September 14

, 2015

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

Re: Petition of Frank J. Polievka for an Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

Director: Flight Standards Service:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 ("Reform Act") and
14 C.F.R. Part 11, Frank J. Polievka (“ Polievka ”) hereby applies for an exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs" ) identified below to allow commercial operation of small unmanned aerial vehicles (i.e., "small unmanned aircraft" or "UAS") for the purpose of conducting aerial videography and photography for the film and television industry as well as the

re al estate industry.

This petition for exemption is made based on information outlined in this Petition for Exemption, as well as the accompanying documents;

1. PIC Flight Operations Manual and;

2. Operations Manuals ( Collectively 2 and 3 are referred t o as Documents and Manuals)

3. User Guide and;

4. Flight Manual 1 ( Collectively 3 and 4 are referred to as "Manufacturer's Manuals").

Polievka submits these supporting materials as confidential documents pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.35(b), as the m aterials contain confidential commercial and/or proprietary information that

Polievka has not and will not share with other requesting parties. Additionally, these documents contain operating conditions and procedures that are not generally available to th e public and are protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et. seq.

For your convenience, this Petition is organized as follows:

I. Description of Petitioner

1 . The term "Manufacturer's Manual" also includes all relevant manufacturer publications, including, but not limited to: operations and flight manuals, user guides, component maintenance manuals, pilot training manuals, service
information letters and, safety/service bulletins

.U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 2

II. Description of Proposed Operations

A. A erial videography , photography and cinematogr a phy

III. Relevant Statutory Authority

IV. Proposed UAS Operations Meet the Requirements of Section 333 of the

Reform Act

A. Approval is Warranted Based on the UAS's Size, Weight, Speed, and Operational Capability

B. Approval is Warranted B ased on the Operational Restrictions Set Forth in the Operations Manuals

V. Regulations From Which Exemption is Requested

A. 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H

– Airworthiness Certificates and 14 C.F.R. § 91.203(a)(1)

B. 14 C.F.R. Part 27 Airworthiness Standards: Norma l Category Rotorcraft

C. 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9(c), 45.23(b) and 45.27(a): Aircraft Marking and Identification Requirements

D. 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance Inspections

E. 14 C.F.R. Part 61, 14 C.F.R. § 61.3, 1 4 C.F.R. § 61.113: Private Pilot Privileges and

Limitations

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

G. 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual in the Aircraft and 14 C.F.R. § 91.203(a) and (b): Carrying Civil Aircraft Certification and Registration

H. 14 C.F.R. § 91.103: Preflight Action

I. 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a): Flight Instruction

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

K. 14 C.F.R. § 91.121: Altimeter Settings

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

V1. Drug and Alcohol Program

VII. Public Interest

VIII. Privacy

IX. Federal Register Summary

X. Conclusion

I. DESCRIPTION OF PETITIONER

Polievka , based in Waldorf, MD provides aerial videography, photography and cinematography

for the m ovie and TV industry as well as the real estate industry utilizing the latest UAVU.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 3

technology. Polievka aims to provide high quality aerial video, using the latest UAS technologies, to every client in a safe and professional manners. Polievka works to pro duce

video graphy and photography via controlled flights for the promotional purposes, commercial art and stock footage. The Company’s Principal and Chief Pilot Frank J

. Polievka has been flying UAV Quadcopters as a hobby for more than three year s without i ncident, spen d ing thousands of hours flying. Upon the grant of the 333 Exemption the Company’s business will specialize in production of v ideography and photography for their client base.

Polievka ’ s staff are well trained and experienced in providing supp ort as visual observers (“VO”) for the pilot in command (“PIC”) in addition to any other needed on site assistance

.
All of the equipment owned by Polievka is of the highest quality gear and ha s been able to provide these services safely and without any cla ims or incident

. Polievka ’ s goal is to advise the perspective client that Polievka is following all the applicable state and federal rules to ensure the safety of the public while providing the client with a competitive and cost effective product.

Poliev ka seeks an exemption to allow for aerial filmmaking as well as photography, videography services and other related media products.

The contact information for Petitioner is as follows:

Frank J. Polievka

3412 Milstead Ct Waldorf, MD 20602

Phone: ( 240 ) 83 2

- 1971

Email: Fpolievka @gmail.com

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED OPERATION

Polievka seeks an exemption pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act to operate the

DJI Phantom ( all under 55lbs) also known as ( FP

- UAS ) for the proposed operations discussed

here in below. All UAS operations will occur under tightly controlled conditions on private property where Polievka has received verifiable permission to operate from the landowner, controller or authorized representative. The proposed UAS operations will be c onducted in accordance with the conditions and limitations of this Petition for Exemption and Polievka ' s Operations Manuals. As detailed in Polievka ' s Operations Manuals, all UAS operations will be limited to daytime VFR conditions, within visual line

- of

- sight ("VLOS") of the operator, in uncontrolled airspace, and will occur at least 5 mm away from an airport reference point

. Moreover, Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals incorporate redundant safeguards to assure the aircraft

does not travel outside the control led area of UAS operations, including GPS "geo

- fencing" technologies.

