### 1 

### BEFORE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

___________________________________________________

Docket No. FAA

- 2015

-

_____

PETITION OF FLYOVER SERVICES, LLC

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

JACOB HINTON WILLIAM TANNER 40 HARKINS ST MCDONOUGH, GA 3025

- 3 Phone: 678

- 614

- 7129 / Fax: 678

- 559

- 0286 

### JAKE@FLYOVERSERVICES.COM BILL @FLYOVERSERVICES.COM

DATE: 7/23/15 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

### FLYOVER SERVICES, LLC

Petitioner.

### 2 Page
1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER .................................................................. - 3 - 2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST............................................... - 3 - 3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................... - 4 - 3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS............................................ - 4 - 3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations ........................ - 5 - 3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the Pilot in Command and other crewmember qualifications and training....................................................................... - 1 1 - 3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding FS manuals related to UAS operations

......................................................................................................................... - 1 2 - 4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA........................................ - 14 - 5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR EXEMPTION...............................................................................................

............................ - 15 - 5.1 Contact information.........................................................

.................... ............................ - 15 - 5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which FS seeks an exemption ...................................................................................................................

...... - 1 5 - 5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought......................................... - 15 - 5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest

........................... - 30 - 5.5 Reasons why granting the exemption would not a dversely 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.........................

........................................................... - 31 - 5.6 Summary that c an be published in Federal Register, including the rule from which exemption is sought, a brief description of the nature of the exemption sought..........................................................................

............................ - 33 - 5.7 Ad ditional information that supports request............................................................... - 3 3 - 5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S........................ - 3 3 - 5.9 Attachments...................................

................................................................................... - 3 4 - 6. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................

............................... ............ - 3 4 -

### 3

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER FLYOVER SOLUTIONS, LLC . (“ FS”) , is headquartered in McDonough, GA

. FS intends to provide aerial mapping and surveying to customers in the mining, construction, and municipalities management businesses, as well as other uses. FS was founded in 2015 by William Tanner and Jacob Hinton. Mr. Tanner has much experience in the grading business, and Mr. Hinton is a civil engineer by trade. Both Mr. Hinton and Mr. Tanner are avid private pilots, both having their private license for ov er 10 years. Both Mr. Hinton and Mr. Tanner are also avid recreational RC pilots. FS recently purchased a Topcon Sirius Pro from Topcon Positioning Solutions. Topcon has previously received an exemption for their operations, which are almost identical t o FS’s operations.
2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“FMRA”) and 14 C.F.R. (“FAR”) §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81, FS requests that the FAA grant FS an exemption from certain sections of the FAR (detailed below) so that FS may commercially operate one or more small Sirius Pro UAS for aerial surveying . As explained below, F S’ proposed UAS operations, as conditioned and limited herein, will not adversel y affect safety, but rather 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.

### 4

3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS The small UAS operations proposed in this Petition will be subject to the following conditions and limitations. Each of these conditions and limitations is consistent with previously granted small UAS Section 333 exemptions and FAA guidance. See , e.g. , Exemption No. 11110 (December 10, 2014; Docket FAA

- 2014

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

- 2014

- 0352) (“ Astraeus Exemption ”); Exemption 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 equivalent level of safety to the current rules and large manned aircraft operations.

3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS
F S intends to operate the small Sirius Pro UAS under the requested exemption. The Sirius
Pro UAS uses a battery

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

- M1; its navigation syste m is GPS/IMU aided; and it has three available flight modes

– automatic, autopilot

- assisted, and full manual. Each Sirius Pro UAS operated under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions
and limitations:
3.1.1 Operations under the exemption will be limited to the Sirius Pro UAS. The free

- flying unmanned aircraft part of the Sirius Pro UAS (“the UA”) will have a gross weight of not more than 7 pounds, including energy sources, equipment, and payload. [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 1.]
3.1.2 The UA has maximum dimensions of approximately 48 inches (l) x 65

inches (w) x 12.2 inches.
3.1.3 The UA will have a maximum ground speed of 70 knots indicated air

speed. It has a typical cruise speed of 35 knots indicated air speed. [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 2.]

### 5 3.1.4 The UA will have a maximum total flight time of 50 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 accord ance with FAR Part

45, with the markings being as large as practicable. [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 21.]

