George T. Raber, PhD

The University of Southern Mississippi Department of Geography and Geology, Box 5051 Hattiesburg, MS 39406 george.raber@usm.edu

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

RE: Petition of The University of Southern Mississippi for Summary Grant of Exemption Pursuant to
Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

To Whom it May Concern:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Reform Act) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, The University of Southern Mississippi (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Sothern Miss" or

" USM ") hereby applies for a Summary Grant of Exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) identified below, t o operate small unmanned aerial vehicles (i.e., small unmanned aircraft systems or UAS) for the purpose of conducting aerial data collection, including aerial imaging and remote sensing and surveying, and in support of its education and research operations . In particular, Southern Miss seeks permission to operate the 3DR Solo series, a quadcopter and the FX

- 79 Buffalo a fixed wing UAS. Southern Miss respectfully submits that this Petition for Exemption qualifies for expedited approval, as
the Federal Aviati on Administration (FAA) has previously issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented herein.

The FAA is familiar with and has already determined that the UAS models that Southern Miss seeks to
add meet th e requirements of Section 333 of the Reform Act due to their weight, speed and operational capabilities.

 3D Robotics Solo : Exemption No. 11778A to Cloud9Drones; Exemption No. 11832 to AUV, LLC; Exemption No. 12009 to Aerial Indigo, LLC; Exemption No. 1120 4 to Build Imagery, LLC; Exemption No. 11954 to Flying Solutions

 FX

- 79 Buffalo : Although we could not find a record of this exact model being approved, other light weight small foam flying wings have been approved for exemption.

OVERVIEW CHARACTERISTICS O F PROPOSED UAS

3DR Solo FX

- 79 Buffalo Aircraft Type Multirotor (4 rotors) Flying WingAircraft Weight 1.8kg / 3.97lbs 1.2kg / 2.64 lbs

Max Take

- Off Weight 2.2kg / 4.9lbs 2.25kg / 5lbs
Dimensions 460 x 460 x 250mm 2000mm x 860mm x 30cm Max Flight Time (approx.) 20 mins 45 mins Max Airspeed 48 kts 40 kts Propulsion Brushless DC motor Brushless DC motor
Power Lithium polymer 5200 mAh 14.8 Vdc Lithium polymer 5200 mAh 14.8 Vdc Payload Digital compact /Video

camera Digital compact /Video

camera Airframe material Plastic EPO foam

To expedite the FAA's safety assessment of USM's proposed UAS operations, USM has tailored its operating documents to comply with the conditions and limitations imposed on similarly situated petitioners seeking to use small UAS for aerial data collection. See e.g., Grant of Exemption No. 11552 issued to Sinclair Community College, Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0374. In particular, the operating documents contain systems and procedures to permit USM to comply with the conditions a nd limitations in the FAA's Grant of Exemption

REGULATIONS FROM WHICH EXEMPTION IS SOUGHT

The Federal Aviation Act expressly grants the FAA the authority to issue exemptions. This statutory authority, by its terms, includes exempting civil aircraft, as the term is defined under § 40101 of the Act, including UAS, from its safety regulations and minimum standards when the Administrator decides a requested exemption is in the public interest. See 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) (authorizing the grant of exemptions from r equirements of regulations prescribed pursuant to Sections 44701(a) and (b) and
Sections 44702

- 44716).

USM seeks an exemption from several interrelated provisions of 14 C.F.R. Parts 45, 61 and 91 for purposes of conducting the requested operations using small UAS, including:

FAR Description 91.9(c); 45.23(b) and 45.27(a) Aircraft Marking and Identification Requirements

91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance and Inspection Requirements

61.23(a) and (c), 61.113; 61.101(e)(4) and (5),
61.315 Private, Recreational and Sport Pilot Medical Certificate, Privileges and
Limitations

91.7(a) Civil Aircraft Airworthiness 91.9(b)(2); 91.203(a) and (b) Carrying Aircraft Flight Manual, Certification and Registration in the
A ircraft
91.103 Preflight Action 91.109(a) Flight Instruction 91.119(c) Minimum Safe Altitudes Over Other than Congested Areas
91.121 Altimeter Settings91.151(a) Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

Listed below are the specific sections of 14 C.F.R. for which an exemption is sought, and the operating procedures and safeguards that Petitioner has established which will ensure a level of safety better than or equal to the rules from which exemption is sought. See 14 C.F.R. § 11.81(e), whic h requires a petition for exemption to include: The 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 you seek exemption.

