HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 BEFORE THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

___________________________________________________

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY,

Petitioner. Docket No. FAA-2015-_____

PETITION OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS TO PERMIT UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) OPERATIONS

Pablo Debenedetti Dean for Research Princeton University 107 91 Prospect Avenue Princeton, NJ 08544 E. Tazewell Ellett Patrick R. Rizzi Hogan Lovells US LLP 555 13 th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-637-8644/ -5659 Fax: 202-637-5910 tazewell.ellett@hoganlovells.com patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com COUNSEL FOR PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

DATE: November 10, 2015HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER ..................................................................................- 1 -
2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST ...............................................................- 1 -
3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...........................................................................................- 2 -
3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS...........................................................- 3 -
3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations .......................................- 4 -
3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the Pilot in Command and other

crewmember qualifications and training......................................................................................- 8 -
3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding Princeton manuals related to UAS

operations.......................................................................................................................................- 9 -
4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA ........................................................- 11 -
5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR EXEMPTION ..................................................................................................................................................- 12 -
5.1 Contact information .......................................................................................................................- 12 -
5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which Princeton seeks an exemption .......................................................................................................................................- 12 -
5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought........................................................- 13 -
5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest ..........................................- 27 -
5.5 Reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought ....................................................................................- 28 -
5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule from which exemption is sought, and a brief description of the nature of the exemption sought. .........................................................................................................................- 30 -
5.7 Additional information that supports request .............................................................................- 31 -
5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S.......................................- 31 -
5.9 Attachments ...................................................................................................................................- 31 -
6. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................................- 32 -HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER Princeton University (“Princeton”) is a non-profit institution of higher education and one of the leading universities in the world. In addition to educating students, Princeton conducts research on a wide variety of subjects.

2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“FMRA”) and 14 C.F.R. (“FAR”) §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81, Princeton requests that the FAA grant Princeton an exemption from certain sections of the FAR (detailed below in Sections 5.2 and 5.3) so that it may operate one or more small UAS to conduct aerial data collection for various purposes, including research and development (“R&D”), education, facility inspections, photography, and videography. These proposed operations involve aerial data collection, consistent with grants like Exemption No. 11213 (March 24, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0642) (“Aeryon Labs Exemption”), as well as previously granted summary grant exemptions. As explained below, Princeton’s proposed UAS operations, as conditioned and limited herein, will not adversely affect safety, but rather will provide a level of safety equivalent to or greater than that provided by the current rules, large manned aircraft operations, and other current data collection methods. See FAR § 11.81. Princeton respectfully requests that the FAA grant the requested exemption on an expedited basis. To that end, as detailed below, Princeton agrees to comply with the conditions and limitations imposed in recent summary grant exemptions, including ones involving aerialHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 2 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 data collection for purposes of inspections, photography/videography, and R&D. See, e.g.,
A e r y o n L a b s E x e m p t i o n ; E x e m p t i o n N o

. 1 1 8 2 2 ( J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 5 ; D o c k e t F A A
− 2 0 1 5
− 1 0 9 3 ) (“HYSight Technologies Exemption”); Exemption No. 11290 (April 8, 2015; Docket FAA-2014- 0474) (“Amazon Exemption”). These are the same conditions and limitations imposed on Section 333 exemptions recently granted to other universities for aerial data collection. See, e.g., Exemption No. 11304 (April 8, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-1014) (“Auburn Exemption”). Given Princeton’s agreement to comply with these conditions and limitations, and given that this Petition is similar in all material respects to those petitions for which summary grant exemptions have been granted, and that the proposed UAS use falls within the “aerial data collection” category of uses permitted by numerous summary grant exemptions, no new precedent would be set by granting the requested exemption, and any delay in the FAA’s acting on this Petition would be detrimental to Princeton and delay its implementation of these use cases. Accordingly, as with the HYSight Technologies Exemption, at 1, and Auburn Exemption, at 1, good cause exists for the FAA to move forward with consideration of this Petition and the grant of this exemption without publishing a summary of the Petition in the Federal Register.

3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS The small UAS operations proposed in this Petition will be subject to the following conditions and limitations. As noted above, these conditions and limitations are the same conditions and limitations as those contained in previously granted small UAS Section 333 exemptions, including recent summary grant exemptions. To facilitate the FAA’s review of this Petition, Princeton provides a chart at the end of this Section 3 cross-referencing the conditions and limitations from the HYSight Technologies Exemption, the Aeryon Labs Exemption, the Auburn Exemption, and the Measure Exemption (cited below) with the corresponding conditions and limitations outlined below. Collectively, these conditions and limitations ensure that theHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 3 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 proposed small UAS operations will not adversely affect safety and will provide at least an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current rules, large manned aircraft operations, and other data collection methods.
3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS Princeton intends to operate a variety of small, lightweight, battery-operated UAS models under the requested exemption, all of which are models approved by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation for operation under Section 333 and designated by the FAA in previously granted Section 333 exemptions. These models are listed in Attachment 1 to the Measure Exemption (appended to this Petition as Exhibit 1). See, e.g., Exemption No. 12646 (August 28, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-1602) (“Measure Exemption”) (granting an exemption covering 324 UAS models). In addition, Princeton requests that its exemption also cover operations by: (i) the Parrott AR Drone 2.0, the Cropcam UAS, and the Syma X11; 1 and (ii) single propeller or multi-rotor, battery-powered, small UAS models developed by Princeton, its professors, or its enrolled students, see Amazon Exemption (granting exemption covering “Amazon-manufactured multi-rotor small UAS”). Each UAS operated under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and
limitations:
3.1.1 Operations under the exemption will be limited to the UA approved by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation for operation under Section 333 and designated by the FAA in previously granted Section 333 exemptions (Exhibit 1 hereto), the Parrott AR Drone 2.0,the Cropcam UAS, the Syma X11 UAS, and single-propeller or multirotor, battery-powered, small UAS models developed by Princeton, its professors, or its enrolled students, in each case when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. 2 Proposed operations of any other UAS will require a new exemption or an amendment to the

1 Although it does not appear that these three models of UAS have previously been designated in Section 333 exemptions, there are pending petitions seeking to operate the Parrott AR Drone 2.0 and the Cropcam UAS.
2 The UAS models which Princeton seeks to have covered in the requested exemption are collectively referred to in this Petition as “these UAS”.HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 4 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 previously granted exemption. [Measure Exemption Limitation No. 1; Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 1.] 3
3.1.2 The UA will not be operated at airspeeds greater than the maximum

UA operating speed recommended by the UA manufacturer, and in no event will it be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). Princeton may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine compliance with the maximum speed restriction. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 3; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 3.]
3.1.3 Each UA will be identified by its serial number and registered with the

FAA in accordance with FAR Part 47 or any alternative method of registration for UA adopted by the FAA. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 22; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 22.]
3.1.4 Each UA will have identification markings in accordance with FAR

Part 45, with the markings being as large as practicable. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 22; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 22.]

