August 31, 2015

Via Electronic Filing

Attn: Docket Operations

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140

West Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590-0001

Re: Eligibility for “Summary Grant” Process

Exemption Petition of Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.

pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

To the Flight Standards Service:

This letter shall serve as a petition for a Section 333 Exemption for my client Capitol

Broadcasting Company, Inc. (“CBC”) pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and

Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-95, 126 Stat. 11 (2012) (“Section 333”), and certain sections

of Part 11 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As discussed below, this Petition

qualifies for the FAA’s “summary grant” procedures, and to the extent necessary, Petitioner

respectfully requests that the FAA process the instant Petition using the summary grant

procedures.

1

Introduction

CBC owns and operates multiple news and information services in the television and radio

broadcast industry and digital platforms including the Internet and various wireless apps, and CBC

shares and/or sells news and information content to various other media outlets and platforms for

certain nonexclusive uses. CBC currently uses a news helicopter as one of its newsgathering tools

in furtherance of the public interest. While CBC’s services are concentrated in and focused on

North Carolina, viewers, listeners, and users are located in various other states and countries.

CBC’s properties have been awarded recognition by numerous organizations, including, just in the

past year, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, Nashville/Midsouth Chapter

(regional Emmy Awards), Catholic Academy of Communication Professionals (national Gabriel

Award for Secular Television Station of the Year), Radio Television Digital News Association

(regional Edward R. Murrow Awards), Radio Television Digital News Association of the

Carolinas, N.C. Association of Broadcasters, and N.C. Associated Press. CBC has also been

recognized as an innovator in the broadcast and digital news and information industries, and was

the first television station licensee in the Southeast to offer over-the-air digital service to viewers

1 Because the instant Petition qualifies for “summary treatment,” a summary of Petitioner’s

request is not being provided for publication in the Federal Register, as the FAA’s summary

process for Section 333 obviates the need to publish any summary of the Petition in the Federal

Register.
Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333

August 31, 2015

Page 2

in the mid-1990s. CBC has continued to innovate and desires to incorporate leading-edge

technology, including sUAS, into its operations. As the FAA is already aware, unmanned aircraft

operations possess tremendous potential for newsgathering operations, and the use of sUAS

technology for video production and other types of aerial data collection is already well underway.

CBC has joined with a team of media outlets working with the FAA UAS Test Site at the

Virginia Institute of Technology (“Virginia Tech”), in furtherance of newsgathering and related

UAS applications.2 As such, CBC is involved in efforts to evaluate the technology, personnel and

safety needs to operate UAS effectively in the NAS, particularly with respect to newsgathering

and other video production. While CBC continues to be involved with the Virginia Tech FAA

UAS Test Site, CBC also seeks separate and additional authority to engage in its own operations

pursuant to the instant Section 333 Exemption Petition.

While newsgathering activities often involve persons who are essential or ancillary to the

news coverage, CBC understands and acknowledges that the FAA’s practice in issuing Section

333 Exemption grants has been to limit UAS flight operations to

be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, vessels,

vehicles, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect

nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an

accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain

under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons

leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations

must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating

persons; and

b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted

permission for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a

safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and

determined that it does not present an undue hazard.

CBC agrees to abide by these limitations unless and until the FAA makes a determination in any

similar Section 333 Exemption case that UAS flight operations may vary from these restrictions

2 More specifically, the Virginia Tech efforts in collaboration with media companies

(including CBC) are intended to gather information and operational experience (including safety

issues) to further UAS opportunities for media companies of all stripes. See, e.g., Emily Aasand,

News Coalition Begins UAS testing at Virginia Test Site, UAS Magazine (June 17, 2015), available

at www.uasmagazine.com/articles/1134/news-coalition-begins-uas-testing-at-virginia-test-site.
Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333

August 31, 2015

Page 3

and operate in closer proximity to persons and objects.3 Moreover, CBC is not proposing to

completely substitute sUAS operations for its current helicopter operations, but in certain instances

it will be safer, more efficient, more effective, and significantly less expensive to employ sUAS in

lieu of a manned helicopter operation. Furthermore, in many other instances the use of sUAS will

allow for aerial data collection activities where use of manned aircraft is infeasible, impossible, or

unsafe. CBC’s proposed use of sUAS will, thus, serve as both a safer alternative to the use of

manned aircraft and also as a tool for enhancement of CBC’s news and information services to

provide timely, accurate, and critical information to the public via multiple platforms.

