1 

## BEFORE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Juniper Unmanned, Inc., Petitioner

Docket No. FAA

- 2015

-

________

JUNIPER UNMANNED , INC.

FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS TO PERMIT UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) OPERATIONS

Jeff Cozart
3490 Parfet Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Phone: 303

- 907

- 6163 Jeff.cozart@juniperunmanned.com

DATE: April 30 , 20152



## Contents

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER

................................ ................................ .................... 3

2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST

................................ ................................ .... 3

3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS

................................ ................................ ........................... 3
3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS Juniper Unmanned intends to operate the small Sirius UAS under the requested exemption.

................................ ................................ ........... 4
3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations.

................................ ............. 4

3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the Pilot in Command and other crewmember qualifications and training.

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 8

3.4 Conditions and l imitations regarding Juniper Unmanned manuals related to UAS operations.

.... 9

4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA

................................ ......................... 10

5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

.............. 11

5.1 Contact information:

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 11
5.2 The specific s ection or sections of the FAR from which Juniper Unmanned seeks an exemption:

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 11
5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought:

................................ ........................... 11
5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest:

................................ .............. 23
5.5 Reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by th e rule from which exemption is sought:

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 24
5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule from which exe mption is sought, a brief description of the nature of the exemption sought:

................................ .................... 25
5.7 Additional information that supports request:

................................ ................................ ............... 25
5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S.:

................................ ......... 25

5.9 Attachments:

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 25

6. CONCLUSIO N

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 263



### 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER

Juniper Unmanned, Inc. located in Denver, Colorado, supports the aviation and remote sensing operations of Unmanned Aircraft operators. Juniper Unmanned develops training, standardization, and sustainment programs in partnership with several designers and developers of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, supporting their clients and customers with expertise in the safe and effective use of UAS. Juniper recently began supporting operators of the Sirius Basic and Sirius Pro (collectively, “Sirius UAS”) for mapping a wide range of sites, land surveying, and facility inspections, as well as use in mining, construction, and agriculture.



### 2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“FMRA” ) an d 14 C.F.R. (“FAR”) §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81, Juniper Unmanned req uests that the FAA grant an exemption from certain sections of the FAR (detailed below) so th at Juniper Unmanned may commercially operate
one or more small Sirius UAS for aerial surv eying, product demo nstration flights for potential customers, UAS product training for customers, and research and development for future product improvements
related to these small UAS. As explained below, Juniper Unmanned’s proposed UAS operations, as

co nditioned and limited herein, will not adversely affect safety, but ra ther will provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than that provided by the current rules and large manned aircraft operations. See FAR § 11.81.



### 3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMI TATIONS

The small UAS operations proposed in this Petition will be subj ect to the following conditions and
limitations. Each of these conditions and limitations is consisten t with previously granted small UAS Section 333 exemptions and FAA guidance. See, e.g., Ex emption No. 11110 (December 10, 2014; Docket
FAA

- 2014

- 0367) (“Trimble Exemption”); Exemption No. 11062 (September 25, 2014; Docket FAA

- 2014

- 0352) (“Astraeus Exemption”); Exemptio n No. 11109 (December 10, 2014; Docket FAA

- 2014

- 0507) (“Clayco Exemption”); Exemption No. 11136 (January 5, 2015; Docket FAA

- 2014

- 0508) (“AAS Exemption”). Collectively, these conditions and limitations ensure that the proposed small UAS operations will not adversely affect safety and will provide at least an equivale nt level of safety to the current rules and large manned aircraft operations.4

3.1 Conditions and limitat ions regarding the proposed UAS Juniper Unmanned intends to operate the
small Sirius UAS under the requested exemption.
The Sirius UAS uses a battery

- p owered, single electric brushless 680 W motor system and a single propeller. Its payload is a Panasonic GX1 camera or the FUJIFILM X

- M1; i ts navigation system is GPS/IMU aided; and it has three available flight modes

– automatic, autopilot

- assisted, and fu ll manual. Each Sirius UAS operated under the exemption will be subj ect to the following conditions and limitations:

3.1.1 Operations under the exemption will be limited to the Sirius UAS. The free

- flying unmanned aircraft part of the Sirius UAS (“th e UA” ) will have a gross weight of not more than 7 po unds, including energy sources, equipment, and payload. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 1.]

3.1.2 The UA has maximum dimensions of a pproximately 48 inches (l) x 65 inches (w) x 12.2
inches.

3.1.3 The UA wil l have a maximum ground speed of 70 knots indicated air speed. It has a typical cruise speed o f 35 knots indicated air speed. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 2.]

3.1.4 The UA will have a maximum total flight time of 45 minutes.

3.1.5 The UA will be identified by its serial number and registered with the FAA in accordance
with FAR Part 47 . [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 21.]

3.1.6 The UA will have identification markings in accordance with FAR Part 45, with the markings being as large as practicab le. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 21.]

3.2 Conditions and limitations regard ing the proposed UAS operations. All UAS operations under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

3.2.1 All UAS operations will be covered by an Air Traffic Organization (“ATO”)

- issued
Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”). This COA will require that Juniper
Unmanned request a Notice to Airman (“NOTAM”) not more than 72 hours in advance of, nor le ss than 48 hours prior to, each UAS operation. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 20.]

3.2.2 The UA will operate only in Class G airspace. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 27.] It will not oper ate in Class B, C or D airspace without written approval from the FAA. [Astraeus Exemption Limitation No. 34.]

3.2.3 The UA will not operate within 5 nautical miles of the geographic center of a non

towered airport as den oted on a current FAA

- published aeronautical chart unless a letter agreement with the airp ort’s management is obtained, and the opera tion is5 conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by Juniper Unmanned ’ COA. Juniper Unmanned will make this letter agreement available to the FAA upon request. [Astraeus Exemption Limitation No. 34.]

3.2.4 Each UA will remain at least 3 nautica l miles from any public towered airport to the extent possible.

3.2.5 Prior to each UAS operation in whi ch the UA will operate within 3 nautical miles of a public towered airpor t, the PIC will ensure that the FAA Air Traff ic Control officials with

resp onsibility for that airport are notified in advance of the UAS operation; that, subject to the airport’s and ATC’s agreement, the PIC will maintain two

- way radio communications with the airport’s ATC to wer facility during such flight operations; and that the operation is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by Juniper
Unmanned ’ COA.

