 This panel is going to talk about the regulation of UAVs, which I'm sure is going to be everybody in this room's favorite topic, because who doesn't love the regulators and the regulations? The title is Air Safety, Privacy, and New Technologies. But I want to flag for you that we're actually minimally talking about privacy and mainly talking about safety, property, and technologies. This is going to be a conversation framed as who regulates what, where, how, and how harmonized should regulations be both within a country and across countries. Constantine brought up the idea that some things, some subject matter areas, might be less susceptible to harmonization than other things, such as privacy values, speech values, versus, say, safety, which you might want to have regulated and harmonized on a pretty global level. So I'm just going to briefly introduce our speakers in the order in which they'll be speaking. We have Ella Atkins, who is a professor of aerospace engineering at University of Michigan. Her research aims to enable autonomous aircraft flight in the presence of system failures and environmental uncertainties. Ella will be speaking on the safety risks that UAV flights pose, along with research needs and technology solutions. Her focus is going to be on risks associated with flying UAVs over people and over property. Troy Rule is a law professor at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. His research focuses on the legal side of these issues, on emerging property law issues involving domestic drones. He will be speaking on the need for harmonization for a more coordinated federal, state, and municipal regulatory regime for small UAS. And finally, Leslie Kerry offers our international perspective. She is the program manager for remotely piloted aircraft systems at the International Civilian Aviation Organization, otherwise known as ICAO, so one of the acronyms you'll learn today along with me. She will speak on the need for global harmonization to address safety for manned flights and minimize hazards for people and property on the ground. So without further ado, Ella. Hi, so I said a little bit last night, and I want to follow up on that. One of the things as an academic that you really try to do is follow something related to the scientific method. You want to think critically, question everything, and use a process of collecting and analyzing data and making decisions based on that. Whether it's for safety or other aspects of policy that we've been discussing, including property rights, where property rights, at least in the US, where we have a lot of privately held property, have been discussed as even who has the right to own and control immediate reaches airspace. 20 years ago, I would have never thought that the most hotly contested airspace would be the lower 500 feet. As a private pilot myself, that is the scariest place to be. Even if you're near an airport, seeing the numbers coming in, there's still the very real possibility that something will happen. You'll have very little time to react. So that links to safety. That's an open question. This is more about safety than it is about that. So let me just end by saying, on that topic, that there are two kind of scientifically motivated questions here. Some of them deal with ontology and terminology. What is the difference between the sovereign national airspace and most of my expertise is in US? So I apologize if I don't get all the terminology right for international versus navigable airspace. When several generations ago, the notion of sovereign airspace was developed, people were thinking of people and large quantities of goods transiting from one place to another. That was what the vision of navigable, which aligned with national airspace was. And now we're getting well past that. Moving on to safety, though, one of my main areas of research over the years, as was mentioned, has been an aviation safety. I've watched from two perspectives. One is a pilot in general aviation, and one as a modeler and researcher, where the planes tend to be handheld and flown, hopefully not over people's heads. It's something that AMA, the Academy of Model Aeronautics, has long since told people, don't fly over your heads, don't fly toward other people. These are just basic rules of safety. Sometimes we've forgotten this because we are in a bit of a chaotic time. So what is safety, I think, as was alluded to? If you have an unmanned aircraft, you're no longer protecting the people on board because no one is on board. Instead, you're trying to minimize risk or maintain acceptable risk to people in property where the people are either in other aircraft or on the ground. One of the things that I think is the easier problem is to fly over unpopulated areas. I think most of what we've heard today has been unpopulated areas, or at least very sparsely populated areas. And so if you do that at low altitude, then you have to say, well, what is the risk of a crash? Well, I suppose it could start a forest fire or do some other bad thing to the property. But it also could hit another aircraft. So there's been a lot of attention paid to that. So what are the real challenges then in making sure unmanned aircraft are safe? Well, I've long since followed the Federal Aviation Regulations in the US as a pilot and so forth. And what it really comes down to is most of them look at protecting the onboard occupant. There are some that talk about sea and avoid, which we have been struggling to migrate to detect and avoid, or sense and avoid. And because it's a hard problem to equip every aircraft up there with sensors, particularly when some people flying, especially general aviation, long-time pilots that don't have a lot of disposable income, there's been a lot of pushback. We don't want to buy expensive certified equipment to put on airplanes, so keep the drones out. Well, how do you keep them out when it's entirely possible that over the