1

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Docket ID: 

Petition for Modification of current FAA Exemption No. 16513, Docket No. FAA-2015-

7472 under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act and Part 11.81 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (Tracking ID Number: _______)

18 August 2016

Petitioner: 

Drone Co-Habitation Services (DCS)

2110 Raven Tower Court #301,

Herndon, VA 20170

Tel: 571-216-3245

E-Mail: me98@yahoo.com

Attachments (Confidential):

Dear U.S. Department of Transportation, 

On behalf of Drone Co-Habitation Services, LLC (hereinafter called DCS), company which I 

own and am President for, I contact you.

DCS seeks Amendment/Modification to our current FAA Commercial Usage sUAS 

Section-333 Exemption from 14 CFR §§ parts 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 

61.315(a), 67 and §§ 91.7a, 91.111a, 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(1) & (2), 91.417(a) & (b), and Section E of Part 91 of Title 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). The Petitioner seeks Exemption to the extent necessary to allow the 

petitioner to conduct UAS operations as described in our various Use Cases...that of operating 

multiple unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) under control of a single Ground Control Station 

(GCS). This is often called ‘Swarm’ flight operations, but we prefer to call it by the term 

‘Formation Flight’ operations.

This Petition for Amendment/Modification contains competition-sensitive business plans as 

to operations, techniques for mitigating safety, and planned sUAS equipment; therefore, we 

ask FAA not to publish it for public viewing or dissemination.

We propose to use this Exemption to methodically conduct a tiered, multi-phase approach to 

rollout of Commercial sUAS Operations which incrementally encroach upon the National 

Airspace System (NAS) with sUAS operations wherein multiple aircraft are controlled by a 
2

single Ground Control Station or Pilot in Command (PIC). We feel that FAA requirement to 

obtain separate Exemptions and Relief Actions at the completion of each step or Phase of R&D 

Trials, and prior to commencement of each individualized Use Case Petition during our 

Incremental Encroachment upon NAS, is time-consuming for the FAA (typically takes 3-6 

months to consider) and causes undue business hardship to the Operators who must stop their 

business progression to wait for Relief Actions of increasing complexity. Therefore, we ask for 

FAA Grant of Exemption in this request that encompasses our end-to-end, Multi-Phase process.

Our Initial Phase (Use Case #1) will entail Research & Development (R&D) wherein we Verify 

and Validate (V&V) the aviation safety case for such sUAS Operations. This will be followed by 

Phase-2 (Use Case #2) wherein we conduct local, community-based, limited Tests of our MultiDrone Operations in sparsely-populated areas of our FAA-Approved COA. Phase-3 (Use Case 

#3) will entail the deployment of our Multi-Drone concept into the industry of Entertainment. 

Phase-4 (Use Case #4) will entail the deployment of our Multi-Drone Concept into Commercial 

sUAS Operations towards other Customers in wide variety of industries. In our Final Phase of 

this Exemption (Use Case #5), we propose to use our Exemption towards Logistics Customers, 

and for the purpose of Transporting property for compensation or hire within state boundaries 

provided the drone – including its attached systems, payload and cargo – weighs less than 55 

pounds total and you obey the other flight rules. (We understand that some exceptions may apply 

to Hawaii and the District of Columbia. These are spelled out in Part 107.)

On 22 April 2016, FAA Granted DCS a Section-333 Exemption (No. 16513), based upon our 

Petition of 8Oct2015 (Docket No. FAA-2015-7472). Some of the FAA Conditions of our 

Exemption included (examples; NOTAL): It granted us Exemption to use any aircraft identified 

on the List of Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) under Section-333 at regulatory 

docket FAA-2007-3330...when weighing less than 55-pounds including payload, in nationwide 

COA. In that Exemption, FAA stated requirements for PIC Certification, and Qualifications. It 

restricted our UA operations to at-or-below 400-Feet AGL, and at speed not exceeding 87-knots 

(100-miles per hour).

We do NOT desire to reduce or delete any of our currently FAA-approved Section-333 

Exemptions with regard to our Scope of Activities described in that previous Petition. However, 

we do seek Amendment to our Exemption to allow expansion of our Section-333 Exemption to 

include 

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONER

Drone Co-Habitation Services (DCS) is a sister organization of Aviation Management Inc., LLC 

(AMI). Both companies are Delaware-incorporated, Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSB). 

Both are government registered in SAM.gov. DCS and AMI are owned and led by Michael 

Erickson, who is a retired, FAA-certified, Marine Corps Air Traffic Control-ATC Chief that held 

FAA-certified ATC Ratings in Control Tower, GCA, and Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) 

at military and dual Civil/Military Facilities in CONUS/OCONUS for over nineteen years. Mr. 

Erickson graduated from not only the Navy ATC School and ATC Facility Management 

Courses, he also graduated from USAF and Army Aviation Command & Staff Courses. Mr. 
3

Erickson holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Aviation Management from SIU. All senior managers of 

DCS and AMI are retired or former ATC Controllers or Aviator Pilots.

Mr. Erickson and AMI have conducted FAA-based NextGeneration CNS/ATM Master Planning 

studies in most Asian countries, and supported Aviation Master Planning technology seminars 

sponsored by USTDA and Japan’s equivalent JICA/JBIC. These aviation-related Master Plan 

Studies and Implementation Planning consultations have been performed in Philippines; 

Indonesia; Malaysia; Vietnam; Cambodia; Lao; Nepal; China; Mongolia and others. 

Additionally, AMI has captured aviation-related US Defense Contracts at Military bases such as 

USAF-Laughlin, TX; USAF-Sheppard, TX; USAF-McGuire, NJ; USAF-Charleston, SC; USAFDyess, CA; USAF-Hurlburt, FL; USAF-Yokota, Japan; etc. These involved projects related to 

such things as ATC Equipage; Passenger Terminal Design & Fabrication; Airfield Lighting & 

Navigational Aids; etc.

For the past 13-years, AMI and Mr. Erickson have provided their clients (which include private 

sector businesses and non-profits, along with local state and federal agencies) with expertise and 

knowledge in ATC procedures, Airspace Reorganization; Flight Procedures to include Standard 

Instrument Departures/Arrivals; Performance Based Navigation-PBN; business development, 

and other aviation related technical training using advanced technologies and solutions. AMI has 

worked on dozens of aviation projects over the past 13-years, in all types of locations, with a 

perfect client and employee safety record. Mr. Erickson was formerly the Secretariat of Airline 

Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC), when working at ARINC on FAA-approved 

Standards & Characteristics development for aircraft cockpit avionics. Further, he supported 

FAA for the Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) Build-1/1A rollout 

nationwide, and supplied FAA with Ground-Air and Ground-Ground CPDLC End Systems and 

ATN Routers. Thus, AMI and Mr. Erickson...and through him....DCS are clearly experts in all 

matters of FAA Airport and ATC Procedures.

