UAS News Podcast — 2014-03-07
Transcript
Music Alright, hello and welcome everyone to the SQS News Podcast Series. And today our episode is set up and the reason it's called that is because drones for a short amount of time were legal today. And we're going to talk about that. And today we've got our co-host, Mr.
Gene Robinson. And we also have Mr. Gus Calderon. So maybe you both could say hello.
Gene first. Well, hello there, Gus and Patrick. We're just all kind of swimming against the tide in the avalanche of emails and phone calls, aren't we?
It's crazy. Same here. All right, we're great. Thanks for having me on the show.
I'm trying to keep up. Everybody's seeking out more information and I don't think I can keep up with all the phone calls either. It's been a little crazy since last night. The phone's been ringing off the hook.
It just didn't avalanche. But, you know, the news is very interested in it. I cannot keep up with everything that's going on. I mean, it's just the Twitter, the...
Anyway, we're really talking about the judge ruling that commercial drones are legal or business drones are legal. And I wanted to talk about that. And I want to also talk about the appeal that the FAA has responded to, which kind of surprises me that, well, it does demonstrate one thing, that when the FAA is motivated, they can do stuff quick. That's a good point.
That's a good point. Yeah, well, you know, it's taken a bit, you know, that it's 2007, that they changed the policy, and then we had the ARC thing in 2009, and it's just like the ears just drag on. And, you know, when we want to get something done, it can go right and make it happen. But I don't know.
Gene, let's have some of your impressions. Well, you know, I woke up this morning, Patrick, and I was so excited. I grabbed the spectra, slapped the camera in it, ran out on the mainspring and said, quick, let me take your picture. Give me $5.
I'll take your picture. And, you know, I just wanted to feel what that felt like, just for a little bit, to know that it was legal. And I, you know, people looked at me like I was a little odd, but I got one take, and, you know, hey, it felt great. It felt great.
How about you guys? Well, honestly, when I first called my dad, it was from my own division history, and he's been the case very quickly. And from what he told me about the case, he said, my first concern was, well, they're going to appeal, and he did nothing to date them. He said this case was, you know, it was gating, he thought that there was no way to have a case going to appeal.
So I was pretty shocked today, honestly, to see that. And the only thing I could think of is they're trying to buy some time. That's the only reason that I could think of to do what I don't know, grab some quick red, come up with some exemptions to ask for, and see if they can, but that really shocked me to know it was playing out to me. Well, I would agree with that.
I heard that they weren't going to appeal either, and I would say that the first ruling was gating. And I'm going to also say that it matches the documents that I have from the early 2000s, where the head of ATO pretty much said the same thing as this judge said. We don't regulate RC aircraft. These aren't really like commercial aviation or operations.
Have a nice day. You know, and that was the same ruling, and that came back. And those were the documents that I had used. For a little backstory for people, I've been contending this for years.
I have these documents. I got the rulings from D.C. that matched that. The policy was changed.
I had contended since day one that it was an arbitrary policy change, that this isn't their purview. I've gone through my congressperson's office, had them talk to them about it, and basically it's been a slough off. What I am going to say about what, again, I thought that the ruling was pretty, you know, I thought it was a pretty heavy-duty statement. Even though the appeal has come down, I still am not encouraged with what was said, and I would say that I don't think it shows that the FAA is not ironclad.
That's what it shows me, Gene. You know, I have to agree, and one of the things that I was most surprised at is how they approached the definition of aircraft in the ruling. And, you know, we contended all along that, you know, the original intent of an aircraft is for the conveyance of people in cargo. Right.
That's what we always considered aircraft to be manned, or, you know, cargo carrying was a manned aircraft. And, you know, this ruling, to me, made so much sense because they said anytime the FAA spoke about small aircraft, it was prefaced by the term model aircraft. Right. And, you know, that's really what we've been flying, is model aircraft all along.
And why all of a sudden it should take on the attributes of a full-scale aircraft? It's been a mystery to me, but it was sort of an indication to see that in print in a legal document. Right. Well, I don't have to contend that too all along.
You know, we were talking about cargo or passengers. Binary code, really, cargo, ones and zeros. I don't know. But I do agree with what you said, Gene.
Now, I guess, did you have some comments there? I completely agree with Gene, and I'm looking at the ruling right here. And I definitely think there's an indication. And I feel about when I'm out in the public area and I'm flying around and some people ask, what is that?
Is that a drone? And I really want to step back and say, well, this is really just remote-controlled aircraft. I am controlling the aircraft, but then I'm going to be on the site. I'm going to be controlling it.