A. Aerial C losed

- S et V ideography, P hotography and C inematography

Polievka seeks to use small FP

- UAS for the purpose of conducting aerial videography and photography creating ci nematic vignettes for their client base. Polievka has purposefully tailored its operations to meet the requirements established by the FAA in prior grants of exemptionU.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 4

authorizing commercial use of UAS in the motion picture and television filmmaking indust ry, including :

 Astraeus Aerial (Exemption No. 11062)

 Aerial MOB, LLC (Exemption No. 11066)

 Pictorvision, Inc. (Exemption No. 11067)

 HeliVideo Productions, LLC (Exemption No. 11065)

 Snaproll Media, LLC (Exemption No. 11063)

 RC Pro Productions Consulting, L LC d/b/a Vortex Aerial (Exemption No. 11064)

 Flying

- Cam, LLC (Exemption No. 11080)

 Aerocine, LLC (Exemption No. 11150)

 Team 5, LLC (Exemption No. 11158)

 Alan D. Purwin (Exemption No. 11161)

 Helinet Aviation Services, LLC (Exemption No. 11160)

 Picture Facto ry, Inc. (Exemption No. 11178)

All UAS recording operations will occur on private property in a controlled area away from spectators and persons not involved in the film making process . In addition, the filming will be

conducted between dawn and dusk to en sure maximum safety for the public and those involved in the manipulation and operation of the UAS ; VFR conditions, at altitudes below 400' above ground level (“AGL”).

As set forth below, Polievka ’ s operations provide an equivalent level of safety which is superior to performing the same work using conventional fixed

- wing aircraft or helicopters.

Small UAS recording operations is also safer than traditional manned aircraft performing the same function. Conventional operations using rotorcraft and fixed

- w ing aircraft in low level operations present risks associated with vehicles weighing tens of thousands of pounds (including payload) and carrying large amounts of fuel which inherently presents significant fire hazards as well as exposure to other chemical contaminates

. It is important to note the use of small UAS in this area will not only be safer and more cost effective to the perspective user or purchaser of the service , but the quality and expanse of acquired information will be far more robust given the low cost associated with its acquisition and other potential consumers an inexpensive product

.

UAS recording is more reliable, and allows for the collection, dissemination, and storage of visual and other sensory data with greater precision and durat ion at a very low cost . Small UAS will also be capable of accessing and inspecting areas that would otherwise be inaccessible or highly dangerous using conventional aircraft or other inspection methods.

III. RELEVANT STATUTORY AUTHORITY

This Petition fo r Exemption is submitted pursuant to Section 333(a) through (c) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 ("Reform Act"). Congress has directed the FAA "to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspac e system." Pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act, the FAA Administrator is to permitU.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 5

u nmanned aircraft systems to operate in the National Air Space ("NAS") where it is safe to do so

b ased on the following considerations:

● The UAS's size, weight, speed and operational capability; ● Operation of the UAS in close proximity to airports and populated areas; and ● Operation of the UAS within the visual line of sight of the operator.

Additionally, the FAA Administrator has gene ral authority to grant exemptions from the agency's safety regulations and minimum standards when the Administrator decides a requested exemption is in the public interest. See 49 U.S.C. § 106(f) (defining the authority of the Administrator); 49 U.S.C. § 4 4701(f) (permitting exemptions from §§ 44701(a), (b) and §§ 44702

– 44716, et seq.). A party requesting an exemption must explain the reasons why the exemption: (1) would benefit the public as a whole, and (2) would not adversely affect safety (or

how it w ould provide a level of safety at least equal to the existing rules). See 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 (petitions for exemption).

IV. POLIEVKA ’ s PROPOSED FP

- UAS OPERATIONS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 333 OF THE REFORM ACT

The small FP

- UAS operations proposed b y Polievka as noted above in this Petition for Exemption qualify for expedited approval pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act as each of the statutory criteria and relevant factors are satisfied.

A. Approval is Warranted Based on the UAS's Size, Weight, Speed, and Operational Capability

A Grant of Exemption is appropriate for operations conducted using the UAS s due to their size weight, speed, and operational capability.

 The FP

- UAS ’s utilize d by Polievka have been approv ed for use in prior Section

333 Grants of Exemption from the FAA. 2

 The FP

- UAS s weigh less th an 55 pounds, including payload

 The FP

- UAS s will not be flown at a ground speed in excess of 50 knots.

 Altitude information will be generated by equipment onboard the UA S as specified using GPS triangulation, digitally encoded barometric altimeter, radio altimeter, or any combination thereof. This information will be transmitted to the pilot via telemetric data feed.

2 See e.g., Grant of Exemption to Shotover Camera Systems L.P. (Exemption No. 11159); Grant of Exemption to VDOS Global, LLC (Exemption No. 11112); Grant of Exemption to LowCountryRC, Corp. (Exemption No. 11184); Grant of Exemption to Alan Purw in (Exemption No. 11161); Grant of Exemption to Helinet Aviation Services (Exemption No. 11160); Grant of Exemption to Total Safety U.S., Inc. (Exemption No. 11156).U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 6

 The FP

- UAS s will have system redundancies and independent functionality to

ens ure the overall safety and predictability of the system. If connection to the remote control or ground control station is lost, failsafe systems will permit the UAS s to return to a predetermined location and safely land without injury or damage.

 The radio frequencies used for operations and control of the FP

- UAS comply with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") and other appropriate government oversight agency requirements. T he operating frequency for the FP

- UAS is 2.4 GHz frequency bands.

If the same operations were conducted using a helicopter, the aircraft's take

- off weight would likely exceed 6,000 pounds depending on payload . The difference in weight between the FP

UAS and a helicopter significantly reduces the potential harm to the participat ing and non

participating individuals and/ or surrounding property in the event of an unintended accident or incident. In addition, the risk to the onboard pilot and camera operator is eliminated.

B. Approval is Warranted Based on the Operational Restrictio ns Set Forth in

Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals

Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals and the Manufacturer's Manual for the selected FP

- UAS will contain all the procedures and limitations necessary to safely and successfully perform the operations specified in thi s Petition for Exemption. To assist the FAA in making a safety

assessment of Polievka ’ proposed operations, below is a summary of operational limitations and

conditions that Polievka will adhere to, and which will ensure an equivalent or higher level of

sa fety to operations conducted under current regulatory guidelines:

1. The FP

- UAS s weighs less than 55 pounds, with payload

.

2. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled

- access property with verifiable permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from land owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained

for each scheduled flight prior to operation

.

