1

January 19, 2016 John R. Sakers Owner and Manager Mr. John S. Duncan V
-Wing Aerial Solutions, L
. L
. C
. Director, Flight Standards Service 4645 W Ivanhoe St Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office Chandler, AZ 85226 Federal Aviation Administration (480) 286

- 3429 800 Independence Avenue, SW vwingaerial@gmail.com Washington, DC 20591 U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operation West Building Ground Floor, R oom w12
- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Re: Request for exemption from multiple regulatory provisions to allow the use of small unmanned aerial systems on land controlled by clients of V
-Wing Aerial Solutions, L.L.C. ( hereinafter “Petitioner” ) to assist in the safe assessment of terrain, infrastructure and operations for our clients. Dear Mr. Duncan : In accordance with Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Modernization Act) 1 Petitioner respectfully requests an exemption from several provisions of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) to permit the use of small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) to assist in the evaluation of terrain, infrastructure and operations for our clients. In addition to the w aiver authority provided in Section 333 of the Modernization Act, the Administrator may grant certain exemptions under 49 U.S.C. §44701(f) 2 upon the determination that such an exemption is in the public interest in light of the Petitioner’s explanation as to why granting such exemption(s) would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide at least an equivalent level of safety as compliance with the underlying regulation. Additionally, pursuant to the requirement s contained within 14 C.F .R. §11.83, Petitioner anticipates operations on land controlled by clients of Petitioner outside of the United States and requests extension of the exemption to those operations accordingly. Petitioner acknowledges and intends compliance with the salient requirements and recommendations contained within International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Circular 328
-AN/190 3 and further acknowledges that FAA extension of the exemption outside of the United States is entirely contingent upon the FAA’s assessme nt of compliance with the Standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

1 P.L. 112
-95, 126 Stat 11, February 14, 2012 2 49 U.S.C. 44701(f) specifically provides authority to the Administrator to grant an exemption from a requirement of a regulation under subsection (a) or (b) of this section or any of sections 44702

-44716 of this title if the Administrator finds the exempt ion is in the public interest. 3 ICAO Cir 328
-AN/190, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), 20112

**Background Information** This request is motivated primarily by the desire to maximize safety and environmental sensitivity in terrain analysis, infrastructure and operations that are characteristically located in very remote locations . While an exemption would not entirely eliminate the need for in
- person visual inspection required by variou s Federal and State regulations, it would allow Petitioner to deploy vid eo, thermographic and spectral means to evaluate terrain, infrastructure, operational assets and agricultural resources via sUAS rather than piston
-engine powered aircraft, resulting in a safer, cleaner and more efficient assessment process through various phases of site design , construction and operation. The safety, environmental compliance and operational condition of many infrastructure and other assets is heavily dependent upon constant detailed analysis and inspection. Factors ranging from natural phenomena (i.e., seismic and weather) to man

- made (i.e. , inattention, intrusion, intentional or unintentional physical damage, trespassing ) can adversely impact infrastructure and other assets to the extent that abrupt failure can occur. Recognizing this, our Federal and State Governments have over time enacte d a variety of regulations that require various levels of documented routine and condition
based special inspections. Clients of Petitioner detail these requirements within their internal policies and procedures and characteristically conduct the required inspections using either company personnel in motor vehicles or on foot, by contracting specialized resources which includes services conducted primarily by aerial imagery, or both. As renewable energy resources such as wind and solar take on an increasing ly vital role in powering our nation, added challenges such as finding single malfunctioning photovoltaic panels among millions in one installation by very precise heat signature s or detecting various stress anomalies in wind turbine blades using video
- bas ed analysis have arisen. While our clients typically apply strict ‘hierarchy of controls’ methodologies to reduce human and environmental risk to levels as low as reasonably possible , there always remains a component of irreducible risk when employees are called upon frequently to conduct inspections sometimes at significant heights or over large areas of terrain while exposed to sometimes unpredictable weather events. During facility construction activity, the simultaneous presence of employees on foot and often large construction equipment creates the potential for human
- error conflicts that pose the risk of serious or fatal injury. The skilled use of sUAS when and where feasible allows for remote viewing that reduces these iterations of human involvement and thus reduces the probability of an injury or fatality. **Granting the Exemption is in The Public Interest** As described in the following information, Petitioner anticipates that its use of sUAS in lieu of current conventional means and methods that employ single engine fixed wing aircraft and rotorcraft serves the public interest by localizing all phases of flight to secured property which eliminates related airfield noise nuisance risk to neigh bors and decongests airfields and the National Air Space (NAS) on a sortie for sortie basis plus the transit/ferry distance from an airfield to the area or asset being examined that applies to civil aircraft but does not apply to sUAS
. T ightly controlled a nd localized operation of sUAS over secured areas not proximal to airfields at very low altitude and airspeeds coupled with the3