In 2015, Mr. Erickson created Drone Co-Habitation Services, LLC (DCS, for short) to focus our 

ATC expertise on providing aviation and ATC consulting support to the Unmanned Aerial 

Vehicle (UAV) industry, to facilitate safe integration of UAVs into the FAA-controlled National 

Airspace System (NAS). Although DCS is newly-formed, because of the close synergy between 

the Management & Practices of DCS with that of AMI company, and the decade-long historical 

business success of AMI, it is important to demonstrate that DCS will be operated the same way 

that AMI has been operated...in safe and professional manner. DCS, supported by AMI, 

currently has several Proposals under consideration by NASA-Ames for the FAA-sponsored 

UAV Traffic Management (UTM) Program.

The objective of DCS (supported by AMI) activities in the UAV-sector is to leverage our 

decades of direct ATC experience towards facilitating safe and methodical encroachment of 

UAVs into the communities that can benefit from such proliferation. We aspire to facilitate and 

guide private industry and Government in their UAV procedures development, Research & 

Development (R&D) of UAV technologies and platforms, and provide consulting support in 

their UAV deployments. We are currently in the process of creating multi-stakeholder (Public & 

Private) UAV Centers of Excellence (COE) to accomplish this UAV consulting support.
4

DCS seeks to promote and expand knowledge for the science and art of UAVs. Our Operators, 

staff, and students of our consulting will use our Exemption and Certificates of Waiver or 

Authorization (COAs) to create new UAV systems, developing flight operations, and 

standardizing procedures that will move UAS activity into human daily life. Application of UAS 

will span an expansive range of purposes, including agriculture, traffic monitoring, 

environmental monitoring, search/rescue operations, customs payload scanning, immigration 

enforcement, pipeline/power lines monitoring, firefighting service, sport casting, cellular 

networking, meteorological services/research, fisheries monitoring, law enforcement, and 

entertainment. Eventually, when allowed by FAA, we aspire to deploy Commercial UAVDrones in performance of Logistics and Parcel Delivery Services.

Details of our Section-333 Exemption Modification Request

We propose to use this Exemption to methodically conduct a tiered, multi-phase approach to 

rollout of Commercial sUAS Operations which incrementally encroach upon the National 

Airspace System (NAS) with sUAS operations wherein multiple aircraft are controlled by a 

single Ground Control Station or Pilot in Command (PIC). Our Initial Phase (Use Case #1) will 

entail Research & Development (R&D) wherein we Verify and Validate (V&V) the aviation 

safety case for such sUAS Operations. This will be followed by Phase-2 (Use Case #2) wherein 

we conduct local, community-based, limited Trials of our Multi-Drone Operations in sparselypopulated areas of our FAA-Approved COA. Phase-3 (Use Case #3) will entail the deployment 

of our Multi-Drone concept into the industry of Entertainment. Phase-4 (Use Case #4) will entail 

the deployment of our safety-case verified varieties of sUAS and our Multi-Drone Concept for

Commercial sUAS Operations towards other Customers in wider variety of industries. In our 

Final Phase of this Exemption (Use Case #5), we propose to use our Exemption towards 

Logistics Customers, and for the purpose of Transporting property for compensation or hire 

within state boundaries provided the drone – including its attached systems, payload and cargo –

weighs less than 55 pounds total and you obey the other flight rules. (We understand that some 

exceptions may apply to Hawaii and the District of Columbia. These are spelled out in Part 107.)

General Conditions: During all Phases of this Exemption, the petitioner proposes to operate 

our sUAS:

 We propose that our sUAS will be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above 

ground level (AGL). Altitude must be reported in feet AGL. This limitation will be in addition to 

any altitude restrictions that may be included in the applicable COA.

 We propose to notify the nearest controlling Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) 

within 72 hours of practice sessions and performances. Notification may be made by telephone, 

electronic means, or in writing.

 Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). We ask 

FAA to Grant our Exemption to operate in Class G airspace without air traffic control 

permission. We ask FAA to Grant our Exemption to operate in Class B, C, D, and E airspace 

with ATC approval. We will observe Chapter 14 in the Pilots Handbook 

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/pilot_handbook.pdf 

). We propose to operate our sUAS in accordance with our FAA Granted Section-333 Exemption 

(No. 16513), based upon our Petition of 8Oct2015 (Docket No. FAA-2015-7472), as pertains to 
5

our FAA-Granted nationwide COA...or conducted in accordance with an ATO-issued COA. If 

our individualized Use Cases exceed these two COA requirements, then we will apply for a new 

or amended COA, if our intended operations cannot be conducted under the terms stated herein.

 If the FAA requires such, as a condition of approving our Petition for Exemption, we 

propose utilization of multiple (e.g. up to 4) Visual Observers (VO) during our flight operations. 

If the FAA will not approve our Petition to fly our sUAS in BVLOS conditions, then we propose 

that our sUAS will be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and VOs at all 

times. In such case, we propose that our VOs may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as 

long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability.

 We propose that our Exemptions, and all documents needed to operate UAS and conduct 

operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this exemption, will be 

accessible during UAS operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a 

discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption, the applicable ATOissued COA, and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, the most restrictive 

conditions, limitations, or procedures will apply and must be followed. We may update or revise 

our operating documents as necessary. We will track revisions and presenting updated and 

revised documents to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. We will 

also present updated and revised documents if our petitions for extension or amendment to this 

exemption. If any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted our 

exemptions, then we will petition for an amendment to our exemption. If we have any questions 

arise regarding updates or revisions to our operating documents, we will contact the FAA’s UAS 

Integration Office.

 If any of our sUAS undergo maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or 

flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, we will subject our sUAS to 

a functional test flight prior to conducting further operations under this exemption. Functional 

test flights will only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and essential flight personnel only and 

will remain at least 500 feet from all other people. The functional test flight will be conducted in 

such a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property.

 We understand that we are responsible for maintaining and inspecting our sUAS to 

ensure that they are in a condition for safe operation.

 Prior to each flight, the PIC will conduct a pre-flight inspection and determine the UAS 

are in a condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection must account for all potential 

discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment. If the inspection reveals a 

condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft are prohibited from operating 

until the necessary maintenance have been performed and the UAS are found to be in a condition 

for safe flight.

 Prior to each flight, we will conduct computer simulations to verify the aircraft will 

maintain appropriate separation from each other, appropriate separation from other manned and 

unmanned aircraft, fly within airspeed limits and stay within the predefined airspace.