next decade or two, we'll have as many drones as we have cars? Well, what that means then is that we need to have new ways of thinking about it, not just trying to extend the regulations. So if you think about this from basic principles and you start to say, well, a drone can crash and be safe, then you stop thinking about triple redundancy. You stop thinking about having basically a sense and avoid system that works all the time, and you ask other questions. How do you make sure the operation is low enough that the probability of coming close to a manned aircraft is almost zero? Well, an obvious choice would be to say, well, fixed wing aircraft are right now supposed to fly above 500 feet unless they're on approach or departure to an airport. So what if you just let everything fly below 500 feet? Well, then the next thing is helicopters. Well, I'll tell you, if you don't live near where a helicopter operates, you don't see them flying below the trees in your backyard or low over the cornfield. They just don't do that. There might be an exceptional circumstance for search and rescue or Medevac where they do. But if you actually do a scientific analysis or risk analysis of looking at how dangerous it would be to have a drone flying under 500 feet away from airports, away from heliports, you're going to find that it's safe. So then you ask the question, well, why so much regulation flying below 500 feet? Well, from a safety perspective, sense and avoid becomes a non-issue away from airports under 500 feet. So then the next question is damage to people and property on the ground. Well, if you fly over rural area and you're not going to start fires or contaminate water supplies, which are very real issues, one of the challenges with lipo batteries or other fuel sources is if you crash and you choose not to retrieve your vehicle, then you can contaminate the environment. So that's something to think about. Maybe it's not directly safety related as we think about people and property, but it's still an issue. So in all of these areas in South America, what if you lose a drone? What do you do about it? It's one of the questions I haven't asked yet, but maybe I'll get a chance during a break to ask because there are some hazardous materials that you could end up exposing a sensitive environment to. But then the next question is, how do you fly not just over large fields, but also overpopulated areas? Well, I think we have kind of a push and pull between the notion of remotely piloted aircraft and autonomous aircraft that is fascinating to watch and as a researcher in autonomy. I think I come down more on the autonomy side in that lost link, as most of you in the room know, is the most common failure mode for one of these vehicles. So if you insist on having a remotely piloted aircraft have the intelligence be through the operator on the ground, you actually are very likely to have a less safe aircraft in terms of making decisions that are safe than if you actually acknowledge that there are emerging and existing capabilities that use sensors, pre-stored databases of maps, population densities and so forth that are capable of making emergency landings, capable of changing the flight to fly over an unpopulated area when previously it wouldn't have done so. So that you can actually have a safer system by not fearing the autonomy, but instead embracing it and welcoming it, not because we love autonomy, but because the system will be safer. I think I've used my five minutes so far. Troy. I just want to thank Margo and also Constantinor. This has been really interesting for me to be here and part of this. I want to focus my remarks on really a single question, which is to what extent should sub-national governments being state or provincial or local governments be involved in the regulation of small drones? That's going to be my focus. Now we all know that about 100 years ago, the FAA was formed not quite 80 or so years ago. And that was for good reason. We have this federal agency because large aircraft are they're inherently interstate. They travel great distances and it makes great sense to have a federal, we have a public highway above 500 feet generally speaking that is available for flight. It makes sense to have federal regulation in that space. So it was natural when UAS became much more common as they're growing more common that we would have Congress look to the FAA who has historically regulated things in airspace to be the regulator, the chief regulator of drones. And I think that for large drones, it's still going to be true. Any drone that flies high, that certainly makes a lot of sense because FAA does have a charge from Congress to protect manned flight and so it makes a lot of sense to have them doing that. But below the navigable airspace line she was talking about, which in most places still, although the FAA loves to try to assert that that navigable airspace is now all the way down to the ground. If you look at the term navigable, that term really probably began from the term navigable waterways. That's another term. So if you look at the navigable waterway definition, which is using the Clean Air Act and Water Act in lots of other places in the law, if you fly, if you're able to take a little small boat and a remote control boat and put it down through a waterway that does not make the waterway navigable. So the notion that that airspace is somehow navigable because we can throw a paper airplane through it is sort of a little silly. But regardless, so this idea, should we have the federal government that regulate this space? Well, I think there are definitely things the federal government should do with their most of the conflicts associated with small UAS are actually conflicts between the UAS and landowners. They're really land use conflicts. And going into the ad-chelum rule, this doctor, the surface owns up to the sky. Although that's been limited, as was mentioned earlier in