3.2.6 Prior to UAS operations, the ra dio frequency spectrum used for operation and control of the UA (2. 4 GHz) will comply with Federa l Communications Commission (FCC) a nd other appropriate government oversight agency requirements. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 22.]

3.2.7 The minimum crew for each UAS operati on will consist of one Pilot in Comm and (“PIC”) and one Ground Observer (“G O” ). The PIC will be designated before the fli ght and cannot transfer his/her designation for the duration of the fligh t. The PIC must ensure that he maintains positive control of the Hand Control Unit (“HCU”) and can monitor the system reports displayed o n the MAVinci Desktop as outlined by the Operator’s Manual. [Trimble Exemption Limitations Nos. 4 and 5.]

3.2.8 The UA will be operated within visual li ne of sight (“VLOS”) of the PIC at all times. The VLOS will be unaided, except for corrective lenses as set forth on the PIC’s FAA

- issued
airman medical certificate. The GO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long
as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. [Trimble Exemption Limitations Nos. 4 and 5.]

3.2.9 During each UAS operation, the PI C and the GO must be able to communicate verbally
with each other a t all times. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 5.]

3.2.10 The PIC is prohibited from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the
intende d landing point and land the UA with at least 30% battery power remaini ng. [AAS Exemption Limitation No. 22.]

3.2.11 Prior to each UAS operation, each member of the crew who will be conducting the UAS operation will partici pate in a combined mission, risk assessment and safety briefing6 about the UA S operation, as outlined in Juniper’s SOP , and the crew will complete the UA preflight inspection and preflight checklist per the Operator’s Manual.

3.2.12 Prior to ea ch UAS operation, the PIC will inspect the UAS (including the Ground Control Station) to ensure it is in a condition for safe flight. If the inspection reveals a condition
that af fects the safe operation of the UAS, the UAS is prohibited fro m operating unt il the

necessary maintenance has been performed and documented, and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight . [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 7.]

3.2.13 Prior to each UAS operation, the PIC w ill review the weather, the UAS battery requireme nts, the UA takeoff and landing distances, and the UAS performance, and will
account f or all relevant site

- specific cond itions per Juniper’s SOP

.

3.2.14 All maintenance and alterations will b e properly documented in the UA records. [Trimble Exemption Lim i tation No. 7.] Juniper Unmanned ’ Sirius UAS maintenance personnel will make a record entry i n the UAS Maintenance log (JU

- 2

- M, Juniper SOP Appendix #) [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 14.]

3.2.15 Prior to each UAS flight, a zero al titude initiation point will be established and confirmed
for accuracy by the PIC. [Astraeus Exemption, at 21; AAS Exemption, at 17.]

3.2.16 During each UAS operation, the UA w ill remain at or below 400 feet above ground level (“AGL”). [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 3.]

3.2.17 All UAS operations will be conducted ov er private or controlled

- access property with permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission
from the land owner/controller or authorized representative w ill be obtained for each
f light to be conducted. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 34.]

3.2.18 The UA will operate at least 500 feet from all non

- participating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

(a) Barriers or structures are present that suffic iently protect nonparticipating persons from th e UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. Juniper Un manned mus t ensure that non

- participating persons remain under such protection; and if a situation arises
where non

- participating persons leave s uc h protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations will cease immediately; and/or

(b) The UA is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the land owner/contro ller has granted permission and the PIC has made a safety assessment o f
the risk of operating closer to those obje cts and determined that it does not present an
undue hazard. [AAS Exemption Limitation No. 30.]

3.2.19 Operations of the UA may be conducted at distances less than 500 feet from participating persons, vessels, v ehi cles or structures that perform an essential function7 in connec tion with these special purpose operations or are otherwise necessary for such operations. Operations closer than 500 feet from the PIC, GO , operator trainees,
essential persons, and potenti al customers a re permitted when operationally necessary, but never so close as to p resent an undue hazard, per FAR.

3.2.20 All UAS operations will take pla ce during visual meteorological conditions (VMC) only. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 28.]

3.2.21 Juniper Unmanned will not operate UAS flights un der Special Visual Flight Rules (SVFR). [Astraeus Exemption Limitation No. 31.]

3.2.22 All UAS operations will take p lace during daylight hours. UAS operations will not be conducted during night, as define d in FAR § 1.1. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 26.]

3.2.23 During each UAS operation, the UA w ill avoid, remain clear of, and yield right

- of

- way to all manned a erial operations and activities (including, but not limited to, ultralight

v ehicle, parachut e, parasailing, and hang glider activities). [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 24.]

3.2.24 Each UAS operation will maintain a safe distance from any structure o r facility that has a national security impli cation that is known to Juniper Unmanned and whose airspace is
identified as S pecial Use Airspace on the most recent Sectional Map.

3.2.25 The UA will not be operated less than 50 0 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud, or when vi sibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 28.]

3.2.26 The UAS will not be operated by the PIC from a moving device or vehicle. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 25.]

3.2.27 Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation
or UA flight characteristics (e.g., replacement of a flight critical component) must undergo a functi onal maintenance test flight in accorda nce with the Operator’s Manual.

3.2.28 The PIC who conducts the functional ma intenance test flight will make an entry ab out the flight in the UA records. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 8.]

3.2.29 For each UAS operation, the UAS will be programmed so that if the UAS loses its communications, the UA will return to a pre

- determined location within the private or
controlled

- access property, and land or be recovered in accordance with the Operator’s Manual. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 17.] For each UAS operation, the UAS will be programmed so that if the UAS loses its GPS signal, the UA will circle down at its current location or will circle in its then

- current position at its established safety altitude in accordance with the Operato r’s Manual. These actions are part of the Si rius UAS’ Lost
Link Procedures. Alternatively, the PIC can take over control of the U A using the RC8 controller and execute safe landing pr ocedures in accordance with the Operator’s
Manual.