Thus, a grant of the instant Petition is important not only to CBC but more importantly is

in the public interest of all persons, organizations, and entities that rely on CBC as a source of

news and information throughout North Carolina and beyond. Were Petitioner to have to wait for

the FAA to issue final rules governing non-recreational use of UAS, Petitioner would be

irreparably harmed, and residents, businesses, workers, and public and private institutions in North

Carolina and beyond who may rely on the proposed enhancements to Petitioner’s news and

information services would be irreparably harmed. Accordingly, Petitioner seeks authority to use

UAS to engage in operations with the following functions (and any other similar functions not

specifically catalogued below)—each of which falls under the general umbrella category of “aerial

data collection”:

- aerial photography/videography

- asset management

- environmental monitoring

- inspection of infrastructure

- maintenance monitoring (tower and building sites, asset management)

- mapping

- public safety support

- precision photography

- traffic monitoring

- training for UAS operations

As noted, the above activities may be generally classified as multiple variations of aerial

data collection, which fall squarely within the categories of use that have been granted in upwards

of 900 Section 333 Exemption cases. Petitioner seeks authority to use any of the following UAS

for the above-referenced purposes: DJI Inspire; DJI Flamewheel F550; and DJI Phantom 3

Professional.

3 CBC supports the adoption by the FAA of permanent, flexible sUAS rules that would

allow microUAS operations over people, as proposed in the FAA’s February 15, 2015, NPRM.

CBC, in its capacity as a member of the North Carolina Association of Broadcasters, has weighed

in on this issue in the FAA’s sUAS rulemaking proceeding. See Comments of the North Carolina

Association of Broadcasters (filed April 24, 2015), in Operation and Certification of Small

Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Docket No. FAA-2015-0150.
Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333

August 31, 2015

Page 4

In light of the background above, pursuant to Section 333, Petitioner seeks exemption from

those certain Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) discussed below. Petitioner believes that the

instant Petition is substantially similar to other Section 333 Exemption Petitions previously filed

with and granted by the FAA—including, for example, the Petitions in Grant of Exemption Nos.

11109, 11112, and 11213—such that this Petition qualifies for “summary grant” treatment under

the FAA’s policy announced and implemented in early April 2015 and without need for the FAA

to solicit public comment on this proposal. Moreover, each of the specific unmanned aircraft

systems proposed to be used by Petitioner pursuant to a grant of the instant Petition—DJI Inspire;

DJI Flamewheel F550; and DJI Phantom 3 Professional—has been the subject of multiple Section

333 Exemption Petition previously granted by the FAA.

UAS Description Prior FAA Section 333 Exemption Grant No.

DJI Inspire Nos. 11804, 11733, 11693

DJI Flamewheel F550 Nos. 11731, 11606, 11513

DJI Phantom 3 Professional Nos. 11481, 11583

In support of this Petition, as a commitment to air safety, Petitioner shows the following:

Proposed Conditions and Limitations

This Petition seeks authority to operate each of Petitioner’s UAS subject to the following

conditions (and any other conditions and restrictions imposed on Petitioner by the FAA):

* Each of Petitioner’s operators will be familiar with the respective manufacturer’s

user manual and will maintain a copy of the user manual at the location of all flights.

* None of Petitioner’s unmanned aircraft (“UA”), including payload, camera, gimbal,

etc. will exceed 55 lbs.

* Petitioner will not operate any UA at a speed exceeding 100 mph (87 knots).

* Petitioner will operate its UAs only at altitudes that will not exceed 400 feet AGL.

To the extent that Petitioner’s operations at any time and any location rely on the FAA’s “blanket

COA” for sUAS operations, Petitioner will operate its respective UA only at altitudes that do not

exceed 200 feet AGL.

* Petitioner’s operations of its UA will be such that each UA remains within the

VLOS of the pilot-in-command (“PIC”) at all times.

* Petitioner’s sUAS will be operated only by a PIC who holds at least a sport pilot,

recreational pilot, or private pilot airman certificate and either a corresponding airman medical

certificate or U.S. driver’s license.
Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333

August 31, 2015

Page 5

* Petitioner’s sUAS operations will employ a visual observer (“VO”), who will be

able to communicate orally with the PIC at all times during operations.