3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations All UAS operations under the exemption will be subject to the following conditio ns and limitations:
3.2.1 All UAS operations will be covered by an Air Traffic Organization (“ATO”)

- issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”).
3.2.2 The UA will operate only in Class G airspace. [ Trimble Exemption

Limitation No. 27.] It will not operate 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 denoted on a current FAA

- published aeronautical chart unless a letter agreement with the airport’s management is obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by F S’ COA. F S 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 nautical miles from any public towered

airport to the extent possible.
3.2.5 Prior to each UAS operation in which the UA will operate within 3 nautical

miles of a public towered airport, the PIC will ensure that the FAA Air

### 6 Traffic Control officials with responsibility for that ai rport 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 tower facility during such flight operations; and that the operation is condu cted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by F S’ COA.
3.2.6 Prior to UAS operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation

and control of the UA (2.4 GHz) will comply with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other appropriate government

overs ight agency requirements. [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 22.]
3.2.7 The minimum crew for each UAS operation will consist of one Pilot in

Command (“PIC”) and one Visual Observer/Flight Assistant (“VO/FA”). The PIC will be designated before the flight and canno t transfer his/her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO/FA can perform the functions prescribed for the VO/FA in the Operator’s Manual. [ Trimble Exemption Limitations Nos. 4 and 5.]
3.2.8 The UA will be operated within visu al line 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 VO/FA may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maint ains VLOS capability. [ Trimble Exemption Limitations Nos. 4 and 5.]
3.2.9 During each UAS operation, the PIC and the VO/FA must be able to

communicate verbally with each other at 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

### 7 normal cruising speed to the intended landing point and land the UA with at least 30% battery power remaining. [ 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 participate in a safety briefing about the UAS operation, as outlined in the Operator’s Manual, and the crew will complete the UA preflight inspection and preflight checklist per the Operator’s Manual. 3.2.12 Prior to each 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 affects the safe operation of the UAS, the UAS is prohibited from operating until 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 will review the weather, the UAS

battery requirements, the UA takeoff and landing distances, and the UAS performance, and will account for all relevant site

- specific conditions per the Operator’s Manual.
3.2.14 All maintenance and alterations will be properly documented in the UA

records. [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 7.] F S’ Sirius
Pro UAS maintenance personnel will make a record entry in the UAS logbook or equivalent document of the corrective action taken against discrepancies discovered between inspect ions. [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 14.]
3.2.15 Prior to each UAS flight, a zero altitude initiation point will be established

and confirmed for accuracy by the PIC. [ Astraeus Exemption , at 21; AAS Exemption , at 17.]

### 8 3.2.16 During each UAS operation, the UA will rem ain at or below 400 feet

above ground level (“AGL”). [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 3.]
3.2.17 All UAS operations will be conducted over private or controlled

- access

property with permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permissi on from the land owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight 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 structu res unless: (a) Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect

nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. F S must ensure that non

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

w here non

- participating persons leave such 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/controller has granted permission and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard. [ AAS Exemption Limitation No. 30.]
3.2.19 Operations of the UA may be conducted at distances less than 500 feet

from partici pating persons, vessels, vehicles or structures that perform an essential function in connection with these special purpose operations or are otherwise necessary for such operations. Operations closer than 500 feet from the PIC, VO/FA, operator trainees, e ssential

### 9 persons, and potential customers are permitted when operationally necessary, but never so close as to present an undue hazard, per FAR § 91.119(a). [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 32.] 3.2.20 All UAS operations will take place during visual meteorologi cal

conditions (VMC) only. [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 28.]
3.2.21 F S will not operate UAS flights under Special Visual Flight Rules (SVFR).

[ Astraeus Exemption Limitation No. 31.]
3.2.22 All UAS operations will take place during daylight hours. UAS operations

wil l not be conducted during night, as defined in FAR § 1.1. [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 26.]
3.2.23 During each UAS operation, the UA will avoid, remain clear of, and yield

right

- of

- way to all manned aerial operations and activities (including, but
not limite d to, ultralight vehicle, parachute, parasailing, and hang glider activities). [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 24.]
3.2.24 Each UAS operation will maintain a safe distance from any structure or

facility that has a national security implication that is known to F S and whose airspace is identified as Special Use Airspace on the most recent Sectional Map.
3.2.25 The UA will 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 P IC. [ 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 functional maintenance test flight in accordance with the Operator’s Manual.