3.2.30 The PIC will adhere to the writ ten emergency procedures in the Manuals and suspend the UAS operatio n and UA flight in the event of unpredicted o bstacles or eme rgencies in
accordance with the Operator’s Manual. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 18.]

3.2.31 The documents required by FAR §§ 91 .9 and 91.203 (listed in Juniper’s SOP) will be
available to the PIC at the Ground Control Statio n of the UA S at any time the UA is operating, and will be made available to the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. [T rimble Exemption Limitation No. 23.]

3.2.32 The UA may not be operated over congested or densely populated areas. These areas
include but are not limited to the yellow areas depicted on World Aeronautical Charts (WAC), Sectiona l Aeronautical Charts (Sectionals), or Termi nal Area Charts (TAC). However, aeronautical charts may not reflect pertinent local information. It will be the
PIC’s r esponsibility to maintain the minimum safe altitudes required by FAR § 91.119 (subject to an exem ption granted herein). [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 30.]

3.2.33 Any incident, accident or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical
bou ndaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA will be reported to the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS

- 80) within 24 hours. Accidents will be reported to
the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) per instructions contained on th e NTSB website. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 35.]

3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the Pilot in Command and other crewmember qualifications and training

. The PIC and other crewmembers for each UAS operatio n under the requested exemption will be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

3.3.1 The PIC will possess at least an FAA private pilot certificate and a third class airman medical certificate under the following conditions: The P IC also will satisfy the flight review requirem ents of FAR § 61.56 in a n aircraft for which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate. [T rimble Exemption Limitation No. 15] 8900.1 chapter 16

3.3.2 The PIC and GO will have successfully completed the manufacturer’s authorized training
for the Si rius UAS.

3.3.3 Each PIC will have demonstr ated through the manufacturer’s authorized training program that he or sh e is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with
how the UAS will be operated under the exemption, including evas ive and eme rgency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles, and

structures. Juniper Unmanned must document and make a record of such training and9 make such documentation ava ilable upon request by the FAA. Flights for the purpose s of training Juniper Unmanned ’ PICs and GOs ( training, proficiency, and experience

building) a re permitted under the terms of this exemption. Said training operations, however, may only be conducted during dedicated tr aining sessions. [AAS Exemption Limitation No. 15.]

3.3.4 Juniper Unmanned will not permit any PIC to operate its Sirius UAS unless that PIC has demonstrated through Juniper ’ s training and currency requirements (as defined in Juniper’s SOP) that he or she is able to safely ope rate the U AS in accordance with Limitation No. 3.3.3. [Clayco Exemption Limitation No. 16.]

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding Juniper Unmanned ma nuals related to UAS operations

. Juniper Unmanned has two manuals containing procedures for the UAS operations u nder the exemption: the Sirius Aerial Image U AS & MAVinci Desktop Manual Aircraft Flight Manual (“AFM”, Operator’s Manual) and the Juniper Unmanned Standard Operating Procedure’s (“SOP”) (collectively, “the Manuals”). A confidential copy of each of the Man ua ls will be submitted to the FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation , and Regulations as supporting documentation for this Petition. The Manuals contain information that is highly propr ietary to Juniper Unmanned and/or MAVinci, and Juniper Unmanned requests that the FAA treat the Manuals a s confidential and not
disclose them to the public. The Manuals will be subject to the following limitations and conditions:

3.4.1 The Manuals and the exempt ion must be maintained and made available to the FAA upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in the
exempt ion and the procedures outlined in the Manuals, the conditions and lim itations in the exemption take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, Juniper Unmanned
must follow the procedures as outlined in the Manuals . [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 6.]

3.4.2 Juniper Unmanned may update or revise its Manuals, a nd it is Juniper Unmanned ’ responsibility to track such revisions and present updat ed a nd revised documents to the FAA upon request. Juniper Unmanned must a lso present updated and revised documents if it petitions for a n extension or amendment of the exemption. If Juniper
Unmanned determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA grante d the requested exemption, then Juniper Unmanned must petition for an
amend ment to the exemption. Juniper Unmanned will contact the FAA’s UAS Integration Off ice (AFS

- 80) if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the
Man uals. [Trimble Ex emption Limitation No. 6.]

3.4.3 The Manuals contain information ab out the Sirius UAS’ performance and limitations.10

3.4.4 The Manuals contain the procedure s for UAS operations, including preflight inspections,
which will account for all discrepancies, i.e.
, inoperable components, items o r equipment. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 9.]

3.4.5 The Manuals contain the requirements and procedures for a functional maintenance test flight of the UAS and aircraft record entry. [Trimble Exempti on Limitation No. 8.]

3.4.6 Juniper Un manned must carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping requirements in accordance with the Manuals. Maintenance, inspection, and alterations
must be noted in the aircraft l ogbook, including total fligh t hours, descriptio n of work accomplished, and the signature of the authorized Sirius UAS maintenance personnel returning the Sirius UAS to service. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 11.]

3.4.7 The Sirius UAS maintenance personnel maintaining and servicing Juniper Unmanned ’ UAS must receive, and document, the training called for in the Manuals. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 12.]

3.4.8 Each UAS operated under the exemption will comply with all manufacturer System and Safety Bul letins, and that requirement is set forth in the Manuals. [Trimble Exempti on Limitation No. 13.] Juniper Unmanned will maintain copies of all manufacturer S ystem and Safety Bulletins, and will make them available to the FAA upon request.

3.4.9 Juniper Unmanned will follow the manufacturer’s U AS aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacem ent, inspection, and life limit requirements. [Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 10.]

3.4.10 The Manuals contain procedures fo r performing and documenting of maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterati ons, status of replacement/overhaul component parts,

a nd the total time in service of the UAS (and for maintaining the corresponding records).



