April 3, 2015

Exemption No. 11255 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0781

Mr. Eric Fay

President/COO

Aviation Unmanned 4125 Centurion Way, Suite 100 Addison, TX 75001

Dear Mr. Fay:

This letter is to inform you that we have gran ted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you th e conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated September 29, 2014, you petitio ned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Aviation Unmanned (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an exemption. The exemption would allow the petitioner to ope rate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct power line inspections.

See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations and the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption.

Discussion of Public Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2014, (79 FR 62509). Three comments were receiv ed. The Small UAV Coalition (Coalition) commented in support of the petition. The Air Line Pilots Associati on, International (ALPA) and the National Agricultural Aviati on Association (NAAA) opposed it.2

In support of the petition, the Coalition stated the petitioner has proposed to abide by stronger safety measures than hobby and modeler gr oups operating similar aircraft. The Coalition

stated that it does not believ e that heightened safety meas ures should be required for the petitioner simply because of the commercial na ture of its operations. The Coalition urged the FAA to adopt an evaluation framework for UAS operations under Section 333 of Public Law 112–95 that weighs the relative sa fety issues and risks of UAS by class and operational circumstances, rather than adopting artificial distinctions among unmanned aerial

vehicles based on commercial and noncomme rcial operations. The petitioner’s UAS pose considerably less safety risk than larger UAS. The Coalition asserted that because UAS operations like the petitioner’s pose minimal risk to safety, they should be subject to minimal and appropriate regulations.

The Coalition noted the FAA is to consider the seven factors 1 in Section 333 as a minimum. The Coalition stated the peti tion shows the FAA should consider factors other than those specified in Section 333, such as location, altitude of its UAS, and the restricted area in which the UAS will be operated. The Coalition maintain ed that the petitioner’s proposed operations satisfy the seven factors in Section 333 and include several additional mitigating factors to ensure the safety and security of the propos ed UAS operations. The Coalition emphasized the

FAA must evaluate each factor within the context of the petitioner’s proposed UAS operations.

The Coalition also commented that the FAA s hould grant relief from the requirement to hold

an airman certificate. The Coa lition further stated that if an airman certificate is required then, at a minimum the, FAA should provide an exception from the training and testing requirements in part 61 in favor of requireme nts pertinent to the aircraft and operation proposed. The Coalition also asse rted that in section 333 Congress intended for the FAA to consider national security with respect to the operation as opposed to addressing it through pilot certification.

The FAA notes that, as discussed in the gran t of exemption to Trimble Navigation Ltd. (Exemption No. 11110), neither secti on 333, nor the FAA’s exemption authority 2 allows the FAA to exempt pilots from the statutory re quirement to hold an airman certificate as prescribed in 49 USC § 44711.

The Coalition commented that a visual observer (VO) should not be required for all small UAS operations. The Coalition fu rther asserted that the presen ce of one or more VOs may allow the UAS to be operated beyond visual li ne of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command

1 Section 333(b) of P.L. 112 95 states, in part: “In making the determination under subsection (a), the Secretary shall determine, at a minimum-- (1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national security; ...”

2 49 USC § 44701(f)3

(PIC) and that the petitioner’s proposal to operate the unmanne d aircraft (UA) within VLOS

of the PIC and/or VO should be permitted.

The FAA notes that one of th e determinations for operation s under section 333 is operation within visual line of sight. The PIC must maintain VLOS while operating the UA. The FAA finds that a VO complements the PIC’s capabilit y to see and avoid other aircraft, including when the PIC may be momentarily attending to other flying tasks. The VO provides an

additional level of operational safety.

ALPA expressed concern regardi ng several aspects of the petition. ALPA stated “there must

be means both to ensure that the sUAS remains within the defined airsp ace and to ensure that the hazard of other aircraft intruding on the operation is mitigated.”

The FAA believes the limitations under which the petitioner will operate (i.e. VLOS and at or below 400 feet above ground level (AGL)) are suffici ent mitigations to this risk so that the operations will not adversely affect safety.

In regards to communications, ALPA stated the PIC and observer should be able to communicate by radio. ALPA stated voice co mmunication with the pilot is a limited mitigation if both the pilot and observer are not able to maintain visual observation of both the

aircraft and the area. NAAA stated UAS observers must be present and able to communicate with the operator from the most minimal dist ance possible. The conditions and limitations regarding PIC and VO communicati ons address those concerns.

