### Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015 P a g e | 1 of 12 

## Erick F. Larsen

Consultant to Marc A. Menowitz

262 W. Linden Ave. # C Burbank, LA, Ca 91502

818

- 732

- 0330 ErickLarsen@Outlook.com July 20, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Marc A. Menowitz ’s Request (Petit ion) for Exemption from Certain Regulations per Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act) and 14

C.F.R. Pa rt 11, Marc A. Menowitz ( Menowitz , Petitioner, or Operator ) hereby applies for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs ) to allow business use (commercial operation) of his Unoccupied (unmanned) Aerial System (UAS), so long as such oper ations are conducted within and under the conditions outlined herein or as may be established by the FAA as required by Section 333.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, Marc A. Menowitz , is a United States born citizen, with the fo llowing contact information, ope rating at:

737 S. Genesee Ave

L.A. Ca 90036

323

- 904

- 1940 Mam@22.bz

Petitioner, Marc Menowitz , has been building and operating mo del aircraft for more than twenty ( 2 0) years. Petitioner currently maintains a duly issued US Passport and a Driver ’s License issued by

the California De partment of Motor Vehicles

. Moreover, as a sixth generation real estate developer, investor, and entrepreneur

, petitioner is well suited to incorporate UAS operations into his existing businesses.

Small business is the backbone of America. Through years of UAS hobbyist experience, petitioner has developed numerous diverse prospective clients in need of safe and lawful commercial UAS aerial data collection (ADC ) services. A small UAS business operated by petitioner will provide ne w

### Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015 P a g e | 2 of 12 jobs and an increased level of safety to clients currently in need of UAS ADC commercial services. Existing FAA UAS policy bars Petitioner from providing UAS ADC commercial services in the absence of the requested exemption.

Petitioner seeks to operate UAS to conduct aerial data collection (ADC) which includes any remote sensing and measuring by an instrument(s) aboard the Unoccupied (Unmanned) Aircraft (UA). Examples include imagery (photography, video, infrared, etc.), electronic measurement (precisio n surveying, RF analysis, etc.), chemical measurement (particulate measurement, etc.), or any other gathering of data by instruments aboard the UA.

In particular Petitioner seeks authorization to conduct commercial UAS remote ADC, mapping, surveying, phot ography, filming, demonstrations, crew training, surveying, measuring, and inspections of (or for):

1.) Construction, architectural, engineering, insurance, risk management, security, real estate, resort, golf, cemetery, entertainment, sports, utility, e nergy (oil, gas, solar, wind, & electric), hydro (water), transportation (port, rail, truck, & bus), mining, bridge, telecommunications, agriculture (farming, ranching, & growing) flare stack, platform, tower, pole, and pipeline infrastructure, structures, sites, systems, features and operations; and,

2.) Environmental, scientific, conservation, climate change, natural

resource, wildlife, oceanographic, forestry, weather, search & rescue, emergency services, humanitarian relief, public & private entity su pport, assistance and monitoring

of infrastructure, structures, sites, systems, features, and operations; and,

3.) Research, education, crew training, development, testing, certification, and validation of safe and lawful commercial, hobby, and recreatio nal UAS curriculum, education, and safe flight training , demonstrations, and events involving UAS design, manufacture, assembly, purchase, sale, maintenance, repair, inspection, safe operation, record keeping, and required FAA

documentation.

Hereinafter, 1

, 2 , and 3 , above, referred to as petitioner’s "proposed operations".

In support of his application, petitioner confidentially submits his proprietary Flight Operations Manual (FOM) and a flight manual for his DJI Phantom 3 professional (P3p ) . Petitioner ’s P3p UAS has been duly registered with the FAA which has assigned registration number N55 7XM

.

Specific Regulations f or which an exemption is sought:

14 CFR 61.113 (a) 14 CFR 91.7 (a) 14 CFR 91.119 (b) & (c)

14 CPR 91. 121 14 CFR 91.151 (a) 14 CFR 91.405 (a) 14 CFR 407 (a) (1) 14 CPR 409 (a) (1) & (2) 14 CFR 417 (a) & (b)

### Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015 P a g e | 3 of 12 II. PETITIONER’S PROPOSED OPERATIONS DO NOT CREATE SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS

The P3p UAS utilized by Petitioner is an electric multi

- rotor craft, weighing less than 55 lbs. including A DC payload. It operates at a speed of no more than 100 mph (87 knots) and has the capability to hover, and/or move in a vertical and horizontal plane simultaneously. It will only be operated as visual line of sight (VLOS), remain under 400 ft. above ground level (AGL), and will operate only over private or controlled access property with permission from the owner/controller of the property or authorized representative.