3. All UASs operated under the Grant of Exemption will be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N

- Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings will be as large as practicable.

4. Minimum crew for each flight operation will consist of a pilot, who will be Pilot

- in

Co mmand ("PIC") of the FP

- UAS , and one or more Visual Observers ("Observer") as necessary to safely conduct the mission.

5. PICs shall possess either a private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. The PIC

must also hold a current Class III medical certif icate 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 government. The PIC will also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 C.F.R 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot

certificate.U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 7

6. The FP

- UAS s shall be operated within VLOS of the PIC and Observer at all times.

The PIC must use human vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC's FAA

- issued medi cal certificate.

7. The PIC and Observer designated for any operation will be able to communicate verbally at all times.

8. Electronic messaging or texting will not be permitted during flight operations.

9. The additional requirements identified in the Grant of Exemption shall be added to

the Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals. The Operations Manuals will be maintained and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in the Grant of Exemption and Pol ievka ’ s Operations Manuals, the conditions and limitations in the Grant of Exemption shall take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, Polievka shall follow the procedures outlined in their Operations Manuals.

10. Polievka may update or revise its Operat ions Manuals. Revisions will be tracked and a revised copy of the Manual will be provided to the Administrator upon request. Polievka will also present an updated and revised Operations Manuals if it petitions for

extension or amen d ment to its Grant of Ex emption. If an update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA grants the exemption, Polievka will seek an amendment to its Grant of Exemption. Polievka will contact the FAA’s UAS Int e gration Office (AFS

- 80) if questions arise regarding update s or revisions to the ope r ating

documents.

11. Polievka Operations Manuals and its Grant of Exemption will be available to the PIC at the ground control station anytime the FP

- UAS is operating.

12. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a FP

- UAS flight unless (con sidering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough power to fly to the first intended point of landing, and assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 10 minutes.

13. Maximum total flight time for each operational flight using the FP

- UAS will be

limited to 40 minutes or the amount of time the UAS can be flown and still maintain a reserve battery power of no less than 25%, whichever occurs first.

14. Flights will be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet AGL and will neve r enter navigable controlled airspace without timely prior written authorization and approval from the FAA. In the event the structure being inspected exceeds 400 feet AGL, the UAS will not be operated more than 100 feet above the highest point on the

stru cture, and no more than 50 feet horizontally from the structure.

15. Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons. (persons other than the PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons), vessels, vehicles, and stru ctures unless:U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 8

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating

persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a

situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately and/or;

b. The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the owner/controller of such vessels, vehi cles or structures 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, and;

c. Operations nearer to the PIC, VO, operator trainees or essent ial persons do not present an undue hazard to those persons per § 91.119(a).

16. The FP

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

17. The FP

- UA S may not operate within 5 nm of an airport reference point as denoted on

a current FAA

- published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as requi red by the Polievka COA. The letter of agreement with the airport management will be made available to the Administrator upon request.

18. Prior to each flight the PIC shall inspect the FP

- UAS to confirm that it is in a condition safe for flight. The pre

- fli ght inspection will account for all discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment, not already covered in the relevant sections of the operating documents as well as equipment updates . The PIC shall not

operate any FP

- UAS if the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the FP

- UAS until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the

FP

- UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The ground control station shall be included in the preflight inspection. Al l maintenance and alternations must be properly documented in the UAS ’s records as required by Polievka ’ s Operations

Manuals.

19. Polievka will timely carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping requirements in accordance with the Operations M anuals. Maintenance, inspection,

and alterations will be fully noted in the FP

- UAS records, including total time in service, description of work accomplished, date completed and the signature of the authorized person returning the FP

- UAS to service.

20. Any F P

- UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or flight characteristics (e.g., replacement of a flight critical component)

must timely undergo a functional test flight in accordance with Polievka ’ Operations

Manuals. The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an entry in the UAS aircraft records of the flight. The requirements and procedures for a functional test flight and FP

- UAS record entry shall be included in the Polievka ’ s Operations

Manuals.U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 9

21. The FP

- UAS will be operated and maintained according to the Manufacturer's

Manuals and any required manufacturer Safety/Service Bulletins and product updates

.

22. Prior to the operation, a Mission Packet will be created in accordance with the requirements on Polievk a ’ Operations Manuals.

23. Polievka will obtain an Air Traffic Organization ("ATO") issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization, otherwise known as a COA, prior to conducting any operations under this Grant of Exemption. A NOTAM will be issued as required b y the COA. All operations will be conducted in accordance with airspace requirements in the ATO issued COA including class of airspace, altitude level and potential transponder requirements.

24. All required permissions and permits will be obtained from terri torial, state, county or city jurisdictions, including local law enforcement, fire or other appropriate governmental agencies.

25. If the FP

- UAS loses communication with the PIC , it will have the capability to safely

return to a pre

- determined location within the operational area and land safely.

26. Contingency plans will be in place to safely terminate flight if there is a loss of

communication between the PIC and the Observer.

27. The FP

- UAS will have the capability to safely abort flight in the case of unpredict ed obstacles or emergencies.

28. PICs and Observers will have at least a curren t Class III Medical Certificate or a valid

and current state driver’s license issued within the United States

.

29. Prior to conducting operations for filming, the PIC will have accu mulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b), a minimum of 200 flight cycles and 25 hours total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot and at least 10 hours logged as a UAS p ilot with a similar FP

- UAS type platform

. This requirement can be ach ieved by flights conducted and logged as a hobbyist

.

30. Prior to conducting operations for filming, the PIC will have accumulated and logged,

in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b) , a minimum of hours pursuant to 54 CFR § 61.51(b) as UAS pilot operati ng the make and model of FP

- UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption and three take

- offs and three landing in the preceding 90 days

.