3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations All UAS operations under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and
limitations:
3.2.1 All UAS operations will be covered by an Air Traffic Organization (“ATO”)-issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”). All UAS operations will be conducted in accordance with the airspace requirements in the ATO-issued COA. Should Princeton want to conduct operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the blanket COA accompanying this exemption, Princeton will apply for a new or amended COA. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 21; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 21.]
3.2.2 Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and

television filming are not permitted under this exemption. [Aeryon

3 To the extent processing and consideration of this Petition may be slowed or delayed by the request forauthority to operate the Parrott AR Drone 2.0, the Cropcam UAS, the Syma X11 UAS, and/or single-propeller or multirotor, battery-powered, small UAS models developed by Princeton, its professors, or its enrolled students, Princeton respectfully requests that the FAA move expeditiously to grant the Petition with respect to the UAS models listed in Exhibit 1, all of which previously have been designated approved by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation for operation under Section 333 and designated by the FAA in previously granted Section 333 exemptions. The FAA has previously followed this procedure. See, e.g., Exemption No. 12714 (July 27, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-1851) (granting Section 333 exemption as to several UAS makes/models, but not others for which the FAA had not completed its review).HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 5 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 Labs Exemption Limitation No. 2; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 2.]
3.2.3 The UA will not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport’s

reference point (“ARP”) as denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory, or for airports not denoted with an ARP, the center of the airport symbol as denoted on the current FAA-published aeronautical chart, unless a letter agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or such an operation is otherwise permitted by a COA issued to Princeton. Princeton will make the letter agreement available to the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 16; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 16.]
3.2.4 The minimum crew for each UAS operation will consist of one Pilot in

Command (“PIC”) and one Visual Observer (“VO”). The PIC will be designated before the flight, and cannot transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functions prescribed for the VO. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 6; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 6.]
3.2.5 The UA will be operated within the visual line of sight (“VLOS”) of the

PIC and VO at all times. The PIC will maintain VLOS with human vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate or U.S. driver’s license. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitations Nos. 5 and 6; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitations Nos. 5 and 6.] The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 6; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 6.]
3.2.6 During each UAS operation, the PIC and the VO must be able to

communicate verbally with each other at all times. Electronic messaging or texting by the PIC and the VO is not permitted during UAS flight operations. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 6; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 6.]
3.2.7 The PIC is prohibited from beginning a UAS flight unless

(considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or, if greater, with the reserve power recommended by the UA manufacturer. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 20; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 20.]
3.2.8 Prior to each UA flight, the PIC will conduct a pre-flight inspection

and determine that the UAS (including the Ground Control Station) is in a condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection will account for all potential discrepancies, e.g., non-functioning components, itemsHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 6 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 or equipment. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the UA is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed, and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 10; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 10.]
3.2.9 The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS

to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 9; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 9.]
3.2.10 During each UAS operation, the UA will remain at or below 400 feet

above ground level (“AGL”). [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 4; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 4.]
3.2.11 Altitude reports made to ATC or other persons must be reported in

feet AGL. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 4; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 4.]
3.2.12 All UAS operations will be conducted over private or controlledaccess property with permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 27; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 27.]
3.2.13 The UA will operate at least 500 feet from all non-participating

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: (a) Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect

non-participating persons from the UA and/or debris in theevent of an accident. Princeton must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection; and if a situation arises where non-participating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of the non-participating persons; and/or (b) The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures

has granted permission for operating closer to those objects 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. The PIC, VO, operator trainees, and essential persons are not considered non-participating persons under this exemption. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 26; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 26.]
3.2.14 All UAS operations will take place during visual meteorological

conditions (VMC) only. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 15; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 15.]HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 7 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4

3.2.15 Princeton will not operate UAS flights under Special Visual Flight

Rules (SVFR). [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 15; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 15.]
3.2.16 All UAS operations will take place during daylight hours. UAS

operations will not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 C.F.R. § 1.1. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 15; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 15.]
3.2.17 During each UAS operation, the UA will avoid, remain clear of, and

yield right-of-way to all manned aviation operations and activities at all times. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 24; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 24.]
3.2.18 The UA will not be operated less than 500 feet below, or less than

2,000 feet horizontally from, a cloud, or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 17; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 17.]
3.2.19 The UAS will not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or

vehicle. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 25; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 25.]
3.2.20 Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect

the UAS operation or UA flight characteristics (e.g., replacement of a flight critical component) must undergo a functional test flight prior to conducting further operations under this exemption. Functional test flights will only be conducted by a PIC with a VO, and must remain at least 500 feet from other people. The functional test flight must be conducted in such a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 8; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 8.]
3.2.21 If the UAS loses communications or its GPS signal during any

operation, the UA must return to a pre-determined location within the private or controlled-access property. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 18; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 18.]
3.2.22 The PIC will abort the UAS operation and UA flight in the event of

unpredicted obstacles or emergencies. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 19; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 19.]
3.2.23 The documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation

and flight of the UAS and any documents required under 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9 and 91.203 will be available to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS at any time the UA is operating, and will be made available to the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request.HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 8 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 23; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 23.]
3.2.24 Any incident, accident or flight operation that transgresses the lateral

or vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA will be reported to the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents will be reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) per instructions contained on the NTSB website: www.ntsb.gov. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 28; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 28.]