### 4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA In accordance with FMRA Sec. 333, Juniper Unmanned requests that the Secretary of Transportation
determine that Juniper Unmanned ’ proposed small UAS operations (i) do not create a hazard to users of
the National Airspace System or the public, and (ii) do not pose a threat to n ational security. Juniper
Unmanned further requests that, based on the Secretary’s determina tion, the FAA determine

– as it did in the Astraeus Exemption, Clayco Exemption, and AAS Exempt ion

– that relief from FAR Part 21 and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of FAR Part 36 is not necessary for the UAS operations proposed in this Petition. 1

1 Astraeus Exemption, at 14, 22; Clayco Exemption, at 10, 16; AAS Exemption, at 12, 18. If the FAA concludes that the UAS operations proposed in this Petition require an exemption from FAR Parts 21 and/or 36, then TPS requests that the FAA include that in the exempt ion

.11



### 5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR EXEMPTION As required by FAR § 11.81, Juniper Unmanned provides the following information in suppo rt of this
Petition:

5.1 Contact information:

Name: Juniper Unmanned , Inc.

Mailing address: Jeff Cozart 3490

3490 Parfet Street Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033

Telephone: 303

- 907

- 6163

Email : jeff.cozart@juniperunmanned.com

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which Juniper Unmanned seeks an exemption:

FAR § 61.113(a) and (b)

– Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. FAR § 91.7(a)

– Civil aircraft airworth iness. FAR § 91.119(b) and (c)

– Minimum safe altitudes: General. FAR § 91.121

– Altimeter settings. FAR § 91.151

– Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions. FAR § 91.405(a)

– Maintenance required. FAR § 91.407(a)(1)

– Operation after maintenance, pr eventive maintenance, rebuilding, and inspections. FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2)

– Inspections. FAR § 91.417(a) and (b)

– Maintenance records.

5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought:

Juniper Unmanned proposes to conduct small UAS o perations, as described herein, for aerial surveying, product demonstration flights for potential customers, UAS product training for customers, and research and development for future product improvements related to these small UAS. In order to be able to conduct these UAS operations, Juniper Unmanned petitions the FA A, pursuant to FAR §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81(b), for an exemption from the following FAR for the reasons noted:

FAR § 61.113(a) and (b)

– Private pilot privileges and limitat ions: Pilot in command. The regulation states, in relevant part:12 (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying

passengers o r property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not c arry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

(c) ****.

Juniper Unmanned requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent ne ce ssary to permit Juniper Unmanned to conduct UAS operations using PICs who hold an FAA private pilot
certificate. While Juniper Unmanned recognizes that the FAA normally requires a PIC to hold a commercial pilot certificate where there is compensation eithe r to the pilot or for the operation, Juniper
Unmanned requests that the FAA exempt Juniper Unmanned and its PICs from this requirement since the use of a private pilot as the PIC for the UAS operations under this exemption will be more safe than
the use of a commercial pilot for manned aircraft operations. Unlike conventional aircraft, the Sirius UAS is remotely controlled, with no crew or passengers, and battery

- powered. The fulfillment of the additional requirements for a private pilot to become qualified as a commercial pilot would not lead to any additional safety benefits when UAS operations are involved. The differences between the aeronautical knowledge requirements for private pilots and for commercial pilots are significant in the traditional world of manned aircraft. A pilot who wishes to operate flights that involve the carriage of persons or property for compensation or hire is typically expected to improve his or her aeronautical knowledge with respect to the operation of those larger
manned air craft. For instance, the prospective commercial pilot is expected to be able to operate more complex aircraft and in conditions other than VMC. Pilots seeking to become commercial pilots for manned aircraft must acquire additional aeronautical knowledge about the use of performance charts and aeronautical charts (beyond that which a private pilot must obtain for VFR), night operations, and the use of air navigation aids/facilities. 2 However, no aspect of this 2 FAR § 61.125, Aeronautical knowledge for co mmercial pilots, paras. (b)(7) (use of performance charts), (b)(9) (use of aeronautical charts beyond that necessary for flight under VFR), (b)(10) (use of air navigation aids), and (b)(14) (night and high

- altitude operations) incremental additional knowle dge is significant for the daytime, VMC small UAS operations over private or controlled access properties proposed in this Petition. The differences between the aeronautical experience requirements for private pilots and for commercial pilots are also sign ificant. However, the additional experience required for a commercial pilot certificate is required to

2 FAR § 61.125, Aeronautical knowledge for commercial pilots, paras. (b)(7) (use of performance charts), (b)(9) (use of aeronautical charts beyond that necessary for flight under VFR), (b)(10) (use of air navigation aids), and (b)(14) (night and high

- altitude operations)13

a great extent to allow the upgrading pilot to acquire experience of a type that a commercial PIC of a
manned aircraft must obtain in order to safely conduct commercial operations in a larger manned aircraft. For instance, the applicant for a commercial certificate with a single

- engine land rating must
obtain 50 hours of cross

- country flight, 10 hours of instrument training, 10 hours of time in a complex aircraft, 10 hours of solo time, and 5 hours in night VFR conditions. 3 In addition, a great deal of time is required for a pilot of a larger manned aircraft seeking to become a commercial pilot to ensure that the pilot’s takeoffs and lan dings can be conducted safely enough so as not to imperil the passengers and property aboard the manned aircraft. In this regard, there is a fundamental difference between the type of experience that the PIC of a manned aircraft should have, versus the typ e of experience that the PIC of a small UAS should have, in order to avoid imperiling passengers or property. In Juniper Un manned ’ case, the small amount of property carried aboard the UA will be Juniper Unmanned property. While the pilot will be compensat ed, all risk of damage to the property (in fact to the UAS itself) will be borne by Juniper Unmanned . There is no expectation or need for the PIC of the UA to have the type of experience that a commercial pilot for a manned aircraft would have. In short, a lmost none of the aeronautical experience requirements, beyond those necessary for private pilots and as set forth in the Sirius UAS manufacturer’s written authorized training program, is relevant to the PIC who will operate the small UAS over private or c ontrolled access property as proposed in this Petition. Accordingly, there is no reason to require the UAS PIC to have more experience than that required for the private pilot
certificate. The differences between flight proficiency requirements for private pilots and for commercial pilots involve areas such as “[h]igh