During petitioner’s proposed operations the site will be secured and non

- participants wi ll be kept at least 500 feet away from the operation unless barriers or structures are present that sufficiently

protect non

- participants in the event of an accident or loss of control. Petitioner has drafted, and submits confidentially, his Flight Operati ons Manual (FOM) which discusses safety considerations, training, general operating procedures, specifications, inspection, maintenance, setup of the UAS, and other proprietary procedures for the proposed UAS operations.

III. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED OPERATION S ARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The FAA has issued a Grant of Exemption to FalconSkyCam for operations that are substantially similar to those proposed herein. Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0884 (March 6, 2015). In issuing the Grant, the FAA noted that "[t]he enhanced safety and reduced environmental impact achieved using a UAS with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest."

Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the FAA grant the requested exemption summarily and without delay.

IV. EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY

Petitioner proposes that his P3p UAS requested exemption with the characteristics and as operated with the limitations listed below, provide for at least an equivalent or even higher level of safety to operations under the current regulatory fra mework.

These limitations and conditions to which Petitioner agrees to be bound when conducting commercial operations under an FAA issued exemption include:

1.) The P3p UAS utilized by Petitioner will weigh Less than 55 lbs, operate at a speed of no

more tha n 100 mph (87 knots), and will remain under 400 ft. (AGL). 2.) Flights will be operated only during daylight hours, only in visual meteorological conditions, and only within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command (PIC) of the UAS.

### Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015 P a g e | 4 of 12 3.) All operations w ill utilize a visual observer (VO) in addition to the pilot in command (PIC). 4.) Maximum total flight time for each operational flight will be approximately 30 minutes, or when the Low Battery warning activates.

V. EXEMPTIONS REQUESTED

14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a) a nd (b): Private, Recreational, or Sport vs. Commercial Pilot Certificates

Sections 61.113 (a) and (b) prohibit private , recreational, or sport certified pilots from operating a traditional aircraft for compensation or hire. Petitioner proposes that his PI C will have at least a private , recreational, or sport pilot’s certificate, and a current FAA medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or

the Federal governmen t. Petitioner’s PIC will also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

Petitioner will not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under petitioner’s exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualificati on flight hours and currency will be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the petitioner’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience

- building) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely opera te the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under petitioner’s exemption are requested by petitioner to be allowed under the terms of this exemption.

Petitioner further proposes that such PIC and VO training operations will only b e conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and experience

- building flights, all persons not essential for flight operations will be considered nonparticipants, and the PIC will operate the UA with appropriate distance fro m nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR §

91.119.

Based upon the above and for the reasons set forth in the FAA's grant of an exemption to Astraeus Aerial, Petitioner does not believe a commercial pilot certificate is necessary for the operations it

i ntends to conduct. See, e.g., In the matter of the petition of Astraeus Aerial, Exemption No. 11062 (issued Sept. 25, 2014). For those reasons, Petitioner requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a) and (b).

14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (a): Civil Aircraft Airw orthiness

Section 91.7 prohibits operation of an unairworthy aircraft, and places responsibility for airworthiness determinations on the PIC. The UAS will not have an airworthiness certificate, and there is no FAA regulatory standard for determining airwo rthiness of the UAS. Additionally, Petitioner's operating documents, including FOM, set forth inspection and maintenance procedures to ensure airworthiness. For these reasons, and in accordance with the FAA's grant of an

### Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015 P a g e | 5 of 12 exemption from section 91.7 to Tota l Safety U.S., Inc., Petitioner requests an exemption from 14 CFR. § 91.7(a). See, e.g., In the matter of the petition of Total Safety U.S., Inc., Exemption No. 11156 (issued Jan. 29, 2015).