Okay, it might be PIS, it might be H1 times O, but at the end of the day, this is a remote-controlled aircraft. And I think that's going to kind of just move the RC aircraft into this category. And it's going to be a system for drone whatever. It's a really good situation.
Yeah, guys, you're breaking up really bad. Let me call it back and stuff all then. Okay, because I think you're saying that you got some good comments of what I'm getting there, but I'm only getting about half, so yes, please call it back. Okay, got it.
Thank you, sir. All right, let's see who we have here. Is this Brandon?
Hello. Hi, Patrick. Hey, how's it going?
Very well, thank you. So you're in transit, correct?
Yeah, that's true. I'm on my way to the Southwest Conference down in Austin. Are you?
And well, I'm sure you've been pretty busy. Maybe you could tell us what you've been up to for the last few hours. The last two hours I spent on the phone with various reporters. And so what's the consensus?
What's your takeaway for today? Well, I think we have some long-awaited guidance from now one judge who has looked at the issues and has concluded that there's no enforceable commercial ban on unmanned aircraft systems, nor are model aircraft or drones or whatever you'd like to call them these days subject to FDA regulations. Now, I recently heard that the FDA intends to appeal, have not been served or received a copy of the notice of appeal, but I just wanted to qualify my comments by saying that the decision could be appealed and on appeal could be overturned or modified.
Right. But I would say, I mean, it's been kind of a consensus that what the ruling came back with and the language in it and things like that, and as I just told Gene and Gus, that it kind of reflects some of the same sentiments as the documentation that I was in possession of from the early 2000s from the air traffic organization in DC that basically said these are not aircraft, these are model aircraft, and we don't really regulate those. So what I see here is I'm seeing something that gives the community a lot of hope.
I don't think it was, I would definitely say I think it was decisive. There was no, it wasn't wonky or, well, him and Han and back and forth and maybe there's some gray area. Would you care to comment on that?
Yeah, I do think it was a very clear and direct decision. There were even some footnotes that apparently called out the absurdity of treating model aircraft the same as unmanned aircraft for regulatory purposes. And I think that was a very strong statement about where matters stand legally. I would definitely concur with that.
I agree. Anything else?
I mean, I know we kind of talked about this and we had you and Rafael on the program. And I know when you guys kind of started this and you were working it and whatever else, I mean let's talk about the journey thus far. Would you like to reflect on that?
Well, it's been very interesting. The case has put me in touch with a lot of people and companies that have really amazing ideas for the use of this technology. And I see now more than I did even just a few months ago at just the ongoing damage that this regulatory approach has had on companies, startups, investors, and really the nation in terms of its competitiveness with respect to other countries that have embraced
and committed the express use of commercial UAS operations. So if anything, I see now how important these issues are not just to Rafael but also to really get so many people across the country who have put a lot of time and money and effort into trying to develop new technologies to solve economic problems, to improve safety, to do beneficial things economically, and also in other humanitarian or
public service contexts.
Right. Oh, sorry, go ahead. Brendan, I was wondering, a lot of folks don't know the whole legal process or what's going to happen next and I think that's probably going to be an important question on everyone's mind. And I'm wondering if maybe you could go through a couple of what-if scenarios.
Okay, if the FAA does appeal, who does it go to next? And what is the process?
You said it could be overturned or modified. If it's overturned, what do you do?
If it's modified, what do you do? Could you go through a couple of those?
Sure. The first step in the appeal process is to take it to the full NPSC board, which is a panel of five administrative law judges who would consider the same issues that were already considered. And that's a process that involves a minimum of two months of legal briefing. In other words, the FAA would put in a brief within approximately 30 days of its appeal and then we would put in a response within 30 days after that.
And then the decision-there could be oral argument in Washington, but whether or not there is the decision could then take a fairly long period of time to be decided, much in the way that this one took approximately two and a half months. From there, if one of the parties is still not satisfied with the outcome, it could be further appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is a held-at-level court, federal court in Washington, D.C. And there would be heard altered by a panel of judges.
Those would be federal appointed judges, article three appointed judges who hear a variety of cases, although one of the large areas of review that they hear is this kind of state's administrative appeal. Okay, well, I mean, that's-I never knew which way it was going to go really after it hit this point. So it's kind of encouraging. Again, if it continues the way it is, I mean, we're-at this point it's legal.
I'm assuming it's legal. Well, look, Heidi, the decision talks about whether there are regulations and the enforceability of the 2007 ban. But anyone out there who's got a business or a person who wants to engage in activity based upon court ruling or a legal argument really ought to consult their own attorney. You know, if it's been run an appeal of file, it could effectively have the effect of putting the clause on it.