the Cosby case in 1946, it was made clear that the immediate research of airspace are owned by the landowner below. Hence we have condominium law where cubes of airspace are bought and sold and they're recorded in the real property records every day. Hence we have the condemnation of navigation easements near airports. If an airport extends their runway, the airport is required to pay just compensation to the landowner for the use of that space. So we have a long history in this country of very clear rights of landowners in airspace. And now because of the creation of a new technology that does not justify, simply because the FAA would find it convenient and perhaps Google and some of these other groups would find it convenient to say, well, suddenly this space that has long been held by landowners, we can't know all of a sudden just give it to the FAA or say that it's a commons. That's just not how it works. That creates an uncertainty in the law. It does not, it violates investment back to expectations associated with where you place things on your property and it simply doesn't work. So who should govern this? Well, if you think about Amazon, a question of just as a policy matter, should Amazon be able to fly drones over a particular city neighborhood to deliver things or should a real estate agent be able to take photographs using an aerial, using a UAS over a particular area? The question is it depends. It depends on where it's flying. Because if it's flying in my neighborhood in Mesa, Arizona where most of the landowners have swimming pools in their backyards or Paradise Valley who's currently trying to stop UAS altogether in that jurisdiction, they would be fiercely opposed to it because of the significant impacts it could have on landowners in that area. Whereas if the exact same flight was being done over a very industrial area over some warehouse and somewhere else in the Phoenix area, it would have almost no impact. So this is an inherently small scale local question. And we don't have a federal zoning administration that decides every single zoning issue throughout the whole country. What we have is we have local governments who are equipped with good information and are on the ground. And those are the parties who are best suited to determine what the decisions should be made in particular cases, case by case. So what we really need is a few things. We need federal governments, I'll spell it all out. Someone asked earlier, what should we have in 20 years? Well, the thing that's great right now is that the train has not fully left the station although there's be some interest groups, stakeholders in this group who would love to say the trains left the station, the FAA is gonna regulate all of this. I would suggest that it has not. What would be a better system is if in 20 years what we had was federal regulation where it was appropriate, which means to protect manned flight, keeping regulation that would ensure that drones had manufacturing standards much like the traffic and safety standards that apply to automobiles that require them to have airbags and seat belts. Those sorts of regulations, those make sense at the state level, or excuse me, at the federal level because manufacturers can then follow them rather than having to worry about a patchwork of laws. And those could require things like compatibility with geo-fencing, with the universal geo-fencing system, or sense and avoid technologies, loss link technologies, anti-hacking technologies. Those could all be integrated into a federal set of standards and they could be federally instituted and enforced. That makes a ton of sense. And at the federal level there should also be regulated, they have control over this airspace near the White House. That makes a lot of sense to have national security sort of protections at the federal level. Protection in regulation of national parks, that makes sense at the federal level. But then at the state level, what we really need is first of all, property rights, clarification of property interests. We need clear rights to exclude in a certain amount of airspace above our land. The reason why we need that is because property is so powerful, I'm a property professor and property theory strongly suggests that when a particular resource becomes, there's greater and greater competition for it, the most simple and best way to address a wide range of issues that are rising associated with it are to give clear property rights. If a city is trying to decide where to allow drones to fly over the city, if they can just decide wherever they, just put it wherever they want, then they're not gonna consider the costs and benefits associated with doing it. Whereas if landowners, they're gonna have to pay just compensation to landowners to be able to fly 100 feet to create a drone corridor over the top of a city, then they're gonna say, well, where's gonna be the cheapest place to take those easements? And they're gonna think about where the lowest impacts are gonna be on people in that city because they have an economic incentive to do that. And they'll choose places that are far away from the suburban backyards and they'll choose the places over warehouses and industrial areas. And just the very creation of property rights does so very much as this powerful tool that can do so much to create efficiency in this area. And then finally, we need local government involvement as well. We need, I think, eventually 30 or 40 years from now in larger cities, we could have drone zoning. We could have local government officials who are equipped with information and resources and already have existing land use maps to think about what should be the rules governing drone flying in this part of town versus that part of town. And through the use of geofence technologies and other things, I believe that actually enforcement could be relatively low cost, eventually, in these areas. So I'll stop there. Thank