, it's definitely an education thing needs to happen.
But, I mean, people that are responsible, you've been doing it for years, you wrote the book about it, you're, you know, and then people say, you know, who won this, like an expert with unmanned aircraft systems, I go, I know one guy, one guy, and his name is Dean Robinson. Even myself, I do not even, well, I got Bill that, but I usually, I'm an ex-perk, even in my own profile, because, you know, you've been out there, you're in the field, you've been doing this, how many years have you been doing this again, Dean?
Almost, almost 10. And, you know, the thing is, is it's not theoretical, you know, the stuff that we've learned has been in the field, been practical applications, and we use what works. I mean, it's been proven many times, we've never had an accident. I don't believe we've ever drawn blood from anyone, including me, because it's typically me that, you know, trips, falls down, and, you know, hurts themselves in these situations, but, you know, we've got an excellent safety record, and, you know, we've tried to keep everything as above board as we possibly could.
Well, yeah, and I mean, it is a mark of a professional, and, you know, it has to do, I know that part-redgings are out there in the field, and all that, but do you want to tell us what you're doing today? Me?
Yes, what do you do? What do you do?
Actually, we were just kind of goofing around, flying some quad rotors and lanes just playing, you know, just doing recreational flying, actually. I tried some of that yesterday. We won't get into that, but I used some faking propellers. I did that over the weekend, too.
I was out, we had some cherry blossoms in New Jersey, near where I live tonight. I was flying the quad around the trees and put a quick video together. It turned out quite nice. I saw that on the video.
I saw that on groups, yeah. Yeah, I saw the stills on Twitter. Very nice. Very nice, indeed.
Yeah, so it was a great weekend for flying, you know. So that was a good thing, but, well, that's cool. You're out there, horsing around, but, so, I mean, as we move forward here with the searching and the case and all the rest of that stuff, I mean, you know, I wrote you some of that information. I know, you had, there was a waiting period, and there's kind of a mechanical thing as these things go.
Can you talk a little bit about that, Brandon, without, you know, I don't expect you to kind of put the cards out there or whatever, but can you kind of talk about the mechanics of this thing? Of the proceeding of the DC circuit?
Yes, sir. Well, you know, there's a, to put it simply, there's a briefing schedule that will be put into place, and, you know, typically that can take a few months, much in the same way as the appropriate case. It took a few months to resolve at the initial level, and, you know, considering what's at issue here, life and death situations, we're hoping to accelerate that. I asked the FAA to consent to accelerated briefing or to agree to a stay with the order.
I haven't heard back. So, you know, we're going to do everything we can to move this forward as quickly as possible. It's hard to predict exactly what the time frame will be at this point, because it's so new. We just followed it yesterday, but, you know, hopefully we will get there before too long.
Okay. And the one thing that we need to let it be known right now is, Patrick, is that my lawyer has told me that we cannot fly because we've gotten this order. So, no matter who's called and we have been called, I don't know how many times since this went into effect, but we've called and we have had to say no to people who need the technology today. I mean, that's too bad.
You know, it's a very difficult situation, because, you know, if you have an opportunity to save somebody's life, as I think many of these cases are, if not all of them, on some level, you know, to be confronted with an order from the federal government saying it's illegal and who knows what the consequences are. That's a real dilemma and I think unfair, which is why we hope to resolve this. I know you're pessimistic about sending letters, but,
you know, I thought and still think this is a pretty clear case, and if the lawyers over there would understand that, then we might get some progress that way.
So, it's frustrating to be in a situation of a government order saying don't do it, and yet there's such a compelling reason to do it if you can. Right. Well, and I'm not saying be discouraged, you know, about sending letters. I'm just talking about my personal experience.
Again, I'm not an attorney or anybody with any, but said you just pull. I'm kind of just some guy out here, some high head, but it is very frustrating. And, you know, we do have a caller, and it looks like they're calling from Texas, so I'd like to bring them on. So, let's see what happens here.
This could get wild. All right. Caller from Texas, you have a question. Hello? 92437.
No, I don't want to give your number out over there. Hello. Hey, this is Robert Jones. Hi, Brendan.
Hey, Robert. How are you?
Good. I actually had just dialed in to listen. I didn't know I was getting cued in. Yeah, I just wanted to hear what you all were up to today, so I'm just going to sit back and listen.
You know, question. You're totally satisfied with what you've heard so far. I follow Brendan a lot, and I talked to Gene the other day, so yeah, I'm kind of cued in. All right.
Okay. Well, you know, thanks for listening. We were just kind of talking, we're going to go ahead with that, so thanks for calling in. Anyway, so I did, when, you know, you were told no, Gene, did they give you like a list of ramifications?
Were you going to, because I know that there's been situations where you've been told that you may be actually put under arrest. Was it going to be a fine?
Were they going to come over and slap your hand? Were they going to take, you know, your milk and cookies away?
What did they tell you that they were going to do? Well, actually, again, that response is available for view in the documents that Brendan produced, and it's not that I was, you know, they never gave me any consequences, nor did they quote any FAR, specifically, that I was to adhere to, and I've been told in the past that, you know, it would be very, very bad if I flew, and then, you know, obviously, all the way up to if you open that case, you'll be arrested, and, but that was, you know, another enforcement agency, law enforcement agency, that we were essentially going to do the work for.