significant technical safeguards built into certain current generation sUAS mitigate s, to the maximum extent currently achievabl e, both the probability and consequence of an aviation incident/acciden t versus currently
- employed fixed wing and rotorcraft alternatives. Furthermore, Petitioner anticipates t hat its use of sUAS will, to the maximum extent possible, eliminate the greenh ouse gas (GHG) and lead emissions associated with the current use of certain piston
- engine fixed wing aircraft and rotorcraft fueled by 100LL aviation gasoline o n a sortie fo r sortie basis plus the transit/ferry distance from an airfield to the target area that does not apply to sUAS (which are activated and deactivated on
-site) . While Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) final rulemaking has not yet been undertaken regarding the emissions related to piston
- engine powered aircraft , Petitioner notes that t he EPA has issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) that contemplates the potential use of Section 231 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to adopt aircraft engine standards domestically4 and intends to issue proposed findings regarding Lead Emissions from Piston
- Engine Aircraft Using Leaded Aviation Gasoline in 2017 following its ANPR issued on that subject in 2010. 5 In light of these considerations and consistent with the spirit and intent of Executive Order 13653 entitled “Preparing the United States for the Impact of Climate Change,” 6 Petitioner believes that the use of sUAS in lieu of piston
- engine fixed wing aircraft and rotorcraft affords the opportunity to advance a clean er alternative i n terms of enhancing air quality and contributing to the cause of reducing the rate at which climate change appears to be progressing
. Finally, the use of sUAS equipped with spectral imagery equipment affords a highly efficient means for assessing crop a nd grazing forage condition which will inform efficient water usage and application of various agricultural treatments as opposed to broad area watering and application of treatments employed when highly accurate imagery is either not available or is prohi bitively expensive. Accordingly, Petitioner believes that the G rant of an Exemption serves the Public Interest and is consistent with Congress’ intent, reflected in Section 333 of the Modernization Act that safe systems be permitted in the national airsp ace (NAS) prior to the issuance of final regulations governing general use of these systems. 7

4 The EPA is not currently considering GHG emissions from piston
- engine aircraft as noted in 80 F.R. 37758
-806, however, piston
- engine aircraft were not excluded from the petition forming the basis of the current ANPR. 5 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Lead Emissions from Piston
- Engine Aircraft Using Leaded Aviation Gasoline; Proposed Rule 75 F.R. 22440
- 68. 6 EO 13653, “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change” requires federal agencies to integrate considerations of the challenges posed by climate change effects into their programs, policies, rules, and operations to ensure they continue to be effective, even as the climate changes. 7 Section 333(b)(2) specifically contemplates that the FAA may issue a certificate of waiver upon a finding that a type of UAS, as a result of its size, weight, speed, operational capacity, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operations within vis ual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public or pose a threat to national security.4

**Granting the Exemption will not Adversely Impact Safety** Petitioner holds that the proposed use of sUAS for the purposes described in the following company ope rational information section enhances safety because it largely replaces a like number of operations currently conducted by primarily single engine lan d and rotorcraft given the following : 1. Take
-off, landing and flight operations of sUAS are conducted on a nd at or below 400 feet AGL above property controlled and typically secured by an owner or right of way holder as opposed to manned flights originating and terminating at an airfield, transiting often significant distances within the NAS and conducting ima gery and sensor operations at altitudes compliant with the minimum safe altitude (MSA) requirements contained within §91.119. The operation of sUAS in lieu of manned aircraft therefore is expected to be largely contained within comparatively lower use portions of Class G airspace and can thus be expected to enhance safety by decongesting airfields and the NAS. 2. Because sUAS used as intended by Petitioner are less than 55 pounds fully loaded, operated at or below 50KTAS, at or belo w 400 feet AGL and not in proximity to persons on the ground beyond the PIC and VO, the probability of an aviation accident or incident as defined in Part 830 is significantly minimized versus similar operations currently conducted by manned aircraft. 3. For the purposes described in the following company operational information, Petitioner will only employ sUAS during daylight hours and under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). In the vast majority of foreseeable applications, these operations will be conducted within approxim ately 75 feet of separation from the nearest, highest structure along the secured flight path of the sUAS. Accordingly, the risk of interference with other aircraft is minimal particularly in contrast with the current use of manned aircraft for inspection purposes. 4. Given the typically remote location of the majority of the tasks to be performed by sUAS, it is highly unlikely that operation of sUAS within 5 nautical miles of an airfield or heliport will become necessary. In the event that such operations be come necessary, Petitioner will contact management personnel at the airfield/heliport and/or the FAA air traffic control tower if the facility is controlled, describe the intended operations, provide a flight plan and fully comply with all directions issue d by either the management organization or the Air Traffic Controller as applicable. 5. Given that many of the tasks contemplated for the sUAS application are currently performed by single engine land aircraft and single engine rotorcraft
- helicopters, safety is enhanced by very significantly reducing the risk posed by the mass, velocity and flammable fuel loading characteristic of many present
- d ay operations. For example, in contrast to a typical manned Cessna 172 SP with a maximum take
- off weight of 2550 pounds, 53 usable gallons of 100LL aviation gasoline, maneuvering airspeed (VA) limitation between 90KIAS