### 10 3.2.28 The PIC who conducts the functional maintenance test flight will make

an entry about the flight i n 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 la nd 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 i n its then

- current position at its established safety altitude in accordance with the Operator’s Manual. These actions are part of the Sirius UAS’ Lost Link Procedures. Alternatively, the PIC can take over control of the UA using the RC
controller and exec ute safe landing procedures in accordance with the Operator’s Manual.
3.2.30 The PIC will adhere to the written emergency procedures in the Manuals

and suspend the UAS operation and UA flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies 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 will be available to

the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS at any time the UA is operating, and will be made available to the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. [ Trimble 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

### 11 depicted on World Aeronautical Charts (WAC), Sectional Aeronautical Charts (Sectionals), or Terminal Area Charts (TAC). However, aeronautical charts may not reflect pertinent local information. It will be the PIC’s responsibility to maintain the minimum safe altitudes required by FAR § 91.119 (subje ct to an exemption granted herein). [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 30.]
3.2.33 Any incident, accident or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or

vertical boundaries 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 the 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 operation under the requested exemption will be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

3.3.1 The PIC will possess at least an FAA priva te pilot certificate and a

thirdclass airman medical certificate. The PIC also will satisfy the flight review requirements of FAR § 61.56 in an aircraft for which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate. [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 15.] 3.3.2 The PIC and VO/FA will have successfully

completed the manufacturer’s authorized training for the Sirius UAS.
3.3.3 Each PIC will have demonstrated through the

manufacturer’s authorized training program that he or she is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under the exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons,

### 12 vessels, vehicles, and structures. F S must document and make a record of such training and make such documentation available upon request by the FAA. Flights for the purposes of training F S’ PICs and VO/FAs (training, proficiency, and experience

- building) are permitted under the terms of this exemption. Said training operations, however, may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. [ AAS Exemption Limitation No. 15.]
3.3.4 F S will not permit any PIC to operate its Sirius UAS unless that PIC has

demonstrated through F S’ training and currency requirements that he or she is able to safely operate the UAS in accordance with Limitation No. 3.3.3. [ Clayco Exemption Limitation No. 16.]

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding F S manuals related to UAS operations
F S has two manuals containing procedures for the UAS operations under the exemption: the Sirius Aerial Image UAS & MAVinci Desktop Manual (“Operator’s Manual” or “Operations Manual”) and the Sirius Aerial Image UAS & MAVinci Service Manual (“Service Manual” ) (collectively, “the Manuals”). A confidential copy of each of the Manuals has been submitted to the FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation, and Regulations as supporting documentation for this
Petition by Topcon Positioning Soluti ons with their exemption request . The Manuals contain information that is highly proprietary to Topcon and/or FS , and F S requests that the FAA treat the Manuals as confidential and not disclose them to the public. The Manuals will be subject to the followi ng limitations and conditions:

3.4.1 The Manuals and the exemption must be

maintained and made available to the FAA upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in the exemption and the procedures outlined in the Manuals, the cond itions and limitations in the exemption take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, F S must follow the procedures as outlined in the Manuals. [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 6.]
3.4.2 F S may update or revise its Manuals, and it is F S’ responsibility to tr ack

such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the FAA upon request. F S must also present updated and revised documents if it

### 13 petitions for an extension or amendment of the exemption. If F S determines that any update or revision would affe ct the basis upon which the FAA granted the requested exemption, then F S must petition for an amendment to the exemption. F S will contact the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS

- 80) if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the Manuals. [ Trimble E xemption Limitation No. 6.]
3.4.3 The Manuals contain information about the Sirius UAS’ performance

and limitations.
3.4.4 The Manuals contain the procedures for UAS operations, including

preflight inspections, which will account for all discrepancies, i.e., inoperabl e components, items or 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 Exemption Limitation No. 8.]
3.4.6 F S must carry o ut its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping

requirements in accordance with the Manuals. Maintenance, inspection, and alterations must be noted in the aircraft logbook, including total flight hours, description of work accomplished, and the signatu re 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

F S’ 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 Bulletins, and that requirement is set forth in the Manual s. [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 13.] F S will maintain copies of all manufacturer System and Safety Bulletins, and will make them available to the FAA upon request.

### 14 3.4.9 F S will follow the manufacturer’s UAS

aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replac ement, inspection, and life limit requirements. [ Trimble Exemption Limitation No. 10.]
3.4.10 The Manuals contain procedures for performing and documenting of

maintenance, preventive maintenance, alterations, status of replacement/overhaul component parts, and th e 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, F S requests that the Secretary of Transportation
determine that F S’ 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 national security. FS further requests that, based on the Secretary’s determination, the FAA determine

– as it did in the Ast raeus Exemption , Clayco Exemption , and AAS Exemption

– 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

5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 1 4 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

As required by FAR § 11.81, FS provides the following information in support of this
Petition: 5.1 Contact information:

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 FS r equests that the FAA include that in the exemption.