ALPA asserted the UAS’s lithium polymer batte ries have numerous associated fire and explosion hazards as outlined in DOT/FAA/AR

− 09/55, “Flammability Assessment of Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Ion Polymer Battery Cell Designed for Aircraft Power Usage (January 2010),” and that the safe carriage of the batteries and the mitigations in place for

known risks should be addressed. The referenced study was primarily conducted to determine how certain battery cells react in a fire situa tion aboard manned airpla nes. Given the size of the battery and the operating conditions of th e UAS, the FAA concludes that the use of a lithium polymer battery will not pose an undue safety risk for the proposed operations.

ALPA commented that command and control (C2) link failures are one of the most common failures on a UAS, and that lost link mitigations should require safe modes to prevent flyaways or other scenarios. The FAA has inserted conditions and limitations in this exemption to mitigate the risk associated with such failures.

ALPA argued that under § 91.7, UAS operators must operate to the same high level of safety as all other aircraft in the National Airspace Sy stem (NAS). Additionally, ALPA stated they oppose the attempt to avoid certifying the airwor thiness of the sUAS in accordance with the provisions of § 91.203, § 91.205, § 91.207, and § 91.319.4

ALPA also noted that the petitioner’s proposed operations are for “comp ensation or hire,” and therefore contends the pilot mu st hold at least a current FAA commercial pilot certificate with an appropriate category and class rating for the type of aircraft being flown, as well as specific and adequate training on the UAS make and mo del intended to be used. Similarly, ALPA

asserted a current second-class airman medical certificate should be required. NAAA also commented on pilot qual ification, stating—

Just as manned aircraft pilots are requir ed to undergo a rigorou s training curriculum and show that they are fit to operate a comm ercial aircraft, so too must UAS operators. Holding a commercial certificate holds UAS operators to similar high standards as commercial aircraft operators and ensures th ey are aware of thei r responsibilities as commercial operators within the NAS. Medi cal requirements ensure they have the necessary visual and mental acuity to opera te a commercial aircra ft repeatedly over a sustained period of time.

The FAA has reviewed the knowledge and training requirements of sport, recreational, private

and commercial certificates and concluded that a UAS PIC holding a minimum of a sport pilot certificate, and operating under this exemption, would not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons or prope rty on the ground. Additional discussion of the

FAA’s review is found in the FAA’s An alysis section of this exemption.

ALPA noted the petitioner must specify a m eans to meet see and avoid requirements in § 91.113 given the absence of an onboard pilot. The FAA notes that all flights must be operated within VLOS of the PIC and VO.

ALPA expressed concern on whether the petitione r’s UAS can comply with the aircraft light requirements for night operati ons in § 91.209, given its limited el ectric power. The petitioner indicates that night operations will not be conducted and this exemption limits operations to daytime only.

ALPA also expressed concern that the petitioner’s request is not for a single specific operation or location, but for all operations of the same ge neral type. ALPA stated that this results in a considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight tasks. The FAA notes ALPA’s concern and in order to minimize potential impact to the NAS, the FAA requires that each operator secure a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) wh ich covers specific details of the petitioner’s operation. The FAA recognizes that UAS integr ation will generate new NAS access demand and will review and adjust accordingly.

NAAA noted that its members operate in low-le vel airspace, and ther efore clear low-level airspace is vital to the safety of these operato rs. NAAA stated that seei ng and avoiding other

aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the backbone for agricultural safety, and that agricultural pilots depend on pilots of other ai rcraft to perform their see-and-avoid functions to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UAS opera tions at low altitude s will increase the potential for collision with agricultural aircraft.5

The FAA recognizes these concerns and has incorporated associated conditions and limitations into this exemption, including: (a) a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) issued for all operations; (b) operations conducted within VLOS of the pilot in command (PIC) and the VO; and (c) the UAS PIC must always yiel d right-of-way to manned aircraft.

NAAA stated that FAA airworthiness certifica tion should be a requirement for all unmanned aircraft to operate within the NAS. NAAA recommended UAS be equipped with ADS-B or similar identification and positioning systems, st robe lights, high-visibility markings and registration numbers. NAAA also recommended UAS be operated st rictly within the line-ofsight of the ground controller, w ith the assistance of a VO and clear of any low-flying manned

aircraft.

As discussed below, Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 authorizes the Secretary of Tran sportation to determine, consider ing a number of factors laid out in the statute, that an airworthiness certific ate is not necessary for certain operations. The Secretary has made that determination in this case and therefore the aircraft operated by the petitioner will not need to be certificated by the FAA.