- altitude operation” and other areas that have no bearing on the small UAS operations at issue in this Petition. 4 To the extent that differences exist between the standards of performan ce for flight proficiency as demonstrated by prospective private versus prospective commercial pilots, those standards are not significant here where the operations will be conducted strictly during daylight VMC conditions, within VLOS, at altitudes no hig her than 400 feet
AGL.
Given that Juniper Unmanned plans to operate its Sirius UAS in Class G airspace over private or
controlled

- access property at altitudes of 400 feet AGL or less, the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirement s to those of commercial requirements, the limited airmanship skills necessary to operate the Sirius UAS, and the lack of additional safety benefits for the proposed UAS operations here resulting from commercial pilot experience, the PIC under this exempti on should only be required to hold a private pilot certificate and third

- class airman medical certificate. Such a condition would be consistent with the certificate requirements imposed on the PIC in the Astraeus Exemption, Trimble Exemption, AAS Exemption , and Clayco Exemption. For these reasons, Juniper Unmanned requests that the FAA grant an exemption to permit Juniper Unmanned to use as PIC of the proposed UAS operations pilots who hold a private pilot
certificate and a third

- class airman medical certif icate, so long as they satisfy the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, including the PIC qualification and training requirements.

3 See FAR § 61.129

. 4 Compare FAR § 61.127, flight proficiency for commercial pilots (in particular §§ 61.127(b)(1)(x) and (b)(2)(x)), with FAR § 61.107, flight proficiency for private pilots.14

FAR § 91.7(a)

– Civil aircraft airworthiness. The regulation states in relevant part: (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condit ion. . . .

Compare FAR § 61.127, flight proficiency for commercial pilots (i n particular §§ 61.127(b)(1)(x) and (b)(2)(x)), with FAR § 61.107, flight proficiency for private pilots.

Juniper Unmanned requests an exemption from this provision to the extent necessary. 5 The
Sirius UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate under FAR Part 21, Subpart H, and thus relief is requested from this regulation. See Trimble Exemption, at 16. An exemption is warranted because Juniper Unmanned understands that, notwithstanding the lack of an airworthiness certificate, the FAA
will consider its “compliance with [ Juniper Unmanned ’s ] Manuals to be sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition” and that Juniper Unmanned must still determine the UA’s airworthiness prior to each flight based on compliance w i th such Manuals. See Trimble Exemption, at 16.

FAR § 91.119(b) and (c)

– Minimum safe altitudes: General. The regulation states:

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest
obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than con gested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight

- shift

- control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface

—

(1) A helicopter may be ope rated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

5 Juniper Unmanned requests exemption from FAR § 91.7(a) based on the relief granted in the Trimble Exemption, at 16,

21. H owever, Juniper Unmanned notes that the FAA determined that no such exemption was needed in the Astraeus Exemption, at 19, 22.15 (2) A powered parachute or weight

- shift

- control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this sec tion.

Juniper Unmanned requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit Juniper Unmanned to conduct its UAS operations at altitudes lower than those permitted by FAR § 91.119, since such altitudes are one of the key benefits of using small UAS for these flights. Even at
these low altitudes, Juniper Unmanned ’ UAS operations will be conducted at a level of safety at least equal to that which would be achieved if larger manned aircraft were to be used at the altitudes required by F AR § 91.119. With respect to paragraph (a), Juniper Unmanned intends to comply with this requirement to
the same extent as would a manned aircraft, meaning that the UA must operate at an altitude such that
the loss of a single power unit aboard the UA or used by the UAS would still permit an emergency landing “without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.” Juniper Unmanned agrees with
the FAA’s reasoning on this issue in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, and therefore does not believe that
relie f is required from paragraph (a). With respect to paragraph (b), Juniper Unmanned plans to operate these small UAS over private

or controlled

- access properties, which are not themselves congested areas, but which may be located within a broader heavily populated and congested area. Accordingly, Juniper Un manned does not
believe that an exemption is warranted from this paragraph covering “congested areas”. However, as
the FAA has noted (Trimble Exemption, at 18), there is no preci se definition of “congested areas,” and
the PIC can obtain such information from the local Flight Standards District Office; but, even if these
small UAS operations were to operate over areas somehow construed as being “congested”, the proposed UAS operati ons will be far safer than operations by larger manned aircraft operating in compliance with the minimum altitude requirements (1,000 feet altitude). The operation of a much heavier, faster aircraft with an onboard pilot and other crewmembers, at 1,000 fee t over a congested

area, with a load of combustible fuel, unquestionably provides a lower level of safety than an operation conducted by a very small, extremely lightweight, battery

- operated UA over private or controlled access property that, at all times from takeoff to landing, can be safely operated well below the altitudes used by manned aircraft and continuously within VLOS of the PIC on the ground. To the extent necessary, Juniper Unmanned requests relief from paragraph (b). With respect to paragraph (c), Juniper Unmanned requests an exemption to allow UAS operations
down to the surface, both in sparsely populated areas and in “other than congested” areas. Juniper
Unmanned ’ UAS operations require lower

- level flying, but have a number of self

- imposed re strictions to

ensure at least an equivalent level of safety. For example,

 All operations will avoid congested or populated areas.

 All operations will be conducted over private or controlled access property.

 Permission from the land owner/controller will be obtained prior to the beginning of each flight.

 Juniper Unmanned will timely file a NOTAM for each flight.

 The UA will operate at least 500 feet from all non

- participating persons, vessels, vehicles, and
structures unless:16 o Barriers or structures are prese nt that sufficiently protect non

- participating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. Juniper Unmanned must ensure that non

- participating persons remain under such protection; and if a situation arises
where non

- participating person s leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations will cease immediately; and/or

o The UA is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the land owner/controller has granted permission and the PIC has made a safety assess ment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue
hazard.

Even with a grant of this exemption, the UAS operations will be at least as safe as operations by manned aircraft that comply with this paragrap h. Flying a manned aircraft, given its weight, size, s peed, and fuel load, would pose a significant risk relative to the use of a small UA, with a smaller size and weight, operating at much lower speeds, with batteries rather than a significant fuel load, and at all times within VLOS of the PIC on the ground who has a wide view. Accordingly, as the FAA determined in
the Trimble e xemption, at 17

- 18, relief is warranted here provided that Juniper Unmanned adheres to
its Manuals and the additional conditions a nd limitations outlined above and in the exemption. For these reasons, Juniper Unmanned requests relief from the entirety of paragraph (c). Juniper Unmanned does not request relief from paragraph (d), because it applies only to helicopters (and allows operation at lower altitudes only if on a prescribed helicopter route) and powered parachute type aerial vehicles.