3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the Pilot in Command and other crewmember qualifications and training The PIC and other crewmembers for each UAS operation under the requested exemption will be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

3.3.1 The PIC must hold (i) either an ATP, commercial, private,

recreational or sport pilot certificate; and (ii) a current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid driver’s license issued by a State, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory/possession, or the Federal Government. The PIC must satisfy the flight review requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 61.56 in an aircraft for which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 13; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 13.]
3.3.2 The operator will not permit any PIC to operate the UAS unless the

PIC demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training Princeton’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. These training operations, however, may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 14; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 14.]
3.3.3 During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all

persons not essential for flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriateHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 9 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 distance from non-participants in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 14; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 14.]

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding Princeton manuals related to UAS operations Princeton will have manuals and checklists for each of these UAS models it plans to operate under the requested exemption (collectively, the “Manuals”). The Manuals will be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

3.4.1 The Operating Documents 4 must be accessible during UAS

operations and made available to the FAA upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in the exemption and the procedures outlined in the other Operating Documents, the conditions and limitations in the exemption take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, Princeton must follow the procedures as outlined in the Operating Documents. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 7; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 7.]
3.4.2 Princeton may update or revise its Operating Documents, and it is

Princeton’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. Princeton must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for an extension or amendment of the exemption. If Princeton determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted the requested exemption, then Princeton must petition for an amendment to the exemption. Princeton will contact the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the Operating Documents. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 7; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 7.]
3.4.3 Each UAS operated under the exemption will comply with all

manufacturer safety bulletins. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 12; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 12.]
3.4.4 Princeton will follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul,

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the UAS and UAS components. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 11; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 11.]

4 The “Operating Documents” means this exemption, the Manuals, and all other documents needed by Princeton to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of exemption. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 7; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 7.]HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 10 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 In sum, Princeton’s operations under this exemption will be subject to the same conditions and limitations imposed in the Measure Exemption, the Aeryon Labs Exemption, the Auburn Exemption, and the HYSight Technologies Exemption. CROSS-REFERENCES Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. Auburn Exemption Limitation No. Measure Exemption Limitation No. Petition Limitation No.

1
Plus Amazon Exemption Limitation No. 1 3.1.1

2 3.2.2
3 3.1.2 4 3.2.10, 3.2.11
5 3.2.5 6 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6 7 3.4.1, 3.4.2
8 3.2.20
9 3.2.9
10 3.2.8
11 3.4.4
12 3.4.3
13 3.3.1HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 11 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4

14 3.3.2, 3.3.3 15 3.2.14, 3.2.15, 3.2.16
16 3.2.3
17 3.2.18
18 3.2.21
19 3.2.22
20 3.2.7
21 3.2.1 22 3.1.3, 3.1.4
23 3.2.23
24 3.2.17
25 3.2.19
26 3.2.13
27 3.2.12
28 3.2.24

4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA In accordance with FMRA Section 333, Princeton requests that the Secretary of Transportation determine that Princeton’s proposed small UAS operations (i) do not create a hazard to users of the National Airspace System or the public, and (ii) do not pose a threat to national security.HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 12 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 Princeton further requests that, based on the Secretary’s determination, the FAA determine – as it did in the Aeryon Labs Exemption, the HYSight Technologies Exemption, the Auburn Exemption, and the Measure Exemption – that relief from FAR Part 21 and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of FAR Part 36 is not necessary for the UAS operations proposed in this Petition. 5

5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR EXEMPTION As required by FAR § 11.81, Princeton provides the following information in support of
this Petition: 5.1 Contact information: Name: Princeton University submits this Petition for Exemption, through counsel, E. Tazewell Ellett and Patrick Rizzi. Mailing address: E. Tazewell Ellett, Patrick R. Rizzi

Counsel for Princeton University Hogan Lovells US LLP 555 13 th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone/Facsimile number: (T) 202-637-8644 (Ellett) / 202-637-5659 (Rizzi) (F) 202-637-5910
E-mail addresses: tazewell.ellett@hoganlovells.com patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which Princeton seeks an exemption: FAR § 61.23(a) and (c) – Medical certificates: Requirement and Duration. FAR § 61.101(e)(4) and (5) – Recreational pilot privileges and limitations.

5 Aeryon Labs Exemption, at 7; HYSight Technologies Exemption, at 2; Auburn Exemption, at 2; Measure Exemption, at 2. If the FAA concludes that the UAS operations proposed in this Petition require an exemption from FAR Parts 21 and/or 36, then Princeton requests that the FAA include that relief in the exemption.HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 13 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4

FAR § 61.113(a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. FAR § 61.315(a), (c)(2), and (c)(3) – What are the privileges and limitations of my sport pilot certificate? FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness. FAR § 91.119(c) and (d)(1) – Minimum safe altitudes: General. FAR § 91.121 – Altimeter settings. FAR § 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions. FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required. FAR § 91.407(a)(1) – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and inspections. FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) – Inspections. FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) – Maintenance records.

5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought: Princeton proposes to conduct small UAS operations, as described herein, for aerial data collection for various purposes, including aerial surveying, photography, videography, and R&D. In order to be able to conduct these UAS operations, Princeton petitions the FAA, pursuant to FAR §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81(b), for an exemption from the following sections of the FAR for the reasons noted: FAR § 61.23(a) and (c) -– Medical certificates: Requirement and Duration. FAR § 61.101(e)(4) and (5) – Recreational pilot privileges and limitations. The regulation states, in relevant part:

(e) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (i) of this section, a recreational pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft— .

. . (4) For compensation or hire; (5) In furtherance of a business; . . . . FAR § 61.113(a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 14 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 (b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. (c) ****. FAR § 61.315(a) and (c)(2), (c)(3) – What are the privileges and limitations of my sport pilot certificate? The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. . . .

