I have the second interview from my visit this week to DJI headquarters in New York City. I was lucky enough to get some time with Brendan Schulman who's, the vice president of policy and legal affairs for DJI to discuss the upcoming FAA remote ID proposal now Brendan's the perfect person to have this conversation with, because he's been involved in the process. In the very beginning – and you can imagine, DJI is one of the largest manufacturers of drones is really focused on this issue, because the impact of what this proposal could mean for the Hobby could be devastating not only for US fliers but for the manufacturers that have To comply with whatever proposal is turned out, so this was a totally unscripted conversation. I asked them a lot of hard questions that I've had about where the proposal came from how they ended up with the conclusions they did and what it really means for the Hobby. And he was very open and honest about all the answers and, given us really good background and what DJI is do want to try to stay ahead of this and how DJI spent a ton of time and treasure getting involved with the different committees and proposals that Are out there to try to craft something that ends up in a common sense space for us, and I know a lot of people out. There are very upset about this NPRM and by the way I have a copy of it down below at a link.

So if you go below you'll, find a link for the actual NPRM, which is FAA, 2019 11 hundred also down below, is a link where you can go to the FAA website and let them know your opinions, because there's about four days left before that comment period Closes and it's really important that, if you're upset by anything, you heard today in this interview that you go over to that FA website and let them know what you're upset about and believe me there's plenty to worry about in this FAA proposal. So I'll run the interview now, but what I like about this company so much and I've said it before is nobody's ducking me when I contact them to ask them the hard questions they're more than happy to meet with me and have these conversations and there's really. No boundaries. There was no scripting involved with this. It was just me sitting down and firing questions at Brendan, which I think he answered very very well so stay tuned for the interview and if you've got any questions at all drop. Those in the comments below I'll get back to you, but please again remember I had nothing to do with the proposal. Dji had nothing to do with the proposal, so don't the messenger just enjoy the interview. Let'S all get smarter together and please, if you haven't, commented on the FAA website yet go over there now and make your comments known because there's 25000 plus comments up already.

Somebody at the FAA has to look at that and think yeah there's some opposition of what we're putting out there so add your name to that list for sure. So thanks very much for watching today and I hope you enjoyed the interview – hey there, drone fans Rick here again from drone Valley today, I'm at the DJI headquarters in New York City with Brendon Schulman, vice president of policy and legal affairs for DJI we're, going to Talk through some of the questions you guys have asked around the NPRM from the FAA, which is the FAA 2019 1100. So I want to get some of the basic stuff out of the way. First, where did this come from? How did the FAA decide? It was time for remote ID and what's what's really the basis for the legislation. I think you'd have to go back to 2016, there there's federal legislation from Congress directing the FAA to begin exploring consensus standards and to collaborate with industry, stakeholders on what was called remote identification, namely the ability to identify who's flying the drone remotely basically on the ground. When the drone is flying in the air and that really set off the FAA effort to figure out how to do that, which I think came to it to a head in many ways in mid 2017 with the remote ID aviation will Macon committee that I was A member of right that ran for the summer, we produced a report to the FAA detailing how to do remote ID and some of the policy considerations.

It then took over two years the FAA to put out its proposal for how to do it and that's that's. The situation we're in right now is that we're in this comment period on the proposal – okay, good so I'm – completely comfortable with that – and I want to talk a little bit more about the a or C in a little bit. But so the intent of it is really just to identify pilot, and I understand that if a drone is approaching a sensitive military location or a nuclear power plant could be really good for the security people to know who's flying the drone and even where they're standing In case they're kind of a bad actor, so that makes perfect sense. What'S interesting to me about the proposal is that I've read the 318 pages multiple times. Let'S just was not a UCP and and it's so complicated because it refers to other parts of the document. Other documents I've also spent a lot of time with the error, C's recommendations and I think it's important. We talk about that because that was a group of 74 stakeholders from all different situations. One forcement manufacturers, other government agencies – and I can't imagine being in that meeting and trying to get any consensus with all these different interests in that group, but you guys somehow hammered it out as part of smaller groups. I guess to come back with a proposal that I read through and felt was very common sense and made perfect sense to me.