you. And then Leslie, can you give us a window into what's actually happening? Well, I'll do a little, but I'll start back with history. How's that? What's happening? Just to give a little quick background on the International Civil Aviation Organization, where I work. It is an agency of the United Nations. It was founded during World War II in 1944 with a specific goal of being able to ensure that there would be a method to rebuild the world following the war. The socioeconomic benefits from aviation would be brought to the world as a whole. It would be done safely, orderly, equitably. And since then, things like the environmental impact have been brought into it. But these are all the issues. It's how does aviation bring benefits to the world, but doing so in a very safe and orderly, predictable, equitable way. That's still the goal. It's the goal for manned aviation as a whole. Now we're bringing unmanned aviation much more into that same picture. Unmanned aviation has been recognized by IKO and before it by its predecessor since 1929. And it's been there always as this is something more dangerous. Whether it's military or civil, it is more dangerous. And from a political standpoint, states, so this is states as in countries, not US individual states, have always demanded that they be, that unmanned aircraft be handled differently. With today's technology, some of the differences between unmanned aircraft and manned aircraft are being minimized. But they have not gone away, and who knows how long it'll be before technology is at the point where those differences really have fully gone away. They're much more similar at the very high end of unmanned aircraft. If you look at a global hawk of predators, they have tremendous capabilities. They're still not the same as a manned aircraft. When you're looking at a DJI Phantom, it has nothing in common with basic civil aviation and the traditional manned interpretation. So what we are trying to do on the international level is first and foremost, get everybody educated. We need to get the regulators educated by the unmanned aircraft industry. We need to get the unmanned aircraft industry educated by the regulators as well as by the manned aviation industry. We need to get the general public all the way from politicians, legislatures, down to anybody who's buying one of these things in a box off the internet. We need to get them educated. What people in many cases don't understand is that this thing you buy on the internet, you take it home, you charge the battery, you go out in your backyard, you start playing with it, launch it. It has capabilities that are so different from traditional model aircraft. They can fly up to several thousand feet. They can fly not just within line of sight but they can sometimes keep going. They're great fun to operate. You put a camera on, you could take all sorts of fantastic videos. The problem is when those videos are being taken up close of manned aircraft or last week in California, there was the case out in LA along the freeway where there were five drones overflying the fire on the freeway. So the fire department aircraft could not get in to help put out the fire. It was too dangerous for them to go in because of the drones. On Monday this week, there was a lift-ons of flight over in Warsaw, Poland that was taking evasive maneuvers around a drone being operated too close to the airport. We get incidents like this happening around the world at this point and it's really, it comes down to needing to educate people. So the education in terms of the regulators, as regulators, we need to know what to regulate and how to do so smartly. Part of that education entails understanding how and why the existing manned aviation framework was developed, not just taking the end product of saying the regulation currently says this and impose it on the new unmanned participants. It's why does it say that? Look back to how and why it was developed. Decide whether or not that issue is relevant and if that issue is relevant, how are you going to solve it in this new arena? Because the same solutions do not necessarily apply. You cannot put unmanned aviation in the same box as traditional manned aviation and have any kind of regulations that come out logically. So we have to get creative and all of that comes through the education process. So we've got circles going in all directions, trying to share information, get people smarter on all of the topics so that together we can come up with international regulations that will make sense, that do not stifle industry but rather that will facilitate it but in still a safe and orderly way. Thank you. Just ask a quick follow-up before I ask additional questions to the panelists. Are those proposed regulations only geared toward a particular mandate like safety or are those proposed regulations supposed to cover all issues raised by unmanned aerial vehicles? They will eventually cover every aspect of civil aviation. So that leads me to my first question that I asked you guys to think about which is what issues might be, in each of your views, more susceptible to global efforts versus what issues really should be left in the hands of local regulators? And I think Troy has a pretty clear answer on this one. Well, I think that at the global and federal level, the manufacturing standards for drones, it would be great to have a uniformed system for geofences as basic protection. Some people are anti-geofences but really keeping these things out of airports. If we someday could get to 20 years from now where every drone sold, there was registrable, every registrable drone was geofence compatible and also had a lot of these, some of these basic things that are still under development, things like anti-hacking and sense and avoid which is tough to do, but this is the wish list, lost link stuff. That would be great for a few reasons. One is, we have that for automobiles and it works really