A. 91. 9(c), 45.23(b) and 45.27(a): Aircraft Marking and Identification Requirements

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

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

No person may operate a U.S.

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

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

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

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

sport, "experimental," or "provisional," as applicable.

14 C.F.R. § 45.27(a), Rotorcra ft, states:

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

In prior grants of exemption under Section 333 of the Reform Act, the FAA determine d that exemption from these requirements was warranted provided that the aircraft "have identification (N

- Number) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R Part 45, Subpart C if the markings are as large as practicable." (FAA
Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352.) All UAS flown by USM will bear N

- number markings that are as large as practicable in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, (Subpart C. See, e.g., FAA Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352, at 14.)

B. 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance In spections

USM seeks an exemption from the maintenance inspection requirements contained in 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b). These regulations specify maintenance and inspection standards in reference to 14 C.F.R . Part 43. (See, e.g., 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a)) An exemption from these regulations is needed because Part 43 and these sections only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate, which the UAS to be operated under this grant of exemption will not
hav e. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved because maintenance and inspections will beperformed in accordance with the operating documents and any required manufacturer Safety or

Service Bulletins. Further, as required by the operating documents, t he PIC will conduct a pre

- flight inspection of the UAS and all associated equipment to account for all discrepancies and/or inoperable components. Maintenance will be performed and verified to address any conditions potentially affecting safe operation of the UAS and no flights will occur unless, and until, all flight critical components of the UAS have been found to be airworthy and in a condition safe for operation. A functional test flight will be conducted following the replacement of any flight

- critica l components. As required by the operating documents, the PIC who conducts the functional test flight will make an entry in the UAS aircraft records of the flight.

The operating documents also include requirements to follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenan ce, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and aircraft components. Moreover, the operating documents also include procedures to document and maintain a record of the UAS maintenance, preventative maintenance, alter ations, status of replacement/overhaul component parts, and the total time in service of Petitioner's UAS. As a whole, the maintenance and inspection procedures required by Petitioner's operating documents ensure that an equivalent or higher level of
safet y will be achieved.

C. 61.23(a) and (c), 61.113, 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.315: Private, Recreational and Sport Pilot Medical Certificate, Privileges and Limitations

USM seeks exemption from these sections, which restricts private, recreational or sport pil ot certificate holders from flying aircraft for compensation or hire, and would also require a second class medical certificate. The purpose of Part 61 is to ensure that the skill and competency of any PIC matches the airspace in which the PIC will be oper ating, as well as requiring certifications if the private pilot is carrying passengers or cargo for hire. In this case, while the UAS will be operated as part of a commercial operation, it carries neither passengers nor cargo.

In the Grant of Exemption No . 11062 t o Astraeus Aerial (FAA Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352.) , the FAA determined that the unique characteristics of UAS operation outside of controlled airspace did not warrant the additional cost and restrictions attendant with requiring the PIC to have a C ommercial Pilot Certificate and Class II Medical Certificate. The fulfillment of the additional requirements for a private pilot to become qualified as a commercial pilot would not lead to any additional safety benefits when UAS operations are involved.

M ore recently, the FAA determined that holders of recreational and sport pilot certificates would also have adequate aeronautical knowledge to pilot a UAS. Accordingly, because these individuals would also be subject to security screening by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the FAA determined that holders of recreational and sport pilot certificates would be qualified to serve as the PIC for UAS operations. (See Grant of Exemption No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0642 at pgs.
8

- 9 )).

The restrictions Petitioner has placed on its UAS operations meet or exceed the restrictions similarly imposed on Astraeus Aerial and other operators in more recently granted exemptions under Section 333
of the FAA Reform Act. USM will operate away fr om persons and property that is not the subject matter of the flight. USM will also require all PICs to be thoroughly trained in the unique aspects of UAS flight. As set forth in the operating documents, pilots will have experience not only in UAS operatio ns generallybut have logged flight time in the specific make and model used for the operations before they are

permitted to participate in commercial flights on behalf of USM . The pilot qualification, training, and currency requirements in the operating d ocuments ensure that USM pilots are competent and proficient in the UAS they are operating. The Petitioner's training and qualification requirements are consistent with those contained in prior FAA issued grants of exemption, and will provide a higher leve l of competency and proficiency for its pilots and will ensure at least an equivalent level of safety

. D. 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

In as much as there will be no airworthiness certificate issued for the UAS, USM seeks an exemption
from 14 C.F. R. § 91.7(a), which requires that a civil aircraft be in an airworthy condition to be operated. While the petitioner’s UAS will not have an airworthiness certificate, the FAA has determined that for the purposes of this exemption the pilot may determine th e aircraft is in an airworthy condition prior to flight. The operating documents contain procedures which allow the PIC to determine whether the aircraft is in a condition safe for flight, and an exemption from § 91.7(a) is therefore warranted.