31. Operations shall occur during daytime VFR Meteorological Conditions; flights under special visual flight rule s ("SVFR") shall not be conducted.

32. The FP

- UAS shall remain clear and yield the right of way to all other manned operations and activities at all times (including, but not limited to, ultralight vehicles, parachute activities, parasailing activities, hang gliders, etc.).U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 10

33. FP

- UAS Operations under Instrument Flight Rules, at night, or beyond VLOS are prohibited.

34. The FP

- UAS will not be operated from an elevated platform or moving

device/vehicle.

35. Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation and

control of the FP

- UAS will comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government oversight agency requirements.

V

. REGULATIONS FROM WHICH EXEMPTION IS REQ UESTED

The Federal Aviation Act expressly gran ts the FAA the authority to issue exemptions. This statutory authority, by its terms, includes exempting civil aircraft, as the term is defined under § 40101 of the Act, including UAS , from its safety regulations and minimum standards when the

Administrato r decides a requested exemption is in the public interest. 3

Polievka seeks an exemption from several interrelated provisions of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations ("14 C.F.R") Parts 21, 45, 61 and 91 for purposes of conducting the requested opera tions using FP

- UAS platforms noted above . Listed below are: (1) the specific sections of 14 C.F.R for which exemption is sought, and (2) the operating procedures and safeguards that Petitioner has established which will ensure a level of safety better than or equal to the rules from which exemption is sought. 4

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM

A. 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H

– Airworthiness Certificates and 14 C.F.R. §91.203(a)(1)

The FAA has stated that no exemption is needed from this section if a finding is made under the Reform Act that the UAS selected provides an equivalent level of safety when compared to aircraft normally used for the same application. These criteria are met and in point of fact

exceeded

, and therefore no exemption is needed. 5 If, however, the FAA determines that there are some characteristics of the chosen UAS that fail to meet the requirements of the Reform Act, an exemption is requested.

Equivalent Level of Safety

3 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) (authorizing the grant of exemptions from requirements of regulatio ns prescribed pursuant to Sections 44701(a) and (b) and Sections 44702

- 44716).

4 14 C.F.R § 11.81(e), which requires a petition for exemption to include: The reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption woul d provide a level of safety at least equal to that pr o vided by the rule from which you seek exemption.

5 See Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (FAA

- 2014

- 0352 at pgs. 13

- 14, 22).U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 11

Polievka ’ s use of the FP

- UAS are safe when taking into account their size , weight, speed, and operational capability. As set forth in the description of proposed operations in Section IV ( A),

the FP

- UAS weigh less than 55 poun ds , including payload and will not be flown at a ground speed in excess of 50 knots. The FP

- UAS are al so equipped with safety features which will allow Petitioner to operate the FP

- UAS safely after experienc ing certain in

- flight contingencies

or failures as noted below

. 6 7

Additionally, the FP

- UAS carry neither pilots nor passengers, carry no explosive ma terials or flammable liquid fuels, or other elements identified by Homeland Security as being prohibitive and operate exclusively within the parameters stated in Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals

.

Operations conducted under this exemption will be closely cont rolled and monitored by the PIC operator and will be conducted in compliance with local public safety requirements, to provide security for the area of operation. Polievka will also provide the FAA with advance notice of all operations via NOTAMs as requir ed by the applicable COA. In all cases, operation of the FP

UAS under the proposed conditions will be at least as safe as, or safer than, conventional rotorcraft operating with an airworthiness certificate

. Lastly, the FP

- UAS do not need a means to

communi cate with other aircraft or ATC, because those capabilities will be solely possessed by the PIC and Observer, who are not onboard the FP

- UAS

. 8 In addition, no sense

- and

- avoid technology is necessary for the FP

- UAS because they will be operated at all time s in VFR conditions and within VLOS of the PIC and Operator

. 9

B. 14 C.F.R. Part 27 Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft

6 See e.g., Grant of Exemption No. 11184 to LowCountryRC, Corp. (FAA

- 2014

- 0803 at pg. 3): "The [DJI S1000] has the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain in

- flight contingencies or failures and uses an auto

pilot system to maintain UAS stability and control. The UAS is also able to respond to a loss of global positioning system (GPS) or a lost

- link event with a pre

- coordinated, predictable, automated flight maneuver, and manual flight control functionality as a backup. These safety features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to a manned

airc raft performing a similar operation."

7 See e.g., Grant of Exemption No. 11184 to VDOS Global, LLC. (FAA

- 2014

- 0382 at pgs. 4

- 5): The FP

- UAS can be operated entirely by a touch

- screen, map

- based interface. This means the operator only needs to command the s ystem where to go, and the system does all the flying for the operator. The FP

- UAS can be operated in both semi and fully autonomous flight modes, with the operator simply clicking on a map to create a pre

- planned flight path for a flight. In addition, the operator can create no fly zones or maximum flight ranges and altitudes so the system cannot enter areas deemed unsafe or unnecessary to fly over. The petitioner states further that the UAS has built

- in intelligent fault handling which allows the F P

- UAS t o detect a system fault while in the air and automatically fly back to its takeoff location and land. Faults that can be detected include: loss of communication; exceeding pre

- set wind thresholds; and low battery levels.

All flight operations are global p ositioning system (GPS) controlled, making the system easy to navigate. At anypoint if the operator is not explicitly commanding the system to move, the system automatically holds its GPS position. The flight control system employs not only GPS positionin g but a variety of sensors including sonar, barometric pressure, temperature, wind speed and others to ensure stability so long as wind thresholds are not exceeded. Also a flight termination link

– to prevent a 'fly away' or other potentially dangerous sit uation

– is available to the operator."

8 See Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (FAA

- 2014

- 0352 at pg. 13).