- 105KIAS and stall speed between 48KCAS
-53KCAS 8, the sUAS variants proposed by PETITIONER under this exemption request are unmanned, have a maximum weight of 55 pounds, operate at speeds between
8 Cessna Model 172S NAV III GFC 700 AFCS, Information Manual, Cessna Aircraft Company 20 December 20075

0KTAS (hover) and 100KTAS (maximum), are battery powered, are technically speed limited below airfra me tolerance, are capable of both manual and GPS
- directed hover hold and are incapable of stall in other than power failure scenarios. Each of these differences highlights the enhancements to safety that will be achieved by replacing like conventional airc raft sorties with sUAS. 6. Because of the inherent risks present regarding certain infrastructure operations (e.g., pipelines, power plants, rail, water treatment facilities, communication and transmission towers, etc.); our clients take appropriate measures to control unauthorized access. These controls range anywhere from security fencing to advanced motion detection systems and are most often applied in depth (i.e., multiple security features, some of which are visible, some of which are not readily appare nt even to a trained observer). Together with joint mission pre

- planning and provision of additional flight
- path security as may be needed, the combination of security measures and PIC/VO VLOS awareness will virtually eliminate operational risk to persons on the ground. 7. While no standards have yet been established for sUAS Airman Certification, Petitioner regards safe operation of any aircraft within the NAS as an imperative that requires formal education , competency examination and certification. Given t hat, all sUAS missions will be flown under VMC/VLOS by a current FAA Certificated Airman (minimally, Private Pilot Privileges with a current Class III medical and having continuously met biennial flight review (BFR) requirements) as PIC and sole manipulato r of the controls with one or more VO positioned to ensure the sUAS, the airspace above and below it, obstructions and position relative to objects on the ground is under observation at all times during flight operations. 8. Each PIC will be required to dem onstrate at least 3 manual take
-offs and landings with each sUAS variant they are qualified to operate every 90 days and additionally will be required to maneuver the sUAS manually around various objects located in a controlled test environment. PETITIONER will not designate a PIC until the candidate has achieved a minimum of 25 hours of demonstrated safe operation in a controlled training environment, a minimum of 200 activation
- deactivation cycles manually, a minimum of 50 activation
- deactivation cycles v ia device programming (automatic launch and recovery), a minimum of 10 additional hours of competency evaluation for each additional sUAS beyond that used for initial certification and successful completion of a competency examination (written) based on in ternal procedures and the aircraft manual. Petitioner additionally intends to provide training to VO personnel consistent with relevant aeronautical knowledge elements contained within the Sport Pilot Certificate requirements found in §61.309. 9. Prior to c alculating and preparing the mission flight plan, Petitioner procedurally requires a documented formal mission coordination meeting between the assigned PIC, VO and Client representatives with emphasis on mission parameters, flight environment, obstruction s and exclusion zones (ground security provisions). As a standard, Petitioner will not allow personnel not involve d with flight operations within 500 feet of the PIC, VO and laterally from the centerline of the flight path on each leg of flight.6

10. Petition er procedurally requires documented preparation of a flight plan prior to each day of operation with emphasis on point to point GPS legs, flight altitude (AGL) and speed (KTAS) appropriate to the sensor/imagery package and below 400 feet (AGL) and 50KTAS, landing points based on 25% reserve power, radio frequencies, communication protocols, emergen cy procedures and airspace evaluation based on published NOTAMs, TFRs, SFR, MTR, mission or blanket Certificate of Waiver or Authorization ( COA ) requirements and proximity to known manned aviation operations using a combination of current “Foreflight®” and FAA “B4UFLY” information. 11. Petitioner procedurally requires filing of a Distant Notice to Airmen (D

- NOTAM) for each mission between 72 and 24 hours prior to sUAS activation for the mission or as otherwise required by a specific or blanket COA . This requirement includes cancelling filed D
- NOTAMs upon total mission abort or mission completion. 12. Petitioner procedurally requires that the PIC maintain an sUAS PIC logbo ok indefinitely. 13. Petitioner procedurally requires that all aircraft hours, maintenance/operating discrepancies, maintenance/calibrations performed and return

