1 Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Stanley Consultants, Inc. (applicant), a global engineering service provider and engineering consulting firm, providing services to the energy, environmental, transportation and water/wastewater industries hereby applies for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) to allow commercial operation of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), so long as such operations are conducted within and under the conditions outlined herein or as may be established by the FAA as required by Section 333.1. Stanley Consultants, a multi-disciplinary engineering firm, can use UAS’s for multiple business units and project types. With a broad range of possible uses, the purpose is to provide new or additional services to current and potential clients. The use of UAS’s can assist in streamlining project budgets, help with proposal and marketing work and keep Stanley cutting edge. Some of these uses include but are not limited to:

• Aerial Photography and surveying

• Lidar scanning and surveying

• Bridge and road inspection

• Powerline and power plant inspection

• Construction observation

• Land data survey and acquisition

• Real time project telemetry

• Company portfolio work, marketing and advertisement The contact information for the company representative filing for this exemption is: (a) Stanley Consultants, Inc. Attn: Barry T. Shaw 225 Iowa Avenue, Muscatine, Iowa 52761 Phone: 563.264.6608 Fax: 563.264.6658 Email: shawbarry@stanleygroup.com (b) Specific sections or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek exemption Regulatory Provisions from which Stanley Consultants, Inc. seeks an exemption: This applicant believes it may need an exemption from the following provisions to conduct the contemplated operations. In some instances, relief is needed because relief from another provision renders compliance with the regulation at hand infeasible.

• 333 Aircraft Exemption Status

• 14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b)

• 14 C.F.R. §91.119(c)

• 14 C.F.R. §91.121

• 14 C.F.R. §91.151 • 14 C.F.R. §91.405(a)

• 14 C.F.R. §91.407(a)

• 14 C.F.R. §91.409(a)(1)&(2)

• 14 C.F.R. §91.417(a)&(b)2 Applicant believes an exemption is only needed from the above-listed regulatory provisions. To the extent that the FAA believes that additional relief is required for the applicant to conduct the operations described here, we request an exemption from any such regulatory provisions as well. (c) The extent of relief you seek, and the reason you seek the relief Section 333 Aircraft Exemption Status: Section 333 of the Modernization Act authorizes the FAA to exempt aircraft from the requirement for an airworthiness certificate based on a consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capability of the particular UAS, as well as its proximity to airports and populated areas. An analysis of these criteria demonstrates that the UAS operated with an airworthiness certificate in the areas and under the conditions contemplated by the applicant will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate without the conditions proposed in this request. The UAS is less than 55 lbs. fully loaded, carries neither a pilot nor passenger, and operates exclusively within a secured and visible area. Unlike other civil aircraft, operations under this exemption will be tightly controlled and monitored by the operator and observer. Operations will be conducted in compliance with the FAA and with local public safety requirements to provide security for the area of operation as is now done in conventional equipment, infrastructure, bridge and out building inspection and evaluation. These safety enhancements provide an expanded degree of safety to the inspectors over conventional operations. Lastly, application of these same criteria demonstrates that there is no credible threat to national security posed by the UAS, due to its size, speed of operation, location of operation, lack of explosive or flammable materials/liquids and inability to carry a substantial external load. Given the size and limited operating area associated with the aircraft to be utilized by the Applicant, this meets the requirements of an equivalent level of safety under Part 11 and Section 333 of the Reform Act. The Federal Aviation Act (49 U.S.C.§44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act both authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft from the requirement for an airworthiness certificate, upon consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capability, and proximity to airports and populated areas of the particular UAS. In all cases, an analysis of these criteria demonstrates that the UAS operated without an airworthiness certificate, in the restricted environment and under the conditions proposed will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate without the restrictions and conditions proposed. 14 CFR §61.113 (a) and (b) – Private pilot privileged and limitations: Pilot in Command: (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. (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.
###