9 . IdU.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 12

Title 14 C.F.R. Part 27 sets forth the procedural requirements for airworthiness certification of normal category rotorcraf t. To the extent that Polievka ’ s small FP

- UAS would otherwise require certification under Part 27, Petitioner seeks an exemption from Part 27's airworthiness standards for the same reasons identified in the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. R. Part 21, Subpart
H, supra

.

C. 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9(c), 45.23(b) and 45.27(a): Aircraft Marking and Identification Requirements

Polievka seeks an exemption from the aircraft marking and identification requirements contained in 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9(c), 45.23(b) and 45.27(a)

.

● 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(c), Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking and Placard requirements, provides that:

No person may operate a U.S.

- registered civil aircraft unless that aircraft is identified in accordance with Part 45 of this chapter.

● 14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b), Markings of the Aircraft, states:

When marks include only the Roman capital letter "N" and the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted or light

- sport category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the o perator must also display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches high, the words "limited," "restricted," "light

- sport, "experimental," or "provisional," as appl icable.

● 14 C.F.R. § 45.27(a), Rotorcraft, states:

Each operator of a rotorcraft must display on that rotorcraft horizontally on both surfaces of the cabin, fuselage, boom, or tail the marks required by § 45.23.

In a previous Grant of Exemption, the FAA determi ned 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 if the markings are as large as practicable." 10

Equivalent Level of Safety

All FP

- U AS flown by Polievka will bear N

- number markings that are as large as practicable in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Subpart C. 11

10 FAA Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352.

11 See, e.g., FAA Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352, at 14.U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 13

D. 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance Inspections

Polievka seeks an ex emption from the maintenance inspection requirements contained in 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a), 91.407(a) (1), 91.409(a ) ( 2); 91.417(a) and (b). These regulations specify maintenance and inspection standards in reference to 14 C.F.R. Part 43. See, e.g., 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a) (stating that each owner or operator of an aircraft "[s]hall have the aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections ...have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter"). A n exemption from these regulations is needed because Part 43 and these sections only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate, which

the UAS platforms to be operated under this grant of exemption will not have

. (Emphasis added)

Equivalent Level of Safety

An equivalent level of safety will be achieved or exceeded because maintenance and inspections

will be timely performed in accordance with the Manufacturer's Manual and any required manufacturer Safety or Service Bulletins. Further, as required by Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals, the PIC will conduct a pre

- flight inspection of the FP

- UAS and all associated equipment to account for all discrepancies and/or inoperable components. Maintenance will be performed and verified to address any conditions p otentially affecting safe operation of the FP

- UAS and no flights will occur unless, and until, all flight critical components of the FP

- UAS have been found to be airworthy and in a condition safe for operation. A functional test flight will be conducted

fo llowing the replacement of any flight

- critical components. As required by Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals, the PIC who conducts the functional test flight will make an entry in the

FP

- UAS aircraft records of the flight.

Polievka ’ s Operations Manual also inc ludes requirements to follow the manufacturer’s UAS aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the following applicable components: powertrain system (powerplant), propellers, avionics

and control su rfaces (including ailerons/elevons), structures & airframe, camera system, electrical systems (including batteries), ground control station, hazard accessories, and spare parts. Further, Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals also include procedures to document and maintain

a record of the FP

- UAS ’s maintenance, preventative maintenance, alterations, status of replacement /overhaul component parts, and the total time in service of the FP

- UAS used under this Grant of Exemption. As a whole, the maintenance and inspecti on procedures required in

Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals ensure that an equivalent or higher level of safety will be

achieved.

PILOT

- IN

- COMMAND OF THE UAS

E. 14 C.F.R. § 61.113: Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations

Polievka seeks exemption from 14 CFR § 61.113, which restricts private pilot certificate holders from flying aircraft for compensation or hire, and would also require a second class medical certificate. The purpose of Part 61 is to ensure that the skill and competency of any PIC matches

the ai rspace in which the PIC will be operating, as well as requiring certifications if the private pilot is carrying passengers or cargo for hire. In this case, while the FP

- UAS will be operated as part of a commercial oper ation, they carr y neither passengers n or cargo. In the Grant ofU.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 14

Exemption to Astraeus Aerial, the FAA determined that the unique characteristics of UAS operation outside of controlled airspace did not warrant the addition al cost and restrictions attendant with requiring the PIC to have a Comm ercial Pilot Certificate and Class II Medical

Certificate. 12 The fulfillment of the additional requirements for a private pilot to become qualified as a commercial pilot would not lead to any additional safety benefits when UAS operations are involved.

E quivalent Level of Safety

The restrictions Polievka has placed on its FP

- UAS operations meet or exceed the restrictions similarly imposed on Astraeus Aerial. Polievka will operate on private property away from persons and property not involved in the oper ation. Polievka will also obtain an ATO issued COA prior to conducting any operations under this Grant of Exemption. All operations will be conducted in accordance with airspace requirements in the ATO issued COA including class of airspace, altitude leve l and potential transponder requirements. A NOTAM will also be issued as required by the applicable COA.

In addition to these flight restrictions, Polievka will further ensure safe operation by requiring that any PIC be thoroughly versed not only in airsp ace and communication issues pertaining to all aircraft operators but also in the unique aspects of FP

- UAS flight. As set forth in the Operations Manuals, pilots will have experience not only in FP

- UAS operations generally but have logged flight time in t he specific make and model used for the operations before they are permitted to participate in commercial flights on behalf of Polievka . The pilot qualification, training, and currency requirements in the Operations Manuals ensure that Polievka pilots are competent and proficient in the FP

- UAS they are operating. Polievka ’ s training and qualification requirements are consistent with those contained in prior FAA Section 333 Grants of Exemption, and will provide a higher level of competency and proficiency fo r its pilots and will ensure at least an equivalent level of safety to the public

.