We can talk a little bit about the details of it, but that was a lot of work on your part and you guys must have felt really good that you found some level of consensus that you could put forward to the FAA to say: we've done your Homework we've got all these constituents that have you know built into this project. Why did the FAA? Do you have any insight into why they didn't use that and moved right to the edge of the worst case scenario? Well, I so, first of all, I think the the arc there were 74 members, but as we observed at the time, many of those members most of those members were organizations that were interested in remote ID because it either was a business opportunity for them. They were selling a solution or some part of the solution, or they were law enforcement airports. People who, who are beneficiaries, have remote ID for some other purpose right, and there were very few stakeholders on the ark that were drawn manufacturers or drone operators or service providers or recreational users. Okay, so in the first instance, the ark actually was not well balanced. In terms of recommending a balanced outcome, it was very focused on finding potential solutions and recommending those to the FAA without really considering all of the interests involved, and yet I agree with you. The the outcome was still quite reasonable. There were good thoughtful discussions. It did take most of the summer right, really lengthy meetings multiple times per week, for about three months and a length.

It was like an 80 page report right. So thanks for that, by the way and some other 80 pages, I had a pour over the race group, but you've had some here. It was a very detailed. I appreciate it yeah so, and I think the there many micro mediations in there, but really the fundamental one, is that how do you do remote ID right and the answer was there was no consensus on one way to do it. We looked at, I think, eight different ways, including one I liked the best was used, the LEDs on the drum to blink like sure that Morse code take care, yeah sure and then just use an optical sensor. The the problem with that is, if you wouldn't work at a sufficient distance right. So we look basically at radio type solutions, broadcast radio, as well as the network connected solutions, and there was no consensus on picking one rather, the the arc said, look there's a lot of cost and ease of compliance benefits in a broadcast, but as an alternative, you Could also instead do network so effectively was an eitheror gotcha outcome do one or the other they both work, even though they both can serve the remote ID function. Now your question is: why wasn't that the outcome in that in the proposal I don't know the FAA, says in the NPRM that that doing both requiring you to do both is results in a more complete solution.

Yeah that's about all they say they also point to the sort of future of US operations, and UTM is one reason to do that as well right. But I you know, part of our common is going to be there's, insufficient explanation to urge people with doing something. Two different ways right and when clearly the arcs is something else not in their print in their own solutions, and we know they both work. Okay, so I read through the orc proposal. I probably I'm gon na do a separate clip on it, but it's important. We kind of go through it briefly, so in that proposal, from what I read, if you were flying and there's a bunch of different types of drones out there, so a lot of the drones are basically Wi. Fi then go through 400 feet, they're hobbyist, drones or small toy drones. You have tiered solutions for that category of drone having no remote idea whatsoever because, again I'm flying at 400 feet, you can see where I'm standing right so it's, not a threat. They'Re lightweight they're, not really big. The second was anybody that's operating today within visual line of sight. So basically all the hobbyists today that don't have part 107. So really if they do, if they were flying within visual line of sight, they're not flying a controlled airspace. They'Re not getting special exemptions or waivers, they would do a broadcast of the remote ID, which i think is perfect as it lets people in the ground identify that digital license plate in the air and take action if needed.

But at least that lets me know who they are, and then you recommend it broadcast and transmit for operations that were maybe future operations beyond visual line of sight or if I'm in New York, City, surveying buildings or something around people or I've got a waiver that Makes sense to me because then I can broadcast it and transmit it and it's kept for a while, but I have to review it those those tiered approach just made so much sense. I can't believe the FAA completely discarded them out of hand. It just seems seems like somebody else had their thumb on the scale saying that's not enough. We got to go further. Yes, I think the the discussion there in the NPRM is basically as the fa. We don't want to figure out what those tiers are right approaches. We'Re, just gon na sort of go to the the most complex right form of operations and then require all drones right other than a few exceptions, all drones to do all of you above okay and so to some extent you could say that's just a choice by The fa not to engage in the in the thought, progress and that determinations as to which types of operations or which locations would require one or the other or both friend, rather to say well, because some operations would require both, maybe in the future we're just gon Na require both today focus the board because it's easier for us as an agency, okay.