. . . . (c) You may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft: . . . (2) For compensation or hire. (3) In furtherance of a business. . . .
Princeton requests an exemption from these regulations to the extent necessary to permit Princeton to conduct UAS operations using PICs who hold (i) an FAA private pilot, recreational pilot or a sport pilot certificate, and (ii) an FAA airman medical certificate or a state driver’s license. While Princeton recognizes that the FAA normally requires a PIC to hold a commercial pilot certificate where there is compensation either to the pilot or for the operation, Princeton requests that the FAA exempt Princeton and its PICs from this requirement since the use of at least a sport pilot as the PIC for the UAS operations under this exemption will be more safe than the use of a commercial pilot for manned aircraft operations. Unlike conventional aircraft, these small UAS [see Limitation No. 3.1.1] are lightweight, remotely controlled, and battery-powered (not fuel/gas), and they have no crew or passengers. The fulfillment of the additional requirements for a sport, recreational or private pilot to become qualified as a commercial pilot would not lead to any additional safety benefits when UAS operations are involved.HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 15 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 The differences between the aeronautical knowledge and aeronautical experience requirements for sport pilots and for commercial pilots are significant in the traditional world of manned aircraft. However, no aspect of this incremental additional knowledge or aeronautical experience is significant for the daytime, VMC, low-altitude, visual-line-of-sight, small UAS operations over private or controlled-access properties with property owner/controller permission as proposed in this Petition. Put another way, there are stark and fundamental differences between the type of experience and aeronautical knowledge that the PIC of a commercial manned aircraft with passengers and property should have, versus the type of experience and aeronautical knowledge that the PIC of a small UAS should have, in order to avoid imperiling passengers or property. In the case of Princeton, the small amount of property carried aboard the UA will be Princeton’s property. While the PIC may, or will, be compensated, all risk of damage to the property (in fact to the UAS itself) will be borne by Princeton. There is no expectation or need for the PIC of the small UA to have the type of experience or aeronautical knowledge that a commercial pilot for a manned aircraft would have. Similarly, the differences
between the flight proficiency requirements for sport pilots and commercial pilots are not substantively significant here where the operations will be conducted strictly during daylight VMC conditions, within VLOS, at altitudes no higher than 400 feet AGL. In addition, Princeton will implement a training program to ensure that the experience, knowledge, and flight proficiency needed to operate its small UAS safely are achieved for its PICs. Accordingly, there is no reason to require the UAS PIC to have more aeronautical knowledge, experience, and flight proficiency than that required for a sport pilot certificate. Given that Princeton plans to operate these small UAS over private or controlled-access property and at low altitudes during daytime in VMC, the parallel nature of sport pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those of commercial pilot requirements, the limited airmanship skills necessary to operate these small UAS, and the lack of additional safety benefits for the proposedHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 16 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 UAS operations here resulting from commercial pilot experience, the PIC under this exemption should only be required to hold, at most, a sport pilot certificate. Such a condition would be consistent with the certificate requirements imposed on the PIC in the Aeryon Labs Exemption, the HYSight Technologies Exemption, and the Auburn Exemption. For these reasons, and consistent with recent summary grant exemptions, Princeton requests that the FAA grant an exemption to permit Princeton to use as PIC of its proposed UAS operations pilots who hold at least a sport pilot certificate and either an FAA third-class airman medical certificate or a state driver’s license, so long as they satisfy the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, including the PIC qualification and training requirements.
FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness. The regulation states in relevant part:

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. . . . Princeton requests an exemption from this provision to the extent necessary to permit Princeton to conduct the small UAS operations proposed in this Petition. These small UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate under FAR Part 21, Subpart H, and thus Princeton requests relief from this regulation. See Exemption No. 11110 (December 10, 2014; Docket FAA-2014-0367) (“Trimble Exemption”), at 16. An exemption is warranted because Princeton understands that, notwithstanding the lack of an airworthiness certificate, the FAA will consider its “compliance with [Princeton’s Manuals] to be sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition” and that Princeton must still determine the UA’s airworthiness prior to each flight based on compliance with such Manuals. Trimble Exemption, at 16; see also HYSight Technologies Exemption at 2 (granting exemption from this section). FAR § 91.119(c) and (d)(1) – Minimum safe altitudes: General. The regulation states:HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 17 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface— (1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and (2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. Princeton requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit Princeton to conduct its UAS operations at altitudes lower than those permitted by FAR § 91.119(c) and (d)(1), since the ability to operate at such altitudes is one of the key benefits of using small UAS for these flights. Even at these low altitudes, Princeton’s UAS operations will be conducted at a level of safety at least equal to that which would be achieved if larger manned aircraft were to be used at the altitudes required by FAR § 91.119. With respect to paragraph (a), Princeton intends to comply with this requirement to the same extent as would a manned aircraft operation, meaning that the UA must operate at an altitude such that the loss of a single power unit aboard the UA or used by the UAS would still permit an emergency landing “without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.”HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 18 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 Princeton agrees with the FAA’s reasoning on this issue in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, 6 and therefore does not believe that relief is required from paragraph (a). With respect to paragraph (b), Princeton plans to operate these small UAS over private or controlled-access properties (with owner/controller permission), and thus Princeton does not believe that an exemption is necessary from this paragraph (b). With respect to paragraph (c), Princeton requests an exemption to allow UAS operations down to the surface, both in sparsely populated areas and in “other than congested” areas. Princeton’s UAS operations require lower-level flying, but have a number of self-imposed restrictions to ensure at least an equivalent level of safety. For example,

 All operations will be conducted over private or controlled-access property.

 Permission from the property owner/controller will be obtained prior to the beginning of each UA flight.

 The UA will operate at least 500 feet from all non-participating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

o Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect non-participating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. Princeton will ensure that non-participating persons remain under such protection; and if a situation arises where non-participating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations will cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of the non-participating persons; and/or

o The UA is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the property owner/controller has granted permission, and the PIC has made a safety

6 Exemption No. 11062 (September 25, 2014; Docket FAA-2014-0352).HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 19 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined

that it does not present an undue hazard. Even with a grant of this exemption, the UAS operations will be at least as safe as operations by manned aircraft that comply with this paragraph. Flying a manned aircraft, given its weight, size, speed, and fuel load, would pose a significant risk compared to the use of a small UA, with a much smaller size and lighter weight, operating at much slower speeds, with batteries rather than a significant fuel load, at all times within VLOS of the PIC on the ground who has a wide view. Accordingly, as the FAA determined in the Trimble Exemption, at 17-18, relief is warranted here provided that Princeton adheres to its Manuals and the additional conditions and limitations outlined above and in the exemption. For these reasons, Princeton requests relief from the entirety of paragraph (c), as was recently granted in the Measure Exemption, the Aeryon Labs Exemption, the HYSight Technologies Exemption, and the Auburn Exemption. To the extent necessary, Princeton also requests relief from paragraph (d)(1), which applies only to helicopters and allows operation at lower altitudes only if on a prescribed helicopter route. Flying a manned helicopter would pose a significantly greater risk than using a small, helicopter-type UA for the proposed operations, even if the helicopter is on a specific route or at a specific low height prescribed by the FAA. A manned helicopter is much heavier, larger, and faster than a small UA. Moreover, unlike an unmanned, battery-powered small UA, the helicopter has people on-board and a fuel load. The operation of a small UA at all times within the VLOS of the PIC on the ground would be at least as safe as a manned helicopter operation operating in conformity with the requirements of paragraph (d)(1), and therefore an exemption from Section 91.119(d)(1) is warranted. FAR § 91.121 – Altimeter settings. The regulation states, in relevant part:HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 20 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 (a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, when operating— (1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to— (i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route and within 100 nautical miles of the aircraft; (ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the current reported altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or (iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio, the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure; or ( 2 ) A t o r a b o v e 1 8 , 0 0 0 f e e t M S L , t o 2 9

. 9 2 ′′ H g

. (b)  . Princeton requests an exemption from FAR § 91.121 to the extent necessary 7 to permit Princeton to conduct the small UAS operations proposed in this Petition. See, e.g., Aeryon Labs Exemption, at 12; HYSight Technologies Exemption, at 2; Astraeus Exemption, at 21-22. Princeton recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that any UAS operated by Princeton maintains altitude to an accurate reference such that other aircraft and the FAA may rely on Princeton’s UAS to be operating as proposed. The PIC will check the UA altitude reading prior to each takeoff, and will effectively zero the UA’s altitude at the point of takeoff, to ensure that measurements of the UA’s altitude are as accurate as possible relative to the local elevation. To the extent that this methodology does not satisfy FAR § 91.121 or any other regulation, Princeton requests an exemption to permit UAS operations using this methodology.

7 It is not clear to Princeton that an exemption from this section is required, because, although the regulation expressly applies only to aircraft maintaining a “cruising altitude” and dictates the altimeter setting that must be used while at that cruising altitude, cruising altitudes for VFR flights do not begin – according to FAR § 91.159 – until “more than 3,000 feet above the surface.” FAR § 91.159; see also Aeronautical Information Manual, at Chpt. 3, Sec. 1, Tbl. 3-1-1, para. 3-1-2. (July 24, 2014).HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 21 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 FAR § 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions. The regulation states: (a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR

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. (b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft 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, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes. Princeton requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit Princeton to plan its UAS operations as described above. The proposed small UAS operations in this Petition will (i) involve operations in which one or more UAS is transported by means other than its own power to the operational location, and (ii) begin and end at the operational site, with the takeoff, entire flight, and landing all taking place within the immediate proximity of each other while remaining at all times within the VLOS of the PIC. The goal of FAR § 91.151 is to ensure that pilots plan for an extra 20 or 30 minutes of fuel at their first intended point of landing in order to account for unexpected possible delays en route and at the first planned destination. Many of these delays that plague manned aircraft are simply not an issue with the proposed small UAS operations over private or controlled-access property, because there is virtually no “en route” portion of the flight, and any problems at the point of landing are extremely unlikely to cause delays, since a UA can always land just a few feet away if the intended point of landing becomes unusable. Given the relatively short operating time of these small UAS, requiring a full 30 minutes of reserve “fuel” (battery power) could take up much, if not all, of the time available for these smallHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 22 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 UAS operations. Princeton believes that using a smaller reserve for UAS flight planning purposes will be at least as safe as using the reserves required by FAR § 91.151 for manned aircraft. To that end, and consistent with Measure Exemption Limitation No. 20, Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 20, and HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 20, the PIC under the requested exemption will be prohibited from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough power available for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or, if greater, with the reserve power recommended by the UA manufacturer. See Proposed Limitation 3.2.7. Such a battery reserve is more than sufficient, particularly in light of the FAA’s acceptance of a 5-minute reserve in the Measure Exemption, the Aeryon Labs Exemption, and the HYSight Technologies Exemption. Princeton believes that these limitations will further ensure that the proposed reserve planning and operational requirements that Princeton is requesting to use under this exemption will provide at least an equivalent level of safety. For these reasons, Princeton requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit it to plan and conduct UAS operations subject to the reserve power limitation explained above. FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required. The regulation states, in relevant part:

Each owner or operator of an aircraft— (a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter; (b) ** **. Princeton requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit Princeton to conduct the UAS operations proposed in this Petition without having to perform the inspections and discrepancy repairs required by FAR § 91.405(a). In the Astraeus Exemption and the TrimbleHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 23 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.405(a), and that the achievement of an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations. Princeton has proposed in Section 3 of this Petition several conditions and limitations related to maintenance and inspections which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.405(a). For this reason, and consistent with the exemptions granted from this section in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the HYSight Technologies Exemption, Princeton requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit Princeton to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the conditions and limitations proposed above, without having to perform the inspections and discrepancy repairs required by FAR § 91.405(a). Princeton does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.405 is required, since Princeton will make appropriate logbook entries in aircraft maintenance records in accordance with paragraph (b), appropriately mark any inoperative instrument or item of equipment for which maintenance has been properly deferred in compliance with paragraph (c), and appropriately placard listed discrepancies that include inoperative instruments or equipment in compliance with paragraph (d). FAR § 91.407(a)(1) – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding or alteration. The regulation states: (a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone

maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless— (1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under §43.7 of this chapter; and (2) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as applicable, of this chapter has been made.