 We will follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, 

and life limit requirements for the aircraft and aircraft components. UAS operated under this 

exemption will comply with all manufacturer safety bulletins.

 We propose to conduct all our operations under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). 

At this time, we do not Petition the FAA for Exemption to conduct flights under special visual 

flight rules (SVFR).
6

 We Propose that we will not operate our sUAS 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 Ground 

Control Station or PIC.

 We are in process of integrating onboard Universal Access Transceivers-UAT (ADS-B) 

equipment onto all our sUAS platforms. These UATs come with an individual GPS capability. 

Thus, all our Drones will normally have Dual/Redundant GPS functionality. However, some 

sUAS platforms are too small to carry such UATs without hampering the Flight Stability.

Therefore, in all cases, we Propose that for any sUAS operations where GPS signal is necessary 

to safely operate the sUAS, the PIC must immediately recover/land the sUAS upon loss of all 

GPS signals.

 Most of our sUAS-Drone Platforms will have Dual Command/Communication & Control 

(C2) Links with the sUAS. However, in some cases, the sUAS is too small, or the Customer’s 

Mission is much less complex, and therefore, not all of our sUAS may have this Dual C2 Link 

capability. Therefore, in all cases, we will pre-set our sUAS platforms such that in event our PIC 

loses all command or control link with the sUAS platform, the sUAS will follow a predetermined route to either reestablish link or immediately recover or land.

 We understand that our original FAA Section-333 Exemption, and the new FAA Part-107 

Regulations already enable sUAS operators to Request authorization from ATC Facilities and 

Airport Authorities to operate within their Controlled Areas (e.g. Class-G airspace 91.127 

Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class-G airspace, 91.127 Operating on or in the 

vicinity of an airport in Class E airspace, 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace, 91.130 

Operations in Class C airspace, etc.) Therefore, we have not asked for Relief from those 

Requirements in this Exemption Request. We are in the process of integrating UAT-Transceivers 

(ADS-B) into all or most of our planned sUAS platforms. We are integrating emerging levels of 

FAA-standardized System Wide Information Management-SWIM data, and technologies similar 

to FAA Controller-Pilot Data Link (CPDLC) communications for Ground-Ground and AirGround C2. We have created what appears to be the Industry’s most comprehensive end-to-end 

Aviation Safety Management System-SMS that merges the Requirements developed by FAA, 

EuroControl, and ICAO. Further, we intend to leverage our decades of direct FAA-Certified 

ATC Control Tower and Radar Approach Controller expertise towards negotiating Letters of 

Agreement (LOAs) and Flight Procedures that will comply with the FAA’s Regulations for 

manned flight (e.g. FAAH 7110.65_). This will help us negotiate COAs with those ATO 

facilities. We will proactively take steps to alert other users of the NAS to the UAS activities 

being conducted. Therefore, we will achieve an equivalent or better level of safety. Thus, we ask 

for exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.126, 91.127, 91.129, 91.130, and 91.215.

 Our PIC will abort the flight operation if unpredicted circumstances or emergencies that 

could potentially degrade the safety of persons or property arise. Our PIC will terminate flight 

operations without causing undue hazard to persons or property in the air or on the ground.

 We are currently working on technology solutions for inflight Power Re-Charging. 

However, until that capability is fully integrated and tested, or in event that the sUAS does not 

have that functionality, the PIC will be prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering 

wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough available power for the sUAS to conduct 

the intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve power 

recommended by the manufacturer if greater.

 All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial 

number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N-Number) 
7

markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as 

practicable.

 Documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and flight of the UAS and 

any documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the PIC at the 

Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. These documents must be 

made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

 The UA must remain clear of, and give way to, any manned aircraft at all times.

 Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical 

boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to the 

FAA's UAS Integration Office within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in accordance with its UAS accident reporting 

requirements.

 Respecting Privacy: Although the new Part-107 rule does not specifically deal with 

privacy issues in the use of drones, and the FAA does not regulate how UAS gather data on 

people or property, the FAA is acting to address privacy considerations in this area. We will 

ensure all our UAS pilots and operations encourage our policy to check local and state laws 

before gathering information through remote sensing technology or photography.

 As part of our privacy education campaign, we will provide all drone operators and PICS 

with privacy guidelines, and ensure they read the FAA’s B4UFly information. The FAA also will 

educate all commercial drone pilots on privacy during their pilot certification process; and will 

issue new guidance to local and state governments on drone privacy issues. Our effort will build 

on the privacy “best practices” (PDF) the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration published last month as the result of a year-long outreach initiative with privacy 

advocates and industry.

Detailed Use Cases:

We are commencing to integrate a variety of already-tested and proven Universal Access 

Transceivers-UATs aboard our sUAS platforms. These include the devices that we already 

submitted Petitions to FAA for Section-333 Exemption on (e.g. FreeFlight Systems UAT; 

uAvionix ping2020 UAT (ADS-B)). We are very impressed with these technologies and their 

potential to expand the Safety Case for Commercial UAV-Drone introduction into the National 

Airspace System-NAS in such a way that it emulates the successes of current FAA Air Traffic 

Management-ATM. Some of the highlights of the UATs include:

1. uAvionix ping2020 UAT has internal WAAS/GPS Sensors.

2. Provides ADS-B IN / OUT.

3. Is TSO Rule Compliant: The UAT provides a complete ADS-B system via an internal 

GPS and baro-altimeter, allowing the UAS to fully integrate into the National Airspace System. 

The receive functionality of the FCU allows the UAS to take full advantage of ADS-B IN

benefits, including local traffic and weather data. The compact Radar Altimeter, is a light weight, 

low-power radar altimeter tailored for UAS applications.

4. Meets FAA Design Assurances

* DO-178B Level C (Software)

* DO-254 Level C (Hardware)
8

5. The DO-282b MOPS defines Class A0 which supports a minimum transmit power at 

the antenna of 7 watts. The UATs are MOPS compliant.

6. The UATs passed all box and platform level testing using the Ramp Test Set. The 

AERamp Test Set was within its calibration window for all tests. 

7. The UATs have been used for several years; been integrated, tested, and passed the 

NASA-UTM Airworthiness & Flight Safety Review Board (AFSRB) Review, and is currently 

undergoing similar AFSRB Review for UTM Build-2 Trials in October 2016 by numerous 

Testing Teams. In such configuration, NASA is able to interrogate and receive Digital Data from 

the sUAS Drones, and transmit them effectively to the ATC Facilities associated with each of 

these UTM Trials to receive Air Traffic Control Services.