FAR § 91.121

– Altimeter settings.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, when operating

— (1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to

— (i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route and within
100 nautical miles of the aircraft; (ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the current reported altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or (iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radi o, the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure; or (2) At or above 18,000 feet MSL, to 29.92′′ Hg. (b) * * * *.

It is not clear to Juniper Unmanned that an exemption from this section is required b ecause, although the regulation expressly applies only to aircraft maintaining a “cruising altitude” and dictates17

the altimeter setting that must be used while at that cruising altitude, cruising altitudes for VFR flights do not begin

– according to FAR § 91.159

– until “more than 3,000 feet above the surface”.6 Nonetheless, Juniper Unmanned requests an exemption from FAR § 91.121 to the extent necessary to permit Juniper Unmanned to conduct the small UAS operations described in this Petition. See Astraeus Exemption, at 21

- 22 (granting relief from this section with conditions and limitations). Juniper Unmanned recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that any UAS operated by Juniper Unmanned maintain altitude to an accurate reference such that other a ircraft and the FAA may rely on Juniper Unmanned ’s UAS to be operating as proposed. The Sirius UAS does not use a barometric altimeter. Instead, it determines altitude based on a GPS signal. To ensure the accuracy of the GPS signal, the PIC will check the UA altitude reading prior to each takeoff, and will effectively zero the UA’s altitude at the point of takeoff, to ensure that measurements of the UA’s altitude are as accurate as possible relative to the local elevation. To the extent that this methodolog y does not satisfy FAR § 91.121 or any other regulation, Juniper Unmanned requests an exemption to permit UAS operations using this methodology.

FAR § 91.151

– Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

The regulation states:

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed

— (1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or (2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes.

Juniper Un manned r equests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit Juniper Unmanned to plan its UAS operations as described above. The proposed small UAS operations in this Petition will (i) involve operations in which one or more UAS is transported by means other than its ow n power to the operational location, and (ii) begin and end at the operational site, with the takeoff, entire flight, and landing all taking place within the immediate proximity to each other while remaining at all times within
VLOS of the PIC.

6 FAR § 91.159; see also Aeronautical Information Manual, at Chpt. 3, Sec. 1, Tbl. 3

- 1

- 1para. 3

- 1

- 2. (Jul. 24, 2014).18

The goal of FAR § 91.151 is to ensure that pilots plan for an extra 20 or 30 minutes of fuel at their first intended point of landing in order to account for unexpected possible delays en route and at the first planned destination. Many of these delays that plague manned aircraft are simply not an issue with the proposed small UAS operations over private or controlled access property, because there is virtually no “en route” portion of the flight, and any problems at the point of landing are extremely unlikely to c ause delays, since a UA can always land just a few feet away if the intended point of landing
becomes unusable. Given the relatively short operating time for the Sirius UAS (5 0 minutes), requiring a full 30 minutes of reserve “fuel” (battery power) could take up nearly all of the available time for UAS operations. Juniper Unmanned believes that using a smaller reserve for UAS flight planning purposes will
be at least as safe as using the reserves required by FAR § 91.151 for manned aircraft. Using a reserv e of 30% battery power for a daylight UA flight, for instance, will be adequate where the UA is essentially at its first point of landing from the moment it takes off (since there is no en

- route phase of flight), since the risks for delay at the intended l anding area are not as great as for manned aircraft landings. To that end, and consistent with AAS Exemption Limitation No. 22, the PIC under the requested exemption will be prohibited from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weath er conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the intended landing point and land the UA with at least 30% battery power remaining. Juniper Unmanned believes that these limitations will further ensure that the proposed reserve pla nning and operational requirements that Juniper
Unmanned is requesting to use under the exemption will provide at least an equivalent level of safety. For these reasons, Juniper Unmanned requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151(a) to permit it to plan and c onduct UAS operations such that only 30% of the battery power (instead of 30 minutes) is
available at the end of the planned UAS operation. FAR § 91.151(b) covers only rotorcraft and thus is not applicable to the small UAS operations Juniper Unmanned is pr oposing.

FAR § 91.405(a)

– Maintenance required.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

Each owner or operator of an aircraft

—

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

(b) ****.

Juniper Unmanned requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit Juniper Unmanned to conduct the UAS operations prop osed in this Petition without having to perform the inspections and discrepancy repairs required by FAR § 91.405(a). In the Astraeus Exemption and the Trimble Exemption,
the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.4 05(a), and that the achievement of an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations, some of19

which were proposed by the petitioner and some of which were imposed by the FAA. These included requirements to develop and document mainten ance, overhaul, replacement, and inspection requirements in the absence of manufacturer’s requirements; procedures to document and maintain maintenance records with regard to the petitioner’s UAS; UAS technician qualification criteria; and requirements to document comprehensive preflight inspection procedures. Juniper Unmanned has proposed several conditions and limitations in Section 3 of this Petition
related to maintenance and inspections consistent with those in the Astraeus Exemption and the
Trimble E xemption. Juniper Unmanned believes that these conditions and limitations pro vide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.405(a), the Astraeus Exemption, and the Trimble Exemption. For this reason, Juniper Unmanned requests an ex emption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit Juniper Unmanned to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the conditions and
limitations proposed above, without having to perform the inspections and discrepancy repairs required by FAR § 91 .405(a). Juniper Unmanned does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR §
91.405 is required, since Juniper Unmanned will make appropriate logbook entries in aircraft
maintenance records in accordance with paragraph (b), appropria tely mark any inoperative instrument or item of equipment for which maintenance has been properly deferred in compliance with paragraph (c), and appropriately placard listed discrepancies that include inoperative instruments or equipment in compliance with paragraph (d).

FAR § 91.407(a)(1)

– Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding or alteration.

