Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 17
02/02/2016 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR17 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HCR 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HCR 17-SUPPORT AVIATION INDUSTRY; USE STATE LAND
1:06:17 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 17, Supporting the aviation
industry; and urging the governor to make state-owned land
available to the unmanned aircraft systems industry for the
management and operation of unmanned aircraft systems and
related research, manufacturing, testing, and training.
1:07:00 PM
GINGER BLAISDELL, Staff, Representative Shelley Hughes, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Hughes, prime
sponsor, stated that HCR 17 is offered by the Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS) Legislative Task Force ("the task force") in
support of UAS companies and manufacturers utilizing state lands
for research, testing, training, and general operations for
unmanned aircraft. She stated that components of the
legislation are outlined in some of the "Whereas" portions of
HCR17, and some of the information, including statistics on the
landmass available, came from U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski's web
site. (Technical difficulties) an enormous resource that is not
being utilized for this industry with the unpopulated or low-
risk land for these types of flights.
MS. BLAISDELL explained that the second portion of the
statistics came from the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA's) federal budget, "some of the kind things they say about
Alaska and really promoting this industry." Therefore, she
advised, the task force believes that putting this resolution
before the legislature will encourage state agencies to use
state land for the purpose of benefitting Alaska's economy.
1:08:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked Ms. Blaisdell to clarify the intent
of HCR 17.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that "we have one individual online" who
has entered into an agreement with a state agency to secure land
space to fly drones unhindered by other structures and highly
populated areas. Consequently, the individual is mastering his
skill by using state lands. She pointed out that some state
agencies may be unaware of the existing opportunities in terms
of entering into contracts or making land available to
manufacturers and pilots seeking training hours. She offered
that the UAS industry may be able to bring some economic benefit
to Alaska.
1:10:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES inquired whether space is currently
limited and whether there are specific guidelines for drone use.
MS. BLAISDELL replied that currently UAS hobbyists can fly their
aircraft just about anywhere for recreational purposes, except
within five miles of an airport. Although, she advised,
commercial users, with FAA exemptions, can fly their drones for
commercial purposes which may provide more area latitude. The
goal of the resolution is to increase commercial UAS access to
state land, she explained.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked for confirmation that the proposed
resolution would be directed at commercial users, as opposed to
private individuals and their drones.
MS. BLAISDELL replied that's correct.
1:11:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES stated that she wanted to add (technical
difficulties) but of course it's a concurrent resolution, so it
would not be binding. A portion of the task force's duty,
assigned legislatively, was to encourage the development of the
private sector UAS industry, and HCR 17 was in response to that.
The task force realized that 20 percent of Alaska is state
lands, which is 5 percent of the entire U.S. land mass. She
suggested that in the event the state could remove barriers and
offer that space to local, national, and global UAS businesses,
Alaska could receive a better slice of the economic pie in this
burgeoning industry, which is the basis of this resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK described Alaska as an aviation state with
thousands of private airplanes flying throughout the state in
small and large towns. Representative Nageak voiced his concern
as to how the drones would be regulated to ensure safety was
given due consideration during its policy development. He
related a story about a friend in the [Matanuska-Susitna] Valley
who has an airstrip on his property, and he noted that pilots
tend to migrate toward areas uninhibited by power lines and
trees. He reiterated his concern regarding interference with
other aviation traffic, and that Alaska should work with the
industry to ensure that the rules and regulations address
pertinent safety issues.
1:15:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ requested verification that the FAA
currently grants permission for UAS commercial operations.
MS. BLAISDELL confirmed Representative Ortiz's understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ inquired whether, moving in the direction
of policy similar to what HCR 17 calls for, the FAA would still
remain the organization in charge of monitoring and managing the
UAS industry.
MS. BLAISDELL replied that the proposed resolution applies
specifically to commercial operators, and currently an FAA
Section 333 exemption is necessary in order to operate
commercially. In order to obtain the FAA exemption, commercial
operators must have a pilot, ground crew, and a certified
aircraft, with certain requirements to be met before becoming a
commercial operator. In addition to the exemption, she
explained, there is a requirement that commercial pilots
broadcast a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) informing other pilots of
the commercial flight plan even in the instance of a small piece
of UAS equipment. Other pilots can quickly check a website to
see who is flying and where in order to avoid each other. Ms.