In other words, the initial decision would not yet be considered a final decision that could be used as a precedent until the appeal is resolved. So although we have a positive first decision, you know, I think it's important for your listeners to understand that if they have legal questions arising out of the decision that they really should seek counsel from an attorney. That's really good to know. Yeah, that's page advice.
I mean, I would say, you know, this thing has always kind of been a little bit of a sticky wicket. I was all excited and, you know, I ran out and I was like, I got to fly, you know, liberated guys today also. But, you know, it depends on what they come back with. You know, I didn't think this would be an easy, let's say, easy fix.
So we'll have to see. I will say, though, that I'm encouraged by your work, sir. I think you did a good job and you've given a lot of encouragement to the community here. And it is definitely an action that has been heard around the world.
And I'm sure you've been a pretty popular guy as far as interviews have been concerned and whatever else. And I'm sure you're kind of happy with your work. What does Raphael think?
Thank you. He's very pleased. I think he wanted to, you know, really make a difference in terms of trying to clarify both the law in this area, not just for himself but also for, you know, people who might be wondering about where things really stand. And so, as you say, this could be viewed as just a first step because it does look like there will be an impel process.
But at least it's a step in the right direction from this point of view of mine. And we'll see about the appeal. You know, one interesting thing about the appeal that I'm not sure anyone realizes is that the FAA actually faces some risk in doing an appeal because one of the arguments we raised is that the FAA does not have statutory authority to regulate operations below navigable airspace. And if this case is appealed to the panel and then to the DC Circuit, that will...
That point is not decided by this judge. The judge decided just on the basis of the lack of enforceable regulations. But if it goes to the full panel or it goes to the District of Columbia, the issue of whether there's statutory authority will be back on the table and it's possible that the FAA risks losing its ability to regulate some of these operations in the future. So there is an inherent risk for them to come back on that, huh?
That's what you're basically saying. I think so. I think all the issues decided or that were presented to the original judge would be considered by full panel or by the DC Circuit. And one of those arguments was that the airspace loaded the ground near back yard is not an navigable airspace, but the FAA was put in charge of regulating.
Right. I know there have been some gray areas with the, let's say, policy and unmanned aircraft. And I think we could probably all kind of agree that things kind of went down and, you know, this is kind of a gray area and this and that, the other thing. And some stuff that came out of different offices, let's say, in the FAA and from my own...
This is like my own opinion here. But it's kind of a little bit of the right hand that knowing what the left hand is doing. And I do think that there is a lot of room here for clarification and clarity, which may represent for the FAA. I would definitely say there is a risk that they could lose some, let's say, of what they think they have authority of.
And that could even open them. And this is just a conjecture thing, but I think it might open up more issues for other aviation people. Anybody agree or disagree with that?
Well, the FAA-21 is pretty well established, you know, for general aviation and that sort of thing. I don't know. I don't think there's going to be much of a challenge to those FAAs myself. Any other things to add?
I don't know. Anybody else want to chime in on that or you want to just leave that one behind?
Yeah, there could be some lack of credibility in how they're managing the unmanned aircraft sector. This clearly does not look good for them at all. And I think that's really a bad way for them to start this integration process looking so poorly. So that concerns me definitely.
If people lose faith in the ability of this bureaucratic agency to effectively and professionally integrate unmanned aircraft, public perception is going to be a major problem for them. I do think that it has, for me, it has, the ruling itself has definitely called that credibility into question because I thought, like I said, it wasn't wonky. I thought it was pretty solid. And I've kind of contended all along that things were kind of, you know, I wasn't too sure on that.
And one thing that it has been, and I am interested to see how this thing plays out, but I agree that I think it calls into question some of how things, let's say, have transpired and how things are perceived in the future. And I'm more of the mindset that I want to see, you know, real empirical numbers instead of knee-jerk, reactionary type of numbers of feelings in the next go-round. Bert. Yeah, I agree with you.
And it would be great to see some real leadership, too. I think that's lacking in this industry. So I really think, I hope that that gets improved in some way, shape or form. Well, that is another thing that we're going to try and do.
I do want to talk about that in the show, the RCAPA thing. But, Brandon, do you have time to continue?
I know you're in transit. Was there something else you'd like to add?
I'm in the limelight, so happy to talk about whatever you like. Look, I want to just go back to a comment before about being happy about the outcome. You know, that's true from, you know, a narrow perspective here. You know, glad that we won the call to first round.