well because it gives manufacturers very clear signals as to what they need to do to be able to comply and so many wide range of markets that helps with economies of scale, it helps reduce the cost of UAS and has benefits related to that. And it's also just better, you could have state level registration of your drone, you could actually go to the, you could imagine going to the DMV and having a separate place where drones are inspected and going through that same process just like you do with your car. Because your car, they know that there's federal regulation, there's already federal system that requires that cars have certain things. So they just need to do some quick checking to make sure these things are in place. And then every couple of years rather than having to send your drone to Washington DC to have the FAA look at it, you could handle that actually more at a more local level, it makes a lot more sense to do it that way eventually. So I think those are the sorts of things that would be great to have standardization universality at the federal and global level. So I want to follow up on your manufacturing standards and put on my education and research hat. One of the things that we have had a lot of trouble with is that most of the processes, the COA, the section 333, are geared towards using existing airframe designs and existing avionics. So what happens if we in aerospace come up with a very, very unique design? How do we show that our pilot is qualified to operate that vehicle? It's not gonna be standardized. It's not like the local FISDO is gonna say, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's a DJI Phantom. We've seen it before, we're gonna use it. So the process is very extended. Last night I mentioned the Wright brothers and certainly there would be problems with their design. If it were to fly today at one of the most powerful ways for people to achieve hands-on education in aerospace is to let people make mistakes, right? Let the undergrads design, build and test something over an unpopulated area that the professors look at and they say, well, this probably is not gonna work. But there's a huge educational value in letting them go out and see what happens. So we need to make sure we don't prohibit that to the extent that we standardize everything and make sure that it's geofenced and safe. I assure you that design, build, test aircraft are not geofenced and they're not standardized. The other thing that this leads to is a discussion of education. While property rights and things may be very local, I think there's a lot of commonality in what we need to do to educate people who are gonna be operating these unmanned aircraft worldwide. And I think there's been a big question over the years. Do you have the traditional private pilot, commercial pilot type of education sequence? Or do you do something different? Right now, let me say something a little facetious here not that I've done that already. But I've watched students fly model aircraft for a long time. And especially the ones with large egos are very difficult to work with because they don't necessarily have that much regard for safety. So I think there are two things that I wanna see every student who goes out to fly do. The first thing, I wanna take them up in a Cessna. Not to teach them how to move the control column and push the rudder pedals because that would take a long time and that's not really what we're doing with multi copters right now anyway. But to let them appreciate the fact that when you fly at low altitude and some yahoo drone operator is there that you could die because I don't think they get that right now. The second thing is I want them to be present when a drone crashes. I wanna take them out to an empty field, have somebody fly along, not intentionally, but if you're out at a model aircraft field for a long day and there's a lot of people flying, you're gonna see somebody crash. We have a false sense of security. People get these boxes as toys or whatever, the so-called hobbyists and they feel invincible. Software will protect me, everything will be fine. Well, they need to appreciate that that's not the case that these things really can crash. So that's part of the education and then to understand more about the aircraft. When do you need ducts versus not? Anybody see that video of Enrique Glacius reaching up for his quadcopter or hexacopter or whatever it was? I like the guy better now because he kept singing with blood all over his shirt when he needed stitches and major surgery on his finger. Well, what if that had had ducts? He even made a different story. So there are a lot of kind of fundamental questions as we begin to think about how to migrate the drones into a more safety oriented environment but still allow education and research to happen that really are important to address. Although it's lagging that the drone with a gun on it that I released online evidently was a university student's experimental project. So even within the idea of experimental university exceptions there might still be some limitations. So I want to say I have been in a tremendous set of discussions. I hesitate to call it fight with my own university. The number of people that are picking up these drones and doing stupid stuff is just amazing. Now the problem is that how do you get together in the same room with the biologists, the media person, the architecture person, the aerospace, the computer science and make sense of it? Well, obviously if we'd solved all the regulatory problems we could just give them a document and say follow this but that's not quite the case yet. So I agree that it's challenging and I think the best we can do as educators and researchers is try to teach people to be safe based on what we know. Yeah, so before I let Leslie answer and then go on to audience questions I want to kind of spin the question a little bit hearing your responses. So it's not just an issue