-to -service authorization be logged in an aircraft logbook unique to the FAA registration number of the aircraft. Each aircraft logbook must be retained for a minimum of 3 years after retirement and notification of retirement to the FAA. 14. The sUAS proposed for exemption by Petitioner are each equipped with automated “return to home (RTH)” features triggered by power state and/or loss of command and control (C2) connectivity. 15. The sUAS proposed for exemption by Petitioner are each capable of flying automatically via GPS waypoint and manually, with PIC ability to immediately manually override GPS as may b e required by changes in the flight environment. 16. Petitioner notes, agrees with, supports and will comply to the extent current means exist with the operational limitations, operator certification and responsibilities and aircraft requirements contained within the Summary of Major Provisions of Proposed Part 107 “Overview of Small UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.” 9 Accordingly, given these strict operational conditions and greatly reduced risk versus current alternatives, Petitioner believes that the Grant of Exemption will Not Adversely Impact Safety and is cons istent with Congress’ intent, reflected in Section 333 of the Modernization Act that safe systems by permitted in the national airspace (NAS) prior to the issuance of final regulations governing general use of these sytems. 10

9 Docket No.: FAA
- 2015
-0150; Notice No. 15
-01 10 Id. P.L. 112
-957

**Company Operational Information**  Petitioner is owned, operated and managed by an FAA certificated airman qualified to exercise the privileges of a private pilot holding airplane single engine land and rotorcraft
- helicopter ratings without limitations. Petitioner is in the b usiness of Consulting on, Equipping, Maintaining and Operating Mission Specific sUAS for our clients. C lients look to us for the s afe and efficient o perations of sUAS. In addition to three
dimensional photogrammetric mapping and imagery for use in preparat ion of various engineered plans, imagery to assess project completion and regulatory compliance components and video and thermographic imagery to evaluate operational safety and performance, we increasingly have clients looking for s ervices that include no n - invasive high
- resolution terrain imagery designed to detect probable habitat features for a wide variety of flora and fauna listed or protected under various Federal and State laws. Without risking human disturbance of such suspected habitats via tradi tional methods of detection conducted by biologists or ecologists on foot or by land vehicle, our contemplated use of sUAS for th is purpose enables the use of high
- resolution imagery to accurately and unobtrusively inform design efforts around such protected species habitat in consultation with specialized biologists, ecologists and other interested stakeholders
. Petitioner specifically provides services in the following phases and types of operation: **Siting and Design Operations :**  Topographical Assessment and 3
- D Mapping High Value Flora and Fauna Habitat Detection and Mapping Rights
- of
-Way Mapping Surveying Support **Project Execution Support Operations :**  Project Progress Mapping Compliance Monitoring and Documentation Protected Flora and Fauna Buffer Zone Monitoring **Infrastructure Inspection Operations :**  Electrical Utility and Transmission Line Condition Inspection Communications Tower Inspection Railway Condition Inspection Pipeline Condition Inspection Manufacturing Facility Enviro nmental Controls Condition Inspection Oil Exploration and Production Site and Equipment Inspection8

Mining Environmental Features Condition Inspection Agricultural Inspection Security Fence and Features Condition Inspection Road Condition Inspection **O perational Assessment**  **:** Equipment Anomaly Detection Heat Islanding Detection and Measurement **Agricultural Health Assessment :**  Farm and Grazing Land S pectral Imagery
**Supporting Documentation** Appendix A provides a summary of this request suitable for publica tion in the Federal Register. Appendix B provides manufacturer’s information regarding the design, aircraft performance and fail
safe features. We have provided manufacturer information related to operating limitations, normal and emergency procedu res, and maintenance and inspection procedures. As we add aircraft designs, we will update this appendix appropriately. Appendix C provides the Table of Contents of the V
-Wing Aerial Solutions (Petitioner’s) Operations and Safety Manual for flights covere d under this Exemption Request.9

**Additional Required Information in Support of the Petition for Exemption**  **:** Pursuant to the procedural requirements contained within 14 C.F.R. §11.81, Petitioner provides the following information in addition to the foregoing sections regarding safety, operations and the public interest : **(a) Name, mailing address and additional contact information:**  John R. Sakers ( FAA Airman Certificate Number 3285262) Owner and Manager V
-Wing Aerial Solutions, L.L.C
. 4645 W Ivanhoe St Chandler, AZ 85226 (480) 286

- 3429 vwingaerial@gmail.com **(b) The Specific S** **e ctions of 14 C.F.R. from which Exemptions are S** **ought:** Petitioner believes it may need an exemption for the following provisions contained within 14 C.F.R. in order to conduct the contemplated operations. In some instances, relief is needed as a result of relief from another provision that renders the compliance with th e provision at hand infeasible. i. Section 333 Aircraft Exemption Status ii. 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H; iii. 14 C.F.R. Part 27; iv. 14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b); v. 14 C.F.R. § 45.27(a); vi. 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2) and (c); vii. 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a); viii. 14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b) ix. 14 C.F.R. § 9 1.119(c) x. 14 C.F.R. §91.121 xi. 14 C.F.R. §91.151 (a) and (b) xii. 14 C.F.R. 91.203 (a) and (b) xiii. 14 C.F.R. §91.405(a) vii. 14 C.F.R. §91.407(a) viii. 14 C.F.R. §91.409(a)(1)&(2) ix. 14 C.F.R. §91.417(a)&(b) Petitioner believes that exemptions are only needed from the above
- listed regulatory provisions. To the extent that the FAA believes additional relief is required and available for the operations described here, P etitioner respectfully requests an exemption from any such regulatory provision as well.10