8. All usage to date in those environments indicates that the UAT behaves as expected 

per DO-Certification processes.

9. uAvionix and independent testing laboratories (as noted above), and that of our Drone 

Co-Habitation Services operational testing, has shown that the FAA Air Traffic Control services 

will be able to receive the correct ATC data.

10. Although a transponder is not required in most commercial sUAS airspaces that we 

will operate in, a transponder will enhance the safety of the proposed operation by providing 

additional “visibility” of our UAV-Drones not only to ATC Facilities, but also to other aircraft in 

the proposed flight region. 

11. Drone Co-Habitation Services will utilize the UAT Transceivers under very close 

scrutiny and within our highly-detailed Aviation Safety Management System (SMS) processes.

Use Case #1: During this Initial Phase, the petitioner proposes to operate an unspecified amount 

(e.g. 0-200) of unmanned aircraft (e.g. such as the AscTec Hummingbird, Nano & Micro Quad 

Rotors, or other equivalent sUAS), to conduct R&D flight operations which Verify & Validate 

the diverse hardware choices (e.g. sUAS Platform; Sensors; C2 Links; Ground Control Stations; 

etc.) and software algorithms necessary to conduct safe aviation flight. During this Initial Phase, 

we propose:

 Operations authorized by this exemption which may be limited to Hummingbird UAS, or 

similar small UAS platforms, which may be limited to weighing not more than 2-5 pounds 

including payload. We ask that the FAA consider our Petition to fly a range of comparable small 

UAS in addition to the Hummingbird (which was already Granted to another sUAS Operator), 

such that we would not need to burden the FAA with repeated Petitions every time we change to 

a new sUAS platform going forward. The PIC would be approved to operate an unspecified 

amount of sUAS (e.g. 0-200) simultaneously as long as the same Safety Case can be validated to 

the FAA upon request.

 If operations authorized herein involve the use of foreign civil aircraft, before conducting 

any commercial air operations under this authority, the operator will obtain a Foreign Aircraft 

Permit pursuant to 14 CFR §375.41. Applications would be submitted by electronic mail to the 

DOT Office of International Aviation, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division. If necessary, we 

will seek additional information via: https://cms.dot.gov/policy/aviation-policy/licensing/foreigncarriers.

 The Secretary of Transportation has already determined that a wide variety of 

Commercial Drones are safe for operation within the National Airspace System-NAS. For 

example, there are up to 1150-types of sUAS on the FAA’s Approved List that are deemed 
9

airworthy and have been issued such certificate. Therefore, in accordance with the statutory 

criteria provided in Section 333 of PL 112-95 in reference to 49 USC 44704, and in 

consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft 

and their operation, we have not asked the FAA for relief from 14 CFR part 21 and any 

associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36.

 During this Initial Phase, we propose that our sUAS will not be operated at a speed 

exceeding 6 knots (7 mph). This equates to a maximum groundspeed up to 3 m/s. This is so that 

we can reduce time lag between position commands and the aircrafts actual position, and reduce 

the risk of a midair collision between the sUAS. However, we ask the FAA not to specifically 

restrict our sUAS operations to a particular speed limit for our entire multi-phase Exemption 

request. This is because we will be Trialing, in later Phases, a diversity of sUAS (larger & 

smaller size) and diversity in spread-pattern of our formation-flights based upon Customer 

Needs. Instead, we suggest that the FAA should consider restricting our sUAS Operations by 

each particular Exemption Phase, and in accordance with the type of sUAS operations that we 

propose within each of those Phases. Thus, we propose it is more conducive to Trials if FAA 

imposes Speed Restrictions based upon incrementally-expanded Use Cases, which may incur 

individualized speed limitations. We will use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to 

determine compliance with the speed restrictions. In no case will our sUAS be operated at 

airspeeds greater than the maximum sUAS operating airspeed recommended by the aircraft 

manufacturer.

 We ask FAA for Relief from § 91.119(c) because the aircraft will be operated at altitudes 

below 500 feet AGL. Section 91.119(c) states that no person may operate an aircraft below the 

following altitudes: over other than congested areas, an altitude of 500 feet above the surface, 

except over open water or sparsely populated areas. We propose that our operations conducted in 

compliance of this Exemption will warrant such relief.

 We ask for FAA Relief from 14 CFR § 91.121, Altimeter settings. Although most of our 

planned sUAS platforms will have retrofitted Universal Access Transceivers-UAT (ADS-B) 

capability, and those UATs typically come equipped with some form of barometric altimeter. 

Further, all of our sUAS will have GPS capability (most will have Redundant GPS). However, in 

such case where we deploy a sUAS platform that is too small to hold the weight of such UAT or 

Barometric Altimeter, then we need FAA Relief from § 91.121 in order to have altitude reported 

in feet AGL. In such cases where we may set the altitude indicator to zero feet AGL rather than 

local barometric pressure or field altitude before flight, we would also need Relief from § 

91.121.

 Operations Near Participants: People directly participating in the safe operation of the 

UAS include the PIC, VO, and other consenting personnel that are directly participating in the 

safe operation of the UA. We propose that all people associated with the operations, such as 

VOs and other people directly participating in the operation will be briefed by the PIC on the 

potential risk of the proposed flight operation(s) and acknowledge and consent to those risks. 

Just like the FAA, we will use such briefings as a means to notify people of safety information 

and to risks of certain operations. See, e.g., 14 CFR §§ 91.319(d)(1) (advising passengers of 

experimental nature of an aircraft); 136.7 (air tour briefings). We will obtain their consent as an 

additional margin of safety by building upon the briefing requirement to ensure that participants 

have acknowledged that UA will be operated within 500 feet.

 Operations Near Non-Participants: Particularly during this Phase-3 (Entertainment Use 

Case), but also during all Phases of this Exemption, we will not fly our sUAS over anyone who 
10

is not directly participating in the operation, not under a covered structure, or not inside a 

covered stationary vehicle. All flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all 

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless when operating:

 Except as provided in the FAA Exclusion that is Granted, we propose that our sUAS 

will only be operated closer than 500 feet to a person when barriers or structures are present that 

sufficiently protect that person from the UA and/or debris or hazardous materials such as fuel or 

chemicals in the event of an accident. Under these conditions, we must ensure that the person 

remains under such protection for the duration of the operation. If a situation arises where the 

person leaves such protection and is within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease 

immediately in a manner that does not cause undue hazard to persons.

 Near vessels, vehicles and structures: Prior to conducting operations, we will obtain 

permission from a person with the legal authority over any vessels, vehicles or structures that 

will be within 500 feet of the sUAS during operations. Our PIC must make a safety assessment 

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

hazard. All operations shall be conducted with permission from a person with legal authority to 

grant access. Permission will be obtained for each flight to be conducted.