### 15 Name : Flyover Services, LLC
Mailing address : Flyover Services, LLC 40 Harkins St McDonough, GA 30253 Telephone/Facsimile number : (T) 678

- 614

- 7129 (F) 678

- 559

- 0286 E

- mail addresses : jake@flyoverservices.com

bill@f lyoverservices.com

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which FS seeks an exemption: FAR § 61.113(a) and (b)

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

– Civil aircraft airworthiness. 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, preventive 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: FS proposes to conduct small UAS operations, as described herein, for aerial surveying. In order to be able to conduct these UAS operations, FS petitions the FAA, 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 limitations: Pilot in command. The regulation states, in relevant part: (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 or property for

### 16 compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. (b) A private pilo t 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 carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. (c) ****. FS requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit FS to conduct UAS operations using PICs who hold an FAA private pilot certificate. While FS recognizes that the FAA normally requires a PIC to hold a commercial pilot certificate where there is compensation either to the pilot or for the operation, FS requests that the FAA exempt FS 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 mo re 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 pi lot 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 t hose larger manned aircraft. 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 aer onautical knowledge about the use of performance charts and aeronautical charts (beyond that which a private pilot must obtain for VFR), night operations, and

### 17

the use of air navigation aids/facilities. 2 However, no aspect of this incremental additional kno wledge 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 s ignificant. However, the additional experience required for a commercial pilot certificate is required to 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 comple x 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 landings can be cond ucted 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 type of experience t hat the PIC of a small UAS should have, in order to avoid imperiling passengers or property. In FS’ case, the small amount of property carried aboard the UA will be FS property. While the pilot will be compensated, all risk of damage to the property (in fa ct to the UAS itself) will be borne by FS. 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, almost none of the aeronautical experience requirements, bey ond 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 controlled access property as proposed in this Petition.
Acc ordingly, there is no reason to require the UAS PIC to have more experience than that required for the private pilot certificate.

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). 3 See FAR § 61.129.

### 18 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 performance for flight proficiency as demonstrated by prospective private ve rsus 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 higher than 400 feet AGL. Given that FS plans to operate its Sirius UA S 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 requirements 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 exemption should only be required to hold a private pilot certificate and third

- class air man 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, F S requests that the FAA grant an exemption to permit FS to use as PIC of the proposed UAS operations pilots who hold a private pilot certificate and a third

- class airman medical certificate, so long as they satisfy the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, including the PI C qualification and training requirements.
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 condition. . . .

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.

### 19 FS requests an exemption from this pro vision 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 FS understands
th at, notwithstanding the lack of an airworthiness certificate, the FAA will consider its “compliance with [FS’] Manuals to be sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition” and that FS must still determine the UA’s airworthiness prior to each flig ht based on compliance with 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 al titudes: (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 congested 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 operated 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 FS requests exemption from FAR § 91.7(a) based on the relief granted in the Trimble Exemption , at 16, 21. However, FS notes that the FAA determined that no such exemption was needed in the Astraeus Exemption , at 19, 22.

### 20 (2) A powered parachute or weight

- shift

- control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. FS requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit FS 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, FS’ 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 FAR § 91.119. With respect to paragraph (a), FS intends to comply with this requirement to the same extent as would a manned aircraft, meaning that the UA must operat e 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.” FS agrees with the FAA’s reasoning on this issue
in the Astrae us Exemption , at 20, and therefore does not believe that relief is required from paragraph (a). With respect to paragraph (b), FS plans to operate these small UAS over private or controlled

access properties, which are not themselves congested areas, but w hich may be located within a broader heavily populated and congested area. Accordingly, FS 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 precise 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 o perations 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 1,0 00 feet 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

### 21

manned aircraft and continuously within VLOS of the PIC on the ground. To the extent necessary, F S requests relief from paragraph (b). With respect to paragraph (c), F S requests an exemption to allow UAS operations down to the surface, both in sparsely populated areas and in “other than congested” areas. F S’ UAS operations require lower

- level flying, but have a number of self

- imposed restrictions to ensure at least an
equ ivalent 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.