* Petitioner’s sUAS will be maintained and inspected to ensure its condition furthers

safe operation. Petitioner’s inspection process will include a pre-flight inspection each time

Petitioner wishes to operate the sUAS.

* Petitioner will not operate at night.

* Petitioner will operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport only with specific

authority to do so.

* Petitioner’s sUAS is designed to return to a pre-determined location if the device

loses communications or its GPS signal.

* Petitioner’s sUAS operations will be conducted only over private or controlledaccess property (including public property) with permission from the property owner or other

authorized representative.

Petitioner respectfully submits that its operation of sUAS under these conditions will be at

least as safe and controlled as the operations authorized in prior Section 333 Exemption grants.

Indeed, Petitioner’s involvement with the Virginia Tech UAS Test Site underscores Petitioner’s

dedication to safe, intelligent, prudent sUAS operations, and Petitioner’s ongoing activities as a

news organization that makes use of manned aircraft as a newsgathering tool also demonstrates its

commitment to safety and to not posing a hazard or threat to other aircraft (manned or unmanned),

public safety, or national security.

Discussion of Specific FARs

Consistent with the growing number of Section 333 Exemption grants for aerial data

collection and other sUAS activities similar to those requested by Petitioner, here is a list of the

FAR sections from which Petition seeks exemption:

14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) & (c) 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2) 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a)

14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) & (5) 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c) 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(1)

14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a) 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 14 C.F.R. § 91.409(a)(1) & (2)

14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a) 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a)(1) 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(a) & (b)

14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a)

In addition to the above-referenced FAR provisions, Petitioner understands that the FAA is likely

to impose additional conditions, limitations, restrictions, and requirements on Petitioner’s sUAS
Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333

August 31, 2015

Page 6

operations pursuant to several other FARs, including, for example, certain of Parts 214and 27 of

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations; FAR Section 45.23(b); FAR Section 27(a); FAR

Section 91.103(b)(2); FAR Section 91.109; and FAR Section 91.203(a) & (b). However, because

none of the Section 333 Exemption grants previously issued by the FAA appear to have “waived,”

as a legal matter, these additional FAR provisions, the instant Petition does not seek waiver of and

does not discuss these additional FARs. Because the instant Petition seeks to invoke the FAA’s

“summary process” for Section 333 Exemption grants based on the fact that it is substantially

similar to numerous previously-issued Section 333 Exemption grants, discussion of these

additional provisions should not be necessary. Nevertheless, should the FAA Staff determine that

an exposition by Petitioner is necessary with respect to these additional FARs, Petitioner

respectfully requests that the FAA Staff contact the undersigned as soon as possible so that

Petitioner has an opportunity to promptly provide such further information.

14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) and (c)

This FAR requires that persons holding certain airman certificates also hold a certain class of

medical certificate. Consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioner requests that

the person operating Petitioner’s sUAS be permitted to hold a valid driver’s license issued by one

of the fifty United States or the District of Columbia or the corresponding medical certificate

required by the airman certificate held by such operator.

14 C.F.R. §§ 61.101(e)(4) & (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a)

These FARs, respectively, limit holders of recreational pilot certificates, private pilot certificates,

and sport pilot certificates to noncommercial operations. The prohibition on commercial activities

for operators holding these airman certificates are logical for manned aircraft. For unmanned

aircraft, however, the safety issues inherent in commercial activities are vastly different, as there

are no passengers, there is no cargo, and the environment is controlled in an appropriate manner.

Thus, consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioner requests that persons

4 With respect to the airworthiness requirements of Part 21 of the FAR, the FAA has

previously acknowledged that relief is not necessary for the sUAS referenced in this Petition. As

set forth above, all of the sUAS proposed for use by Petitioner have been the subject of prior

Section 333 Exemption grants, with respect to which the FAA has consistently stated as follows:

In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of Public

Law 112-95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and in consideration of the

size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft

and its operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this

aircraft meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds that

relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products and parts,

Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates, and any associated noise

certification and testing requirements of part 36, is not necessary.

See, e.g., Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-036, Exemption No. 11110A (Trimble Navigation

Ltd.).
Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333

August 31, 2015

Page 7

operating Petitioner’s sUAS be permitted to use the sUAS for the purpose of engaging in activities

that either are noncommercial or are not noncommercial.