So the challenge for me with that and again the recommendation I've made in the channel and I don't know if you agree or disagree but get to the FAA site, post or comments. If you haven't done, you have six days, left it's, really important that they hear from you and for those of you out there that say it doesn't matter, they're not going to listen. They read those comments and they're obligated to not respond to them, but at least take them into consideration. So if the large party of comments are this process is overly burdensome they're gon na listen to that, maybe they'll back off the second suggestion, I'd make and now the second clip comment on this is the art presentation. The recommendations you put together in that final report is that tiered system I just talked about, I think – is logical, easy to implement and it's, not overly burdensome for the average flyer that's out there, unless you're doing in very complex missions in big cities, where you've got Waivers then you've got a broadcast and transmitted, but I think in general, 90 of the people that are flying could get by with you know, operations maybe broadcasting in certain circumstances. So those two things are super important going beyond that, though, a lot of the confusion in the marketplace is somehow – and I don't know why this is the case. You'Re getting beat up a lot for the NPRM as if you guys, architected it like there's, some big cabal or you're, working with commercial operators behind the scenes and the hell with the hobbyists and we're.

You know that's not the case I mean I come out in favor of you guys so much because you've taken the extra step to build in no fly zones to protect us from inadvertently flying into areas we shouldn't be you've built in now. This drone phone application to show how easy would be to simply identify a drone operator now it's unfair, that you get that much grief from the public because they're like I'll, never buy this product because of that that you're protecting the public by doing that stuff. So it is ironic that there's that push back for you, but going forward you guys, are obligated as a manufacturer, to follow whatever the eff a comes out with the final proposal, so I've been at each almost five years before that I think it's fairly well known As an advocate for various users, who are having issues with FA and more generally – and I like everything, I've done for five years – has been to advocate for the freedom and from unreasonable regulations right. The people using the technology and that's been a consistent mission of mine. At egi for all these years, and so everything we do from geofencing to remote ID we're doing that because we need to lead, we need to kind of show how to get things done and solve problems. We can't deny that drones at airports are a risk short deny that there are security issues there. Over wildfires in California means a lot of places.

They don't belong. Yes, so you know you can you can debate whether the gatwick incident was a drone or not that's? Just one example, but certainly the the problem of drones at airports is real sure we can't just deny that, and so what we need, weather or industry company or just myself. Personally, as we need to lead with solutions that makes sense so that, ultimately, the regulation that comes out is as reasonable as possible, right and in the case of geofencing. A remote ID like these are ways of trying to mitigate the risk in place of more burdensome regulations. Imagine if we had a Gatwick everyday because there were no geofencing right right. Would you then know I'm grading about DJ's? You know you would probably wouldn't okay, so so that that is a scenario that we think we've avoided yeah, even though it gets in the way of a small number of operations. There are ways around that you can get this burrow through sessions. I mean we've all done that we've all hit the landing system and gotten authorizations when we need it. So it look. It'S it's just it's, not surprising that as the largest manufacturer, we get a lot of attention and complaints just because of who we are right and sort of accept that as part of the price of doing what's right right and that and that and that's what we Come to the whole Tyrande phone demo, like that, that was a demonstration and just like Eris Koch, was a demonstration of how to do remote ID in a way that is the least burdensome at least costly for everyone flying the drone mhm right make it simple make It built in no fees, you turn it on it's there great it works locally, so it's protective of privacy, indifference not transmitting to a database somewhere it's, just like a license plate, it's locally available to us that's the way to get it done, and that was the Point of doing air scope – and that was also the point of showing the journal phone remote ID solution in Montreal – not that we're releasing that app right.

This was a proof of concept demo in the real world. It works showing the broadcast works right and we did it with existing technology. We updated the software on the drones that we used in the demo and then we created a free app on the on a smartphone side right. So there you go there's your native solution. I didn't it didn't cost any money to the drone user right that's. The point no I'm with you on that and I think the funny part about it is – and I know cuz we talk. I know that you spend time your own time and DJI is time and treasure getting out ahead of these issues. The fact that you're on the art committee means you gave up a lot of time over the summer. You know we're all flying drones to be in those committee meets and I'm sure that Kevin pleasant to be there with a bunch of people arguing about stuff either be flying to you, I'm sure yeah. We take it easy and the point I'm trying to make is that I work with all the manufacturers. Everybody else has got their heads down about this they're kind of holding back they're, not saying anything, you guys are out in front of it, but if this proposal goes through the way it's written you can't buy another drone to get away with it like everybody's got Ta adhere to whatever the regulations are so it's, not like.