Stanley Consultants anticipates initially using specially trained staff to conduct the UAS operations. While these individuals will not hold commercial pilot licenses. The UAS will not carry property for compensation or hire since they will be used solely to assist in evaluation of the infrastructure, equipment, right-of-way, assets, bridges, tunnels and out-buildings in furtherance of Stanley Consultants’ client’s primary business which is the3 successful operation of infrastructure and equipment. Without an exemption, the pilot would be required to hold a commercial pilot certificate under §61.133. However, the risk associated with the contemplated operations is less than the risk posed by a traditional aircraft. The UAS will fly at altitudes well below the permissible limits for other civil aircraft, eliminating the risk to other aircraft, and within a geographical envelope under the sole control of Stanley Consultants clients. Accordingly, the risk would be limited to Stanley Consultants’ personnel, who will be appropriately outfitted in safety gear, on client property, and controlling the UAS within sight from the ground. Requiring a commercial pilot certificate would provide no appreciable safety benefit and would needlessly impose additional cost on Stanley Consultants. Because the contemplated operations would not comply with §61.113(b)(1) and none of the other exceptions to paragraph (a) apply, relief is needed from both paragraphs (a) and (b). 14 CFR 91.119(c) – Minimum Safe Altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (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.
### Stanley Consultants submits that the only relief it requires from §91.119 is from the minimum altitudes listed in paragraph (c). Relief is required from paragraph (c) for fixed wing operations because asset evaluation conducted at 500 feet or higher is insufficiently distinct to be meaningful. Since operations at this altitude also pose a heightened risk of collision with another aircraft, safety can only be assured through the grant of an exemption. The anticipated rotorcraft operations should be adequately addressed by paragraph (d) (1). Additionally, relief should not be needed from paragraph (a) because an emergency landing of the aircraft due to a power failure will not create an undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. As noted in the explanation of why an exemption will not adversely affect safety, Stanley Consultants clients has exclusive use of the land over which the UAS will be operated, and public access is restricted. It also has exclusive use of significant portions of land adjacent to the infrastructure and structures that will be the objects of evaluation and analysis. Stanley Consultants clients tightly control access to land and have the ability to assure that no individuals unassociated with the planned operations are on the affected land. As such, the risk of injury is minimal. 14 CFR 91.121 – Altimeter Settings This regulation requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set “...to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.”
### As the UAS may not have a barometric altimeter, but instead a GPS altitude read out, an exemption may be needed. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the operator, pursuant to the Manual and Safety Check list, confirming the altitude of the launch site shown on the GPS altitude indicator before flight. Altitude information will be provided to the UAS pilot via a digitally encoded telemetric data feed, which downlinks from the aircraft to a ground-based on-screen display. This altitude information will be generated by equipment installed on board the aircraft, using GPS triangulation, or digitally encoded barometric altimeter, or radio altimeter, or any combination thereof. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the pilot. 14 CFR 91.151 – Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions (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 normal4 cruising speed – (1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 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. Operating the UAS in a pre-defined area with less than 30 minutes of reserve fuel does not raise the type of risk contemplated by §91.151 (e.g. that an aircraft could run out of fuel in the event it has to be flown to an alternate airport or circle the planned airport in the event of unanticipated conditions). Stanley Consultants does not intend to use the UAS for point-to-point flights and will not operate the UAS beyond visual line of sight. Nor will the UAS require an airport in order to land. Rather, Stanley Consultants will operate the UAS using pre-planned flight paths (taking into account weather conditions) designed to allow the UAS to fly to the point of intended landing. As such, there is no need for a time-based excess fuel requirement. Rather it should be sufficient to require only as much additional excess flight capacity as necessary to safely land the UAS. We believe that a 25% battery reserve is more than sufficient to meet this objective.
### 14 C.F.R. 91.405(a), 91.407(a) (1), 14 C.F.R. 91.409(a) (1)&(2) and 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) & (b) §91.405 – Maintenance Record 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;
### §91.407 – Operation after maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration (a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless – (1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under §43.7 of this chapter.
### §91.409 – Inspections (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
### §91.417 (a) & (b) – Maintenance Records Stanley Consultants believes that an exemption from these three maintenance requirements is appropriate because the FAA has not developed maintenance standards that would allow an operator to meet the part 91 maintenance requirements. In particular, there are no individuals authorized by the FAA to approve a UAS for return to service under §91.407(a) or to conduct the initial airworthiness and annual return to service inspections required by5 §91.409(a). Stanley Consultants will maintain the aircraft as instructed in the owner’s manual and will not operate the aircraft until it has reasonably determined that any needed repairs have been made. However, because of the technical impossibility of meeting the requirements of §§91.405(a), 407(a), 409(a) and 417(a)&(b), we believe an exemption from these provisions is appropriate. (a) The reasons why granting your request would be in the public interest; that is; how it would benefit the public as a whole In addition to the waiver