Airworthiness Certification

The UAS proposed by the petiti oner are the Vanguard Defense Industries ShadowHawk and MLB Company Super Bat.

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 consider ation of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft a nd its operation, the Secret ary of Transportation

has determined that this airc raft meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA

finds that the relief from 14 CFR part 21, and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, is not necessary.

The Basis for Our Decision

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial da ta collection. The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all materi al respects to those pr esented in your petition. In Grants of Exemption No s. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial ( see Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0352), 11109 to Clayco, Inc. ( see Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC ( see Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. ( see Docket No.

FAA

− 2014

− 0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned aircraft (UA) with the specifica tions described by the petition er and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of signi ficantly greater proporti ons, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gi ves the FAA good cause to find th at the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest.6

Having reviewed your reasons for re questing an exemption, I find that—

 They are similar in all material respects to relief previously re quested in Grant of Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213;

 The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213 also apply to the situ ation you present; and

 A grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a gr ant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S. C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Avia tion Unmanned is granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a )(1), 91.409(a)(1) an d (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of exemption, Aviation Unmanned is hereafter referred to as the operator.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions an d limitations of this grant of exemption will be grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

1. Operations authorized by this grant of ex emption are limited to the Vanguard Defense Industries ShadowHawk and MLB Company Super Bat when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are not permitted.

3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The exemption holder may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine compliance with the 87 knot speed restricti on. In no case will the UA be operated at airspeeds greater than the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the

aircraft manufacturer.

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL). Altitude must be reported in feet AGL.

5. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. This requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other than7

corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate or

U.S. driver’s license.

6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PI C and VO at all times. The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbal ly at all times; electronic messaging or texting is not perm itted during flight operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must en sure that the VO can perform the duties required of the VO.

7. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of exemption, are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. The operating documents must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepa ncy exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the pro cedures outlined in the operating documents,

the conditions and limitations herein ta ke precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the pr ocedures as outlined in its operating documents. The operator may update or revi se its operating documents. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and pr esent updated and revised documents to the Administrator or any la w enforcement official upon request. The operator must also present updated and revise d documents if it petitions for extension or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must petition for an amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacte d if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating documents.

8. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that aff ect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e .g. replacement of a flight cr itical component, must undergo a functional test flight prio r to conducting further opera tions under this exemption. Functional test flights may only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at least 500 feet from other people. The functi onal test flight must be conducted in such a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property.

9. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation.

10. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre-flight inspection and determine the UAS is in a condition for safe flight. Th e pre-flight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, e .g. inoperable components, items, or equipment. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is8

prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the

UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight.

11. The operator must follow the UAS manu facturer’s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requ irements for the aircraft and aircraft

components.

12. Each UAS operated under this exemption mu st comply with all manufacturer safety

bulletins.

13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC mu st hold either an airline transport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pi lot certificate. The PIC must also hold a

current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, the District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. The PIC must also meet the f light review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or he r pilot certificate.

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to ope rate unless the PIC demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a ma nner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distan ces from persons, vessels, vehi cles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and e xperience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted dur ing dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and expe rience-building flights, al l persons not essential for flight operations are considered nonpartic ipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparti cipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

15. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditi ons (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rule s (SVFR) are not authorized.

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical mile s of an airport reference point (ARP) as denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facil ity Directory (AFD) or for airports not denoted with an ARP, the center of the ai rport symbol as denoted on the current FAApublished aeronautical chart, unless a lett er of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption holder. The letter of agreement with the ai rport management must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.9

17. The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC.

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses it s GPS signal, the UA must return to a predetermined location within the priv ate or controlled-access property.

19. The PIC must abort the flight in the even t of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies.

20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a f light unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after that fo r at least five minutes or with the reserve power recommended by the manufacturer if greater.

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Author ization (COA). All operations shall be conducted in accorda nce with an ATO-issued COA. The exemption holder may apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct operations that cannot be conducted unde r the terms of the attached COA.

22. All aircraft operated in accord ance with this exemption must be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (NNumber) markings in accordance with 14 CF R part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure th e safe operation and flight of the UAS and any documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the

PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. These

documents must be made available to th e Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

24. The UA must remain clear and give wa y to all manned aviation operations and

activities at all times.

25. The UAS may not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle.

26. All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently pr otect 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 struct ures has granted permission for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of10

the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard.

The PIC, VO, operator trainees or es sential persons are not considered nonparticipating persons under this exemption.

27. All operations shall be conducted over priv ate or controlled-access property with permission from the property owner/cont roller or authorized representative. Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted.

28. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to the FAA's UAS Integration Office (AFS- 80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National Transportation Sa fety Board (NTSB) per instructions

contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov

.

If this exemption permits operations for th e purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming and production, the following additional conditions and limitations apply.

29. The operator must have a motion picture and television operations manual (MPTOM)

as documented in this grant of exemption.

30. At least 3 days before aerial filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) with jurisdiction ove r the area of proposed filming. The 3-day notification may be waived w ith the concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities must include at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights;

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted under this grant of exemption;

c. Name and phone number of the person res ponsible for the on-s cene operation of the UAS;

d. Make, model, and serial or N- Number of UAS to be used;

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PI Cs involved in the aerial filming;

f. A statement that the operator has obtain ed permission from property owners

and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those who gave permission must be made av ailable to the inspector upon request;

g. Signature of exemption holde r or representative; and

h. A description of the flight activity, includi ng maps or diagrams of any area, city, town, county, and/or state over which film ing will be conducted and the altitudes essential to accomplish the operation.11

31. Flight operations may be conducted closer th an 500 feet from pa rticipating persons consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the exemption holder’s MPTOM.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS operations must comply with al l applicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service4125 Centurion Way, Suite 100 ▪ Addison, TX 75001 ▪ (972) 408

- 3601



## Request for Section 333 Exemption

– Utilities

September 29 , 2014

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This document and any files attached to it may contain information that is proprietary, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is the property of Aviation Unmanned and/or its
affiliates and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to it is addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, retention, disclosure, forwarding , printing, distribution or copying of this

information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.2

September 2 9 , 2014

The following letter constitutes an e xemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 for Aviation Unmanned to perform Utility inspections

for Center Point Energy

. The UAS systems that we will use and will be referenced in this
document are the Vanguard Defense Industries ShadowHawk and the MLB Comp any Super Bat.

Point of Contact: Address:
Eric Fay 4125 Centurion Way, Suite 100 Mobile: (702) 544

- 7371 Addison, Texas 75001 Direct: (972) 360

- 3121
Eric@AviationUnmanned.com

1. Specific sections of 14 CFR from which we seek exemptions.

a) §61.3(a)(1): Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations

a. There are no ratings for UAS operators as of yet, so we would like to use our

current FAA commercial certificates in lieu of the lack of UAS certificates.
b) §61.13: Issuance of airman certificates, ratings, and authorizations
c) §91.7 : Civil aircraft airworthiness

. No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is an
airworthy condition

a. There are no certifications for the airworthiness of UAS to date, so we are
looking to rely on our field maintenance training and schedule to ensure our
aircraft are in an airworthy condition before all flights.
d) §91.113 : Right of Way rules (see and avoid)

a. We will have observers out during flights, and to the maximum extent possible stay below 400’ AGL and away from controlled airspace.
e) §91.203(a)(1) & §91.203(a)(2) : Civil Aircraft: Certifications Required
f) §91.205(b) : Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates:

Instrument and equipment requirements

a. Specifically items (5) and (7) through (17). We do not plan to fly at night initially.
g) §91.207 : Emergency locator transmitters
h) §91.125 : ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use

a. We do not currently have transponders on our aircraft but could install them if

necessary. i) §91.319 : Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations Specifically
§91.319(e)3

2. E xtent of relief we seek and the reason we seek the relief

The request for these exemptions is for the use of our Unmanned Systems to provide utility
companies with power line inspections in areas outside of Houston TX . These inspections

would include right of way surveying, tow er inspections for early detection of arcing , and post

disaster aerial support. We are working with Center Point Energy, one of Texas’ largest utility
corporations, to provide these services across their 5,000 square mile s of energy lines west and
north of Houston, TX (see Figure 1)

. Cen ter Point is interested in the ability of UAS to investigate remote and/o r inaccessible areas of power lines safely, as well as provide early

identification of power interruptions and provide real time data to direct their personnel

accura tely in the event of a natural disaster

.

