In the matter of the petition for :

Corey Huish

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations for the purpose of Real Estate Photography.

The petitioner request for an exemption from part 14 CFR part 11 and Section 333 of the FAA Moderniza tion and Reform Act of 2012 (PL 112

- 95)

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Unmanned Aircraft System

The petitioner states that given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft to be u tilized by the applicant, an exemption from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H (Airworthiness Certificates), subject to certain conditions and limitations, is warranted and meets the requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 CFR part 11 and Section 33 3 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (PL 112

- 95). The petitioner further states that UAS operated without an airworthiness certificate in the restricted environment and under the conditions and limitations proposed by the petitioner will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate issued under 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H and not subject to the proposed conditions and limitations.

The petitioner states that the unmanned aircraft (UA) to be operated under this request is less than 55 lbs. fully loaded, flies at a speed of no more than 50 knots, carries neither a pilot nor passenger, carries no explosive materials or flammable liquid fuels, and operates exclusivel y within a secured area as set out in the MPTOM. In addition, the petitioner has integrated safety features into the design of the UAS, as described in the petitioner’s FOPM, to ensure the safety of persons and property within and surrounding the limited

o perating area. The petitioner further describes that, in the event the UAS loses communications or its GPS signal, the UA will have the capability to return to a pre

determined location within the Security Perimeter and land. It will also have the capabili ty to abort a flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies.

The petitioner states that even though its UAS will have no airworthiness certificate, an exemption may be needed from 14 CFR § 45.23 as the UA will have no entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station on which the word “experimental” can be placed. Given the size of the UA, the petitioner notes that the two

- inch lettering will be impossible. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be provided by having th e UA marked with the word “experimental” on the fuselage in compliance with 14 CFR § 45.29(f), in a location where the pilot, observer, and others working with the UA will see the identification.The petitioner states that the maintenance requirements in the pertinent sections of 14 CFR part 91 are only applicable to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 43. The petitioner states that its V.3 UAS does not have specific maintenance instructions . The petitioner also states that it intends to follow any manufacturers’ recommended instructions and procedures when those procedures exist for certain components of UAS.

UAS Pilot In Command (PIC)

The petitioner asserts that since the UA will not carry a pilot or passengers on board, the proposed operations will not adversely affect safety by requiring the PIC operating the aircraft to have a private pilot’s license rather than a commercial pilot’s license. In support of its position, the petitioner argues that, since there are no stan dards for either private or commercial UAS pilot certificates, knowledge of airspace regulations and dexterity in the control and operation of the UAS acquired from actual operation of the aircraft will be the most important factors in establishing an equi valent level of safety. Furthermore, the petitioner explains that, given the restricted and controlled airspace within which operations will take place, the key factors needed by the PIC are knowledge of the airspace within which the “closed

- set filming” o peration will take place and how that airspace fits into the National Airspace System (NAS). The petitioner also states that it cannot be assumed that a commercial pilot, approved to operate a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft, has the skill or ability to safely operate an unmanned aerial vehicle, operating at 200 feet AGL or lower, within strictly controlled pre

- approved airspace.

Additionally, the petitioner states that the aircraft will be operated within a secure environment, which no one will be allow ed to enter unless they are part of the production, have been fully briefed of the risks prior to operation of the UAS, and have consented to the risks associated with being in the operating area. Should there be a mishap, the UA being flown pose significa ntly less of a threat than the helicopters and fixed wing aircraft now being employed because they are a fraction of the size, carry no flammable fuel, and do not carry crew or passengers. This is in stark contrast to conventional aircraft that are flown t o the site, carry flammable fuel, carry passengers and crew, and operate in a much larger area.

UAS Operating Parameters

The petitioner states that all flights will be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of a pilot and/or observer, and that the U A flights will be limited to a maximum altitude of 200 feet AGL. The petitioner further states that an operator will ensure that only consenting production personnel will be allowed within 100 feet of the UA operation, but th is radius may be reduced to 5 f eet based upon an equivalent level of safety determination

. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved given the size, weight, and speed of the UAS, as well as the location where it is operated. The petitioner states that the UAS will be operated within a safe operating perimeter, the boundaries of which will be determined by production personnel and the UAS PIC based on the site

- specific filming activities and speed of the UAS required for the operation,and coordinated with the jurisdictional FAA FSDO and local government officials as applicable. The petitioner states that only participating and consenting production personnel will be allowed within this perimeter; the petitioner also states their intention to comply with the guidelines outlined in Order 8900.1 V3, C8, S1 with regard to nonparticipating personnel outside the safety perimeter. The petitioner argues that, compared to flight operations with aircraft or rotorcraft weighing far more than its maximum 55 lb. UA, and the lack of flammable fuel, any risk associated with its UAS operations is far less than those with conventional aircraft op erating at or below 500 feet AGL

. With respect to preflight actions, the petitioner notes it may need an exemption from 14 CFR § 91 .103, because it will not have approved rotorcraft flight manuals. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the PIC taking all preflight actions as set forth by the manufacture , including reviewing weather, flight batte ry requirements, landing and takeoff distances, and aircraft performance data before initiation of flight. Additionally, the petitioner states that a briefing will be conducted prior to each day’s filming regarding planned UAS operations, and all personnel who will be performing duties within the boundaries of the safety perimeter will be required to attend.