The regulation states:

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alte ration unless

— (1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under §43.7 of this chapter; and (2) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made.

(b)  .

(c) ** **.

Juniper Unmanned requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit Juniper Un manned
to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to have the UAS approved for
return to service by a person authorized under FAR § 43.7. In the Astraeus Exemption and the Trimble Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1), and that achieving an adequate level of safety required conditions and limitations similar
to those in the Trimble Exempti on and the Astraeus Exemption.20

Juniper Unmanned has proposed maintenance

- related conditions and limitations in this Petition, which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.407(a)(1) and the conditions and limitations in the Trimble Exemption and Astraeus Exemption. For this reason, Juniper Unmanned requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit Juniper
Unmanned to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the pr oposed conditions and limitations, without having to have the UAS approved for return to service by a person authorized under FAR § 43.7. Juniper Unmanned does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR §
91.407 is required, since Juniper Unmanned will require that maintenance record entries are made as required, in compliance with paragraph (a)(2), and since no persons will be carried following
maintenance performed on the UAS, making paragraphs (b) and (c) moot.

FAR § 91.409(a)(1 ) and (2)

– Inspections.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had

— (1) An annual inspection in accordan ce with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this chapter; or (2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. No inspection per formed under parag raph (b) of this section may be substituted for any inspection required by this paragraph unless it is performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections and is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance rec ords.

(b)  .

Juniper Unmanned requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit Juniper Unmanned
to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to obtain the annual inspection
and airworthiness certificate inspecti on required by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2). In the Trimble Exemption and the Astraeus Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and that achiev ing an adequate level of safety required conditions and limitations similar to those set forth in those previously

- granted exemptions.

Juniper Unmanned has proposed maintenance and inspection

- related conditions and limitations in this Petition, which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2), the Trimble Exemption, and the Astraeus Exemption. For this reason, Juniper
Unmanned requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit Juniper Unmanned to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without having to obtain the annual inspection and airworthiness certificate inspection required by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2).21

FAR § 91.417(a) and (b)

– Maintenance records.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this
section: (1) Rec ords of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of
the 100

- hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor,
and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include

— (i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed; and (ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and (iii) The signature, and certificate number of t he person approving the aircraft
for return to service. (2) Records containing the following information: (i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and
each rotor. (ii) The current status of life

- limited parts of each airf rame, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance. (iii) The time since last ove rhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis. (iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time s ince the last inspection required by the inspection program u nder which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained. (v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety
directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. (vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by §43.9(d) of this chapter for each major
alteration to t he airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed: (1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is performed. (2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and
transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.22 (3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under §43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for

return to service. (c) ** **.

Juniper Unmanned requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit Juniper
Unmanned to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to keep the records described in FAR § 91.417(a) and (b). The FAA determined in the Trimble Exemption and the Astraeus Exemption that the proposed UAS ope rations required exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b), and
that an adequate level of safety required conditions and limitations simi lar to those set forth in those previously

- granted exemptions. Juniper Unmanned has proposed maintenance, inspection, and records

- related conditions and
limitations in this Petition, which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR §91.417(a) and (b), the Trimble Exemption, and the Astraeus Exemption. For this reason, Juniper
Unmanned r equests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit Juniper Unmanned to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without having to keep the records described in FAR § 91.417(a) and (b)

. Additional FAR Provisions. The Petition does not seek exemption from certain regulations based on the reasoning and FAA precedent o utlined below in the footnote.7 However, Juniper Un manned also reque sts that, to the extent that the FAA concludes that an exemption from one or more other provisions of the FAR would be required to permit the UAS

7 This Petition does not seek exemption from:

> FAR Part 21 or 36, based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 14, and Clay co Exemption, at 10. > FAR § 91.7(b), based on the reasoning in the Trimble Exemption, at 17. > FAR §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b), based on the reasoning in the FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum titled “Interpretation regarding whether certain requir ed documents may be kept at an unmanned aircraft’s control station” (“FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum”), the Astraeus Exemption, at 19

- 20, 22, and the Trimble Exemption, at 17, 20. > FAR §§ 45.23(b) and 91.9(c), based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exem ption, at 14, and Trimble Exemption, at 14, related to FAR § 45.23(b), and assuming that the markings on the UA used to comply with FAR Part 45, Subpart C requirements are as large as practicable. > FAR §§ 47.3(b)(2) and 47.31(c), based on the reasoning i n the FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum, and assuming that all UA are registered in accordance with FAR Part 47. > FAR § 91.103(b)(2), based on the FAA’s reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, and Clayco Exemption, at 14, which concluded that an exempti on from the preflight action requirements is not necessary when the grant of an exemption for UAS operations includes conditions that satisfy preflight action requirements. Juniper Unmanned proposes such
conditions in this Petition. > FAR § 91.109, based o n the FAA’s reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, and Clayco Exemption, at 14, which concluded that an exemption from the requirement for dual flight controls for flight or simulator training or for flight testing is not necessary when there is no in dication that dual flight controls will be used during any flight or simulator training or flight testing23

operations described in this Petition, the FAA grant an exemption from those FAR provisions as necessary to permit the UAS operations described in this Petition. 8

5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest: A grant of the exemption would be in the public interest because it would enhance safety for the general public, Juniper Unmanned employees, and Juniper Unmanned customers. First, the ability to us e a small UAS to conduct the operatio ns described herein, subject to the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, will enable Juniper Unmanned to have access to

more complete data about aerial surveys, topography, demonstration fl ights, and ma intenance flights,
which

– in turn

– will enable Juniper Unmanned to conduct safe and effective aerial survey, demonstration or maintenance/repair flights that minimize the risk of harm to the general public, Juniper Unmanned employees, and Juniper Unmanned customers. Second, given Juniper Unmanned ’ primary objective of providing a function al and safe UAS, this exemption would allow Juniper Unmanned to provide a comprehensive training, repair/service, and testing p rogram for its customers who operate, or se ek to operate, the small Sirius UAS. It is in the public interest for Juniper Unmanned to offer these types of programs so that (i) owners/operators of these small Sirius UAS are properly educated about safe flight operations and (ii) repairs done to the
S irius UAS are appropriately tested. Third, the use of the small, lightweight, battery

- powered Sir ius UAS for these topographical aerial surveys and related operations is far less risky than undertaking those operations with a much heavier, much faster, muc h larger, manned helicopter or other aircraft loaded with fuel and a crew. As the FAA acknowledged in the Trimble Exemption, at 13:

“The [ Juniper Unmanned ] pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight and construction with impact absorbent materials significantly reduces the potential harm to persons or damage to property in the event of an incident or accident. The risk to an onboard pilot and crew during an incident or accident is eliminated with the use of a UAS for the aerial surveying operation. Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an
incident or accident. [The Sirius UAS] carries no fuel [it is battery

- powered] and therefore the risk of fire following an incident or accident due to fuel spillage is eliminated.”