OPERATING PARAMETERS OF THE UAS

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

I nasmuch as there will be no airworthiness certificate issued for the UAS, Polievka seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), which requires that a civil aircraft be in airworthy condition to be operated. The FAA has stated that no exemption is required for 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a) to the extent that the requirements of Part 21 are waived or fou nd inapplicable. 13

Accordingly, Petitioner requests that the requirements for § 91.7(a) be treated in accordance with

Section V (A), supra.

G. 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual in the Aircraft and 14 C.F.R. § 91.203(a) and (b): Carrying Ci vil Aircraft Certification and Registration

12 Exemption No. 11062 (FAA Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352).

13 See Id. at 13

- 14, 22

.U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 15

Title 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b) (2) and § 91.203(a) and (b) require the operator to carry airworthiness documents and other aircraft manuals onboard the aircraft. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b) (2):

(b) No person m ay operate a U.S.

- registered civil aircraft

–

... (2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is 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.

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 91.203(a) and (b):

(a) Except as provided in § 91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has within it the following:

(1) An appropriate and current ai rworthiness certificate...

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so tha t it is legible to passengers or crew.

Given the small size and configuration of the FP

- UAS , it would be impossible to keep

airworthiness documents and other aircraft manuals on board the FP

- UAS because there is simply no room and the FP

- UAS has no cabin or cockpit. As a way to comply with the code

Polievka will maintain the documents with the PIC and make them available for inspection.

Equivalent Level of Safety

In an FAA Office of Chief Counsel's Opinion dated August 8, 2014, and prepared by Dean E.

G riffith, Attorney, AGC

- 220, it was acknowledged that the intent of 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b) and 91.203(a) and (b) is met if the pilot of the unmanned aircraft has access to the UAS flight manual, registration certificate, and other required documents from the gro und control station from which he or she is operating the aircraft. 14 As this FAA Office of Chief Counsel Opinion clarifies, the intent of the rule is to ensure the pilot has access to these key documents during flight. Therefore, an equivalent level of s afety will be achieved by ensuring that the pilot has access to the documents at the ground control station from which he or she is piloting the UAS.

H. 14 C.F.R. § 91.103: Preflight Action

Polievka seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103, which requi res a PIC to become familiar with specific information before each flight, including information contained in the FAA

approved Flight Manual on board the aircraft. While the PIC will be familiar with all information

14 Memorandum from Mark Bury, FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation and Regulation, to John Duncan, FAA Flight Standards Service (Aug. 8, 2014); see also Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352 at 16

- 18.U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 16

necessary to safely conduct the flight, an exemption is requested to the extent that an FAA

approved Flight Manual is required.

Equivalent Level of Safety

An equivalent level of safety will be provided by following the Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals and the Manufacturer's Manual. The PIC will p erform a series of checklists designed to identify any defects or inoperable components in accordance with the Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals, including checklists covering Pre

- Flight, Launch, Landing, and Post

- Flight procedures. The PIC will also be requir ed to review weather, flight requirements, battery charge, landing and takeoff distance, UA performance data, and contingency landing areas

— before initiation of flight.

Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals and the Manufacturer's Manual will be kept at the ground control station and will be accessible to the PIC at all times while operating the UAS.

I. 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a): Flight Instruction

Polievka seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a), which provides in pertinent part that "[n]o 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." UAS and remotely piloted aircraft, by their design, do not have functional dual controls. Instead, flight co ntrol is accomplished through the use of a device that communicates with the aircraft via radio communications. Accordingly, an exemption will be required for the flight instruction requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a).

Equivalent Level of Safety

Given the size and speed of the UAS that Polievka intends to use, an equivalent level of safe training can still be performed without dual controls because no pilot or passengers are aboard the UAS, and as required by the Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals, all perso ns will be a safe distance away in the event that the UAS experiences any difficulties during flight instruction. Moreover, as required by the Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals, all flight training will be conducted

in controlled and sterile environment. As a whole, the safety procedures provided for in

Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals ensure that the proposed UAS operations provide an equivalent or higher level of safety than that provided by the flight instruction regulations.

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

Polievka requests an exemption from the minimum safe altitude requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c). 15 Section 91. 119 prescribes the minimum safe altitudes under which aircraft may not operate, including 500 feet above the surface and awa y from any person, vessel, vehicle, or

structure in non

- congested areas. See 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c). Section 91.119(d) allows for a helicopter to operate at less than those minimum altitudes when it can be operated "without

15 Relief fr om § 91.119(a) will not be necessary because Petitioner will be able to perform an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the ground in the event of a failure. Petitioner's proposed UAS operations will not occur over congested are as, and therefore an exemption from § 91.119(b) will not be necessary. See e.g., Grant of Exemption No. 11157 to Slugwear, Inc., dba Likeonatree Aerial (FAA

- 2014

- 0534 at 15).U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 17

hazard to persons or property on the surface," provided that "each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA."

An exemption is required because the proposed FP

- UAS operations will normally need to o c cur below 400 feet AGL. In circumstances where the FP

- UAS is used to inspect a structure whose height exceeds 400 feet AGL, the FP

- UAS will not be operated more than 100 feet above the highest point on the structure, and within 50 feet horizontally of the structure. Add i tionally, due the nature of the proposed operations, the Pilot and/or Observers(s) may need to be less than 500 feet away from the FP

- UAS

.

Equivalent Level of Safety

Compared to flight operations with rotorcraft weighing far more than the maximum we ights proposed herein, and given the lack of flammable fuel with the above noted UAS, any risk a s sociated with these operations is far less than those which presently exist with conventional ai r craft. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved given th e size, weight, and speed of the FP

- UAS

, as well as the controlled location where the operations will occur. In order to avoid any risk tomanned aircraft, flight operations will be restricted to 400 feet AGL or below, or when inspecting a U.S. structure w hose height exceeds 400 feet AGL, within 100 feet above the highest point on that structure and 50 feet horizontally of the structure.