Oh I'm. Never gon na buy that I'll buy this well. This has to do the same thing. In 2016. You rent, you could see that remote ID was coming. I agree, and you could certainly see it by mid 2010 with you on that and that's right, it's, safe, it's, a license plate that's all it is it's social, but it's, also social acceptance right. We need the population, the public, to know that there's a way to hold your own users accountable when they do do something wrong. You know in the rare instances. Otherwise the fear is what governs everything, and so this also applies to the local concerns like like privacy. We keep saying and I've said this many times that there are existing privacy statutes that govern drones, spying in your backyard; okay, but if the drone comes along, actually spies in the backyard brent flies away mm. Hmm! How is the homeowner supposed to know a person accountable right, so we need remote ID as an accountability mechanism, yep that's undeniable inevitable. The the question is for the entire industry. How are we going to do it and what is the most reasonable way? Yeah and we've tried to lead on that and you're absolutely right. All manufacturers other than a few limited categories, low weight, an amateur built models, and maybe some other things if we argue enough in the end parameters should be expanded, but the exemptions are going to be small yeah because as security folks, that made clear they need to Identify virtually everything, otherwise they can't figure out, which drone is rogue and it's, posing a threat sure and that leads to you know we don't want a world which drones are being shot down.

No, no, no, no, because people can't figure out who's flying great, so it all leads to to, I think, is a very efficient security response, which is what we all need in order for the industry to before. I totally agree and I think the example I look to again and again – there's a bunch of them, but the one is the wildfires in California. I can't imagine being a firefighter around the ground, putting my life at risk, trying to put a fire out and the air tankers coming over and it has to land, because some knuckleheads got a drone up over the fire having Forest Service or first responders. The ability to see the remote ID find out where that pilots standing to go have a conversation about you, shouldn't be flying here, because we got a tanker going up. That'S a home run. So for me to give up a little bit of that. The digital license plates not that big a deal, and I still am shocked by the pushback on the remote idea like I don't want to identify if you're flying right and you're flying saying you got nothing to worry about. I know the community pretty well I've been having flown and recreational for 25 years right, so I'm, not surprised I'm, not either, especially people. Not paying attention forever of years would have an adverse reaction. I think the FAA didn't do itself a favor. The rush coming out. Yeah they didn't rush it well, if anything it's a year I'm thinking they dropped it like a New Year's Day, and you know how 30 day comment period I know are, but it was, and the 60 day comment periods a little shorter, so that's.

What I was thinking too yeah when I was things like that, the the the extreme nature of the proposal right like do it both ways: there's virtually no exception to it right. The only thing that can fly at an AMA field would be like a hammer. You built model that you that you fabricate right most of on your own, like this, is so exceedingly limited. It is that you know the negativities amplified correct, because people who actually do read it are seeing it and think it's like like kind of it's completely up forward. So there was this. You know we knew we're gon na get over and to some extent era, scope and the demos were, I think, it's a wonderful solution. Cuz you protect the socialites and in place. We wanted to also be – and we are a good partner to the government. Many things, including getting out the idea that that drone remedy is important, and so, when you watch the video that we just put out on trying to foam, you explain why this is important and it should be welcomed by the industry. Knowing that we were gon na. Have an acceptance rent challenged by some in the community? I don't think the FAA did itself a favor by making it so extreme that now, like people are dog Angeles b boy, there were like they are they and you guys are getting angry for it. Well, yeah I'm, talking about it I'm getting grief.

Oh I didn't invent that I've been involved in it. I fly as well, but I think if they're to start it with maybe a broadcast ID, let that go for a year see how it goes then moved into. Maybe more deeper involvement with networks, but my big questions here, the next is gon na, be with this kind of burdensome aspects to it. What do you think compliance is gon na be like? I think a lot of people out there are gon na say you know what I'm flying and I don't care come get me right and that's a dangerous place. I'D. Rather have everybody be compliant? Okay, I'm. Seeing that I'm sure you are and then totally on social media and oh that's, bad news, it is now I'm pretty sure we wrote that in the initial blog post that I wrote mm hmm I mean this was clear in the arc report. We need a very high level of compliance right, make it simple, make it transparent, yeah compliance will go through the roof right. Well, if you make it easy and free, which right is what we think broadcast is compliance will be very high because people don't care and that's what's necessary in order to have the security solution right you guys, if you're, if one of the functions Ramona D is To discriminate between friend and foe and let's say: you've got an environment which people are incentivized, so you need to skirt the rule to import non compliant equipment right to build their own, to use older technology longer because sheds how they get around if that's, the environment And let's say: 20 30 40 of drones are not compliant, there is no room on the whole program falls apart.