 We intend to create individualized Hazard & Risk Assessments for each sUAS Platform, 

and for each Commercial sUAS Mission Category/type of Use Case. We propose that because 

our sUAS will typically have Redundant C2 Links, and Redundant GPS Signals (perhaps with 

even more if GLONASS is incorporated into the Drones), and because our sUAS will have 

capability to set GeoFences based upon Mission Parameters...that it is very unlikely that we will 

be unable to control our sUAS within a designated GeoFenced area. If the size of the sUAS 

allows for it, we will install Universal Access Transceivers-UATs onto our individual sUAS 

Platforms, which allow for our (and ATC) tracking of all our Drones. Further, we will position 

Visual Observers (VOs) strategically around the GeoFenced areas, who will typically have voice 

and Digital Communications, that if the sUAS begins to exit from the GeoFenced area, we would 

be able to take immediate corrective actions to safeguard other manned aircraft, or the nonparticipating personnel on the ground. We propose to create a ‘Safety Buffer’, or ‘Exclusion 

Zone’ between the sUAS and other non-participants. This ‘Exclusion Zone’ will be based upon 

the maximum distance the sUAS can travel at speed of 10m/s with no power at the GeoFenced 

boundary. We feel that our proposed ‘Exclusion Zone’ which acts as a safety buffer between our 

outer GeoFenced boundaries and non-participants, when combined with our Risk Assessment & 

Mitigations noted above will be sufficient. Thus, we ask the FAA NOT to impose any additional 

stand-off distance between our planned operating areas and the non-participants. If the FAA will 

not approve this, then we propose a smallish stand-off distance (e.g. 100-500 Feet).

 We request relief from 14 CFR § 91.7(a), Civil aircraft airworthiness, because the pilot 

will be in a position to determine the aircraft is in an airworthy condition prior to flight.

 We request relief from 14 CFR § 91.111, Operating near other aircraft. This Relief is 

necessary because our sUAS may in many cases during Use Case #1 (Initial Phase) be operating 

as close as six meters apart in order to display the light show features while using a small area of 

airspace. We propose that this ‘Formation Flight’ will be pre-planned and verified through 

computer simulation. Moreover, our UAS ‘Formation Flights’ will all be operated by the same 

PIC. We think that when combined (Planning; Verification of each operation; low speed; etc.) 

that this is sufficient safety practice to warrant Relief. We do NOT ask for Relief of 91.111(b) 

because these ‘Formation Flights’ are permitted when arranged between the PIC of each aircraft 

in the formation. Here, we will utilize only one PIC for each formation flight of the operation.
11

 The FAA is currently investigating and addressing the See-and-Avoid requirements of 14 

CFR §91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations through COAs such as those required 

for operations under this Exemption. Therefore, we do NOT ask for immediate Relief from 

91.113. However, we ask that FAA please consider Granting us Relief from 91.113 in future, as 

soon as these SAA Requirements are finalized and met by our Team.

Use Case #2: During Phase-2, we propose to conduct limited, closely-restricted and localized, 

community-based Trials of our Multi-Drone Operational concept in sparsely populated areas 

within our FAA-Approved COA, or within other ATO-approved COAs. During this Phse-2, we 

may Trial the Hummingbird sUAS, or other types of similar-capability Drones, to validate the 

aviation safety-case for such deployments. Secondary to this, we will also begin to use these 

Community-Trials as a method of Community Outreach, to inform and demonstrate that this 

Concept is safe.

We understand that in the future the FAA may decide Risk Thresholds based upon the 

probability that direct impact with a person on the ground from a UAS would cause an injury 

that qualifies as level 3 and above on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)(e.g. AIS level 3 injuries 

are classified as “serious”).

For Phase-2 of this Use Case #2, we ask that the FAA Grant us Relief via Exemption to 

permit us to operate Category 1, small UAS over people if the weight of the sUAS (including 

accessories/payload, e.g., cameras) is 250 grams (0.55-pounds) or less. We seek this Relief based 

upon the data the FAA’s Micro UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee-ARC submitted, which 

stated that the level of risk of injury posed by this category of UAS is so low that no performance 

standards and no operational restrictions beyond those imposed by the proposed part 107 are 

necessary. The ARC estimated the maximum risk impact threshold of a 1% chance of AIS level 

3 or greater injury, based on kinetic energy transfer at impact. The ARC (supported by 

ASSURE) found that UAS deflect and tumble on impact, resulting in only an average 38% 

kinetic energy transfer during an impact, and therefore a significantly lower expected severity of 

injury compared to shrapnel impacts that were the basis of those prior estimates of harm, taken 

from studies of explosives and ordinance effectiveness.

Additionally, considerations on very light-weight UAS were completed during the FAA 

Registration Task Force Aviation Rulemaking Committee in November/December 2015 (the 

“Registration ARC”). The Registration ARC considered a paper by MITRE that looked at risks 

of small UAS impact to people on the ground, based on assumptions in earlier studies.6 That 

paper contains a graph of probability of fatality vs. kinetic energy that was used to select an 80 J 

limit on kinetic energy as a measure of potential lethality. This level of total kinetic energy, and a 

variety of assumptions, was then used by the Registration ARC to calculate a weight threshold of 

250 grams for registration. With all of these factors in mind, because of the low level of risk of 

injury posed by flying objects weighing 250 grams or less, the ARC recommends no 

performance-based standards be required for unmanned aircraft in this category.

To demonstrate that a small UAS qualifies for Category 1 operations over people, we propose 

that we will work with UAS manufacturers to ensure that the UAS we select, come from the 

factory with correct labeling, and will positively meet these weight standards.
12

We believe that the FAA requirement for in-person testing and TSA background check are 

unduly burdensome for operators of Category 1 UAS, and therefore an impediment to aviation 

safety. Although we will always comply with FAA Regulations...the other sUAS Operators that 

may fly into our areas of operation may not be as compliant. Because of these FAA face-to-face, 

and TSA background checks are so burdensome, those other sUAS operators may become 

discouraged from compliance. We ask FAA to consider deleting these Requirements for 

Category-1 Operators. 

We also ask FAA to Grant Relief for our sUAS that are classified by FAA as Categories 2, 

3, and 4, provided:

 Under Categories 2, 3, and 4, our small UAS may operate over people if it does not 

exceed the impact energy threshold specified for each category, as certified by the manufacturer 

using industry-consensus test methods, and if its operator complies with operational restrictions 

specified for each category. Because the level of risk increases between Categories 2, 3, and 4, 

the performance-based standards and operational restrictions are scaled-up in each category to 

mitigate the increased risks.