**(c) T** **he Extent of Requested Relief and the Reasons Relief is Needed: i.**  **Section 333 Aircraft Exemption Status:** Given the previously described aircraft size, speed, altitude and controlled operating areas governing operation as proposed by Petitioner, the requirements of an equivalent level of safety under Part 11 and Section 333 of the Modernization Act are met. The Federal Aviation Act (49 U.S.C. 44701(f)) and Section 333 of the Modernizatio n Act both authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft from the requirement for an airworthiness certificate upon due consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports/heliports and populated areas of the particular sUAS. T he sUAS deployed by Petitioner are less than 55 pounds fully loaded, carry neither pilot nor passenger, and are operated exclusively within secured area s . Unlike other civil aircraft currently conducting similar operations, sUAS operations to be conducted by P etitioner would not originate a t an airfield, would not require in
-transit use of the NAS between an airfield and the secured area , and will be tightly controlled to comparatively smaller areas at altitudes at or below 400 feet above ground level (AGL) and speeds less than 5 0 knots true airspeed ( 5 0 KTAS)
. D issimilar from civil aircraft conducting similar operations, added margin s of safety are provided given that the sUAS to be deployed will be operated by the PIC under continuous and simultaneous Visual Observer (VO) VLOS obse rvation with two
-way verbal communication established prior to and maintained throughout all phases of flight
. Additionally, consistent with the meaning and intent of “VLOS,” the sUAS to be deployed will be operated only in da y light conditions (i.e., never at night as defined in 14 C.F.R. §1.1) and under Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC). All sUAS operations to be conducted by will be planned in full coordination with client experts relative to the technical requirements, parameters and site security and safety provisions for each mission and conducted in compliance with all applicable Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), Conditions and Limitations issued pursuant to Grant of Exemption under Section 333 of the Modernizatio n Act and local public safety requirements
. **ii. 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H**  **14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H Airworthiness Certificates** The FAA has stated that no exemption is required from this subpart if certain findings are made that the sUAS selected provides an equivalent level of safety when compared to aircraft typically used for the same application. Petitioner believes that these criteria are met within this petition, and therefore does not believe an exemption is required. If, however, the FAA determines that11

there are characteristics of the sUAS selected that fail to meet the requirements of the Modernization Act, an exemption is respectfully requested. An equivalent level of safety has been provided in that the sUAS proposed for exem ption by Petitioner are safer than current manned aviation alternatives given their size, weight, speed, absence of flammable fuels, inert payload (i.e., imagery and sensor equipment), technical safeguards and low altitude operating envelope.

**iii. 14 C.F.R. P** **art 27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft**  This Part sets forth the requirements for airworthiness certification of normal category rotorcraft. Although the sUAS proposed by P etitioner are not defined as normal category rotorcraft.

********** Relief is requested to the extent that certification may otherwise be requested under this Part, for the same reasons and given the same equivalent level of safety as previously described in the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Sub part H. **iv. 14 C.F.R.**  **§ 45.23(b)**  **Aircraft Markings**  This section sets forth the requirements for aircraft markings and states: when marks include only the Roman capital letter “N” and the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted or light
-sport c ategory aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near the entrance to the cabin, cockpit or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches high, the words “lim ited,” “restricted,” “light
-sport,” “experimental,” or “provisional,” as applicable. 11

********** Relief is requested because of the size of the sUAS proposed for use by P etitioner, which limits the space available for various required aircraft markings u nder this section. In previous Grants of Exemption, the FAA has determined that exemption from these requirements was warranted provided that the aircraft have identification (N

- Number) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Subpart C that are “as large as practicable.” Equivalent safety will be provided by marking all of Petitioner’s sUAS with their N
- Number in a prominent location on the fuselage with markings that are as large as practicable.

11 Doc. No. 8093, Amdt. 45
- 5, 33 FR 450, Jan. 12, 1968, as amended by Amdt. 45
-9, 42 FR 41102, Aug. 15, 1977; Amdt. 45
- 24, 69 FR 44863 , July 27, 200412

**v. 14 C.F.R.**  **§ 45.27(a)**  **Rotorcraft (Markings)** Relief is requested to the extent that markings may otherwise be required under this section, for the same reasons and given the same equivalent level of safety as previously described in the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. §45.23(b). **vi. 14 C.F.R.**  **§§ 91.9(b)(2)**  **and (c) Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking and Placard**  (b)(2) No person may operate a U.S. registered civil aircraft
– for which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by 21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof. (c) No person may operate a U.S. registered civil aircraft unless that aircraft is identified in accordance wit h part 45 of this chapter.