authority provided in §333 of the Modernization Act, the FAA may grant an exemption under 49 U.S.C. §44701(f) if it has determined that such an exemption is in the public interest. The FAA has imposed a separate requirement in its procedural regulations, providing that the petitioner shall explain why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide at least an equivalent level of safety as compliance with the underlying regulation. In this case, approval of this exemption would advance the public interest by significantly enhancing the safety and efficiency of infrastructure operations and by providing the FAA with valuable user experience on UAS in a context with appreciable economic and societal benefits. As described more fully below, the requested exemption would permit the operation of UAS under tightly controlled conditions, thus ensuring that operations will not have an adverse impact on safety. To the contrary, as explained below, Stanley Consultants anticipates that use of UAS will enhance safety in infrastructure operations. Granting an Exemption is in the Public Interest. The safety and efficiency of infrastructure operations is heavily dependent upon constant analysis of assets, right-of-way, infrastructure and other assets/facilities. There are a wide variety of factors that can affect conditions and cause problems for infrastructure. Even relatively small objects or minor failures can lead to accidents or other incidents causing downtime of infrastructure. Extreme weather events can lead to flooding or overheating infrastructure. For example earthquakes, landslides, and abandoned vehicles at grade crossings can block infrastructure. The potential for sabotage and terrorism – or even just trespassing – are also among the many risks that modern infrastructure faces. As a result, pursuant to federal regulations and company policy, our client’s maintenance employees routinely inspect the infrastructure, such as bridges, tunnels, support structures, and signals. At present, this work is done primarily by company personnel in motor vehicles, on foot, in specialized equipment. This is often a labor-intensive and sometimes arduous job. While our clients do all they can to make these inspections as safe as possible, there is an irreducible element of risk involved whenever employees are required to go out on structures. Employees may need to climb over or onto structures, which can be slippery, rough, and/or exposed to the elements. Some structures, such as bridges, are high above the ground. Equipment moving through inspection zones can increase risk as well, especially in high-traffic areas. While the use of UAS for supplemental infrastructure and general asset evaluation would not eliminate these risks entirely (as it is an additive safety measure), it would reduce the risks to employees by allowing for remote aerial review. Additionally, the sheer amount of assets and the widely dispersed locations – in many instances far from sizeable population centers – means that visual inspection in all instances by company personnel can be inefficient. Aerial analysis by traditional fixed wing aircraft is impractical because the required altitudes for safe flight reduce visibility below meaningful levels – it is simply not possible to see all asset anomalies from such heights. Helicopters present better vantage points; however manned helicopters are much more costly, subject to human safety and carry highly explosive jet fuel making them impractical for deployment. By using UAS for supplemental asset evaluation, Stanley Consultants will be able to substantially upgrade its capacity to detect and address issues with the right-of-way and other assets before they become a problem for safe operations. Thus, the use of UAS has the potential to improve efficiency, resulting in faster and safer delivery of goods, energy & natural resources vital to the U.S. economy.6 (b) The reasons why granting 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 Stanley Consultants notes that there is no applicable standard for an equivalency determination. Some have argued that the appropriate standard is that for model aircraft, noting that their operations, if conducted for recreational purposes, would fall completely within the allowable operations for model aircraft. At the same time, it is clear that equivalency cannot be established for traditional, manned civil aircraft because the design and use profiles between traditional aircraft and UAS are simply too different. As such, we believe it makes more sense to focus on why the contemplated operations would not adversely affect safety, which is all that §11.81(e) requires. Granting an exemption will not adversely affect safety. Stanley Consultants contemplates conducting UAS operations over client owned or controlled land, solely during daylight hours, at altitudes well below that which would pose a risk to other aircraft. In general, UAS operations are intended to be conducted in areas distant from both congested areas and airports. Moreover, because of the inherent risks presented by standard infrastructure operations, our clients have already taken steps to secure property against unauthorized public access. For example, substantial stretches of utility sites are fenced, elevated, or otherwise secured to prevent access. Other long stretches of infrastructure are, as noted above, in very remote wilderness areas. The nature of operations anticipated by Stanley Consultants requires that the UAS be flown at relatively low altitudes and relatively low speeds. Stanley Consultants expects that in most instances, the UAS will be flown less than 75 feet from the highest structure along the path of the UAS. Accordingly, the risk of interference with another aircraft is minimal. Stanley Consultants also plans to conduct UAS operations at least three miles from any public airports (including heliports). In the event an operation needs to be conducted closer to an airport, Stanley Consultants will inform the airport operator and airport air traffic control tower of the contemplated operation and will comply with any directions issued by air traffic control at that airport. Approval of exemptions allowing commercial operations of UAS in the infrastructure aerial inspection industry will enhance safety by reducing risk. Conventional operations, using jet or piston power aircraft, operate at extremely low altitudes just feet from the subject being inspected and in extreme proximity to people and structures; and present the risks associated with vehicles that weigh in the neighborhood of 4,000lbs., carrying large amounts of jet A or other fuel (140 gallons for jet helicopters). Such aircraft must fly to and from the inspection site. In contrast, a UAS weighing fewer than 55 lbs. and powered by batteries eliminates virtually all of that risk given the reduced mass and lack of combustible fuel carried on board. The UAS is carried to the inspection site. The UAS will carry no passengers or crew and, therefore, will not expose them to the risks associated with manned aircraft flights. The operation of small UASs, weighing less than 55 lbs., conducted in the strict conditions outlined above, will provide an equivalent level of safety supporting the grant of the exemptions requested herein, including 333 Aircraft Exemption Status exempting the applicant from conventional aircraft requirements and allowing commercial operations. These lightweight aircraft operate at slow speeds, close to the ground, and in a controlled environment and, as a result, are far safer than conventional operations conducted with turbine helicopters operating in close proximity to the ground and people The safety of those on the ground is protected by the fact that no one will be allowed into the area without the permission of the company. Security will be established for the flight area as part of the pre-flight control. Each individual within the secure area will be briefed prior to flight and will consent to being in the area. All others will be excluded from the area Stanley Consultants initially intends to use a dedicated staff for UAS operations. All operations will be within visual line-of-sight (i.e., no more than approximately 0.5 miles from the manipulator of the controls, or pilot in command (PIC)). Each PIC will conduct at least three take-offs and landings with the UAS on which he or she7 is trained every 90 days. PIC’s will establish their qualifications thru a combination of aeronautical knowledge, UAS airmanship skills, and verification through testing of flight ability before infrastructures operations have commenced. Depending on the type of operation, additional ground-based visual observers may be employed as well. These observers will be within constant visual line of sight and in constant contact with the PIC. The visual observers will assist the PIC in avoiding objects near the UAS. There are no standards for either Private or Commercial UAS pilot certificates. The safe operation and control of the UAS as described in this application does not depend on the type of FAA license held by the PIC. 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 operation will take place and how that airspace fits into the National Airspace System (NAS). That knowledge can be and is gained primarily through ground school and not through flight training in fixed wing or rotor aircraft, nor is it dependent on the acquisition of a commercial or private pilot’s certificate. Those certificates demonstrate knowledge of the factors and skills needed for the safe operation of those types of aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft). 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 a small unmanned aerial vehicle, operating at 400 AGL or lower, within strictly controlled pre-approved airspace. Besides knowledge of airspace regulations, dexterity in the control and operation of the UAS acquired from actual operation of the aircraft is the most important factor in establishing an equivalent level of safety. If the PIC has acquired the necessary knowledge of airspace requirements, the relevant issues are (1) where the aircraft will be flown, (2) the size of the aircraft relative to what is being used today to accomplish the same mission, and (3) what precautions will be taken to ensure the safety of those in the area of operation. We propose that the PIC has at least an FAA Private Pilots Certificate and a Class III medical; the aircraft be operated within a secure environment; and that no one be allowed to enter the secure environment unless they are part of the operation, 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 UAS being flown pose significantly 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, do not carry crew or passengers, and pose an infinitesimal risk to others. This is in stark contrast to conventional aircraft that are flown to the site, carry explosive fuel, carry passengers and crew, and operate in a much larger area. From a practical standpoint, there are relatively few licensed full-scale aircraft pilots who are also qualified to fly the type of UAS that are utilized for infrastructure image-capture operations. There are even fewer commercial pilots that can fly these UAS – to the point that to do both is considered rare. Assuming that it is unlikely for a company to find a pilot that has both qualifications that company would either have to source a qualified UAS pilot to train and obtain a commercial certificate, or find a commercial certificated pilot who would be willing to learn to fly a UAS to the competency level required for professional use. Although, several members of our company hold a pilot license, a person piloting a UAS on behalf of Stanley Consultants will, at minimum, obtain the required Airmen Certification before conducting flight operations for commercial purposes.8 Summary for Federal Register Publication Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the Federal Register should the FAA determine that publication is needed. Petitioner: Stanley Consultants, Inc.
Sections of 14 C.F.R. Affected: 333 Aircraft Exemption Status

• 14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b)

• 14 C.F.R. §91.119(c)

• 14 C.F.R. §91.121 14 C.F.R. §91.151

• 14 C.F.R. §91.405(a) • 14 C.F.R. §91.407(a)

• 14 C.F.R. §91.409(a)

• 14 C.F.R. §91.417(a)&(b)

Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of 333 Aircraft Exemption Status, 14 C.F.R., 61.113(a)&(b)), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151, 91.405(a), 91.407(a), 91.409(a), and 91.417(a)&(b) to conduct UAS operations over Stanley Consultants’ client’s owned or controlled land, solely during daylight hours, to assist in the safe evaluation and analysis of infrastructure, equipment, and operations. In general, UAS operations are intended to be conducted in areas remote from both congested areas and airports. The nature of operations anticipated by Stanley Consultants requires that the UAS be flown at relatively low altitudes. Stanley Consultants expects that in most instances, the UAS will be flown less than 75 feet from the highest structure along the path of the UAS and in no instances will be flown higher than 400 feet above the ground. Accordingly, the risk of interference with other aircraft is minimal.