The whole thing yeah is like all that cost is now useless, because the security agencies can't actually discriminate and they will need to shoot down. A large fraction brings in those critical areas and that's. The concern like if we don't have an easy way to comply and a cheaper or free way to comply. Ramona he doesn't work and that tries mean that's because as a flyer, the bad guys are the ones that are ruining it for everybody, so the knuckleheads flying if they are over Airport through the fire or whatever those guys are getting in the news. Then I'm, getting greed for flying a drone I'm flying legit you're flying legit we're both fliers, I can't imagine the reasonable flyer is not being upset of the guys that aren't registering right, that's, just gon na put us in a bad place. Let me talk briefly about the technology cuz. This is important. A lot of people are commenting. Hey I'm gon na buy a new drone I'm gon na hold off and figure out what's going on you guys, as a manufacturer, must be going nuts trying to figure out what it's gon na look like when it settles, because you have products in the pipeline I'm. Sure that you're developing everything's got to be frozen until we figure out are they're gon na force us to transmit because that's going to be a software upgrade. Can I use Wi Fi? Can I use Wi Fi, so it kind of freezes everything, but if they end up in the broadcasting area that we're talking about using Wi Fi with the drone, the phone or some similar applications, your drawings are ready and actually I've tested them.

Your drones go all the way back to the spark array so with DJI go for. I can go into the application. Now put my FAA that ID number in there. I can put comments in that I'm flying around a house and surveying so you're already broadcasting information. So it's done all the other manufacturers of using Wi Fi should be able to accommodate that technology. So what I'm getting at is, if you're thinking about get help there by the drone and start flying unless they put these draconian measures in place where they've got ta. Do transmit and broadcast on some weird frequency right, then it's brand new drones. I first of I don't think this proposal should have impact purchase decisions yet exactly it's, not final it's winter's out yeah think it's, we're, probably there's, already 25000 comments so like they're gon na need time to process that and finalize the rule, especially if they make changes Mm hmm that's a year year and a half way, probably okay and then there's the implementation period of over three years. Okay by then there are new products and it kind of doesn't matter. So you should just buy what you want today. Don'T worry about this right. Yeah now I I agree with you and really it's been our our goal all along as part of that ease of compliance to have the ability to update the software to make the drones compliant sure when the requirement exists so that people don't have to replace their Device on that ASTM standard, I guess that's out there that's been yeah, okay, so the challenge I mean there so number one that's kind of the vision, and we do believe that as the broadcast solution most of our products, you that or we'll be able to do That, by the time they need to okay, however, the way the FAA is set up, the NPRM is a little bit of a challenge with what we're calling retrofit, because we have to certify by serial number or grant that the drone is compliant but we're no longer.

In control of the product that you've already bought from us correct so I'm, not actually sure that under this NPRM we can retrofit anything right, because how would we certify something that we no longer have that's? What I'm saying it's a nightmare for the manufacturer it's? So I don't know whatever, however, that you figured out I'm sure well. I'M, not I'm, not worried about us right now, I'm worried about the you know, other companies that are part of the drone ecosystem, whereas smaller manufacturers, the people that that I mean our friendly competitors with us like like we welcome innovation for our service and I'm, not Worried about DJ either having costs here or burdens like we're gon na figure it out right once we have to, and hopefully it will involve an update and not replacement of your equipment that's our goal, but I don't know that the legal framework will. Let us do that: let's see how things turn out. Okay, but I I think other companies definitely should be concerned about the certification requirements. The the auditing the site visits the things in there, the shift and responsibilities the need to disable the drone from taking off. If doesn't work like these are draconian yeah approaches to a regulation that we can figure out if we have to, but are bad for innovation crash for the broader they're gon na stifle everything right, yeah and I'm, not thinking of like the small fpv drone companies yeah.