With respect to the fuel requirements, the petitioner notes that, in order to meet the 30 minute reserve requirements in 14 CFR § 91.151, UAS flights would have to be limited to approximately 10 minutes. The petitioner argues that, given the limitations on the UA’s proposed flight area and the location of its proposed operations within a predetermined area, a longer time frame for flight in daylight or night VFR conditions is reasonable. The petitioner believes that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by limiting flights to 30 minutes or 25% of battery power, whichever occurs first.

The petitioner notes that it may need an exemption from 14 CF R § 91.121, as its UAS may have a GPS altitude read out instead of a barometric altimeter. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved, as outlined by the manufacture

. Specifically, the altitude information will be provided t o the UAS PIC via a digitally encoded telemetric data feed. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the PIC.

Public Interest

The petitioner states that, given the small size of the UA invol ved and the restricted sterile environment within which it will operate, its proposed operation “falls squarely within that zone of safety (an equivalent level of safety) in which Congress envisioned that the FAA must, by exemption, allow commercial operat ions of UAS to commence immediately.” Also due to the size of the UA and the restricted areas in which the UAS will operate, approval of the application presents no national security issue. The petitioner states that, given the clear direction in Section 3 33, the strong equivalent level of safety surrounding the proposed operations, and the significant public benefit, including enhanced safety, reduction in environmental impacts, and including reducedemissions associated with allowing UAS for movie and tel evision operations, granting the requested exemptions is in the public interest.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

Unmanned aircraft system (UAS)

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR part 21 Certification procedures for products and p arts, the FAA finds that, based on the limited size, weight, operating conditions, design safety features, and the imposed conditions and limitations, the petitioner has demonstrated that its operations would not adversely affect safety compared to similar operations conducted with aircraft that have been issued an airworthiness certificate under 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H.

Commercial motion picture and television aerial filming operations with manned aircraft are typically conducted with aircraft holding s tandard airworthiness certificates issued under part 21, subpart H. These aircraft are normally modified via the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) process to install cameras and other equipment not included in the original aircraft design.

Manned helico pters conducting motion picture and television aerial filming can weigh 6,000 lbs. or more and are operated by an onboard pilot, in addition to other onboard crewmembers, as necessary. The petitioner’s UA will weigh less than 55 lbs. with no onboard pilot or crew. The pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited weight significantly reduces the potential for harm to participating and nonparticipating individuals or property in the event of an incident or accident. The risk

to an on board pilot and crew during an incident or accident is eliminated with the use of a UA for the aerial filming operation.

Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an incident or accident. The UA carries no fuel, and therefore t he risk of fire following an incident or accident due to fuel spillage is eliminated.

During motion picture and television aerial filming with manned aircraft under the conditions of an FAA issued Certificate of Waiver, aircraft can be operated in very cl ose proximity to participating persons. The safety of these individuals is maintained through use of an aircraft with standard airworthiness certification under 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H, operation of the aircraft by a qualified and competent pilot, and op erating according to limitations necessary to ensure safety. In these situations, the filming subject and production personnel are exposed to risk by virtue of their close proximity to an aircraft in flight. Compared to manned aircraft, the UA being operat ed by the petitioner reduces the risk to participating persons in close proximity to the aircraft due to the limited size, weight, operating conditions, and design safety features of the UAS.This exemption does not require an electronic means to monitor and communicate with other aircraft, such as transponders or sense and avoid technology. Rather the FAA is mitigating the risk of these operations by placing limits on altitude, requiring stand

- off distance from clouds, permitting daytime operations only, and requiring that the UA be operated within visual line of sight and yield right of way to all other manned operations. Additionally, the exemption provides that the operator will request a NOTAM prior to operations to alert other users of the NAS.

The p etitioner’s UAS has the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain in

flight failures. The UA is also able to respond to a lost

- link event with a pre

- coordinated, predictable, automated flight maneuver. With regard to USHPA’s concerns about du al control systems, current FAA regulations permit motion picture and television filming operations by manned aircraft that do not require a copilot. Additionally, under this exemption, the FAA requires that the UAS PIC hold a current third class medical

c ertificate. Historically, instances of complete PIC incapacitation are rare. In all other cases other than complete incapacitation, the PIC has the ability to terminate the flight operation or initiate the automated return to home procedure outlined within the FOPM.