These distinctions, coupled with the safety

- related features of the Sirius UAS such as Los s Link Procedures, redundant flight control systems, real

- time telemetry, airspace awareness system, and terrain following, demonstrate that the Sirius UAS operations propose d in this Petition are far less risky than if operated by larger and heavier manne d aircraft.

8 Juniper Unmanned would be happy to provide follow

- on documentation providing the rationale underlying any such additional exemptions.24

5.5 Reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought: Throughout this Petition, Juniper Unmanned has explained many reasons why granting an exemption from each section of the FAR from which relief is sought would result in UAS operations that provide a level of safety at least equal to, or greater than, that provided by the rule from which exemptio n is sought. Moreover, the many conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition also ensure at least an equivalent level of safety, as the FAA concluded in the Trimble Exemption and the Astraeus Exemption. In general, the risks of any proposed UAS operation interfering with a manned aircraft is minimized by the low altitude at which the UAS will operate; the locations at which the UAS will operate (e.g., Class G airspace, private or controlled access property, away from airports); the small size/low weight and relatively slow speed of the Sirius UAS; the restriction of UAS operations to VMC and daytime conditions; the requirement for the PIC to maintain VLOS of the UA at all times; and the condition to obtain a NOTAM before each UAS flight, among other conditions and limitations. The risks to persons or property on the ground are also minimized by the small size/low weight of the Sirius UAS;
the 500

- foot set

- off from non

- participating persons or structures; the prohibition on flights over congested or densely populated areas; the PIC’s VLOS requirement; and limiting operations to private or controlled access property, among others. These parameters, conditions, and limitations proposed in the Petition provide substantial protection against interfere nce with manned aircraft operations or with the safety of persons or property on the ground. In addition, under the proposed conditions and limitations in Section 3 of this Petition, Juniper Unmanned will coordinate extensively, as warranted, with the FAA, with local airports, and with property owners to ensure that all UAS operations under the exemption are at least as safe as would be manned aircraft operations used for similar purposes. The Sirius UAS also has several safety

- related protocols in case the re is any lost link between the UA and the operator. These Lost Link Procedures are covered in the Operator’s Manual and can handle lost links alone or in combination. As an example, if a GNSS link is lost, the autopilot sends an error message to the compu ter notifying the computer operator, who can notify the PIC to take control of the UAS and land. If the PIC does not take over control within a preset time, the UAS will begin to circle slowly and descend to land. If an RC link and data link are both lost, the UAS will return to the takeoff position and circle. The “return home command” can return the UA to its takeoff position or to another location established as “home” during the creation of the flight plan at any time during a flight. Juniper
Unmanned c an also end a UAS flight via a command from the computer telling the UA to land at a defined area automatically, or the PIC can take control of the UA using the RC controller. In addition, another key safety feature of the MAVinci System is its dual contro l links. The MAVinci Ground Control Station (“GCS”) and MAVinci Remote Control (“RC”) consoles are dual, robust, and independent systems, affording a redundant means of controlling the UA

– significantly increasing operational security. The 2.4 GHz RC cons ole is connected wirelessly to the Sirius UA for piloting in autopilot assisted and fully manual modes. The MAVinci GCS functions from the laptop through the 2.4 GHz Connector antenna, providing fully autonomous flight. Should either system fail, the other system remains fully operational and is capable of providing safety of flight for the UAS.25

For these reasons, granting an exemption from each section of the FAR from which relief is sought would not adversely affect safety, and would provide a level of s afety at least equal to, or greater than, that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought

.

5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule from which exemption is sought, a brief description of the nature of the exemption sought:

Juniper Unmanned proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary:
Docket No.: FAA

- 2015

-

______

Petitioner: Juniper Unmanned , Inc.

Sections of 14 CFR: 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.119(b) and (c), 91.121, 91.151, 91.405(a), 91.40 7(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b).

Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks an exemption to conduct small UAS commercial operations for aerial surveying, product demonstration flights for potential customers, UAS product training for customers, and research and development for future product improvements related to
these small UAS.

5.7 Additional information that supports request: Juniper Unmanned is prepared to provide additional information that th e FAA might find helpful, or to answer questions in response to any FAA requests. A confidential copy of each of the Manuals and the Juniper Unmanned Certified Training Program will be submitted to the FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation, and Regulations as su pporting documentation for this Petition. The
Manuals and Juniper Unmanned Certified Training Program contain information that is highly proprietary to Juniper Un manned and/or MAVinci, and Juniper Unmanned requests that the FAA treat the Manuals and Junipe r Unmanned Certified Training Program as confidential and not disclose them to the public.

5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S.: Juniper Unmanned does not request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the United
States.

5.9 Attachments: In support of this Petition, Juniper Unmanned will provide copies of the Manuals and the Juniper Certified Training Program to the FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation, and Regulations. As noted above, Juniper Unmanned requests co nfidential treatment by the FAA of the26

Manuals and Certified Training Program. These documents contain non

- public, confidential information that is highly proprietary to Juniper Unmanned and/or MAVinci. These confidential documents are also
submitted unde r 14 C.F.R. § 11.35(b), and are exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.



### 6. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Juniper Unmanned respectfully requests that the FAA grant this Petition for Exemptions.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jeff Cozart
Dave White Juniper Unmanned INC