I know that's why some of them were clients of mine when I was a private practice like those are not systems that are set up to be internet, connected right, they're, lightweight, small drones, but they're highly capable sure it's gon na be a problem for them, and I know that as well as the traditional model aircraft, but we have to recognize what is the cause of the concern of problem rent and therefore the solution correct and that is not based on weight. Somebody'S done capability correct, and that means that yes, like people, including us who said look at the capability, are making a distinction in the technology yeah. But that makes sense that does he reasonably and that's I don't know if FAA is gon na revisit that or not reasoning, it's pretty complicated, because, of course, a weight. Cutoff is so simple there who knows, but look we're all he's on the side of what's right in terms of like a reasonable policy and sensible rights, including public. I get it and we've been open about them. You can read all right go back to March 2017. We talked about remote ID with our paper. That said, do this with a local broadcast and that's gon na protect privacy, correct because it's a local solution, not it not at all. No, I completely been saying the same thing for almost three years now yep and I agree with the Aero scope. You can protect a particular facility cuz.

You know where the drones are up to 15 20 miles out. You can ID them and people using the drone. The phone application locally in a forest when there's a fire gives them everything they need to do the one challenge I've gotten. I kind of talked before about this with the drone. The phone application, I'm kind of getting a little long side here is I'm. A little worried that the way the FAA is put it out there already is that the identification will happen for both law enforcement and the public to identify not only the remote idea, which is the license plate, but we're that pilot, saying they're, going to completely understand Law enforcement needing to know where the pilots standing, if he's doing something bad, I would hope that when they modify it, that all I get as a consumer is the so, if they're hovering over my backyard for 25 minutes, I can ID the drone. If I'm, really up so I'll call the police and say here's, the guy's license plate yeah. Please look into this rant, so we'll see where it all ends I'm hoping they went too far. I got ta back off a little bit one other thing. I got to point out, and this is something a lot of people miss. The FAA is in charge of anything that flies from the ground, so that happens. They could tomorrow decide we've had enough of these drones. No more drones flying good it'd be crazy, but it could happen right.

So anything we can do to help them sort of not do that and be sensible about it. I think it's, a good thing. The last thing I want to talk about is sort of the commercial interest, because a lot of the people out there are the misguided impression that this is all about Amazon and the big companies. One of the fly drones all over the place and we're annoying because we're in their airspace I'm sure some of it had to do with that and, as you mentioned before, reading through your auric report and some of your comments on your website, I think seven percent Of the people that were a part of the constituents that were together for the seventy four, the group of 74 were really Flyers, the rest of commercial interests, law enforcement, people that are going to run the system. That would take that reporting data and profit off that. So there's a line of capital involved in their commercial manufacturers and if the CDA was in there, Sammy was in there, so there's there's a lot of commercial interest in that discussion. It strikes me as weird that a tiny percentage of the people that had a voice at that meeting were actually included right, you'd think some other people would be in there to have that conversation on behalf of the fliers. Yes, but the arc was not set up to balance interests and represent them. It was. It was set up to you.

Look at the Charter right even like determine the solutions for remote ID, as well as the needs of law enforcement aviation right at air traffic. You broke into three groups like technology security yeah, like the point of that arc was unlike the prior two arcs, the fight over people arc and the registration arc, which were, I would say, fairly balanced this arc for reasons. I don't know how I didn't wasn't. My choice was really focused on who's, got a solution to this, put everyone in a room also who needs who's there to articulate what they needed from Iran to do, and then who's there with solutions to remote ID right put them all in the room and I'll Put a lot of them in and lock the door for a summer door and see what happens right and and not by the way. What what are the people paying and burdened by romona? Do you think right that's the opportunity right now, and it is next day so say that again we six days left common in the FA. It'S the only way you're gon na, in fact yeah like that – is right now and we've put out a sort of tips on commenting and there are resources. The Alliance for joint innovation as resource I'll, put links down below for all the stuff. So yeah you get it part of the clip, but I'm you don't agree. Actually, actually I got ta say I've it's been great to see engagement across the community really for the first time, maybe because this is so stark right, but this is sort of like the discussion that's been going on for years.