14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a)

This FAR prohibits the operation of an aircraft “unless it is in an airworthy condition.” Consistent

with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioner seeks permission to operate its unmanned

aircraft without an airworthiness certificate, and Petitioner will continue to engage in pre-flight

inspections to ensure safe operation is possible each time Petitioner wishes to engage in UAS

operations.

14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2)

This FAR requires that a flight manual be maintained in the aircraft. Compliance with this FAR

is impracticable in the context of sUAS as there is no “cabin” or cockpit. Consistent with other

Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioner seeks permission to maintain the manufacturer’s manual

on the ground with the operator.

14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c)

This FAR prohibits the operation of aircraft below altitudes of 500 feet above the surface (except

over open water or sparsely populated areas) other than during takeoff or landing. Petitioner

proposes to operate its sUAS at altitudes of less than 400 feet above the surface, and requests

permission to so, consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants. Moreover, as indicated

above, Petitioner envisions that many, if not most, of its operations will occur pursuant to the

blanket COA at altitudes not to exceed 200 feet above the surface.

14 C.F.R. § 91.121

This FAR requires the use of an altimeter during flight for purposes of maintaining the cruising

altitude or flight level of the aircraft. Petitioner will not make use of an altimeter in connection

with its sUAS operations. Instead, Petitioner’s sUAS will either rely on the use of GPS, internal

gyroscope, or operator adjustments to maintain the unmanned aircraft’s altitude or flight level.

Consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, Petitioner seeks a waiver of the requirement

relating to altimeter use or, in the alternative, a declaration that use of GPS would satisfy the

altimeter requirements.

14 C.F.R. § 151(a)(1)

This FAR restricts persons from beginning a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless

there is a certain amount of fuel in the aircraft. This FAR is inapplicable to Petitioner’s operations

insofar as Petitioner’s sUAS do not use “fuel” per se but instead rely on electrical power generated

by small, protected batteries or battery packs. Accordingly, Petitioner proposes to deviate from

this FAR insofar as Petitioner, consistent with other Section 333 Exemption grants, will not begin

a flight unless there is sufficient power available for the sUAS operation to continue at least 5

minutes beyond the intended duration of the flight.
Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.

Petition for Exemption Pursuant to Section 333

August 31, 2015

Page 8

14 C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) & (2); 91.417(a) & (b)

These FARs govern, inter alia, certain aircraft inspections, the return of aircraft to service after

maintenance, and certain maintenance record keeping and retention. Consistent with other Section

333 Exemption grants, Petitioner proposes to achieve an equivalent level of safety by engaging in

pre-flight inspections of its sUAS and any maintenance that is recommended by the manufacturer

of the sUAS.

Conclusion

Through this Petition, filed pursuant to Section 333, Petitioner seeks an exemption from

the following FARs: 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) and (c); 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) and (5); 14 C.F.R. §

61.113(a); 14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a); 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a); 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2); 14 C.F.R. §

91.119(c); 14 C.F.R. § 91.121; 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a); 14 C.F.R. §

91.407(a)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(a) and (b).

Grant of this Petition and Section 333 Exemption, including waiver of the above-referenced

FARs, will permit Petitioner to operate its sUAS in furtherance of its news gathering and reporting

mission and goals, including video production, aerial photography, inspections, monitoring, and

other data-gathering activities. The grant will result in a reduction of risk and concomitant

enhancement of safety as compared to the use of manned aircraft (such as a helicopter) for such

activities; moreover, for many such activities, use of manned aircraft is not possible or practicable.

Unlike manned aircraft, Petitioner’s UAS operations will not use combustible fuel, and Petitioner’s

unmanned aircraft are smaller, quieter, lighter, safer, and more cost-effective than manned aircraft

employed for similar purposes. Moreover, Petitioner’s sUAS operations will be in controlled

airspace and at least 500 feet away from people. Accordingly, it is believed that such sUAS

operations will be at least as safe—and, given Petitioner’s experience and qualifications, safer—

than manned aircraft operations used for the same purposes.

We respectfully request that the FAA grant this Section 333 Exemption Petition using the

“summary grant” procedure.

Should any questions arise during the course of your consideration of this Petition, kindly

contact the undersigned.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephen Hartzell

Counsel to Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.