of figuring out should we have experimentation or policy variation on local levels versus harmonization and what are the pros and cons of each? It's also an issue of do you set a hard rule in advance of things going wrong or do you try to put in place best practices so that in response to individual events you can tailor the best practices and be more reactive? So I want to ask you and sorry, an example of that is the LA firefighting crash that you are not crash but firefighting failure that you brought up. In response, California regulators have actually already proposed legislation governing UAS use that creates what they're trying to call like a fire hydrant no parking at the fire hydrant ban on drone use in California. But I think one of the techniques that they propose using is drone jamming. So this is an example of like you don't have any rules in place, something bad happens, regulators react and put in place a very hard, possibly not the most intelligent rule. So Leslie, I wanted you to speak not just to the should there be variation or harmonization because I think I know where your biases lie but should, to the extent there's harmonization should it be harder or softer and what are the pros and cons of each? Well actually I've spent the last seven years trying to make sure that IKO does not get involved in trying to regulate or developing standards that states implement as regulations for the small drones. I think that's totally absurd that that be done on a global basis. We need to focus elsewhere in terms of global harmonization. That said, we've had a huge number of states come to IKO and say very specifically we need you to provide guidance to us on what to do with the smalls. We're not sure how to go about that yet other than by looking out to the states or the industry associations that have been developing the best practices and say okay bring that to us here at IKO. We'll go through myself and my one staff member. What you are providing us, take a look, see if it makes sense, see if this is something that we can put together into a single document, put the IKO logo on it and get it published. So it is without question that states are looking for help. Help in terms of regulations from IKO would be the wrong thing. Help in terms of sharing their own best practices with each other and putting that into the context of this is still part of civil aviation, therefore there are considerations that have to be taken and put that out as guidance material. That's something that we can do. We'll have a few more resources than two people. So we need more resources. Okay, I want to open up to questions. You have approximately seven minutes and be aware that you stand between this room and lunch. Yes. Not seven minutes each, I should clarify. Seven minutes total. Certainly Esther Brimmer on now at George Washington University and McLarty Associates, formerly at the U.S. State Department and many, many, many years ago I used to be a pilot but no longer current. But remember what were the points of going about airspace. Three quick questions and thanks to the panel. To Leslie Kerry, good to see you again. I was actually up in Montreal earlier. A question about best practices. One issue that's not coming up yet is insurance. Many countries actually do require different types of insurance for operators. What would you expect to be happening in different countries? The United States is actually not one of them. And what do we see happening internationally? Secondly, how do you see IKO approaching common areas? The high seas, Arctic and other areas. So what will be likely to happen in those areas? And finally for Professor Roll, a question about your comment on local areas. You talked about perhaps having local regulation that allows cities I'd say for those who are wealthy enough to make sure that it's not flown over their areas that they're able to exercise their property rights. How would you, what would you say to the lady in the first or second panel who was talking about the role of fence line communities who may be next to those who are exercising their property rights but do not have the political clout to deal with that? How do you address those communities? Leslie, do you want to take a stab at first and then we'll go to the chair. All right, well I'll deal with the issue about the international airspace high seas in particular. We already adopted standards by the Council of IKO in 2012 that mandates any remotely piloted aircraft which is a subset of unmanned aircraft. There are many different types of unmanned aircraft. Those that are remotely piloted are the ones that we are most focused on. And for those, the operator has to be certified. The remote pilot as a licensed individual, not a private pilot, commercial pilot, this is a different category of pilot license. They have to be licensed. The aircraft itself has to have a certificate of airworthiness. There has to be approval from the state of registry and the state of the operator. There has to have been coordination with the air navigation services provider if there is one. Not approval, just coordination. So all of those things have to be in place and what's important to note is that high seas airspace starts 12 nautical miles from the shoreline if you're talking continental. If it's an archipelago it's quite different but 12 nautical miles offshore of the US you're in high seas airspace. Now the legal liability issues, those are being looked into by the legal committee under the assembly, the IKO assembly. The initial thinking is that we already have conventions in place on liability. However, the states have not signed up to those conventions. They drafted them, they said these are all good. That's as far as it's gone. So there's absolutely no reason to think that anything different would be done for unmanned aircraft. Yes, there will be insurance requirements done on a national basis but trying to do that on a global