So, you know, unfortunately, from that standpoint, we've never been given any real concrete consequences of what happened, and other than not knowing, I mean, that's probably your imagination. You can probably do more to it than anything else, when you can say, oh, what could they do to me?
That's probably the biggest factor that causes you to, you know, take pause and say, well, maybe I shouldn't fire this, but, you know, it's, we really haven't been given any real consequences other than the potential of, you know, the fines that they've thrown out there, but again, we, you don't think that we fly in a careless or reckless fashion. I mean, it's a very planned situation, so, you know, it's difficult to kind of determine how they would pin that on you. I think, from a perspective, I'd tell people that that gene has flown under multiple colors, right?
I mean, you've done this, you know, you're different, right? I mean, wouldn't you like to offer people to get one?
Right. We wrote one of the first accepted civilian COAs that was approved by the SAA back in 2008 for the Hayes County Emergency Management Office here in Texas. So, it's not like we haven't been through the process, and we know what's required, and of course, I still, even though I'm not under COA, we maintain all the SOPs, the standard operating procedures, the field safety stuff, all of that's maintained, just like we were. So, it's, you know, it's not a haphazard operation.
Oh, no, no, no, but I just wanted to, for historical perspective, now, we've got somebody else on the line from my neck of the woods here. Let's bring them on and see what happens. Okay, Northern California, you're up. What do you got?
Yes, hi, can you hear me okay? Yes, sir. Okay, great. My name is Cory.
I'm calling from Lincoln, California, near Sacramento. Okay. What's your question here?
Well, my question is, I understand that the organization is grounded from using, well, I wish we wouldn't use drones because the public, aside from the RC, the world kind of thinks of drones as a search and destroy type of machine, but anyways, you're grounded from flying. What if someone caught word that Tech's EquiSearch was looking for someone and on their own accord wanted to use their own, you know, clock off or whatnot?
To search. Would you guys still be on the line for that?
Well, go ahead. Go ahead. What change are we going to take on?
Well, you know, there have been other people that have volunteered their services, but again, we've been told that it's been based on intent. And if you intend to fly recreationally, it's okay. If you intend to do anything else, then, you know, that's when you fall under their clarification, their policy clarification. Is that not what you gather, Brendan?
Yeah, look, I can't provide legal advice to people who aren't clients, but it certainly does seem to be the position of the agency that anything other than purely recreational hobby use requires some form of authorization. And currently, there are only two ways to get authorization. Number one, you're a government agency with a COA or who's applied for a COA and you get it that way, but as we know, that's a very intensive process to get that approval specific as the location and the type of QAS. So it's not easy and it's also only available to public agencies.
Number two, experimental student if you're manufacturing and designing, but that's not something you want to use or think to use in this situation. So there's really no path forward for a private nonprofit organization like Texas Aquasearch if you believe what the FAA says the policy is concerning the use of this technology, notwithstanding the fact that for decades, model airplanes have been used in movies and all sorts of commercial applications, non-commercial, you know, nonprofit, you go out and teach the Boy Scouts how to fly.
I don't really know where they're drawing a line because there's no line that's been drawn. None of this regulatory, the responses seem to be, you know, ad hoc as they go along and I think that's the consequence of not having a rulemaking process. The whole point of having the agency issue proposed rules, receive comments and then issue a final rule later is that if something's not clear, it's going to be quite obvious in the rulemaking process that people don't understand what you're saying.
And first, we haven't had that process, we're kind of scratching our heads here about what you want to draw.
Well, I mean, isn't that the very definition of arbitrary and capricious? I mean, you can't tell me why I can't, you know, we don't have anything I can show you. I do think also, I mean, I agree with you that most people want to follow the law. I want to follow the law and all the rest of that, but you know, what law do I follow?
And I do believe that it's not clear cut. The ratification is not clear cut, none of this is clear cut. And in my mind, I see that, well, I don't want to get into, you know, total conjecture, but I do think that they're kind of, they're in a pickle, let's just say that. And we're down to about a minute, but any closing comments from Eugene?
Well, we're going to continue on, you know, we're in this for the long haul. We really appreciate Brendan's effort and we're going to see what we can get out of this deal. Mr. Hilton, would you like to give us some closing comments?
Well, look, I think this is just one example of beneficial use of this kind of technology. And I think we've seen a lot of news reports over the past year or so about privacy concerns and safety. And I hope we're finally talking the story about the good things that drones can do, whether it's for a nonprofit or a commercial application. I would agree with that.
And I think it's really more and more in the news. You just see the better uses and Facebook's and the Google's and I really believe that we're going to leave that negative stuff in the dust and it's all the way of it up. And on that note, I'm just going to plug the Small and Mancestance Business Expo in San Francisco, May 8th and 9th, 2014. If you want to hear all about the positive uses, commercials, scientific and whatnot, the place to be, go to www.susbexpo.com.
One last thing I wanted to do is, Gene, could you have the website for Texas Aquasearch memorized? Yes, it is www.txeq.org. And do remember that they are a nonprofit and they work on donations alone. So find that button.
I hear that. Okay. Well, thank you guys for being on. You know, we'll pick up the podcast schedule after the Expo.
Thanks everyone for listening. Have a good time and until next time, keep the right side up and all the rest of that.