I expect to win the next round if there is one. But, you know, I'm also disappointed that citizens in this country, and actually in this case a citizen of another country, is in a litigation process with the government that really should be supporting and nurturing this technology and helping us grow jobs and, you know, develop what is the next high-tech sector in the world. And instead, you know, chapter one is this litigation where we're arguing about an aircraft. And I mean, if that's not embarrassing, I don't know what is.
And the Oscars a week ago, you may have noticed that the CACA awarded an Oscar to a drone company that does aerial cinematography. That company takes me to kingdom. So we have one of the greatest institutions of this country handing out an achievable to a foreign company for its work that would be considered prohibited and illegal in this country. If that isn't embarrassing, I don't know what is.
Well, we've, I would concur with that. And we've suffered tons of embarrassment as a country, you know, being in the global airspace integration effort. I mean, it's kind of, it is embarrassing. You go there and not even so long ago the FAA was chatting, oh, we're leading the way, you know.
And obviously we haven't led the way. I understand that rulemaking is hard, you know, and all the rest of that. But I mean, please, the small unmanned arc gave the recommendation 2009. I actually had breakfast with Doug Marshall this morning from the New Mexico State University, who was on the arc with me and we were both shaking our heads just saying, you know, I can't believe how long this has taken even for the small rule.
Now, you know, I have heard that the small rule, they're working away on that, and that's supposedly going to come out soon. But, you know, even if that were to come out, I was not really happy with what was in that rule. And I do say the other thing that this ruling does say to me is really everything that's almost kind of transpired thus far and it hasn't resulted in a rule should almost be thrown out. This is my own opinion, but I'm not really happy with the limited envelope.
I have to contend for a long time that people are out here operating and the sky is not falling. And, you know, maybe there are safety issues or whatever else, but I think we need to reexamine this. They haven't been able to figure out the data they need. Nobody's really been able to figure anything out.
And I think I'm ready for a larger envelope. Anybody concur with that or disagree with that?
Well, I certainly, no, I was just waiting for somebody to jump in there. But I certainly know what sort of envelopes that I need to operate in effectively and try to communicate those sorts of data, if you will, for a long, long time. And it's unfortunate that people I know that are a lot smarter than me that have thought about this a long time and I could figure out one sort of envelope we could fly a four pound aircraft, a 10 pound aircraft, a 150 pound aircraft. They should have been able to figure that out over the last seven, eight years.
I think a smart person would be able to figure that out, wouldn't you? I would. Anyone else care to comment?
Yeah, I totally agree with Gene. I think they've had more than enough data to at least put out some rules, to at least get a lot of these small companies started like Brendan was talking about. The rulings as they've been and the prohibitions and the regulations have stifled so much research and development and growth of small businesses in this country. I don't think it's fair that they can blame this on a lack of data.
There's been data out there. Even if you just look at flights in the hobby side, there's basically very, very few incidents or any kind of problems with small remote control aircraft, especially under 55 pounds. So they've had the data. I just don't know the reason why they're not utilizing that data.
I don't understand it. Well, you know, they talk about operations and really the data that they need is from, would be data that you would get from operating. Well, you know, so the chicken and an egg thing. If they tried to do that with regular aviation, you know, you'd never get any data because it would all be grounded, so it's a double standard.
You know, the other thing is, and I've contended for years, and I think more and more as this has gotten more popular, you know, there's more, let's say, examples of it on the Internet, but, you know, even the numbers, I shared the numbers of systems that are being sold monthly in the United States. And these numbers, this is always a couple of manufacturers, but these numbers are like between 12 and a half to 15,000 systems a month are being sold. Okay. And then maybe another, you know, 3000 to 5000 autopilots are being sold a month in the United States.
And I think it tends that, you know, there's going to be 7,500 of these drones or whatever flying around in five years. They were totally taken aback at the numbers. It's so far beyond. I mean, my question was, has the UFAA even like really thought about administering these types of numbers?
I know myself, I travel with a drone in the truck, you know, and it's kind of some people have been kind of laughing about that, but you never know when you're going to need one. And, you know, I guess the big point of that is it's an off-airport operation. It's a five-minute thing. I still contend that we need like an extension of some sort or the micro-bin that's lightly regulated that people could gravitate towards, let's say, low weight, low speed, and low risk, and that people could get going today.
And really I think that's something that could have been implemented years ago. Years ago it could have been implemented. It could be implemented tomorrow. It represents something a lot less than what is going on in the NAS today.