 Under Category 2, we seek Relief for our small UAS to operate over people if the 

manufacturer of the UAS certifies to the FAA that the UAS does not, in the most probable failure 

modes, exceed the typical or likely impact energy threshold, and if it complies with industry 

consensus performance standards. We will comply with the operator instruction manual, must 

maintain minimum set-off distances of 20 feet above people’s heads, or 10 feet laterally away 

from people, and may not operate so close to people as to create an undue hazard to those people.

Category 2 prescribes the performance standards and operational restrictions for operations over 

people that are conducted by unmanned aircraft that weigh more than 250 grams (0.55-pounds), 

but still present a 1% or less chance of “serious” injury (AIS level 3 or greater) to a person in the 

event of impact. The standard used by the ARC Committee to determine whether the UAS meets 

the risk criteria was impact energy threshold based on information presented to the ARC, and 

calculated by the FAA in J/cm2. During its meetings, the ARC was presented with information 

from Canada and the commercial space industry suggesting that this calculation would result in a 

value of 12 J/cm2 and that a quadcopter UAS weighing in the range of 4 to 5 pounds would 

qualify, depending on its design characteristics and operating instructions. In order to ensure that 

our sUAS in Category-2 qualify for such operations, we will work with the manufacturers to 

certify that the UAS does not, in the most probable failure modes, exceed the typical or likely 

impact energy threshold, in accordance with industry consensus testing standards. This may 

include tests to measure the typical or likely impact energy of the small unmanned aircraft in the 

most probable failure modes to determine whether it meets the specified impact energy 

threshold. Testing may be subject to manufacturer defined operating limitations, if any. The 

impact energy threshold used in the standards may account for the energy dissipation caused by 

the physical design of the small unmanned aircraft and likely impact scenarios. It should also 

include a means for addressing impact of exposed rotating parts to risk analysis with a focus on 

serious injury (AIS level 3 or greater). 

 Under Category 3, we seek Relief for our small UAS to operate over people if the 

manufacturer of the UAS certifies to the FAA that the UAS does not, in the most probable failure 

modes, exceed the typical or likely impact energy threshold, and if it complies with industry 
13

consensus performance standards. This category prescribes the performance standards and 

operational restrictions for limited operations over people that are conducted by UAS that 

present a level of risk of “serious” injury (AIS level 3 or greater) that is incrementally higher 

than the level of risk of injury presented in Category 2. Specifically, a small UAS be permitted to 

conduct limited operations over people if that UAS presents a 30% or lower chance of causing an 

AIS level 3 or greater injury upon impact with a person. Flight over crowds or dense 

concentrations of people will never be attempted under this sUAS category. In addition to that 

restriction, our Category 3 UAS may only operate over people if: (1) the operation is conducted 

over a closed- or restricted-access work site with the permission of the site’s owner or operator; 

or (2) overflight of people is limited to those who are transient or incidental to the operation, i.e., 

the overflight of people is incidental to the operation and is not sustained. Additionally, the 

performance standards and operational restrictions that apply to Category 2 operations also apply 

to Category 3. We will work with manufacturers to test and measure the typical or likely impact 

energy of the small unmanned aircraft in the most probable failure modes to determine whether it 

meets the specified impact energy threshold. Testing may be subject to manufacturer defined 

operating limitations, if any. The impact energy threshold used in the standards may account for 

the energy dissipation caused by the physical design of the small unmanned aircraft and likely 

impact scenarios. It should also include a means for addressing impact of exposed rotating parts 

to risk analysis with a focus on serious injury (AIS level 3 or greater).

 Under Category 4, we seek Relief for our small UAS to operate over people, 

including flights over crowds or dense concentrations of people prohibited in Category 3, if the 

manufacturer of the UAS certifies that the UAS does not, in the most probable failure modes, 

exceed the typical or likely impact energy threshold, if the UAS complies with industry 

consensus performance standards, and if the operation is conducted in compliance with a 

documented, risk mitigation plan, which was developed and adopted in accordance with industry 

consensus standards for conducting risk mitigation. The performance standards and operational 

restrictions that apply to Category 2 operations also apply to Category 4. We will develop a 

comprehensive and mission-appropriate ‘Congested Area Plan’ that patterns the FAA, and 

mitigates any associated risks. In addition to safety of persons on the ground, we will engage 

with appropriate third parties to address concerns about the social acceptance of operating a UAS 

over large gatherings or events. While this engagement is not intended as FAA delegating 

jurisdiction over UAS operations, it will be helpful to address community concerns.

 Prior to conducting any Category 4 Operations, we will work with FAA to address 

potential heightened levels of: (a) higher operator qualifications than the proposed part 107; and 

(b) the method of compliance with the risk mitigation plan, including the possibility of 

engagement with appropriate local entities; (c) Consideration of materials and components of the 

UAS to determine if the materials pose additional potential risk of collateral serious injury to 

people on the ground, in addition to injury caused by initial impact. 

 To demonstrate that our small UAS qualifies for Categories 2, 3, or 4 operations over 

people, our company and the PIC will have a copy of the manufacturer’s declaration that the 

small UAS meets industry consensus standards applicable to the category; the original 

manufacturer’s label indicating that the product or product retail packaging is in accordance with 

industry consensus standards; and have available for inspection our operating manual that 

includes operator instructions for flight over people. We understand that we will be responsible 

for knowing what category of operations our UAS qualifies for, and what operational limitations 

we must follow.
14

Use Case #3: During Phase-3, we propose to deploy our Multi-Drone concept into the industry

of Entertainment. During this Phase, we propose to perform light shows that last about 5-8 

minutes each. These shows would operate near or after sunset, but before the end of civil 

twilight. The UAs have light-emitting diodes (LED) modules which vary in color and brightness 

and fly in various formations in preprogrammed “animation.” The petitioner proposes using an 

unspecified number (e.g. 0-200) Unmanned Aircraft (UA) controlled via a single ground control 

station (GCS) to conduct light shows.

We propose that each of our sUAS operated in this Use Case-3 of Phase-3 would weigh less than 

two pounds and not capable of exceeding a speed of 30 knots, would be equipped with GPS 

systems programmed with a geo-fence and lost-link return-to-base function. The GCS would 

have the ability to command each UA to follow a pre-programmed flight trajectory with override 

capability by the operator. The GCS will be comprised of a Master Computer and multiple 

Secondary Computers. The master computer has control over all of the aircraft at all times. The 

Master Computer will be equipped with a “kill switch” function that immediately commands 

sUAS to enter an emergency Return-to-Home (RTH) procedure. The Secondary Computers will 

enable additional personnel to monitor subsets of sUAS thereby providing improved situational 

awareness. Furthermore, each sUAS would also be equipped with a secondary backup geo-fence 

feature which commands an immediate straight-down Landing or shuts off the aircraft engines 

if/when the sUAS departs the flight area. We will conduct preflight inspections of all sUAS and 

conduct a simulated run through prior to each operation.