. . . .HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 24 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 Princeton requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit Princeton to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to have the UAS approved for return to service by a person authorized under FAR § 43.7. In the Astraeus Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1), subject to certain conditions and limitations. Princeton has proposed in this Petition maintenance-related conditions and limitations which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.407(a)(1). For this reason, and consistent with the exemptions granted from this section in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the HYSight Technologies Exemption, Princeton requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit Princeton to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without having to have the UAS approved for return to service by a person authorized under FAR § 43.7. Princeton does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.407 is required, since Princeton will require that maintenance record entries are made as required, in compliance with paragraph (a)(2), and since no persons will be carried following maintenance performed on the UAS, making paragraphs (b) and (c) moot. FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) – Inspections. The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had— (1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this chapter; or (2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. No inspection performed under paragraph (b) of this section may be substituted for any inspection required by this paragraph unlessHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 25 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 it is performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections and is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance records. (b)  . Princeton requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit Princeton to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to obtain the annual inspection and airworthiness certificate inspection required by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2). In the Astraeus Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and that achieving an adequate level of safety required certainconditions and limitations. Princeton has proposed in this Petition maintenance and inspectionrelated conditions and limitations which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2). For this reason, and consistent with the exemptions granted from this section in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the HYSight Technologies Exemption, Princeton requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit Princeton to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without having to obtain the annual inspection and airworthiness certificate inspection required by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2). FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) – Maintenance records. The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section: (1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include— (i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed; andHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 26 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 (ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and (iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for return to service. (2) Records containing the following information: (i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each rotor. (ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance. (iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis. (iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained. (v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. (vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by §43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances. (b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed: (1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is performed. (2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold. (3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under §43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return to service.HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 27 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 (c) ** **. Princeton requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit Princeton to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to keep the records described in FAR § 91.417(a) and (b). The FAA determined in the Astraeus Exemption that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b), and that an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations. Princeton has proposed in this Petition maintenance, inspection, and records-related conditions and limitations which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.417(a) and (b). For this reason, and consistent with the exemptions granted from this section in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the HYSight Technologies Exemption, Princeton requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit Princeton to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without having to keep the records described in FAR § 91.417(a) and (b).

5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest: A grant of the requested exemption to allow Princeton to operate these small UAS for aerial data collection for various purposes, including aerial inspections, photography, videography, and R&D, would be in the public interest for several reasons. First, the use of these small UAS by Princeton for these aerial data collection purposes will enhance R&D related to UAS and various “use cases” and applications for UAS. Second, its use of these small UAS will provide significant new educational opportunities. Third, Princeton’s use of these small UAS for aerial inspections, videography, and photography would substantially mitigate, if not eliminate, any risks to personnel or manned aircraft currently used to perform these same activities. As the FAA acknowledged in the context of aerial surveying/inspections of infrastructure:HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 28 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 “Tower and structure inspections are hazardous and present unique difficulties for persons conducting inspections and maintenance of this infrastructure. The inspections are normally conducted utilizing personnel to physically inspect the tower and structure. Manned helicopters may also be used to transport inspection personnel to the top of the tower so that a physical inspection may be conducted. The petitioner plans to utilize a UAS to . . . minimize the need for inspectors to personally climb such structures. Manned helicopters assisting in tower and structure inspections can weigh 6,000 pounds or more and are operated by an onboard pilot, in addition to other onboard crewmembers, as necessary. . . . [U]tilizing UAS to conduct tower inspections will reduce the need for inspection personnel to perform this hazardous activity. . . .” LowCountryRC Exemption, 8 at 2-3. In sum, the aerial data collection operations proposed in this Petition would be far less risky, and more efficient, than if conducted with larger, faster, heavier, combustible fuel-powered manned aircraft. Fourth, the use of small UAS under this exemption would assist, facilitate, and enhance Princeton’s ability to gather better data, video, and photography, and thereby enable Princeton to make more informed decisions. Fifth, Princeton’s aerial data collection with battery-powered UAS would likely have a netpositive impact on the environment by replacing aerial surveying conducted by larger, fuelpowered, and noisier manned aircraft.

5.5 Reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought: Throughout this Petition, Princeton has discussed many reasons why granting an exemption from each section of the FAR from which relief is sought would result in UAS operations that provide a level of safety equal to, or greater than, that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought. Moreover, the many conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, coupled with the operational protocols for these small UAS, also would ensure at least an equivalent level of safety, as the FAA concluded in the Aeryon Labs Exemption, the HYSight

8 Exemption No. 11184 (February 23, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0803).HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 29 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 Technologies Exemption, the Measure Exemption, the Astraeus Exemption, the Auburn Exemption, and the Trimble Exemption, among others. In general, the risks of any small UAS operation proposed in this Petition interfering with a manned aircraft would be minimized by numerous factors, including but not limited to:  the low altitude at which the UAS would operate;  the locations at which the UAS would operate (e.g., private or controlled-access property; away from airports);  the small size, light weight, and relatively slow speed of these small UAS;  the restriction on UAS operations to VMC and daytime conditions; and  the requirement for the UA to be operated within the VLOS of the PIC and VO at all
times. Importantly, these small UAS have several other safety-related protocols. For example,depending on the specific model, these UAS have lost link safety failsafe procedures; return-tohome (pilot initiated or automatically-initiated in cases of lost links or low battery power); autolanding; low-battery warning; a flight pause feature; pre- and post-flight checks; defined flight boundaries; GPS Geofencing; and/or remote pilot features. Princeton believes that the FAA is very familiar with the UAS models listed on attached Exhibit 1 given that these UAS models have been the UAS designated for operations in a large number of Section 333 exemptions granted to date, including the Measure Exemption. With respect to the Parrott AR Drone 2.0, the FAA is familiar with Parrott-make UAS as other Parrott models have previously been designated in Section 333 Exemptions (see, e.g., Measure Exemption). In addition, with respect to single propeller or multi-rotor, battery-powered, small UAS developed by Princeton, its professors or its enrolled students, the FAA has previously granted an exemption to Amazon providing similarauthority. See Amazon Exemption (granting exemption covering “Amazon-manufactured multirotor small UAS”).HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 30 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 The risks to persons or property on the ground would be substantially mitigated – if not eliminated – by these same factors, as well as the 500-foot set-off from non-participating persons, vehicles, and structures absent additional safeguards. Per the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, (i) the PIC will suspend/abort the UAS operation and UA flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies; and (ii) Princeton will coordinate extensively, as warranted, with the FAA, with local airports, and with property owners to ensure that all of its UAS operations under the exemption are at least as safe as would be manned aircraft operations used for similar purposes. The conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition (which have been found by the FAA to be acceptable for other summary grant exemptions) and the operational safety features of these small UAS provide substantial protection against interference with manned aircraft operations and with the safety of persons or property on the ground. For these reasons, granting an exemption from each section of the FAR from which relief is sought would not adversely affect safety, and would provide a level of safety at least equal to, or greater than, that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought.