And still there's been nothing. And I think, you know, as we've seen in the NAS, people are just tired of waiting, and they're tired of the gray area. And I think, Brenda, that's one of the things, you know, that you're – this traffic case has brought up. It's like, you can get all these gray areas, you're calling it arbitrarily, whatever you want, you're this is that, and we're going to do this, and blah, blah, blah, and it's just kind of really heading us into a box.
Any comments on that, Mr. Schulten?
Yeah, I absolutely agree. I think in 2007 it probably made sense to put, you know, the press upon button for a year or two until things were figured out. But I don't understand the situation for seven years in delay. One of the reporters I spoke to today, and I think this was written up, I can't remember where, but there's a suggestion that the FAA is now going to be more amenable or might be more amenable to case-by-case authorizations for SUAS commercial operations.
I don't know if that really reflects any kind of change or if you've heard anything consistent or contrary to that, but there was at least one report to that effect in the papers today. Well, it's fortunate that today on the call we have a guy that has actually gone for that exemption. Gus, did you want to talk about that canary?
Well, goose taste. Yes, not to push you off the ladder. I already think so. I thought I submitted what was a pretty solid petition for exemption, and it was even published in the Federal Register, and I never even received a response from the FAA, which really disappointed me.
I mean, I at least accepted or was expecting a rejection letter or some type of explanation, but the fact that I got nothing in the term at all after a year was really disappointing to me. And then that's when I had a feeling that either that was just completely made up or I couldn't figure it out. I don't know why they would publish it and then not respond in writing. So it's a complete mystery.
It is a mystery. It's one of those mysteries of the world. And just for a quick, you know, people that don't know who you are, because I use you as my test case when they say, oh, you've got to file for this exemption. And, you know, Gus has a little bit of an aviation career.
Could you give us like the close-knows, like, bio of your aviation experience real quick so people understand? Sure. Well, yeah, I'm an FAA, you know, commercial pilot, but on top of that, I was, I did apply for and was granted a par 135 air carrier operation. So I've been certified to carry passengers.
I've been, you know, I've demonstrated that ability to safely carry people. I've been checked out by the FAA, passed the rigorous flight tests and all their examinations. My aircrafts have been examined to very high standards. I've worked very closely with the FAA and it presented all of a sudden in my face and thinking, okay, if anybody should be, and I just asked for permission to fly a two-pound foam aircraft for simple aerial photography.
That's all I'm asking for you for commercial use to do real estate, because I've been doing aerial photography for over a decade in a full-scale aircraft. And it was pretty simple and straightforward, solid background, perfect safety history for 20 years and no response. That was really kind of disappointing and I really didn't want to put any more effort into that when they didn't respond to me. So if they don't respond to that, I don't know who they're going to respond to.
I did make that point and you were on my test case because I'm like, what chance does a guy like me with a cracker barrel have of going through this exemption trial to somebody that has this aviation history like you do, can't get through it either. And so I'm suspect on that. So, Brandon, when you talk about that, I know they have been saying that and even, you know, I did say that I wouldn't really talk about it. Nobody really wants me to talk about anything.
It's very hard to do these programs because I talk to a lot of people. People don't want me to say things about this and I get an NDA and all the rest of that stuff. But I just, it sounds good, but that's a very arduous process and something that has to be, you know, published in the register and all the rest of that. Again, we go right back to the scale of 15,000 systems being sold a month.
That exemption process is not going to work. Would you guys agree or disagree with that?
That's, yes, laughable. Yeah, I agree. Totally. It's impossible.
Chris, I mean, that's one of the things that I talk about is the scope, you know. I mean, you understand the scope of what you're talking about here, how you're going to, all these exemptions, the exemptions down to the end number, and then, I mean, if I pulled out the foreign book over here, you'd probably have a field day about all the exemptions you're going to need for an unmanned aircraft, plus the pilot's license, plus the medical, plus, you know, plus, plus, plus, plus, plus, until the cows come home.
I mean, I just see mountains and mountains of paperwork. But the other issue is the resource allocation issue. Why on earth would we want our Federal Aviation Authority, regulatory agency, to spend its limited budget, a budget that has recently been cut, on this, on certifying quadcopters to fly around houses at low altitudes?
It's not, in my mind, it's not an issue of air transportation at all. There's better ways for the Federal Government to spend its budget in terms of keeping people safe in the air, which, by the way, I think they do a great job. I mean, I'm not the other in the air, but I do have a very safe, I mean, close to their credit, and I don't have any disrespect for the agencies for that, but this is something completely different and doesn't necessarily belong in the hands of an agency with limited resources.