We propose to use similar operating methodologies which have already been demonstrated by 

other companies which FAA has approved (e.g. ARS Electronica Exemption #14088 FAA 

Docket FAA-2014-10-95; Intel), in USA and in foreign countries, and which have not resulted in 

any failures that caused human injury or property damage. We will incorporate those other Best 

Practices and operating methodologies to overcome any identified deficiencies in methodology 

or equipment. We ask the FAA to Grant us permission to conduct practice sessions, in advance 

of performances, to increase our proficiency and build experience.

We propose using one master computer in conjunction with several secondary computers. The 

master computer will control all aircraft in flight and is connected to secondary computers that 

enable monitoring of subsets of aircraft. The secondary computers serve as an interface that 

enables the secondary controllers to monitor the aircraft assigned to them and to reposition or 

land the aircraft if necessary. If a secondary computer malfunctions, the PIC can still reposition 

or land any aircraft because the master computer has control over all aircraft at all times. A crew 

member using a secondary computer can be helpful in monitoring our sUAS, and will help the 

PIC to maintain situational awareness during the operation.

We propose to use a number (e.g. 4) of Visual Observers (VOs) to assist the PIC in scanning the 

sky for potentially-intrusive manned aircraft approaching our planned operating areas, as well as 

helping the PIC to monitor if any sUAS are deviating from planned routes and/or the operating 

areas. We propose that these VOs will be stationed around the Operating Area boundaries to 

better track the multitude of sUAS being flown. This will also provide additional risk mitigation 
15

in event of GeoFencing breach. These VOs would have capability to notify the PIC to stop any 

operations.

Use Case #4: During Phase-4, we will deploy wider selection of sUAS Platforms, Technologies 

& Accessories, supporting Infrastructures & Architectures, and C2 Control Procedures, that have 

had their safety case verified in our Entertainment Industry Trials, such that we can 

incrementally expand and rollout our Multi-Drone Concept for Commercial sUAS Operations 

towards wider variety of industries and Customers.

Voice vs. CPDLC: During this Phase-4, we will also conduct a wider range of R&D Trials to 

explore additional sUAS Platforms and Technologies. Because our Team is working on 

integration of Digital Data Link Communications (similar to manned aircraft Controller-Pilot 

Datalink-CPDLC), then we propose that during this Phase-4 of our Exemption, our VOs and PIC 

will be able to communicate Digitally over our FAA Certified (V&V) Datalink Communications

architecture. Until such time as we have our CPDLC-like system is deployed, or if FAA will not 

approve this, we will instead ensure that the VOs and PICs will be able to communicate verbally, 

augmented by Electronic Messaging (or texting) during flight operations.

PIC Command & Control: Our PIC will always start the Mission and be designated before the 

flight. However, because our Team is working on the integration of Aeronautical Inter-facility 

Digital Communications (AIDC) into all our Command & Control (C2) operations, which is 

similar to the AIDC functionality used by FAA-Certified ATM Facilities for Controller-toController Handoff & Point-Outs...we also ask FAA to approve that during this Phase-4, when 

we have such functionality tested & Certified (V&V) by FAA, that we may have authority by 

FAA to transfer this PIC Responsibility and Authority mid-flight during the individual flight 

missions. If FAA will not approve this, or until such time as we have our AIDC functionality 

fully-integrated, then we propose instead that the PICs will not transfer his designation for the 

duration of the flight. The PICs will ensure that all VOs can perform the duties required of VOs.

Nighttime Operations: We have already petitioned the FAA for Amendment to our Section-333 

Exemption to allow us to conduct sUAS Flight Operations during Nighttime. Therefore, during 

this Phase-4 of our Exemption, we ask FAA to Grant us Exemption to fly our sUAS operations 

identified in this new Petition in Nighttime operations also. However, if the FAA will not Grant 

such Exemption to our Team to fly during Nighttime, then we will fly during daylight or in 

twilight (30 minutes before official sunrise to 30 minutes after official sunset, local time) with 

appropriate anti-collision lighting.

Moving Vehicles: Our normal sUAS operations will not be operated from any moving device or 

vehicle, as a matter of internal procedures. However, in light of the FAA’s new Part-107 rules, 

we ask FAA to Grant us Exemption to fly our sUAS, at our discretion, from moving vehicles if 

they are over a sparsely populated area.

Master Computer Usage: During this Phase-4, we propose that, initially, all operations shall be 

conducted with a PIC operating the master computer. Additionally, secondary computers are 

required to monitor the UA within a limit of...for example...no more than 35 UAs per secondary 

computer. The secondary computers must be operated by trained and qualified personnel. 
16

However, during this Phase-4, we propose that the FAA does NOT restrict us to a specific 

number of UAs per secondary computer, but instead allow us to incrementally Verify & Validate 

the upper-limits of how many UAs a single PIC can safely operate on the Master Computer and 

Secondary Computer under various Commercial UAV Operational Missions. These Tests would 

be similar to the Controller Workload Volume vs. Manned Aircraft scenarios conducted by FAA. 

This will allow us to Validate for the FAA, the Use Cases for each Trade/Industry Mission, and 

Validate the Human-Machine Interface (HMI) Requirements for those Missions.

Additional sUAS Swarm Platform Testing: We ask FAA to Grant Relief in the form of 

Exemption such that we can conduct R&D Testing, during this Phase-4, of additional sUAS 

Platforms and C2 algorithms such as:

 "LOw-Cost Unmanned aerial vehicle Swarming Technology", or LOCUST

 The Fixed-Wing sUAS platforms that were already tested in ‘Swarm’ formation by 

Advanced Robotic Systems Engineering Laboratory (ARSENL), a team of students at 

the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California

 The Swarming algorithms being developed by MIT which incorporate decentralized 

planning to handle both stationary and moving obstacles, and do so with reduced 

computational overheads. This will allow for more resiliency since centralized algorithm 

has a single point of failure if its central controller goes offline. We desire to test the 

handling of erratic communication. This will help FAA to determine future Regulations 

for sUAS Formation Flights.