As set forth in the Operations Manuals, the FP

- UAS will be operated in a restricted area, and all flights will be operat ed at a lateral distance of at least 500 feet from any nonparticipating persons, unless that person is in a position where he or she is shielded from the FP

- UAS and any possible debris resulting from its failure. As required by the Operations Manuals, flig hts will be terminated if a nonparticipating person within 500 feet of the FP

- UAS leaves a shielded position. Further, its operations will occur at least 500 feet away from vehicles or structures unless the property owner/controller timely has granted per mission and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and, operations near the PIC or Observer will not present an undue hazard per § 91.119(a). Adherence to these restrictions in

Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals w ill ensure operations can be conducted without compromising public safety. 16

K. 14 C.F.R. § 91.121: Altimeter Settings

Polievka seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121, which requires a person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude or flig ht level by reference to an altimeter that is set to the

16 See e.g., Grant of Exemption No. 11138 to Douglas Trudeau (FAA

- 2014

- 0481 at 19 ): "If ba r riers or structures are present that can sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA or debris in the event of an accident, then the UA may operate closer than 500 feet to persons afforded such protection. The operator must also ens ure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately. When conside ring how to immediately ceas e operations, the primary concern is the safety of those nonparticipating persons. In

add i tion, the FAA finds that operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles and structures

when the owner/controller of any such vessels, vehicles or structures grants permission for the operation and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determines that it does not pr esent an undue hazard."U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 18

elevation of the departure airport or barometric pressure. An exemption is required to the extent that the UAS do not have a barometric altimeter, but rather a GPS altitude read out.

Equivalent Leve l of Safety

The FAA has stated that an equivalent level of safety to the requirements of 14 C.F.R. §91.121 can be achieved in circumstances where: (1) the UAS will be operated below 400 feet AGL or

below 17 , (2) within VLOS, (3) where GPS based altitude inf ormation is relayed in real time to the operator at a ground

- based on

- screen display and, (4) where prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point is established for the PIC to confirm accuracy of the onboard GPS. 18

The FP

- UAS that Polievka intends to use for the proposed operations will meet all these operational characteristics. Moreover, as required by Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals, the PIC will be required to calibrate the aircraft's GPS compass prior to each flight operation. Like prior

FAA Sec tion 333 Grants of Exemption, the FP

- UAS s Polievka intends to use, and the safety mitigation procedures contained in the Operations Manuals, both ensure that an equivalent level of safety or greater level will be achieved, and a Grant of Exemption to the r equirements of § 191.121 is therefore appropriate

.

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

Polievka requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a)'s fuel requirements for flight in VFR

conditions. Section 91.151 states:

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

– (1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

Here, the technological limitations on UAS battery power means that no meaningful flight operations can be conducted while still maintaining a 30

- minute b attery reserve. An exemption from the fuel requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) is therefore required. Moreover, it is not

Polievka ’s intention to fly the FP

- UAS s at night.

Equivalent Level of Safety

In the Grant of Exemption to VDOS (Exemption No. 111 12), the FAA determined that an equivalent level of safety to the fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions could be achieved by prohibiting the PIC from beginning a FP

- UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there was eno ugh power to fly to the first intended point of landing and,

17 If the height of the structure being inspected exceeds 400 feet AGL, the UAS will not be ope r ated more than 100 feet above the highest point on the structure.

18 See Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (FAA

- 2014

- 0352 at 21).U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 19

assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 10 minutes. In reaching this conclusion, the FAA considered that the UAS batteries for the FP

- UAS provide approximately

50 minutes o f powered flight (with payload) and provided battery level and battery time remaining in minutes and seconds to the PIC. 19 The FAA also considered the fact the FP

- UAS operating manual states: “start every flight with a fully charged battery in the aerial ve hicle”, and

that in the event that the FP

- UAS should run low on power, the PIC will be alerted and can safely land the

- FP

- UAS as soon as possible. Like the VDOS Grant of Exemption, Polievka ’ s use of the FP

- UAS , combined with the requirements of Petitioner 's Operations Manuals, ensure that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved and in fact exceeded

.

Similarly, in the Grant of Exemption to Alan Purwin (Exemption No. 11161), the FAA determined that an equivalent level of safety to the fuel requirement s for flight in VFR conditions could be achieved by prohibiting the PIC from beginning a flight with the UA unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions), there was enough power to safely fly at normal cruising speed to the intended landing poi nt and land the UA with 25% battery power remaining. Polievka will adhere to this limitation for its FP

- UAS flights.

The FP

- UAS includes a low battery warning system and the amount of battery reserve power remaining is continuously transmitted to the PIC via telemetric data feed, which downlinks from

the FP

- UAS to a ground

- based

- on

- screen display. 20 As required by Polievka ’ s Operations Manuals, the PIC will promptly fly the FP

- UAS back to the home launch location or pre

det ermined abort location where it may safely land, while still maintaining a minimum of 25% reserve battery power. Polievka submits that the procedures requiring flights to be safely terminated once the batteries fall below 25% capacity, combined with the requirement that flights only be c onducted within a secure, isolated area, using a UAS weighing less than 5 5 pounds, and within VLOS of the PIC and Observer(s), ensure that the proposed operation will provide an equivalent or higher level of safety to the public to that provided by the reg ulations from which exemption is sought

.

VI. DRUG AND ALCOHOL PROGRAM

Polievka will have policies in place to ensure that no person may participate in FP

- UAS flight operations if they are under the influence of alcohol or any drug.