I think we'd all concur with that. The department, the 121, 135 staff, they do an excellent job, and I would concur that I'd rather keep them focused on that than focused on phone. And I also think, too, and this might be another area here we could delve off into, that the enforcement, you know, if, and I believe contended, if this is such a serious safety, egregious safety issue, where is the comprehensive enforcement?
And they've had many years to work on that, and I don't know. You know, I know that Rafael was kind of the first guy to get the official, you know, let's say, notice there that something was awry. It seems like a long time and a lot of people that have just kind of, I guess, been missed. And, you know, any impressions on that?
Brendan first, any impressions on that? I go back to the resources issue. I just don't think they have the people to get out there and do anything. They seem to be attuned to people who post videos or put things on their websites.
That may or may not be the way they identify a trapeze. Virginia Flight is something that's concerned to them. I don't think they're doing nothing. I mean, I am aware of other investigations that I can't talk about.
It remains to be seen, you know, whether those go anywhere in terms of enforcement, but they do look at situations and consider what to do about them. And I suppose this decision may have an impact on, at least in the short term, on whether they move forward or not with the various enforcement options. Yeah, and I am. We're going to have to do like a whole show of things that cannot be talked about.
We have all these, these like teaser titles. Oh, man, you know, we got to, but we can't talk about it. Don't invite a lawyer to your show if you want. It's actually kind of exceptional that, you know, Cappy is happy to have me talk about the issues.
In most instances we don't talk about our client's cases or what we think the next steps are, but this is a case of great public interest and it's about government regulation and Cappy is totally supportive of having the non-confidential parts of his case discussed publicly. Right, well, and I wasn't only talking about you. I said a few minutes ago, it's like, you know, you get these sources or you talk to people about things and they ask you not to mention things or, hey, could you sign this NDA?
We can't really delve deeply into it. I just hope people understand that it's, that it's just a part of something where there's business involved and regulation involved, but, you know, we do appreciate you coming on and talking about this and I know that, you know, we can't, got to play the cards, you know, sort of course close to the vets, but the enforcement scale, you know, on that scale, and
I know that there are other things going on, but really again, you know, some of these enforcement issues that are ongoing and the scale of how many people are actually out there flying, I think it represents a very small number in my mind.
So we'll have to see how that all plays out, but I do think that there's, you know, there is a better use of resources and I don't even think that they've got the numbers on what they need to kind of corral this industry, so we'll have to see how that plays out. Any comments, Gene?
Concerning the numbers, oh, I could tell you right now that there, you drive down any street and you'll see numbers of drones, as they call them, out there flying around, and yeah, I'm totally on board with the fact that they're off basing their numbers. And yes, I mean, what have you been seeing?
I know I talked to you the other day, you were out at the flying field, too. What are you seeing out there?
Are you seeing more people? Are you seeing these things all over the place?
What's going on? More and more, and particularly this year, here in Southern California, the amount of guys who are out filming, particularly not only just for real estate, but who are in and around the LA area involved in the television and the film industry has just increased dramatically over the last year. It's not slowing down at all. I think some of the new systems that are more affordable and easier to operate, like the DJI Phantom, are bringing a lot of people into this industry, and that trend is just going to be continuing at a very rapid rate.
And that was not a paid endorsement? No, that was not. I am not endorsed by DJI, no. But it is true, and I am starting to see that aircraft in many, many locations.
I met with a gentleman yesterday, civil engineer, very, very interested in using this technology for other applications. I'm seeing professional people, you know, see the interest and the value in this technology, and they are acquiring these systems. They're learning how to fly. They're at least seeking out instruction and approaching me and asking for some guidance, which is great.
But the number is hard to even imagine how many people are out filming today. I just couldn't even comprehend how many people are doing it right now. Yeah, there's tons. Well, here, we got a caller from the 267 area.
Let's see what the man on the street has to say. Caller from 267, are you there?
Hey, Patrick. How are you doing?
We're actually Terry Kildes from Elevate Elevator. How are you, sir?
Good. How are you, sir?
Good to that. Well, you know, you've been listening to the topic. I know you've been holding for a while. And, you know, so basically, you know, what are your thoughts?
Operator on the street guy. Sure. Well, to continue the same conversation that was just running, we actually had a couple of meetup groups that we organized, and we're seeing just explosive growth in that area, one in D.C., one in Baltimore. The D.C.
group is approaching quickly 800 members. The Baltimore group is quickly approaching 200. And, again, it's all been within the last 12 months that this crisis has just really exploded. And it's people that you wouldn't normally think.