14 C.F.R. §91.119 (b) and (c): Minimum Safe Altitudes

Section 9 1.119 establishes safe altitudes for operation of civil aircraft. Section 91.119 (b) prohibits aircraft in congested areas from flying less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. To the extent t hat Petitioner’s proposed operations

would be considered to be in "congested areas," Petitioner's operational procedures, including FOM, and the size, weight and speed of the P3p UAS, provide an equivalent level of safety such that the proposed operations at lower altitudes should be allowed.

As described in his Flight Operations Manual (FOM), Petitioner will establish a 500' buffer/sterile area for its operations that will exclude personnel not associated with the operations. Petitioner

will also exercise additional control over the sterile area as needed, as set forth in the FOM. Consequently, Petitioner believes these procedures will reduce or eliminate any potential adverse impacts to safety for operations in congested areas. Petitioner therefore reque sts an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.119(b).

Section 91.119 (c) prohibits operations in other than congested areas below 500 feet above the surface, or closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure. Since this exemption is

for a UAS that f lies similarly to a helicopter and requests authority to operate at altitudes up to 400 AGL, an exemption may be needed to allow such proposed operations.

The equivalent level of safety will be achieved given the size, weight, speed of the UAS as well as the location where it is operated. As discussed above, Petitioner’s FOM provides for establishment of a sterile area, including safety buffers of 500 feet for personnel not associated with the operation. Petitioner therefore requests an exemption from Sect ion 91.119(c) for all authorized personnel associated with the proposed operations.

14 C.F.R. §91.121 Altimeter Settings

This regulation requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain a cruising altitude by

reference to an altimeter that is set " ... to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure." As the UAS may not have a barometric altimeter, but instead a constant GPS altitude read out, an exemption is requested.

14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

Section 91.151 (a) prohibits an individual from beginning "a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing, and, assuming normal cruising speed

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

### Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015 P a g e | 6 of 12 Maximum total flight time for each of the proposed operations will be n o more than 30 minutes. Flights will be safely landed when the battery falls below its nominal voltage, should that occur prior to completion of the operation. The petitioner’s P3p UAS has a constant battery voltage display and a Low Voltage LED Warning wh ich alerts when the battery reaches pre

- determined levels. This battery level would be more than adequate to return the UAS to its planned landing zone from anywhere in its limited operating area when the Low Voltage Warning alerts.

For these reasons, Pet itioner requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151 (a). Similar exemptions have been granted to other operations, including Exemptions 2689F, 5745, 10673, and

10808.

14 C.F.R. §91.405 (a); 407 (a) (1); 409 (a) (1) & (2); 417(a) & (b): Maintenance Inspe ctions

These regulations require that an aircraft operator or owner "shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter ...," and others shall inspect or maintain the aircraft in compliance with Part 43.

As provided in petitioner’s FOM, the operator and the PIC will ensure that the UAS is in working order prior to initiati ng each flight, and the operator will perform required maintenance and inspections, and keep a log of any maintenance performed.

VI. REGULATIONS FOR WHICH EXEMPTIONS ARE UNNECESSARY

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued numerous prior exemptio ns for many different types of UAS operations. In those exemptions, the agency noted that exemptions from certain regulations were not necessary, due to "the size, weight, speed and limited operating area associated with [the UAS] and its operation."

Base d upon the FAA's guidance and the fact that petitioner’s UAS is even smaller and slower than many of those UAS in previously issued exemptions, Petitioner believes exemptions from the following regulations are not necessary:

14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H: Airworthiness Certificates. 14 C.F.R. § 45.23 (b): Marking of the Aircraft. 14 C.F.R. §91.7(b): Civil aircraft airworthiness. 14 C.F.R. §91.109: Flight instruction.

Petitioner also believes that an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103: Preflight Action is not necessary. This regulation requires each pilot in command to take certain actions before flight to insure the safety of flight. An FAA approved rotorcraft flight manual will not be provided for the aircraft. An equivalent level of safety will be provid ed as set forth in the FOM and operating documents submitted as part of this request.

### Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015 P a g e | 7 of 12 The FAA has previously found that adherence to procedures contained in an applicant's operating documents demonstrate compliance with § 91.103, and therefore an exemptio n from the regulation was not necessary. See, e.g., In the matter of the petition of Total Safety U.S., Inc., Exemption No. 11156 (issued Jan. 29, 2015).