Blaisdell advised that commercial UAS pilots are required to
have the same licenses as pilots of conventional aircraft, and
they are held to the same safety parameters as other aviators
overseen by the FAA.
1:17:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES noted that the title of the proposed
resolution does not appear to exclude the private sector, yet
that was the intent of this resolution. She suggested that the
title be rewritten to more specifically explain that HCR 17
would not apply to the private sector.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES clarified that the intent of the proposed
resolution is to allow and encourage commercial UAS operators to
operate over state owned property. She noted that the
resolution would not ask anything of private property owners and
asked Representative Stutes for further clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES stated her understanding in that the
resolution would only address commercial users of drones, and
the purpose of HCR 17 is to prohibit private operators from
using the same state lands commercial operators would be granted
access to. In her interpretation, she said, the title does not
specify this exclusion.
1:19:49 PM
MS. BLAISDELL directed attention to page 2, lines 20-22, "BE IT
RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature supports the economic
growth of the unmanned aircraft systems industry," and stated
that the legislation is designed to focus on the commercial
aspect of drone use. Currently, under FAA rules, hobbyist or
recreational use operators are not governed under FAA
regulations. There are guidelines for safe flying, advising
operators to avoid airports and dangerous situations but private
operators are not currently regulated, and she emphasized that
HCR 17 is focused on the industry aspect because it has much
tighter restrictions. The title originated with Legislative
Legal and Research Services, and she said she could ask
Legislative Legal and Research Services whether it could be
rewritten for purposes of clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether the intent is to exclude
private drone use.
MS. BLAISDELL replied that there is no exclusion language in HCR
17. Therefore, hobbyists can fly wherever they choose with very
specific exceptions, such as within the boundaries of an airport
or over large crowds. Currently, private operators can fly on
state land, she said.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked, hypothetically, whether as a
private citizen she could operate a drone on state land.
MS. BLAISDELL replied affirmatively.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES thanked Ms. Blaisdell for the
clarification.
1:22:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES stated that the term "unmanned aircraft
industry" is being used in the United States to indicate the
commercial industry, and typically, [in reference to private
operators], the conventional nomenclature is "recreational" or
"hobbyist." She reiterated that the resolution addresses
commercial users, exclusively. She pointed out that a person
may think that industry word includes both the hobbyist and
commercial, but typically it is being used solely for commercial
which is the way it is being used here.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES noted that she would like to take this
opportunity to educate the public that information on the
recommended safety guidelines for UAS use is on
alaskadrones.org. She emphasized that due to the significant
number of manned aircraft operating in the state, and for the
safety of the public, tragedies and incidents must be avoided.
Although, she acknowledged that is a separate issue from HCR 17,
she wanted to remind private UAS operators they should check the
guidelines and noted that they are currently required to
register their aircraft with the FAA.
1:23:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK offered that it may be prudent to amend
the title to include the wording "commercial unmanned aircraft
systems industry" or something similar.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER recommended that members wait to amend the
resolution until after public testimony and any other committee
input. He said he will hold this resolution over until the next
meeting, and suggested Representative Nageak offer a title
change as a conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK responded that he would defer to Co-Chair
Foster regarding the form of that amendment, and reiterated his
desire for clarification between recreational and commercial
users in the title.
1:25:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ noted that in addition to safety, another
area of concern is privacy issues for private property owners.
For example, an insurance company using UAS on private property.
He asked whether there would be sacrifices related to privacy if
[the committee] were to move in the direction of the resolution.
MS. BLAISDELL answered that a benefit of flying over state lands
would be less concern regarding [infringements] of individual
privacy, which is a reason state lands are considered an
opportunity to bolster the economics of the UAS industry. The
task force received national attention for the safety and
privacy guidelines it developed and, she pointed out, Alaska is
one of the first states to publish guidelines regarding personal
privacy. She added that the guidelines are available on
alaskadrones.org.
[Technical difficulties 1:27:30 p.m. to 1:27:35 p.m.]
1:27:35 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER opened public testimony on HCR 17.