• F S 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:

o Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect non

- participating
p ersons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. F S must ensure
that non

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

- participating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, fli ght 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 assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and det ermined 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 paragraph. Flying a manned aircraft, given its weight, size, speed, an d 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

### 22

determined in the Trimble Exemption , at 17

- 18, relief is warranted here provided that F S adheres to its Manuals and the additional conditions and limitations outlined above and in the exemption. For these reasons, F S re quests relief from the entirety of paragraph (c).
F S 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 parachutetype
aerial vehi cles.
FAR § 91.121

– Altimeter settings. The regulation states, in relevant part: (a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruisingaltitude or flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, when ope rating

— (1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to

—

(i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station alongthe route and within 100 nautical miles of the aircraft; (ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed inparagraph (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 radio,the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure; or (2) At or above 18,000 feet MSL, t o 29.92′′ Hg. (b) * * * *. It is not clear to F S that an exemption from this section is required because, although the regulation expressly applies only to aircraft maintaining a “cruising altitude” and dictates 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, F S requests an exemption from FAR § 91.121 to the extent necessary to permit F S to conduc t the small

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

- 1

- 1para. 3

- 1

- 2. (Jul. 24, 2014).

### 23

UAS operations described in this Petition. See Astraeus Exemption , at 21

- 22 (granting relief from this section with conditions and limitations).
F S recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that any UAS operated by F S maintain
altitude to an accurate reference such that other aircraft and the FAA may rely on F S’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 ex tent that this methodology does not satisfy FAR § 91.121 or any other regulation,
F S 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 conditionsunless (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 conditionsunless (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.
F S requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit F S to plan its UAS operations as described above. The proposed small UAS operations in this Petition will (i) invol ve operations in which one or more UAS is transported by means other than its own 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 proximit y to each other while remaining at all times within VLOS of the PIC. 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

### 24

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 cause 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 (50 mi nutes), requiring a full 30 minutes of reserve “fuel” (battery power) could take up nearly all of the available time for UAS operations. F S believes that using a smaller reserve for UAS flight planning purposes will be at least as safe as using the reserve s required by FAR § 91.151 for manned aircraft. Using a reserve 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 landing 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 begi nning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather 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. F S believes that these limitations w ill further ensure that the proposed reserve planning and operational requirements that F S is requesting to use under the exemption will provide at least an equivalent level of safety. For these reasons, F S requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151(a) to per mit it to plan and conduct 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 F S is proposing.
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 thispart and shall between required inspections, except as

### 25 provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter; (b) ****.
F S requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit F S to conduct the UAS operations proposed 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 operation s required exemption from FAR § 91.405(a), and that the achievement of an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations, some of which were proposed by the petitioner and some of which were imposed by the FAA. These included requirem ents to develop and document maintenance, 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 qualific ation criteria; and requirements to document comprehensive preflight inspection procedures.
F S has proposed several conditions and limitations in Section 3 of this Petition related to maintenance and inspections consistent with those in the Astraeus Exempt ion and the Trimble Exemption

. F S believes that these conditions and limitations provide 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, F S requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit F S 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).
F S does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.405 is required, since F S will make appropriate logbook entries in aircraft maintenance records in accordance with paragraph (b), appropriately 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).

### 26 FAR § 91.4 07(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 alteration unless

— (1) It has been ap proved 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) ** **.
F S requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit FS 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 propose d 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 Exemption and the Astraeus Exemption

. F S has proposed maintenance

- related condit ions 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, F S requests a n exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit F S to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without having to have the UAS approved for return to service by a person authorized under FAR § 43 .7.
F S does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.407 is required, since F S will require that maintenance record entries are made as required, in compliance with paragraph (a)(2), and since no persons will be carried follo wing maintenance performed on the UAS, making paragraphs (b) and (c) moot.

### 27 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 accordance 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 airwo rthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. No inspection performed under paragraph (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 in spections and is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance records. (b)  .
F S requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit F S to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to obtain the annual inspection and airworthiness certificate inspection 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 achieving an adequate level of safety required conditions and limitations similar to those set forth in those previously

- granted exemptions.
F S has proposed main tenance 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, F S requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit F S 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 i nspection required by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2).
FAR § 91.417(a) and (b)

– Maintenance records. The regulation states, in relevant part:

### 28 (a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section: (1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100

- hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, f or 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 theAdministrator) of the work performed; and (ii) The date of completion of th e work performed; and (iii) The signature, and certificate number of the personapproving 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 airframe,engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance. (iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed onthe aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis. (iv) The current inspection stat us of the aircraft, includingthe time since the last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained. (v) The current status of applicable airworthinessdirectives (AD) and safety directives including, fo r 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 thischapter fo r each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances. (b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for theperiods 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.