As detailed in his operating documents, petitioner's PIC will take all actions including reviewing

we ather, flight battery requirements, landing and takeoff clearance distances and aircraft performance data before initiation of flight to ensure the safety of the flight. Consequently, in light of this agency's prior finding in Total Safety U.S., Inc., Pet itioner does not believe an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103 is necessary.

If it is determined that the petitioner does require exemptions from any of the above provisions from which he has herein stated that he believes no exemption is required: Petiti oner requests that such exemptions be granted upon the basis of all that he has stated in this petition and in his operating documents

.

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the Federal Register, should it be determined that publication is needed:

Petitioner seeks an exemption from the following rules:

14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a) and (b); 91.7 (a); 91.119 (b) and (c); 91.121; 91.151 (a); 91.405 (a); 91.407 (a) (1); 91.409 (a) (1) & (2) and 91.417 (a) & (b) to cond uct aerial data collection (ADC) which includes any remote sensing and measuring by an instrument(s) aboard the Unoccupied (Unmanned) Aircraft (UA). Examples include imagery (photography, video, infrared, etc.), electronic measurement (precision surveying, RF analysis, etc.), chemical measurement (particulate measurement, etc.), or any other gathering of data by

instruments aboard the UA.

Approval of exemptions allowing commercial operations of UAS for these purposes will enhance safety by reducing risk. C onventional means for performing these assessments require either physically climbing or scaling structures, poles or towers, using ropes to scale or rappel up or down poles, towers or structures, using high

- reach man lifts to access the towers, poles, sit es, or structures (limited reach), or by using conventional helicopters or traditional aircraft operating at extremely low altitudes over the subject structure, pole, site, or tower being examined. These conventional means all pose high risks to persons an d property, including many actual human deaths each year.

In contrast, a UAS weighing less than 55 lbs. and powered by batteries, eliminates virtually all of that risk given the reduced mass and lack of combustible fuel carried on

board. The UAS is carrie d by hand to the proposed operations site and not flown. The UAS carries no passengers or crew and, therefore, will not expose them to the risks

### Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015 P a g e | 8 of 12 associated with traditional manned aircraft flights; ground based aerial lift (bucket truck) operations, or man ual climbing, scaling, and inspection operations.

The proposed operations of this small P3p UAS, weighing less than 55 lbs., conducted in the strict conditions outlined in this petition, will provide an equivalent level of safety supporting the grant of t he exemptions requested, including exempting Petitioner from the requirements of Part 21 and allowing commercial UAS operations. These lightweight aircraft operate at slow speeds, and close to the ground, and, as a result, are far safer

than the convention al alternatives.

Privacy All of the proposed operations, UAS flights, will occur only over private or controlled access property with permission from the owner/controller of the property or authorized representative. Petitioner’s proposed operations will be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations governing privacy at the venue of the flight operation.

VII. CONCLUSION

Petitioner has requested to use a P3p UAS for aerial data collection (ADC). The FAA has issued

grants of exemptio n in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in this petition. In Grants of Exemption Nos. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial ( see Docket No. FAA−2014−0352), 11109 to Clayco, Inc. ( see Docket No. FAA−2014−0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC ( s ee Docket No. FAA−2014−0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. ( see Docket No. FAA−2014−0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or c rew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled by granting an exemption to petitioner is in the public

interest.

Upon re view of petitioner’s reasons for requesting this exemption, It reasonably should be

determined that:

1.) They are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in Grant of Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213; 2.) The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213 also apply to the situation petitioner presents; and 3.) A grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, P etitioner should be granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow the pe titioner’s proposed operations.

### Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015 P a g e | 9 of 12 Satisfaction of the criteria provided in Section 333 of the Reform Act of 2012

- size, weight, speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports and populated areas and daylight UAS operation s to

within vis ual line of sight (VLOS) and national security

- provide more tha n adequate justification to

grant the requested exemptions allowing the proposed operation s in the NAS by petitioner Marc

Menowitz.

Respectfully,

/Signed/ 

### Erick F. Larsen

Consultant to Marc A. Menowitz

262 W. Linden Ave. # C Burbank, LA, Ca 91502

818

- 732

- 0330 ErickLarsen@Outlook.com