[Technical difficulties 1:27:41 p.m. to 1:27:55 p.m.]
1:27:55 PM
[Technical difficulties.]
STEVE WACKOWSKI, Operations Manager, Tulagaq LLC; Industry
Representative, UAS Task Force, thanked Representative Hughes
and Ms. Blaisdell for their hard work in the development of the
proposed resolution. He offered that from an industry
perspective, the resolution sends a strong signal that Alaska is
"open for business," and that [the UAS industry] is in the state
to give back to the economy and provide jobs. He advised that
in his company's 3.5 year history, Tulagaq conducted several
major UAS operations in the Arctic, including a 1.5 month
campaign in Wainwright where it hired two locals to help support
operations and conduct Science, Technology, Engineering &
Mathematics (STEM) outreach to the village school. He pointed
out that Tulagag is owned by Alaskan companies and the Alaska
Native Regional Corporation shareholders. This resolution would
send a strong signal, and he expressed his hope that companies
like Google, Amazon, and Facebook would look to Alaska to
provide high-tech jobs and open up businesses.
MR. WACKOWSKI noted, in response to a previous question from
Representative Ortiz regarding safety, that the federal
government still regulates all airspace - state land, private
land, "two inches above your back lawn to your house" and
considers that airspace within its regulatory [jurisdiction].
He said that [the commercial UAS industry] has very strict rules
in place for safety. For example, [commercial UAS operators]
de-conflict any airspace immediately before operating and
usually do not fly in the vicinity of any manned aircraft.
Further, he noted, for the Wainwright operation, an individual
was stationed at the FAA radar observing the operations, the
entire time, ensuring there was no air traffic in or out of the
operations area.
MR. WACKOWSKI acknowledged that privacy is a concern, and
remarked that frequently the drones are not equipped with "spy
cameras" as depicted on Youtube.com. He continued that some UAS
produce high-resolution elevation data or are equipped with
synthetic aperture radar for detecting changes in ice pack or
conducting fish and game counts. The capabilities of these
aircraft go well beyond the $200 UAS available to hobbyists;
these are commercial operations producing high-resolution data,
he said. Frequently, he commented, [commercial UAS operators]
have no ambition to be near other people, homes, or other
aircraft; therefore, the opportunity to focus operations on
state land and the air above it would be ideal. He reiterated
that the proposed resolution would send a strong message to
commercial UAS industry members who may invest in Alaska and
provide jobs.
1:31:57 PM
STEVE COLLIGAN, Owner, Precision Flight Devices; Member, UAS
Task Force, said he is a member of the task force, a long time
commercial operator in mapping and geometric space, and he owns
Precision Flight Devices. He thanked the committee for the
opportunity to testify, and allowing the Academy of Model
Aeronautics (AMA) to present information to the [committee]
addressing best practices for hobbyist use of UAS last year. He
pointed out that the State of Alaska has received substantial
recognition for publication of manuals and its proactive
approach to safety. At the end of the day, Alaska is well
known, not only due to its opportunities, but also to the
state's open approach and attention to safety, privacy, and the
public. There have been discussions regarding private use
versus hobbyist use, or commercial use versus hobbyist use, and
he explained that the commercial operation is considered a
meaningful use of the product or device.
MR. COLLIGAN explained that the proposed resolution pertains
specifically to the profound hardware side of the UAS operation,
but opined that in many ways the software that promotes the
hardware is more profound. The software utilized in the UAS
industry enables three-dimensional modeling, surveying, quantity
take-off, environmental monitoring, etcetera, within the line-
of-sight for a gravel pit or other small operational areas, and
it is used by engineers, surveyors, and public agencies. He
said unmanned aircraft systems have excellent logistical
advantages over airplanes in terms of flying to remote areas and
under clouds. He opined that increasing the ability for
agencies and the private sector to practice and develop skills
is the purpose of furthering [commercial use] on public lands.
The UAS technology is coming, he stated, and agencies and
engineering firms are already buying, looking at buying, or
figuring out how to use both the hardware and software to create
end-user products.