We're seeing people who have never had any type of R.C. experience in the past, people who aren't necessarily photographers, just a wide range of people coming out and trying to explore this new technology and see how they can get involved. It's really been incredible. And you're seeing, too, I don't know if you're in touch with the Texas Drone Users group, but there's quite a few guys out there.
Do you know how many guys are in that Texas Drone Users group? The last number I heard, Patrick, for the North Texas Drone Users group was 2,400. Wow. But again, that's all- Well, again, that's part of the same network, the Drone Users group network.
We have a New York City chapter that it hasn't been all that active way we are over trying to kind of wrap it up. I know people who are involved in that. I can't remember membership numbers, but I think it's around 600, maybe 800. But if you don't get those numbers out, that's a big- Well, there's a lot of interest.
I mean, it's the same thing if you see over at the Do It Yourself drones, I think they have like 40,000 members who signed up. I mean, I don't know that they're on the page all the time, but it shows an interest. You know, even that multi-rotor group over at RC groups has always got over 2,000 people in the forum. I mean, if you post something there, I mean, it's gone.
It's just pages gone. That's how hot it is. So everybody and their dog is kind of getting interested in this right now. I see 2014 as being almost like 2012, which was a very hot year for the drone subject.
And I think if we've also seen the tech people getting into this, I mean, another big story now that's been eclipsed was Facebook talking about lying that high off the dude. Drone company was a titan. It seems like that was so long ago. That was the big news from, you know, what was it, two days ago?
I don't know. I'm on a 24-hour news cycle. I'm talking to people in China and multiple other countries in Africa, you know, all over Europe. I'm hardly sleeping anymore.
But the whole thing has gone global. The news is big. And I think you're going to see more and more companies. I am a little, I'm a little disappointed because, you know, what I was really hoping with, you know, the good news that we had about this is that we would have a window of at least five, six, seven months or something that would open, the window would open, and the general public would be able to see like they're getting a view in Europe of the good that this technology can do.
A lot of people are starting to realize, hey, the drones aren't scary. They're out here and they're helping us do this public and private asset management, and we're using them for farming, and we're using them for, you know, oil exploration or killing animals and all the rest of that stuff. And overwhelmingly what's happening in Europe is people are like, hey, this technology is saving the taxpayer money. It's saving farmers money.
I don't know if people are realizing that savings, let's say, in their own pocketbooks. But they're starting to open up to the drones and say, oh, God, this is great, you know, they're not scary. This isn't something that we have to be afraid of. This is something that's good.
You know, wow, okay, I'm glad that they're kind of here. And that was really kind of what I was hoping that would happen here, we would get that window where the public would get a chance to see the good that they did. Anybody else want to add to that?
Nailed that one shot. I think some of it has been exposed, but for whatever reason, it's just not catching traction. It seems that for every good story that comes out, there's just as much noise that's going to drown out. Yeah, well, I don't know, Dean, what do you think?
Well, no, I agree to a certain extent that there is a lot of noise out there. But, you know, I think that people are starting to get that there are positive uses. I know that a lot of the reporters and the people that I talk to these days are wanting a positive story. They're tired of the predator stories where somebody's blown up or killed or anything like that.
And I think that there is a pendulum that's starting to swing the other way. Well, we're not going to lead this into the next topic. And, you know, for people that read the SUAS news, I wanted to talk about this. The story went out about how the ARCAPA, the Phoenix, rises out of the ashes.
And this has kind of been something that we've been trying to reconstitute for a while. But we've really felt, and ARCAPA has always been a pro-business, small business group. And we never felt really like we had representation from people that really represented us. I mean, you know, it's kind of like the Goldilocks and the Three Bears, you know.
The A&A, you know, the porridge was too cold and yada yada. And we were really looking for this business thing that doesn't have, let's say, any of the negative connotations of the military or, let's say, you know, police privacy issues. And so we've been kind of thinking about this for a while. We are reworking some of that and we are relaunching that.
And I've been hearing a lot of positive feedback about that. And actually today the ARCAPA site has been on fire. People have been over there joining and other things. And Gene and Jennifer, actually, more members of that in helping us with that.
Gene, did you have something that you would like to add? Yes, certainly. The response has been incredible for ARCAPA. And I think really it was summed up quite nicely that if you are a hobbyist, then you go to the AMA.
And if you're a military DOD, then you have a VSI. And if you want to be a professional photographer using an aerial platform, you go to the ARCAPA. And the community-based standards that we've come up with a long time ago, while they certainly need to be updated, they are as relevant today as they were back then and they will continue to be. And I think it's going to be very important that we continue to be and work toward the unified voice that we intended to be back in 2007.