********** Relief is requested because sUAS manuals can’t be “in the aircraft,” and “markings, and placards, or any combination thereof” are impracticable beyond the N
- Number marking previously discussed. Equivalent safety is provided by assuring that the sUAS manual for the sUAS being employed in any given operation is at the PIC station from which the sUAS is controlled. Also as previously discussed, N
- Number markings will be affixed to each sUAS and sized “as large as practi cable.” **vii. 14 C.F.R. §91.109(a)**  **Flight Instruction; Simulated Instrument Flight and Certain Flight Tests** (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.

********** Relief is requested because sUAS by design do not have dual controls, rather flight is controlled singularly by the PIC from a ground station through the use of a hand
- held control unit that commands and controls the sUAS via radio frequencies. Equivalent safety is provided by assuring that when sUAS flight instruction is pe rformed, no persons will be onboard the aircraft and the operation will be in a remote, secured instruction and testing area a safe distance from personnel not associated with the flight instruction. The PIC providing the instruction and the individual rec eiving the instruction will both employ situational awareness relative to the sUAS and will wear suitable personal protective equipment (PPE). Because Petitioner will only employ FAA certificated airmen as PIC, training will only be13

provided from certifica ted airmen to certificated airmen until and unless the FAA deems otherwise in future rulemaking. **viii. 14 C.F.R. §** **§ 61.113(a) and (b)**  **§61.113 Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: Pilot in Command** 12 (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this se ction, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. (b) A pri vate pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

********** Relief is needed from both paragraphs (a) and (b) because the contemplated operations would not comply with §61.113(b)(1) and none of the other exceptions to paragraph (a) apply. Petitioner notes that neither Sectio n 333 nor the FAA’s exemption authority under 49 U.S.C. §44701(f) allows the FAA to exempt pilots from the statutory requirement to hold an airman certificate as prescribed in 49 U.S.C. §44711 and proposes to use only current FAA certificated airman as pil ots of its sUAS (minimally, Private Pilot, Class III medical, current BFR). Operation of an sUAS as proposed by Petitioner will not be incidental to the business or employment, rather, it will be compensated as an operation separate and distinct from the business. Therefore, without this exemption, the pilot would be required to hold a Commercial Pilot Certificate as provided in §61.133 which would impart needless and prohibitive cost without any appreciable benefit considering the dissimilarity of the skills and risks associated with commercial operation of an sUAS versus commercial operation of a manned aircraft. As previousl y described, the risk associated with the proposed sUAS operations are significantly less than the risks posed by fixed wing and rotorcraft aircraft upon which risks the standards for certification of a Commercial Pilot are based. An equivalent level of s afety has been provided as previously indicated. The sUAS will be operated by an FAA certificated airman under continuous VO operation in daylight VMC conditions at altitudes well below most permissible minimum safe altitudes for other civil aircraft and w ithin a flight environment largely under the control of the client organization. Accordingly, the operational risks associated with the proposed sUAS operation are limited to Petitioner’s personnel, who will be properly safeguarded and the property of P eti tioner’s client on the ground. As previously described, P etitioner will initially only assign a current FAA

12 Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 61
- 110, 69 FR 44869, July 27, 2004; Amdt. 61
- 115, 72 FR 6910, Feb. 13, 2007; Amdt. 61
- 125, 75 FR 5220, Feb. 1, 201014

Certificated Airman (minimally a Private Pilot) as PIC for sUAS operation and will to the maximum extent possible adhere to the conditions previously described in the current NPRM. 13
**ix. 14 C.F.R. §91.119(c)**  **§91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes: General .**  Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an ai rcraft below the following altitudes: (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.

********** Relief is needed because the contemplated operation would not comply with §91.119(c). The operations contemplated by Petitioner must be conducted at altitudes below 500 feet and within 500 feet of persons directly as sociated with flight operations (viz. PIC and VO) and structures (the primary targets of aerial imagery). Imagery operations conducted at separations greater than 500 feet more often than not fail to provide meaningful results. Although an sUAS is not a he licopter, the operation of the sUAS models proposed by P etitioner is very similar to helicopter operations with respect to takeoffs, landings and the ability to hover at fixed points. Therefore, P etitioner will comply with §91.119(d) and conduct all operat ions accordingly without hazard to persons or property on the surface. Relief is neither needed nor requested from paragraphs (a) or (b). Regarding paragraph (a), both the characteristics of the sUAS and the controlled flight envelope within which operat ions are conducted enable emergency landing in the event of a power unit failure without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. Regarding paragraph (b), Petitioner does not anticipate conducting any operations over congested areas as defined.