### 29 (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. (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) ** **.
F S requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit F S 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 E xemption that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b), and that an adequate level of safety required conditions and limitations similar to those set forth in those previously

- granted exemptions.
F S has proposed maintenan ce, 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 , F S requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit F S 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).

Additi onal FAR Provisions

. The Petition does not seek exemption from certain regulations based on the reasoning and FAA precedent outlined below in the footnote. 7 However, F S also requests 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 operations

7 This Petition does not seek exemption from:

### 30

> FAR Part 21 or 36, based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption , at 14, and Clayco 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 required documents may be kept at an unmanned aircraft’s control station” (“FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum”), the Astr aeus 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 Exemption , at 14, and Trimble Exemption , at 14, related to FAR § 45.23(b), and assuming that the markings on the UA us ed 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 in the FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum, and assuming that all UA are registered in accordance with FAR Part 47.
> FA R § 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 exemption from the preflight action requirements is not necessary when the grant of an exemption for UAS operations includ es conditions that satisfy p reflight action requirements. F S proposes such conditions in this Petition. > FAR § 91.109, based on the FAA’s reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption , at 20, and Clayco Exemption , at 14, which concluded that an exemption from the r equirement for dual flight controls for flight or simulator training or for flight testing is not necessary when there is no indication that dual flight controls will be used during any flight or simulator training or flight testing. described in this Peti tion, the FAA grant an exemption from those FAR provisions as necessary to permit the UAS operations described in this Petition. 7

5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest: A grant of the exemption would be in the public interes t because it would enhance safety for the general public, F S employees, and F S customers. First, the ability to use a small UAS to conduct the operations described herein, subject to the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, will enable F S to have access to more complete data about aerial surveys, topography, and maintenance flights, which

– in turn

– will enable F S to conduct safe and effective aerial survey F or maintenance/repair flights that minimize the risk of harm to the general public , F S employees, and F S customers.

7 FS would be happy to provide follow

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

### 31 Secon d, the use of the small, lightweight, battery

- powered Sirius UAS for these topographical aerial surveys and related operations is far less risky than undertaking those operations with a much heavier, much faster, much larger, manned helicopter or other aircraft loaded with fuel and a crew. As the FAA acknowledged in the Trimble Exemption , at 13: “The [ F S] pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight and construction with impact absorben t 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 Loss Link Procedures, redundant flight control systems, real

- time telemetry, airspace awareness system, and terrain following, demonstrate that the Sirius U AS operations proposed in this Petition are far less risky than if operated by larger and heavier manned aircraft.

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, F S 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 exemption 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 Tri mble 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 air space, 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 U A at all times; and the

### 32

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 lim itations proposed in the Petition provide substantial protection against interference 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 P etition, F S 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 there 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 computer 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 sl owly 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 creatio n of the flight plan at any time during a flight.
F S can 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 s afety feature of the MAVinci System is its dual control 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

– significantl y increasing operational security. The 2.4 GHz RC console 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 a utonomous flight. Should either system fail, the other system remains fully operational and is capable of providing safety of flight for the UAS.

### 33 For these reasons, granting an exemption from each section of the FAR from which relief is sought would not ad versely affect safety, and would provide a level of safety 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 sough t, a brief description of the nature of the exemption sought:
F S proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary: Docket No.: FAA

- 2015

-

______ Petitioner: FLYOVER SERVICES, LLC

. Sections of 14 CFR: 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.119(b) and (c), 91.12 1, 91.151, 91.405(a), 91.407(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.

5.7 Additional information that supports request:
F S is prepared to provide additional information that the FAA might find helpful, or to answer questions in response to any FAA requests. A confidential copy of each of the Manuals and the Topcon Certified Training Program will be submitted to the FAA Ass istant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation, and Regulations as supporting documentation for this Petition. The Manuals and Topcon Certified Training Program contain information that is highly proprietary to F S and/or MAVinci, and F S requests t hat the FAA treat the Manuals and Topcon 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.:
F S does not request to exercise the privileges of the exempt ion outside the United States.

### 34

5.9 Attachments All required attachments /manuals are identical to those submitted by Topcon Positioning Solutions in their exemption request dated January 17, 2015 and approved April 17, 2015. Please refer to those items for any clarification.

6.0 CONCLUSION

For the for e going reasons, FS respectfully requests that the FAA grant this Petition for Exemption

.

Respectfully Submitted

Jacob Hinton Flyover Services, LLC 40 Harkins St McDonough, GA 30253