MR. COLLIGAN related that he is a life-long Alaskan who has had
a nostalgic view of the [new technology] ever since his Dad gave
him a children's mechanic book, published in 1940. He pointed
out that an opportunity and responsibility exists to start using
this technology for the purpose of efficiency and creating
better products for the state and the private sector. During
the presentation last year, he noted, it was discussed that
hobbyist UAS pilots would appreciate access to public lands, and
he compared it to creating a soccer field rather than allowing
kids to play in the streets. He remarked that both hobbyists
and commercial users are looking for safe places to fly and
practice. Although, he noted, on the commercial side developing
practice areas to learn how to map wetlands and other small
projects is important to get things moving.
1:35:55 PM
JOHN PARKER, Owner, Integrated Robotics; Member, UAS Task Force,
stated that his company was in the process of developing sensor
technology for the safe operation of unmanned aircraft in
[Alaska] airspace, and he thanked the committee for allowing him
the opportunity to participate in the hearing. He stated that
he supports HCR 17 as a beginning aid to industrial development
of new technology to help Alaska move away from its reliance on
oil, gas, fishing, and tourism, as its primary means of economic
growth, and he noted, discussions have indicated that those
industries have been in a significant downturn. The state is
currently operating in deficit spending, the Alaska State
Legislature needs to determine if it is going to support one of
the fastest growing industries in the United States, projected
by 2025 to bring billions of dollars into the U.S. economy and
create hundreds of thousands of jobs, he opined. The task force
was established to promote the safe and legal growth of the UAS
industry in Alaska and recommend to the legislature a means to
assist the industry grow within the state. Alaska possesses
some talented entrepreneurs in [the UAS] technology sector, who
spoke earlier in this hearing, who have been thwarted at every
turn in their attempt to grow their respective businesses, he
pointed out. He said he does not blame that on state; it is a
consequence of circumstances surrounding growth of any new
industry.
MR. PARKER said the Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development (DCCED) has worked closely with the UAS task force
to identify ways to promote business development in the UAS
sector. One area of potential growth is to acquire grant
funding for UAS research projects through the university system,
something the majority of the UAS commercial industry cannot do.
He opined that Alaska has more (indisc. - coughing) airspace
than the entire rest of the country combined. A great deal of
that airspace is state land, well-suited to be used to assist in
the growth of the UAS industry within the state through research
and development, and testing and training, of both unmanned
aircraft platforms and their corresponding flight crews, he
said.
MR. PARKER recommended that HCR 17 be forwarded through the
legislature to the governor, and that [the legislature] follow-
up with his office to expeditiously designate state lands suited
for safe research and development, flight testing, and flight
crew training for commercial UAS operations. He re-emphasized
that his recommendation applies to commercial operation, not
recreational. He suggested that criteria be established for the
commercial industry to use state lands based upon the conditions
currently required by the FAA Sec. 333 exemption process, plus a
requirement for liability insurance with a minimum of one
million dollars per occurrence.
1:39:37 PM
MR. PARKER said that while he is in complete support of the
FAA's safety mission, opined that the state should open dialogue
with the FAA to streamline the permitting process as it relates
to UAS operations on state lands. He related that the layers of
permits necessary to conduct any flight operation are slowing
commercial operations. Commercial operations with an FAA Sec.
333 exemption have a 200-foot certificate of authority (COA).
He stated that it seems logical and practical for the state to
obtain a blanket COA for state lands used for commercial
operations conducting the aforementioned research, testing, and
flight crew training. He put forth that there are commercial
industries in the State of Oregon, working directly with the
State of Oregon's agencies to obtain contracts to work on state
lands for those agencies. He suggested another way the state
could help both the industry and itself is by supporting
technology incubators to bring more of this technology into
Alaska. He further suggested that this could be accomplished
through favorable leasing of state lands for incubators, tax
incentives, and support of specific vocational programs aimed at
building the UAS industry. Mr. Parker concluded by thanking the
committee for the opportunity to speak and expressed his hope in
moving HCR 17 forward.
[Technical difficulties 1:41:10 through 1:41:23.]
[REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked a question regarding incubators.]
1:41:23 PM
MR. PARKER answered that technology incubators are operations
that support the growth of technology because some emerging
companies do not have the resources to finance their own growth.