Beth, would you like to add? Yeah, I completely agree with Gene. And I'm really honored you guys invited me to be part of the board. And like Gene said, it seems like there was a vacuum for people who were interested in the commercial sector.
Like Gene was saying, AMA was clearly representing a hobbyist, you know, you had a VSI for the DOD, but that left this emerging market with nobody to turn to for leadership, for proper guidelines, direction to move forward. So I'm really excited to be a part of rebooting ARCAPA and really kind of helping give guidance to so many people who I meet out there when I go out flying to different flying fields who want to get interested, who are fascinated by the smell, because they don't really know where to go for correct information.
And that's a big problem. AUBSI really isn't providing that information. AMA does it somewhat for the hobbyist, but for people who wanted to get really into this, into the commercial side, there's definitely a need for better educational material, for more information, places where people can go for eventually going to be able to provide insurance so that they can operate commercially with, you know, having a sound insurance company backing them. So I think that's absolutely critical and really looking forward to being a part of that organization.
I would agree with all of that. Terry, are you a member of ARCAPA?
I'm actually on the side right now. Thanks for bringing me in. Brandon, are you a member of ARCAPA?
No, I don't fly ARC for commercial gain, so I'm currently a member. I'm glad to hear, though, that you're working on turning it into something more active today. I think, you know, the things that an active industry needs include trade associations. And, you know, from my point of view, we need law firms that know something about the laws in this area, whether it's insurance law or aviation regulations or First Amendment framework in terms of the use of drones in journalism.
And so that's one reason we've put together the group that we have to address on the aircraft systems law. So I'm glad to hear that you've got an effort that you're working on to do a fix for it. Well, and all of these things that you're talking about are all part of the industry. You know, we've got a very straight song about, you know, all of these parts of industry that came together.
And, you know, we need lawyers, we need insurance people, we need finance people, we need associations, we need to come together. One thing that I think has really helped us ignite this is the work that you've done, in this case with Trappy, has given us all a little bit of hope. But more than the hope, I think it's kind of rekindled the fire and said, you know what, we'd better, if we don't want, you know, what we've been getting in the past year, then we'd better get proactive, get on the ball and get in front of this thing.
That's kind of where we were with the RCAPA back in 2004 and 5 was, you know, we wanted a DIPI insurance, and then we heard that they were going to regulate this, hey, we better get in front of it, and the fed's going to work it out. They have a way of doing that. So one last note before we sign off is the small UAS, or Small Unmanned Systems Business Exposition. Now, Brandon, you can't make it because you actually have a prior engagement on a project you were working on, which is too bad.
We were hoping you could come out, but, you know, can't be everywhere at one time. I made Florida. Yeah, so maybe next year, you know, you can come out and tell us more good news. The only other piece of interesting news I was just breaking on that is DJI has said that they are actually interested in sponsoring the RCAPA workshop that Gus Calderon will be heading up, and again, Gus is on the show today,
and we were really looking for a sponsor for that, just like we were looking for a sponsor for the SAR workshop that Gene's going to do, because I want both of these gentlemen to be more concerned with what they believe is important to their field of expertise than making sure, you know, somebody's getting their $25 worth of work or whatever.
I wish I could be in both of those workshops, Gene and Gus. Maybe, Gus, you could just give us a little, you know, short rundown of what you think that workshop will consist of. Sure. I'm going to go over a little bit about my background of putting cameras and video cameras into first, first, 6-wing aircraft started that right around 2006, and basically my experience with a whole variety of different cameras and then getting involved into multivoters a few years ago, and I'd like to answer a lot of questions.
I have a pretty good idea of what newcomers are looking for just from when I go out flying at the local flying field, the questions that I get, and I'd like to really help people guide them in the right direction, maybe make wise choices about collecting the right equipment, collecting the right cameras, basically use the experience, some of the pitfalls that I ran into, some of the challenges that I had, to help people get into this field with as easily as they can and have the best results that they can.
So I'd like to share my experiences with them and then also kind of convey my aviation safety experience as far as the best way to operate this equipment. I think that's going to be critical as well. And I agree with that. I think that the safety thing is a big issue and or a relevant issue, and I think everyone should get onto the DroneTV Network site and watch the video about safety and deconflicting the airspace that you're flying in, not only because it's gotten in it, but that should be enough for you to run out there and see it now.
There's an important message in there. But that's about all the time we have for today's podcast. Hey, thank you everyone for being on. Great conversation.
Brandon, keep up the good work and we'll see everyone next week. Thank you. See you later. See you.
Bye-bye.