5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule from which exemption is sought, and a brief description of the nature of the exemption sought: As explained above in Section 2, Princeton believes that good cause exists for not publishing this Petition in the Federal Register. Nonetheless, if such publication is deemed necessary, Princeton proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary:

Docket No.: FAA-2015-______ Petitioner: Princeton University Sections of 14 CFR: 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a) and (b), 61.315(a), (c)(2), and (c)(3), 91.7(a), 91.119(c) and (d)(1), 91.121, 91.151, 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b).HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 31 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4

Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks an exemption to operate small UAS for aerial data collection, including for the purpose of aerial inspections, videography, photography, and R&D.

5.7 Additional information that supports request: Princeton is prepared to provide additional information that the FAA might find helpful, or to answer questions in response to any FAA requests.

5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S.: Princeton does not request to exercise the privileges of this exemption outside the United States.

5.9 Attachments: There are no attachments accompanying this Petition (except for Exhibit 1, list of UAS).HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 33 -

\\DC - 099935/000019 - 7130119 v4 EXHIBIT 1

List of Previously Approved Small UAS from the Measure Exemption10 Attachment 1
1. 2AgEagle 2. 3D Robotics Aero

- M 3. 3D Robotics Iris 4. 3D Robotics Iris+ 5. 3D Robotics X8 6. 3DRobotics Fixed Wing 7. 3DRobotics Multirotor 8. 3DRobotics Quadrotor 9. 3DR Solo 10. 3DR Spektre 11. 3DRobotics Spektre Industrial Multi

- Rotor Aerial Vehicle 12. 3D Robotics Solo 13. 3DRobotics X8+ 14. 3D Robotics X8

- M 15. 3D Robotics Y6 16. Aerial Mob Heavy Lifter 17. Aerial Mob Light Lifter 18. Aerial Remote Mineral Detection System (ARMDS) 19. Aerialtronics Zenith with intergrated Airware system 20. Aerialtronics Altura Zenith ATX8 21. Aerigon 22. Aerobo 23. AeroCine Kopterworx Hammer X12 24. Aeromao AeroMapper 300 2 5. Aeromao Talon 26. Aeromao Aeromapper 300 27. Aeromao Aeromapper EV

- 2 28. AeroVironment Shrike 29. AeroVironment Puma 30. Aeronavics X4 Titanium 31. Aeryon Sky Ranger 32. Aervonics Sky Jib frame with a DJI A2 flight system 33. Aero

- M 34. Aeryon S cout 35. Aeryon SkyRanger 36. AgEagle 37. AgEagle Robotic 38. AgScout 39. AgScout Mini 40. Agribotix Hornet Drone 41. Agribotix Enduro Quad 42. AgriView VK Ranger EX11

43. Aibot 44. Aibotix X

- 6 45. Air Rover AR

- 3000 46. AirCover QR

- 425s 47. AirRobot AR 180 48. AirRobot AR 100 49. AirRobot AR200 50. Air

- X 51. Align M690 52. Altavian Nova 53. Altavian Nova F6500 54. Altavian Nova R8400 55. Altus X

- 4 56. Altus X

- 8 57. American Drones, LLC Eagle 58. Apprentice 59. Arch Aerial OCTO multi

- rotor UAS 60. Arris h exacoper 61. AR

- 960 Hex Rotor 62. AR

- 540 Quad Rotor 63. ARF

- MikroKopter OktoXL 64. ARF

- MikroKopter OktoXL + 65. ArrowLite 66. AscTec Falcon 67. AscTec Falcon 8 68. Astraeus Aerial Cinema System V.3CS 69. Atlantic RC Aircraft LC04 70. Auburn Trimble UX5 71. Auburn War Eagle 72. Auburn EasyStar 73. Auburn 74. AV44 75. Bixler 3DR Plane 76. Blade 350QX 77. Bixler 2 78. Boomerang Carbon Fiber Frame (The Identified System) 79. Bormatec Maja UAV 80. BOSH Technologies Super Swiper 81. Bumblebee

- S 82. C

- Astral Bramor gEO 83. CarbonCore Octocopter 1000 84. Carbon Core Cortex Quadcopter 85. CCO w/Wkm M 86. Chameleon Pro12

87. CinesStar 88. Cinestar 6 89. Cinestar X8 90. Cinestar 8 91. Cinestar 8 HL 92. Cinestar 8 Okto XL 93. Coaxial Quad Multirotor VAO1

- V1 94. Co axial Quad Multirotor VAO2

- V2 95. CopelandRED LLC Delta Wing Aircraft 96. CyberQuad Maxi 97. DJI Flame Wheel F450 98. DJI Flame Wheel F550 99. DAx8 100. DJI Inspire 101. DJI Inspire 1 102. DJI Inspire 2 103. DJI M P330z 104. DJI Phantom 105. DJI Phantom 1 106. DJI Phantom 2 107. DJI Phantom 2+ 108. DJI Phantom 2 Vision 109. DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ 110. DJI Phantom Vision + 111. DJI Phantom 3 112. DJI Phantom FC40 113. DJI Spreading Wings S900 114. DJI Spreading Wings S1000 115. DJI Spreading Wings S10 00+ 116. DJI S800 117. DJI S800 EVO 118. DJI T600 119. Draganflyer Guardian 120. Draganflyer X4ES 121. Draganflyer X4P 122. Draganflyer X6 123. DT

- 18 124. DYS D800

- X8 125. Eagle VTOL 126. Eagle V2 127. E

- Flite Apprentice 128. Event 38 E384 129. F

- 450 130. Falcon VTOL13

131. Fire Fly 6 132. First Aerial Responder UAV 133. Flame Wheel G4 7.8 Skycrane 134. Flying

- Cam 3.0 SARAH 135. Foxtech Kraken 130 V2 136. FreeFly Systems ALTA RTF 137. FreeFly Systems Octocopter Airframe (Legacy) 138. G4 139. G4 models 140. GeoStar 141. GerMAP G220 142. GerMAP G180 143. goFarm GF

- 1 144. Gryphon Dynamics X8 145. GT80X 146. Harris 18 HL 147. HEFF 148. Helicopters West DJI Inspire 149. Helicopters West SkyJib 8 150. Helios 960 151. Hawkeye Mk