**x. 14 C.F.R. §91.121**  **§91.121 Altimeter Settings.** Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, when operating
– (1) Below 18,000 feet M SL, to
- (i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route and within 100 nautical mi les of the aircraft...

********** Relief is needed because the sUAS contemp lated for use are, in some cases, not equipped with a primary barometric altimeter, rather, with a primary GPS altitude instrument.

13 Id. Docket No.: FAA
- 2015
-0150; Notice No. 15
- 0115

An equivalent level of safety is provided by the PIC prior to flight and pursuant to the sUAS flight manual and P etitioner’s flight planning checklist by confirming the altitude of the launch site shown on the GPS indicator with reference data prior to each activation of the aircraft. Continuous altitude information is provided during flight via digitally encoded telemetry betwe en the sUAS and ground
- based operational display. Various primary and secondary altitude sensors may be installed on different sUAS, including GPS employing GPS triangulation, digitally encoded altimeters, radio altimeters or a combination thereof. Dependi ng upon the particular technology built into the sUAS selected for the operation, a zero reference point will be established and confirmed by the PIC in accord with the sUAS flight manual prior to each activation. While maintaining VLOS during flight, the PIC and VO will qualitatively monitor altitude readouts based on known heights of various features along the flight path. In the event the altitude readout appears to be erroneous, the sUAS will be safely deactivated (landed) and the altitude accuracy concern fully resolved prior to continuing operations. **xi. 14 C.F.R.**  **§91.151 §91.151**  **Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions.** (a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) t here 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. (2) text omitted. (b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions u nless (considering wind and forecast weather cond i tions) 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.

********** Relief is needed because an sUAS is ne ither an airplane nor a rotorcraft as defined and because the operation of an sUAS is within a controlled, defined area that does not raise the risk mitigated by §91.151, which contemplates that an aircraft or rotorcraft may run out of fuel in the event th at the aircraft is required to circle the intended point of landing or divert from the intended point of landing to an alternate airfield or heliport. The regulatory text of §91.151(a)(2) is omitted from this request because sUAS operations will not be con ducted by P etitioner at night. In lieu of the otherwise applicable fuel requirement, equivalent safety will be provided by requiring deactivation (landing to full stop) be executed at 25% remaining battery power.16

**xiv. 14 C.F.R. §91.405**  **§91.405 Maintenance Required.**  Each owner or operator of an aircraft
- (a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between the required inspections except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter...

********** Relief is needed because maintenance standards have not been developed that would allow an owner or operator of an sUAS to meet the part 91 maintenance requirements. Rather, Petitioner will maintain its aircraft as instructed in the manufacturer’s literature, including but not limited to the sUAS owner’s manual and consistent with ASTM F2909
- 14 Standard Practice for Maintenance and Continued Airworthiness of Small Unmanned Aircraft Syst ems (sUAS).

**xv. 14 C.F.R. §91.407**  **§91.407 Operation after Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Rebuilding or Alteration.** (a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless
– (1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under §43.7 of this chapter...

********** Relief is needed because maintenance standards have not been developed that would allow an sUAS operator to meet the part 91 maintenance requirements. Specifically, there are no authorization standards nor authorized persons able to approve the return to service of an sUAS that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding or alteration. In lieu of this requirement, P etitioner will maint ain its aircraft in accordance with the sUAS owner’s manual and technical literature and in a manner consistent with ASTM F2909
- 14 Standard Practice for Maintenance and Continued Airworthiness of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS). Further, prior to op erational use, P etitioner will conduct and log post- maintenance testing of the aircraft in all flight regimes in a secured testing area to verify full functionality of the sUAS and all systems supporting the sUAS. **xvi. 14 C.F.R.**  **§ 91.409**  **§ 91.409 Inspections.**  (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 airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

**********17

Relief is needed because annual inspection standards have not been devel oped that would allow an sUAS operator to meet the part 91 inspections requirements. Specifically, no inspection standards or protocols exist regarding either annual inspection or the authorization to return the aircraft to service. As previously described , Petitioner will maintain its aircraft in accordance with the sUAS owner’s manual and technical literature and in a manner consistent with ASTM F2909
- 14 Standard Practice for Maintenance and Continued Airworthiness of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS ). **xvii. 14 C.F.R.**  **§§ 91.417(a) and (b)**  **§91.417 Maintenance Records.**  (a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section: (1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100
- hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft...