VII. PUBLIC INTERES T

The public interest will be served by granting Polievka ’ s Petition for Exemption. Congress has established a national policy that favors early integration of UAS into the NAS in controlled, safe working environments such as those proposed in this Petiti on. Granting this Petition for Exemption helps fulfill Congress' goal in passing Section 333(a) through (c) of the Reform

19 Grant of Exemption No. 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC (FAA

- 2014

- 0382 at 10).

20 The FP

- UAS ground control station displays, the UASs position, navigation route, tail number, altitude, hea d ing, north seeking arrow, range to targets, calculated target position, date/time, and sensor heading and orientation rel ative to the UAS.U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 20

Act

— the FAA Administrator's assessment of whether certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS before completion of the statutorily requi red rulemaking.

The proposed FP

- UAS operations in this Petition for Exemption significantly improve s the safety and reduce s risk of harm, physical injury and property damage to the public at large, the property owners from whom permission was granted for use by Petitioner and abutting properties, staff of Petitioner, unsuspecti n g passersby, inspecting engineers from relevant organizations and all those who may be in the local vicinity . Traditional methods of inspecting

and monitoring potential filming loca tions and relevant sites and facilities requires location personnel to climb towers

, trees, venture onto precarious roofs and other dangerous scenarios

, perform elevated work for which the individual is neither trained n or equipped to perform , which

expose s them to unnecessary risk of serious physical injury from dangerous falls or other physical mishaps

. Moreover, inspectors/surv eyors are often unnecessarily exposed to hazardous conditions, unsafe environments, culturally tense situations and other hazard s associated with identifying specific locations for potential recording sites to be used in film or TV production. The use of small UASs can eliminate these hazards and ultimately creating a much safer method of performing these types of inspections crea ting a safer environment for the public as well as

Polievka employees.

The use of small UAS also enhances safety and reduces risk to the surrounding public because, unlike manned aircraft weighing thousands of pounds, carrying crew in addition to flammabl e fue l, the UAS carry no passengers, crew or explosive fuel . Further more , in the unlikely event of an accident, Polievka ’ s small battery powered FP

- UAS presents significantly less danger to

persons on the ground when compared to operations by conventional manned aircraft. 21 As

Petitioner's FP

- UAS are battery powered, the public will also benefit from a reduction in harmful petroleum emissions associated with conventional aircraft performing in the same functions proposed herein. Air quality will naturally b e improved with the reduction of fuel powered

vehicles.

Lastly, as recognized by the FAA in prior Section 333 Grants of Exemption to filmmakers, UAS provide an additional economic tool for the aerial filming notwithstanding the industry, adding a

greate r degree of flexibility, which supplements the current capabilities offered by manned

aircraft. 22 The quality of the finished product is enhanced and provides a greater finished product demand which will aid the current UAS industry and provide additional jobs as the cost of providing the needed product is greatly reduced while reducing the difficulty with which the finished product is created . The demand for the current industrial product is increasing and will continue to increase given the enhanced flex ibility of production ; therefore, given the lower cost,

21 See Gra nt of Exemption No. 11158 to Team 5, LLC (FAA

- 2014

- 0783 at 12): "Manned helicopters conducting aerial filming can weigh 6,000 pounds or more and are operated by an onboard pilot, in addition to other onboard crewmembers, as necessary. The petitioner’s UAs will weigh less than 55 pounds with no onboard pilot or crew. The pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight significantly reduces the potential for harm to participating and nonparticipating individuals or property in th e event of an incident or accident. Risk to an onboard pilot and crew during an incident or accident is eliminated with the use of a UA for the aerial filming operation."

22 See e.g., Grant of Exemption No. 11178 to Picture Factory, Inc. (FAA

- 2014

- 0794 at 18).U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 21

owner/operators and others in the relevant industry will be more inclined to utilize the services of

commercial UAS along with a n appropriate licensed PIC’s

.

VIII. PRIVACY

All FP

- UAS operations wi ll be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws regarding privacy. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled

- access property with permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permis sion from land owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be

conducted.

IX. FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

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 in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

Part 21, Subpart H; Part 27; 45.23(b); 45.27(a); 61.113; 91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2); 91.9(c); 91.103; 91.109(a); 9 1.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203 (a) & (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a ) ( 1); 91.409(a ) ( 1) & (2); 91.417 (a) & (b).

The exemption will enhance safety by reducing risk to the aircraft crew, production crew, general public, property owners and city structures f rom the substantial hazards associated with performing equivalent film work and aerial video production with conventional fixed

- wing aircraft, rotorcraft, or other methods.

X. CONCLUSION

Polievka ’ Petition for Exemption satisfies the criteria articulate d in Section 333 of the Reform Act of 2012 including weight, speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports and populated areas, operation within VLOS and national security. The proposed FP

- UAS operations will benefit the public as a whole by improvi ng safety and reducing risk by alleviating human exposure to danger while lowering the attendant related costs thereby increasing the demand for the finished product. In consideration of the foregoing, this Petition for Exemption provides the

FAA with more than adequate justification for granting the requested exemptions allowing

Polievka to use small FP

- UAS in the recorded production of its product.U.S Department of Transportation

September 14 , 2015 Page 22

We thank you for your prompt consideration of our requested exemptions.

Respectfully Submitted

,

Frank J. Polievka

3412 Milstead Ct Waldorf, MD 20602 Phone: (240) 832

- 1971

Email: Fpolievka@gmail.com

(The following attached items contain proprietary and commercial information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S. C. § 522 et seq., and should be held in a separate file pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.35(b)).

Attachments: 1. General Operations Manual 2. PIC Operating Manual

3. Showcase Protocols

4. Location Protoc ols 5. Flight Communications Protocols 6. Departing Location Protocols

7. Transmitter Protocols 8. Preflight Checklist 9. Post Flight Checklist 10. Equipment Checklist

11. UAS Manufacturer’s Manuals

a. User Manuals

b. UAS Maintenance Manuals