It'S, like you know, we've got people in the room on various committees and things and the people most impacted by the outcomes are not, they are not included and we want. We need them to be out there have that voice, yeah and that, and now is the like, the last few days of being able to do that correct and I'm, hoping that it continues beyond that now, I've got I've got other clips. Come in to talk about the people in charge of these committees nationally, so I've got names and numbers and I'll put a clip up about that, but the people in your state that are on the committee's that have an influence over the FAA. So, even after the comment period, there's still a lot of discussion behind the scenes where you can get a hold of a senator or congressman and impress upon them. How important this is to you as a constituent that votes for them and they can have an influence on the FAA as well. The last thing I want to say – and this is a it sounds like I'm I'm sort of a DJI phantom – and I say this kind of stuff, but I love your tech. What I love more about the company beyond the tech, because people gold, coal tech, is that you guys are taking this on as a company you're out there in front of it. You'Re spending your summers in a locker room with a bunch of people arguing about what this thing should look like my job and the company spending money and time and treasure building this there's.

No commercial benefit in this, for you it's not like you're, going to get more money because you're building some cool system to protect it, you're doing it, cuz, it's, the right thing, and even today the fact that you're sitting down with me, it says a lot about The company, because you could have very well said we're, not commenting on any of that you've – seen our proposals online but you're willing to talk about it because you're involved in it you're invested in it and – and I think, that's a great thing for hobbyists. So if anything, they should be applauding you, because I, with all the manufacturers, all the other guys, are keeping their head down like I can't get him to comment. I can't get meetings with them and yeah good on you guys for taking that step. That'S a big deal we've been like that forever I mean I, you know I long as I've been in the job. I'Ve been I'm on Twitter. I tweet a lot. I was respond to respond. Replies I get on Twitter. You know it's it's. I think it's important, like we're, we have a community of users and I don't care about what they think and they're passionate. They love the hobby, they love it and most of the policy outcomes impact them right like there does some extent. This is about standards and technology, finally, and it's, not just operational rules and requirements, but ultimately it is going to be about what the users have to do great, and so how could we not? Why would we not engage and and hear from the community? In fact, I got ta say even though we're getting a lot of heat for the remote.

I need join a phone demo. It'S been terrific in that we have heard from people about the concerns on pilot location yep in a way that I don't think we or anyone would have heard or been aware of. Had we not done the vision, I great the demo, I agree or the press release in November. That said, the same thing yeah. So in some ways the demo as anxiety provoking as it was, I didn't make. I didn't bring it up. Fine, no! I know you're taking accounting there but it's fine, because I think it's actually think it's good television yeah. That was a demo of what we understand the FAA requirement to be yeah, and so, if there's, a problem with it, it's the FAA. That needs to hear from you and we have facilitated and encouraged people or inspired people to comment, because we've shown what it will be like yeah, in a way that 300 pages pages of paper would not write, and so yeah we've got some heat for that, and People hate us it's, very fast, okay, you got it yeah, but actually, from my perspective, that's good, because now people have seen it in video form, which is medium of our of our era. What drone remote ID will be like and yes, it's, anticipated that the pile location is a feature, because that enables a Security Response. It also enables from the conversation hey. What are you doing? Flung a drone here? Yeah that's not a bad thing, but I absolutely agree and we've heard a loud and clear safety risk to the pilots right and we are very sensitive to that right and you're going to adhere to whatever the FAA decide.

That'S not like you're gon na put an advanced feature in that isn't there. So if the FAA says you have to identify that pilot location, it's got to be in the app it's gon na work right. If that's the final proposal, we will strive to comply with with the legal requirements right, but I know you're so they're commenting as well to try and get it sorted out. Yes and I'm, one of those old school guys. That think you know, any problem can be solved over a cup of coffee and a rational conversation. So the fact that you put it out there and spoiling those conversations, maybe I'm naive, but it started those conversations now. People are keenly aware of what it means and I'm hoping that drove them to the FAA site. To get the comments out there good all right. Well, listen! Thank you! So much you've been really gracious with your time today, of course, very brave for you to sit down and have this conversation hope you guys are appreciating how much these guys are putting themselves out there to support this community, so stay tuned we'll have more clips soon.