********** Relief is needed because the stand ards and requirements surrounding maintenance, preventive maintenance, alteration and various required or approved inspections have not been developed, which would not allow an sUAS operator to meet the part 91 maintenance requirements. In lieu of these re quirements, Petitioner will develop and maintain record keeping protocols consistent with the inspections and maintenance recommended in the sUAS owner’s manual and technical literature and in a manner consistent with ASTM F2909
- 14 Standard practice for Ma intenance and Continued Airworthiness of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS). **Conclusion** The FAA has already granted exemptions similar in all material respects to this petition for exemption. Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Section 333 of the Modernization Act to permit the operation of the aircraft proposed. This petition warrants review by the FAA with summary grant consideration requested given that this petition does not set any precedents. If any questions arise or clarification is needed in your consideration, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted,
John R. Sakers Owner and Manager, V
-Wing Aerial Solutions, L.L.C.18

**Appendix A Summary for**  **Publication in the Federal Register**  Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication by the FAA in the Federal Register as needed. **Petitioner :**  V
-Wing Aerial Solutions, L.L.C. **Sections of 14 C.F.R. Affected:** i. 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H; ii. 14 C.F.R. Part 27; iii. 14 C.F.R. §45.23(b); iv. 14 C.F.R. §45.27(a); v. 14 C.F.R. §91.7(a); vi. 14 C.F.R. §91.9(b)(2) and (c); vii. 14 C.F.R. §91.109(a); viii. 14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b) ix. 14 C.F.R. §91.119(c) x. 14 C.F.R. §91.121 xi. 14 C.F.R. §91.151(a) and (b) xii. 14 C.F.R. 91.203 (a) and (b) xiii. 14 C.F.R. §91.405(a) xiv. 14 C .F.R. §91.407(a) xv. 14 C.F.R. §91.409(a)(1)&(2) xvi. 14 C.F.R. §91.417(a)&(b) **Description of Relief Sought:** The Petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, 14 C.F.R. Part 27, 14 C.F.R. §45.23(b), 14 C.F.R. §45.27(a), 14 C.F.R. §91.7(a), 14 C.F.R. §91.9(b)(2) and (c), 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a), 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a) and (b), § 91.119(c), § 91.121, 91.151, § 91.405(a), § 91.407(a), § 91.409(a)(1) and (2), § 91.417(a) and (b) in order to conduct sUAS operations over c lient owned or controlled land, solely during daylight hours under visual meteorological conditions to assist in the safe evaluation of terrain, infrastructure and operations. T he sUAS operations contemplated will be conducted in remote areas that are sparsely or not populated and distant from airports. The operations to be conducted will be flown by a current FAA certificated airman as Pilot in Command (PIC) at altitudes below 400 feet AGL at speeds below 50KTAS and within 75 feet of the highest structure along the flight path. All operations will be under continuous visual observation of both the PIC and a trained Visual Observer (VO) with two -way communications established and continuous
. Accordingly, the risk of interference with other aircraft or objects on the ground is extremely minimal.19

**Appendix B, Aircraft 1 DJI Phantom 3 Professional** 20

**Appendix B, Aircraft 1 DJI Phantom 3 Professional**  **Specifications**21

**DJI Phantom 3 Professional**  **Specifications (continued)**22

**Appendix B, Aircraft 2 DJI S1000** 2324

**Appendix B, Aircraft 3 Aibotix Aibot X6 Multicopter** 25

**Appendix C V** **- Wing Aerial Solutions, L.L.C.**  **Operations and Safety Manual Table of Contents**  

# Table of **Contents** Part I: Administrative 1. Table of Revisions and Approval 2. Responsibilities 3. PIC and Aircraft Logbook Entries 4. Telemetry and Imagery/Sensor Data Download 

## Part II: Mission Readiness 1. Operational Coordination 2. Operational Risk Register 3. Operational Tasking Order 4. Flight Planning 5. Filing D
- NOTAM 6. Support Equipment Readiness Check 

## Part III: Pre
- Launch Phase 7. Site Security Confirmation 8. Personal Protective Equipment and Measures 9. Two
-Way Voice Confirmation 10. sUAS Pre
- Flight Readiness Check 

## Part IV: Mission Pha se 11. Activation Clearance (Takeoff to Hover) 12. Leg Clearance (Hover to Straight & Level Flight) 13. Deactivation Clearance (To Hover and Landing) 14. Shut
- down 

## Part V: Emergency Procedures 15. Emergency Procedures26



# Table of Contents (continued) Part VI: Appendices Appendix A: DJI Phantom 3 Professional User Manual Appendix B: DJI S1000 User Manual Appendix C: Aibotix Aibot X6 User Manual Appendix D: Operational Coordination (Form) Appendix E: Support Equipment “Field Box” (Checklist) Appendix F(a

- c): sUAS Pre
- Flight (Checklist) Appendix G: Flight Plan (Form) Appendix H: PIC Logbook (Form) Appendix I(a

- c): Aircraft Logbook (Form) Appendix J: Mission Debrief (Form)