Use Case #5: In our Phase-5 of this Exemption, we propose to use our Exemption towards 

Logistics Customers, and for the purpose of Transporting property for compensation or hire 

within state boundaries provided the drone – including its attached systems, payload and cargo –

weighs less than 55-pounds total and we will obey the other flight rules. (We understand that 

some exceptions may apply to Hawaii and the District of Columbia. These are spelled out in Part 

107.)

Use Case #6: BVLOS. We are already Trialing Commercial UAV-Drones in Beyond Visual 

Line of Sight (BVLOS) conditions at FAA-sanctioned, NASA-UTM Trials for their TCM-2 

capability Tests. Further, we have already Petitioned FAA for approval to conduct BVLOS 

Operations with our Commercial sUAS platforms. Thus, during this Phase-6, we propose herein 

to Trial our Multi-Drone Concept during BVLOS conditions; after which, we will deploy them 

in Commercial Operations.

Although we ask FAA to allow us to operate our sUAS in accordance with this Petition for 

Amendment to Section-333 Exemption (as pertains to flight operations in BVLOS)...if FAA will 

not approve that, then we ask FAA to allow us to operate our sUAS within Visual Line of SightVLOS or Extended Visual Line of Sight-EVLOS of the PIC at all times. In such case of 

restricted Exemption to VLOS, this would require our PIC to be able to use human vision 

unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman 

medical certificate or valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal Government.
17

Use Case #7: Congested or Densely-Populated Areas. In this Phase-7 of our Commercial 

sUAS operations, we ask FAA to consider the historical success and Verification/Validation of 

aviation safety that we have achieved in the previous Use Cases and Phases, and then grant us 

relief from § 91.119(b) to conduct R&D Trials, followed by rollout of our next Phase of sUAS 

Operations over congested or densely populated areas. 

Our Proposed Remote Pilot In Command (PIC) Certification – We Propose that our PICs 

will be:

 A person operating a small UAS must either hold a remote pilot airman certificate 

with a small UAS rating or be under the direct supervision of a person who does hold a remote 

pilot certificate (remote pilot in command). 

 To qualify for a remote pilot certificate, a person must: 

 Demonstrate aeronautical knowledge by either: 

 Passing an initial aeronautical knowledge test at an FAA-approved knowledge 

testing center; or 

 Hold a part 61 pilot certificate other than student pilot, complete a flight 

review within the previous 24 months, and complete a small UAS online training course 

provided by the FAA. 

 Be vetted by the Transportation Security Administration. 

 Be at least 16 years old. 

 Part 61 pilot certificate holders may obtain a temporary remote pilot certificate 

immediately upon submission of their application for a permanent certificate. Other applicants 

will obtain a temporary remote pilot certificate upon successful completion of TSA security 

vetting. The FAA anticipates that it will be able to issue a temporary remote pilot certificate 

within 10 business days after receiving a completed remote pilot certificate application.

Until international standards are developed, foreign-certificated UAS pilots will be required to 

obtain an FAA-issued remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating.

Our Proposed PIC Qualifications: We propose that our PICs must demonstrate the ability to 

safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how it will be operated under this exemption, 

including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from 

persons, vessels, vehicles and structures before operating non-training, proficiency, or 

experience-building flights under this exemption. PIC qualification flight hours and currency 

may be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b), however UAS pilots must not log 

this time in the same columns or categories as time accrued during manned flight. UAS flight 

time must not be recorded as part of total time.

Under all situations, the PIC is responsible for the safety of the operation. The PIC is also 

responsible for meeting all applicable conditions and limitations as prescribed in this exemption 

and ATO-issued COA, and operating in accordance with the operating documents. All practice 

operations must be conducted during dedicated practice sessions and may or may not be for 

compensation or hire. The operation must be conducted with a dedicated VO who has no 

collateral duties and is not the PIC during the flight. The VO must maintain visual sight of the 

aircraft at all times during flight operations without distraction in accordance with the conditions 

and limitations below.
18

Discussion of Public Comments: 

A similar Petition for Exemption was filed by another company, and Granted by the FAA. In that 

instance, only one comment was received. The Small UAV Coalition filed a comment supporting 

the petition. In particular, the Small UAV Coalition supports: (1) commercial operations to be 

conducted by a person who does not hold a private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate; (2) 

highly automated operations under the operational control of a certificated pilot; (3) operations 

from dusk until the end of twilight; (4) operations of 30-35 UAVs by a single flight controller; 

(5) operations close to airports; and (6) operations closer than 500 feet from persons not involved 

with the operations, with appropriate protections.

This Petition for Amendment/Modification contains competition-sensitive business plans as 

to operations, techniques for mitigating safety, and planned sUAS equipment; therefore, we 

ask FAA not to publish it for public viewing or dissemination.

We feel that our described Petition with our proposed operations satisfy the seven factors in 

section 333 and include several additional mitigating factors to ensure the safety and security 

In addition, in light of the FAA’s recent plans for Part-107 sUAS Regulations, DCS believes that 

the operating conditions set forth in our original Exemption Request, as well as this Request for 

Modification, constitute “reasonable mitigation” for operations that would ensure that DCS 

maintains an equivalent level of safety and requests that the FAA consider such mitigation to 

grant DCS’ Exemption Request and permit DCS’ flights. The information below is intended to 

amend and supplement DCS’ Exemption request.

Please see attached below, our Hazard Safety Analysis Summary that is being reviewed by 

NASA-UTM Airworthiness & Flight Safety Review Board (AFSRB):
19
20

 As noted above, and in our original Section-333 Exemption, our Operations Manual will 

include at least these items:

 Contact information

 Distribution and revision information

 Persons authorized

 Plan of activities
21

 Permission to operate

 Security methodology

 Briefing instructions

 Flight personnel minimum requirements

 Communications information

 Accident notification plan

Allowing DCS to conduct real-world UAV Operations and Testing using these UAT 

Transceivers can be important first steps towards safe introduction of UAV operations into the 

Air Traffic Management (ATM) activities of the National Airspace System (NAS) that is desired 

by FAA and NASA-ATM Program Office. Further, it can be important first steps toward 

realizing the consumer benefits of using UAS for private-sector economic growth. These DCS 

proposed UAV activities will take place amid conditions that would be impossible to create at 

any pre-approved COA or Test Site.

To ensure utmost safety, DCS will limit the likelihood of hazard (as noted above) to the general 

public on the ground and in the air by adhering to its UAV Operations Manual(s); and complying 

with all conditions and limitations contained in a Grant of the relief sought, and all instructions 

from the FAA and the official(s)-in-charge of or having authority over a particular area and 

airspace.

Respectfully,

Michael J. Erickson

President, Drone Co-Habitation Services (DCS)

President, Aviation Management Inc., LLC (AMI)