- III 152. HexaCrafter HC

- 1100 8 5. 153. HexaCrafter HO

- 1250 154. HH Blade 350QX2 AP 155. Hobbyking “Bixler” Fixed Wing Trainer 156. HoneyComb AgDrone 157. Horizon Hobby Blade 350 Qx2 quadcopter 158. Hoverfly LiveSky, BigSky 60 and H

- Frame 159. Hubsan X4 micro drone 160. HVP 14301 Multi Rotor 161. Identified System 162. IMT Global xFold Cinema 163. Indago 164. InovalDrone:Inova One 165. InstantEye Mk

- 2 166. InstantEye Mk

- 2 Gen2 167. Intuitive Aerial Aeragon 168. K130 Octocopter 169. KongCopter X8 170. Kopterworx Hammer X12 171. Latitude HQ

- 4 Hybrid Multirotor 172. LB700 173. Leading Edge Precision Vision 10 174. Leptron Avenger14

175. Lewis Realty Associates Hexacopter 650 176. Liberty 1 177. Lockheed Martin Desert Hawk III 178. Lockheed Martin Indago 179. Matrix quad copter 180. MaxFligh t 181. MD4

- 200 182. MD4

- 1000 183. Mikrokopter 2.5 184. MLB Company Super Bat 185. MU

- 1H 186. Multirotor G4 7.8 Skycrane 187. Nighthawk 188. Nighthawk VTOL 189. OktoXL 6S12 190. PAG X4 191. Parksone Radian RTF 192. Parrot Bebop drone 193. Parrot PF 725100 Bebop Drone 14MP 194. Parrot Skycontroller 195. Patriot X4 196. Patriot X8 197. Finwing Penguin V2 198. Birdseyeview FireFly 6 199. Phoenix 200. Phoenix VTOL 201. Phoenix 60 202. Phoenix 60LE 203. Pixhawk 204. Precision Drone Pacesetter 2 05. PrecisionHawk 206. PrecisionHawk Hawkeye Mk

- III 207. PrecisionHawk Lancaster 208. Precision Lancaster MK3 209. Prioria Hex 210. Prioria’s Maveric 211. Pulse Aerospace, PA 01 Vapor 212. Pulse Aerospace Pulse Vapor 35 213. Pulse Vapor 214. Puma AE DDL 215. PV 14817 Multi Rotor 216. PV HL1 217. PV HL2 218. Q115

219. Quadcopter LLC MikroKopter 220. Quiet UAV 221. Qube 222. R/C Rotors and Aerial Media: Matrix Prof. Multi Rotor Frame & Octo Heavy Lift Prof. Multi Rotor 223. Frame Ronin Edition Microdrones:M D4

- 1000 224. RCTimer Hexacopter 225. RDASS 226. REHawk 500 227. REHawk 680 228. RF

- 70 229. Riegl RiCopter 230. RITEWING Z3 Spade 47” 231. Ritewing Drake 60” 232. RITEWING Z3 Spade 70” 233. RITEWING Z4 Spade 52” 234. RMAX 235. Roboflight 236. Rotomotion SR

- 15 237. RV Jet 238. Scout X4 239. SD02 240. Seahawk 1.2 241. SelectTech Geospacial’s EH

- 4 242. SenseFly eBee 243. SenseFly eBee RTK 244. SenseFly eXom 245. Sensurion Magpie MP

- 1 246. Service

- Drone Recon One 247. Service

- Drone Blackbird 248. SH 900 249. ShadowHawk 250. Shrike 251. Sirius 252. SkyCatch 253. SkyJib 8 v.2 Heavy Lifter 254. SkyPhilly MI 255. Skywalker Aero 256. Skywalker Flying Wing X8 257. SnapRoll Media SUAS 258. Solutions Phoenix 30 259. SteadiDrone 260. Steadidrone Quad 261. Steadydro ne QU4D16

262. Steadidrone Mavik 263. SuperX/P2 Multirotor 264. Swift Radioplanes Lynx 265. Tali 500 266. Talon 120LE 267. Tarot FY690S Hexacopter 268. Tarot quadcopter 269. Tarot 680pro 270. Tarot 690 271. Tarot 900 272. Tarot 960 273. Tarot T

- 15 274. Tarot T15 C/F Folding Octocopter 275. Tarot T18 UAV 276. Tarot T690 277. Tarot T810 278. Tarot T960 279. Tarsier Systems MoAC 280. Tayzu Robotics Titan X8 281. TBS Discovery Pro 282. Team Black Sheep Discovery Pro Tarot T15 283. T

- Rex 700E F3C 284. TREX 800E DFC PRO 285. Trimble UX5 286. Trimble UX5 hp 287. Trimble ZX5 288. Turningy Talon 500 289. TUP X8

- 800 290. Turbo Ace CINEWING 6 291. TurboAce Matrix

- G quadcopter 292. Turbo Ace matrix

- E 293. Turbo Ace MATRIX

- 1 294. UAV Solutions Phoenix 60 295. Unive rseye Penguin 296. Unmanned Flying Rolling Orb “UFRO” 297. US2 GreenHawk 298. UtiliCopter ITX8 299. VA03

- v1 300. VA04

- v1 301. VA07

- v1 302. Viking UAS Multicopter (VTOL) 303. Viking UAS FF

- X4/X8 304. VK

- Patriot X4/X8 305. Viking UAS Patriot X4/X8 Multirotor17

306. Viking UAS X6 Model 800 307. Viking UAS Viking ONE 308. VK

- 450 309. Viking Unmanned Aerial Systems, LLC AgriView VK Ranger EX 310. Viking VK

- FF

- X4 311. VK

- Ranger EX

- SAR Fixed Wing UAS 312. Volantex Raptor Tarot T

- 18 313. Volt Aerial Robo tics Octane 314. Vulcan frame controlled by a DJI A2 flight controller 315. Vulcan Mantis 316. Vulcan Octocopter 317. Vulcan Raven 318. Vulcan UAV 319. Walkera TALI H500 320. Walkera Scout X4 321. Wookong DJI 5800 322. xCel Drones XD550CDR 323. XFold Rig with four configurations: Quadcopter, Hexcopter, Octocopter and x12 Copter 324. X8

- M