basis through IKO won't get any further than it has for manned aviation, I expect. Thank you very much for your question. I think it raises an important issue this environmental justice issue that exists on the land as well. So property rights in themselves are really great because they can do a lot to actually for further environmental justice concerns. If landowners actually have rights that empowers them, that gives them rights if you have rights to exclude in the airspace above your land, just that in itself is hugely empowering and helps to address the environmental justice concern that you have to a large extent. Second of all, the other piece that I mentioned at the local level, which is drone zoning, that's because of the reality that some landowner interferences associated with drones are non-trust pass or meaning non-intrusive. So if you are one of those fence line communities, the drone may not be flying literally above your own surface area but it could nonetheless affect your property values or interfere with your reasonable use of your land. So having drone zoning gives, just like zoning on the land does, it gives local governments the ability to basically buffer certain areas from impacts that would be bad for them. So the idea of zoning is to put synergistic land uses together and put conflicting land uses far apart and those same sorts of principles could apply if we had drone zoning. In other words, you could imagine drone zoning that limited drone flying above fence line communities or restricted in such ways, created setbacks in ways that protected residential areas because residential areas would be the areas just like in traditional zoning that are gonna receive the most protection in a drone zoning scheme. Okay, so I'm gonna do a rapid fire set of questions in the last two minutes. I think if each person who has, how many, put your hands up if you wanted to ask questions. So one, two, three. You each have 30 seconds in which to answer your question and then I'll ask the panelists to choose which one you wanna respond to. Sure, Peter Sunder, I just wanna know how do you, particularly for small UAS, how do you add moral hazard to their operations? And I know I'll kind of touch on it briefly, but how do we imbue operators with moral hazard? Okay, so we have a moral hazard question. Alan McQuinn with ITIF. Can you talk about drones and spectrum? In building codes regulation, there's a thing called the toolshed problem. No one wants to get a permit for their toolshed and everyone hates you if you try to enforce those permits. Is there any discussion in the aviation regulatory space about just setting size limits or the space you can't actually regulate? Great. Anybody wanna take a stab at any of those three? Please. I'm sorry, I have to go with the toolshed one because I think that's a huge deal. Right now in the U.S., at least, we have a hobby versus non-hobby arbitrary distinction where they can build as many toolsheds and fly them as they want, but if you're a commercial or research university and so forth, you can't. So that is a very strange division which has caused all kinds of problems. So ultimately, if we get past this property rights issue and just for the record, I completely agree with most everything that he's been saying. We can actually begin to ask the question if you are an owner and controller of your property and there's no hazard being introduced to streams, forests, and other shared resources, maybe you don't need to ask about that toolshed just like you don't need to register a tractor right now on a farm. So I think there are a lot of questions to ask but it deals more with, again, interacting on a more than property owner, individual basis. I'll respond to the moral hazard questions. I think what you're trying to say is how do you avoid the moral hazard problem associated with UAVs? And I think insurance is a big part of our bonding requirements. Again, sort of going off what she said, I think ultimately if you did have standards where you have registration requirements either at the stator and then maybe tracking requirements had ability like a license plate on a drone that's basically GPS. If you had all those things, you'd have two classes of drones or be registered drones or compliant drones and there'll be what I would call rogue drones. It's like we have funny cars and things like that where you go to the fair and there's the funny cars going around and maybe there's certain days of the week or you can go to the park and you can fly basically any drone you want at a certain time. I think that's what we really need. I think we need to allow recreational flyers to have opportunities to express themselves and to use what they have but I think having two classes of drones, one that would be used by Amazon and Google and the real estate agent and all the wedding photographer, all these people, the mapping I think will be above 500 feet most of the time. It should be FAA regulated primarily. But then you'd have also rogue, basically I would call them rogue drones but non-compliant drones and there would have to be certain periods in place at certain settings where they're safe to be flown for those recreational purposes. Hey, maybe I don't agree with them that much. That's a lot on spectrum or moral hazards or the tool shed problem. By default I'll go with the spectrum one and just say very quickly, spectrum itself gets assigned by the International Telecommunications Union which is our sister agency within the UN system. IKO is responsible for deciding how any spectrum that is assigned for aviation purposes gets divvied up. So what function it'll get, whether it can be used for command and control or anything else. So those issues are being worked jointly by IKO and the ITU but it's the member states of the two organizations that have to agree on getting the spectrum from ITU assigned to aviation. So please join me in thanking our panelists.