He related that this does not necessarily refer to financing a
given company, but rather its resources. For example, a
building could be provided for technology companies to use for
their research and, he added that incubators come in the form of
investors providing administrative support to help the companies
learn how to grow.
1:42:18 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER questioned whether there are any exceptions to
the five-mile exclusionary area. Take for example, Nome and
many other villages wherein the airports are essentially in the
villages, and that most villages do not have roads that go out
five miles. He pointed out that under the current provisions,
if an operator wanted to shoot a tourism video he/she might not
be able to use the drone to get the shot.
MR. PARKER replied that the five-mile exclusion is a safety
exclusion, but does not completely exclude operations. He
offered the example of an AMA sanctioned aerodrome within 1.5
miles of the center of the runway in Kenai. He said to operate
in that location, operators need only notify the tower staff
that they are operating in the area, what type of aircraft they
are operating, how many people are present, and at what
elevation they will operate. Clearly, it would be undesirable
for UAS to enter terminal airspace and, he commented, the
pattern altitude at Kenai Airport is 1000 ft. Most UAS
operators, especially in "the hobby grade," are generally only
flying their aircraft to a maximum of 100 to 150 feet. He
posited that it is a matter of common sense and communication
via NOTAMs informing other airmen of the intended operation in
or near the five-mile exclusionary area.
1:44:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ, noting the relatively nascent nature of
the UAS industry, asked whether there has been an increase
[technical difficulties] in collisions with traditional
commercial aircraft.
MR. COLLIGAN replied there have been plenty of reports of UFO
sightings, and people will call in and report seeing a small
unmanned system, more frequently at the hobbyist level than at
the commercial level. He opined there have been some incidents
during military operations, but not on the commercial side. The
reality is, for the existing millions and millions of small
unmanned aircraft, there has not been one commercial or full-
sized aviation incident or crash, he opined. He stated that the
FAA's sighting database is filled, almost exclusively, with
reports from people who have seen one in the air, whether it is
an approved commercial operator, or a hobbyist acting
inappropriately. As a hobbyist and a commercial operator, there
are boundaries and rules and people need to respect each other's
privacy. He continued that it does not matter if someone is
"taping a phone to a broomstick" and using it inappropriately;
state laws prohibit people from spying and "Peeping Tom"
activities. He clarified that it doesn't matter what the device
is, it's the activity that is inappropriate.
1:46:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ORTIZ asked whether sacrificing privacy is an
inevitable consequence to society with these developing UAS
capabilities.
MR. COLLIGAN replied that usage of cell phones can be traced,
have GPS, and provide a greater opportunity for misuse because
smartphones are more intrusive. People are not aware of the
information they are sharing just by carrying a cell phone
around with them, and he described UAS as useful tools.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER left public testimony open.
1:48:53 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER, on a personal note, said he finds the topic of
UAS interesting, and shared information about a recreational
drone type he found particularly exciting. He expressed his
appreciation to the sponsor for taking the lead on developing
legislation regarding UAS technology, and that it is something
the state can embrace rather than just focusing on concerns.
Although, he said, existing concerns need to be addressed, UAS
opens new opportunities.
1:50:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES emphasized that as [the legislature] works
through the process of allowing opportunities for the UAS
industry, the privacy issues will be granted significant
consideration. She stated that [the task force] interfaces with
the public consistently, and it has had ongoing conversations
with law enforcement surrounding these issues. There are
ongoing areas of concern, and public testimony is open at every
task force meeting, with privacy being one of the main topics of
discussion. The FAA claims jurisdiction "all the way to the
grass blade in your yard" and there is some controversy
regarding jurisdiction, she said. Privacy and jurisdiction
concerns are top priorities for the task force but, she
emphasized that these must be balanced by allowing meaningful
and beneficial use of UAS. The technology can be "a wonderful
tool in good hands," and the task force strives to ensure it
does get into good hands, she said.
[HCR 17 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCR17 Sponsor Statement 2-1-2016.pdf |
HTRA 2/2/2016 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HCR17 ver H State land use for UAS economy 1-29-2016.pdf |
HTRA 2/2/2016 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HCR017A.PDF |
HTRA 2/2/2016 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HCR17-LEG-COU-02-01-16.pdf |
HTRA 2/2/2016 1:00:00 PM |