E. 91.9(b)( 2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual in the Aircraft and 91.203(a) and (b): Carrying Civil Aircraft Certification and Registration

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

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2): (b) No person may operate a U.S.

- registered civil aircraft

–

... (2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by § 21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combin ation thereof.

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

Except as provided in § 91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has within it the following: (1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate... (b) No person may operat e a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to

passengers or crew.

Given the small size and configuration of the UAS, it would be impossible to keep airworthiness documents and other aircraft manuals on board the UAS because there is simply no room and the UAS has no cabin or cockpit.

In an FAA Office of Chief Counsel's Opinion da ted August 8, 2014, and prepared by Dean E. Griffith, Attorney, AGC

- 220, it was acknowledged that the intent of 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b) and 91.203(a) and (b) is met if the pilot of the unmanned aircraft has access to the UAS flight manual, registration certifica te, and other required documents from the ground control station from which he or she is operating the aircraft (Memorandum from Mark Bury, FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation and Regulation, to John Duncan, FAA Flight Standards Service (Aug. 8, 2014);see also Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352 at 16

- 18.). As this FAA Office of Chief Counsel Opinion clarifies, the intent of the rule is to ensure the pilot has access to these key documents during flight. Therefore, an equivalent level of saf ety will beachieved by ensuring that the pilot has access to the documents at the ground control station from

which he or she is piloting the UAS (See also Exemption No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. at pg. 11).

F. 91.103: Preflight Action

Petitioner seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103, which requires a PIC to become familiar with specific information before each flight, including information contained in the FAA approved Flight
Manual on board the aircraft. While the PIC will be familiar with all inf ormation necessary to safely conduct the flight, an exemption is requested to the extent that an FAA

- approved Flight Manual is required.

Adherence to the requirements in the operating documents will ensure that the UAS is in an airworthy condition prior t o flight. The PIC will perform a series of checklists designed to identify any defects or inoperable components, which cover pre

- flight, take

- off, landing and post

- flight procedures. The PIC will also be required to review weather, flight requirements, bat tery charge, landing and takeoff distance, UA performance data, and contingency landing areas

— before initiation of flight. Petitioner's operating documents will be kept at the ground control station and will be accessible to the PIC at all times while

oper ating the UAS.

G. 91.109(a): Flight Instruction

Petitioner seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a), which provides in pertinent part that "[n]o person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight
instruct ion unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls." UAS and remotely piloted aircraft, by their design, do not have functional dual controls. Instead, flight control is accomplished through the use
of a device that communicates with the aircraft via radio communications. Accordingly an exemption will be required for the flight instruction requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a).

Given the size and speed of the UAS that Petitioner intends to use, an equivalent level of safe training
can still be ach ieved without dual controls because no pilot or passengers are aboard the UAS, and as required by the operating documents, all persons will be a safe distance away in the event that the UAS experiences any difficulties during flight instruction. Moreover, all flight training will be conducted in controlled and sterile environment. As a whole, the procedures provided for in the operating documents ensure that UAS flight instruction can be performed safely.

H. 91.119(c): Minimum Safe Altitudes Over Other Than Congested Areas

USM requests an exemption from the minimum safe altitude requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c). Section 91.119 prescribes the minimum safe altitudes under which aircraft may not operate, including 500 feet above the surface and away from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure in non

- congested areas. See 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c).