3. How our request would benefit the public as a whole

Routine Inspections

With the routine inspection of power lines (distribution or transmission), our Corona cameras
can identify arcing early which will allow Center Point Energy to repair the affected area before
they become a problem. This early identification will help Cent er Point maintain constant service to their customers, and allow the residents of Houston and the surrounding areas to
keep their houses powered. Center Point has identified a need for this early detection in order
to ensure their customers do not experie nce power interruptions. Figure 1: Requested area around Houston, TX4

Emergency Response

After Hurricane Ike in 2008, much of Houston and Galveston was without power for over 10
days. Center Point has learned many les sons from this event, one of which was that they didn’t
have accurate, real ti me information. They were sending tho usands of personnel and trucks

out to survey and repair areas that turned out to be not badly damaged, while other heavily
damaged areas heavily were left undiscovered for days. In the event of another disaster such

a s this, or even one on a small er scale, we would like to use our Unmanned Aircraft to assist Center Point with identifying the true problem areas which will allow them to focus their repair
efforts accurately and significantly decrease the time to get powe r restored

.

4. Reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would
provide a level of safety at least equal to the existing rule

T he majority of areas to be covered are remote, sparsely populated, and we thoroughly m ission plan before each flight. We check current sectional charts for airspace restrictions, NOTAMS, TFR’s, restricted airspace, and helicopter corridor charts. Our aircraft will be flown to the maximum extent possible below 400’ AGL, outside of any cont rolled airspace and outside of 3 miles from any airport IAW §91.126(d), but at all times at a minimum safe altitude to allow for
obstacle and terrain clearance. Should we need to fly closer than three miles from an airport

we will establish and maintain r adio communications wit h the controlling agency at any
applicable airfields.

We have a robust safety observer program, and if required our aircraft can be monitored by
Aviation Unmanned personnel who at a minimum possess FAA ground school certificates. O ur safety observes have also undergone training and maintain constant two way radio

communication with the PIC.

5. Summary to publish in the Federal Register

Aviation Unmanned seeks an exemption from regulations of 14 CFR to perform regular and
emergency inspection services with Unmanned Aircraft on power lines. These inspections
would take place in remote areas of South East Texas and the Louisiana Gulf Coast region.

6. Additional information, views, or arguments available to support our request

We have established standard op erating procedures within our company to enable safe and
effective use of our unmanned systems in any situation. Our operations and these standards
are based on our extensive military flying experience in the MQ

- 1B and MQ

- 9 systems for
nearly 18 years com bined, and we comply with 14 CFR to the maximum extent possible.
Furthermore, our operations are safe, efficient, and will ultimately show the public and FAA that operating UAS with the correct skillset is safe for commercial use.5

Certifications and Trai ning

 Our pilots all hold current FAA Commercial Pilot certificates and a minimum of FAA

Second Class medicals.

 Many of our pilots hold CFI, MEI, and ATP certificates as well as current m ilitary
qualifications on unmanned aircraft

.

 Our pilots have completed rigorous training for the systems we operate including

academic s , simulator s , and flight training . These courses , developed by Aviation
Unmanned in conjunction with manufacturer s, provide our pilots the best training
possible to operate our systems . Thi s also includes emergency procedure training and evaluation, experience building with a qualified instructor, and initial/recurring flight

evaluations.

Currency and Proficiency

 Our pilots maintain currency and proficiency in accordance with a company spec ific
Aircrew Proficiency Program. If crewmembers lapse on currency, they are not able to perform flying duties until completion of either (depending on how long they have been

non

- current): at least one flight with a qualified instructor or re

- training an d completion
of a flight review by a qualified instructor.

Flight Operations

 Each flight is o perated under the crew concept, and t here are always two ful ly qualified
pilots in the crew. The Pilot in Command is responsible for fly ing the aircraft and

ensu ring the safety of flight operations, the Second in Command is responsible for
operating the payload and providing input to the PIC . In the event of PIC incapacitation
the SIC can step in and safely land the aircraft.

 We abide by a “sterile cockpit” rul e anytime one of the following three criteria are met:

 Presets or Landing checklists have started

 Altitude is less than 15 0’ AGL or

 Aircraft position is 0.25 nm or less from the ground control station.

Regulations Adherence

 Our crews are required to adhere to 14 CFR §91.17 (Alcohol or Drugs) and 14 CFR
§121.471 (Flight time limitations and rest requirements: All flight crewmembers)

Aircraft

 The system s we will use to perform these inspections are proven, reliable systems.

 Our aircraft have detaile d L ost Comm plans that, in the event of a loss of
communication, will bring the aircraft back at a specific altitude, position, and airspeed.

 We can set them to automatically land in a cleared area or hover over the

cleared area while we work to get the com munications back.

 We always set the L ost C omm plan routing to avoid populated areas and major

roads6

7. Reasons why you want to exercise the privileges of our exemption outside the United States

We do not currently intend on exercising these privileges out of the United States.

Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or issues regarding this request.

Eric Fay, President/COO

Aviation Unmanned