An exemption is required because the proposed UAS operations will normally need to occur below 400 feet AGL. Additionally, due to the nature of the proposed opera tions, the PIC and/or Observers may need to be less than 500 feet away from the UAS. Compared to flight operations with rotorcraft weighing far more than the maximum weights proposed herein, and given the lack of flammable fuel with the UAS, any risk assoc iated with these operations is far less than those that presently exist with
conventional aircraft.An equivalent level of safety will be achieved given the size, weight, and speed of the UAS, as well the

controlled location where the operations will occu r. In order to avoid any risk to manned aircraft, flight operations will be restricted to below 400 feet AGL. As set forth in the operating documents, the UAS will be operated in a controlled environment, and all flights will occur at a lateral distance of at least 500 feet from nonparticipating persons, unless that person is in a position where he or she is shielded from the UAS and any possible debris resulting from UAS failure. Procedures will be in place to ensure flight operations can be safely termina ted if a nonparticipating person within 500 feet of the UAS leaves a shielded position. Further, UAS operations will occur at least 500 feet away from vehicles or structures unless the property owner/controller has granted permission and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects, and operations near the PIC or Observer will not present an undue hazard per § 91.119(a). Adher ence to these restrictions in US M's operating documents will ensure the proposed operations can be conducted without compromising safety to persons or property on the ground.

I. 91.121: Altimeter Settings

To the extent necessary for US M to conduct the proposed operations, Petitioner requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121, which requires a pe rson operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude or flight level by reference to an altimeter that is set to the elevation of the departure airport or barometric pressure. See Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 035 2 at 21).

The FAA has stated that an equivalent level of safety to the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 can be achieved in circumstances where: (1) the UAS will be operated 400 feet AGL or below, (2) within VLOS, (3) where GPS based altitude information is relayed in real time to the operator at a ground

- based on

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

The UAS that Petitioner intends to use for performing the proposed operations meet all these operational characteristics. Moreover, the operating documents require the PIC to calibrate the aircraft's GPS compass prior to each flight operation. As the FAA has determined in circumstances
similar to t his Petition for Exemption, Petitioner's UAS and the safety mitigation procedures contained in the operating documents, ensure that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved, and a grant of exemption to the requirements of § 191.121 is therefore appro priate.

J. 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

US M requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a)'s fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.
Section 91.151 states:

No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR condit ions 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

a fter that for at least 45 minutes.Here, the technological limitations on UAS battery power means that no meaningful flight operations

can be conducted while still maintaining a 30

- minute battery reserve. An exemption from the fuel requirements of 14 C.F. R. § 91.151(a) is therefore required.

The FAA has previously granted relief from the fuel requirements of § 91.151(a) for flight in daytime VFR
conditions in circumstance ssimilar to those presented in this Petition for Exemption. (See e.g., Exempt ion Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673) In Exemption No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (Docket No. FAA

2014

- 0642.), the FAA determined that a requirement prohibiting the PIC from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there was enough available power for UAS to operate for the intended operational time and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve power recommended by the manufacturer if greater, would ensure an equivalent level of safety
to the fue l requirements of § 91.151(a). Petitioner's operating documents impose this same requirement and an exemption from § 91.151(a)'s fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions is therefore appropriate.

DRUG AND ALCOHOL PROGRAM

US M will have policies in place to ensure that no person may participate in UAS flight operations if they are under the influence of alcohol or any drug.

PUBLIC INTEREST

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

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

Beyond increased levels of safety, the public stands to benefit enormously from the education and

rese arch programs supported by the proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption. Whether it is studying the impact of forest logging practices, or researching how UAS can be used for aerial mapping in the aftermath of natural disasters, USM's community o f scholars are engaged in research and discovery aimed at finding solutions to the grand challenges we face as a people and a planet. The public as a whole will benefit from the information gathered and studied as part of the education and research

program s supported by the proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption.

PRIVACY

The proposed operations will be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, or local laws regarding privacy. USM will not conduct flight operations over property th at it does not own or control without the prior consent and knowledge of the property owner.CONCLUSION

The proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption satisfy the criteria articulated in Section 333 of the Reform Act and the FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all respects to those presented by USM in this Petition for Exemption. In consideration of the foregoing, USM respectfully submits that this Petition for Exemption qualifies for expedited approval via the FAA's

summ ary grant process.

We thank you for your prompt consideration of our requested exemptions. Should you have any questions, or if you need additional information to support the requested exemptions, please do not
hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

George T. Raber, PhD
Associate Professor Department of Geography The University of Southern Mississippi 118 College Drive, #5051 Hattiesburg, MS 39406 george.raber@usm.edu
601

- 434

- 9489