Phillip A. Bane

406 Brady Street, PO Box 42 Minden, IA 51553 Phone: 712-483-2495 E-mail: philbane@iccusa.net



## February 15, 2016

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

RE: Exemption Request Under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11 Dear Madam, Sir, Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14 C.F.R. §§11.61(b) and 11.81, Phillip A. Bane (the "Petitioner") seeks an exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations detailed below for the Agribotix Enduro and 3DR Solo UAS systems. The Enduro has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 6.0 lbs. The Enduro is a multi-rotor aircraft with electric propulsion. The 3DR Solo has a maximum gross takeo ff weight of 3.9 lbs. The 3DR Solo is a multi-rotor aircraft with electric propulsion. The Enduro is a commercial UAS system from Agribotix with a proven track record and having been approved for flight by the FAA under Section 333 in Grant of Exemption Nos. 12646 and 12098. The Solo is a commercial UAS system from 3DR with a proven track record and having been approved for flight by the FAA under Section 333 in a multitude of Grant of Exemptions issued by the FAA. Additionally, the FAA has issued Grants of Exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in the herein Petition, specifically Exemptions No. 11136, 11193, 1170, 1194, 11192, 11177, and 11166; it is therefore requested that Mr. Bane’s Petition be granted without delay as the Enduro and the Solo are of a class of system eligible for summary grant treatment. The requested exemption would allow Mr. Bane to pursue commercial interests in aerial data collection and inspection using small unmanned aircraft systems. The systems proposed will be used for video and photography applications, specifically for the precision agriculture industry. Aerial data collection includes any remote sensing and measuring by an instrument(s) aboard the UAS; examples include imagery (photography, video, infrared, etc.), electronic measurement (precision surveying, RF analysis, etc.), chemical measurement (particulate measurement, etc.), or any other gathering of data by instruments aboard the UAS system. Mr. Bane has experience as a licensed pilot with over 47 years of experience operating manned aircraft. Operations will be conducted in accordance with FAA N 8900.227 and utilize both a Pilot-in-Command and a ground-based visual observer. Mr. Bane will also utilize emergency, lost link, and lost communication procedures. All flights under these exemptions will be conducted in accordance with the Small UAS NPRM released February 15th, 2015, with the following restrictions:

1. Flights will be in Class G airspace at no more than 400’ AGL.2. The UAS will be operated over private property only with the permission of the owner. 3. The UAS will not be operated over populated areas. 4. In regards to airports, the UAS will not be operated within: (a) 5 nautical miles (NM) from an airport having an operational control tower; or (b) 3 NM from an airport with a published instrument flight procedure, but not an operational tower;

or (c) 2 NM from an airport without a published instrument flight procedure or an operational tower; or (d) 2 NM from a heliport with a published instrument flight procedure. 5. Operations will be limited to daytime operations under visual meteorological conditions. 6. The aircraft will remain within visual line of sight of the observer at no more than 1/2 NM range. 7. A NOTAM will be issued prior to flight operations. 8. The UAS will have a maximum GTOW of less than 55 lbs. 9. The aircraft will be U.S. registered and display the N-number. 10. The PIC and Observer will possess the certifications required under N 8900.227. 11. The PIC will conduct a pre-flight inspection prior to each flight so as to ensure that the UAS and associated systems are in a condition for safe operation. 12. The PIC and observers will maintain two-way communications with each other during all operations; if unable to maintain two-way communications, or if any condition occurs that may otherwise cause the operation to be unsafe, the operator will immediately conclude the operation. 13. The aircraft will automatically return to a specific location if the communications link is lost. 14. All flights will be conducted below 70mph. The regulations from which the exemption is requested are as follows. The Appendix contains details of Mr. Bane’s operations related to demonstrating an equivalent level of safety for these exempt regulations.

• 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H

• 14 C.F.R. §91.203(a) and (b)

• 14 C.F.R. §45.23(b)

• 14 C.F.R. §61.23(a)

• 14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b)

• 14 C.F.R. §61.133(a)

• 14 C.F.R. Part 67

• 14 C.F.R. §91.7(a)

• 14 C.F.R. §91.9

• 14 C.F.R. §91.109

• 14 C.F.R. §91.119

• 14 C.F.R. §91.121

• 14 C.F.R. §91.151(a)

• 14 C.F.R. Subpart E (§91.401 - §91.417)

2UAS Overview Mr. Bane is submitting this request for exemption for the Agribotix Enduro Quad and the 3DR Solo systems; both are reliable and popular aircraft, especially the Enduro which is utilized by agricultural professionals for precision agriculture applications. Mr. Bane has expertise and knowledge in the operations of these systems. Mr. Bane is planning on using the proposed UAS to pursue further commercial applications. The Enduro and the Solo are both multi-rotor aircraft which utilize electric propulsion. Figure 1 below contains images of the Enduro, which has dimensions of 18.5" x 20" x 15.5" and weighs 6.0 lbs., and the Solo, which has dimensions of 16" x 16.5" x 10" and weighs 3.9lbs. Mr. Bane proposes that the small size and weight of the Enduro, flown under the guidelines of N 8900.227, will have an equivalent level of safety to manned aircraft performing similar missions.

Figure 1: The UAS: the Enduro and the 3DR Solo. Mr. Bane will utilize training and operational procedures that follow the guidelines presented in N 8900.227. For the 3DR Solo, Mr. Bane will conduct his operations in accordance to the manufacturers’ manuals regarding operations, maintenance and inspection of the Solo UAS system. Additionally, with respect to the Enduro, Mr. Bane will conduct his operations in accordance to the Agribotix General Operations Manual ("Agribotix Manual") which contains: (1) an operations manual, (2) flight manuals for the Enduro, (3) an Operator Training Manual, and (4) a Maintenance and Inspection Manual. A copy of the confidential Agribotix Manual has been previously provided confidentially to the FAA in Grant of Exemption No. 12098, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-1011. Please note that the Agribotix Manual (including all of the above listed components) are clearly marked "Confidential" on each page and contain confidential commercial and proprietary information that Agribotix has not and will not share with others who are not subject to a Nondisclosure Agreement. Therefore, the Agribotix Manual (including all components) is not available to the public and contains operating conditions, procedures and other information that are protected from public release or disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 5 USC Sec. 552 et seq.

Public Interest Granting this exemption would benefit the public as a whole. The small UAS in this application o ff ers a strong equivalent level of safety to manned aircraft, and a reduction in environmental impacts when compared with the eff ects caused by the use of manned aircraft that are currently used for aerial inspection, photography and videography applications in the precision agriculture industry. Utilizing UAS in the precision agriculture industry provides public consumers with a higher level of service, and at a reduced cost when compared to the use of manned aircraft. Buyers experience the benefit of getting a high-definition visualization of the farm land, asset or infrastructure being inspected, in a collection of stitched images or a short video, and benefits from a quicker turnaround time when compared to manual inspection of farm land. Other than the public economic benefit, further public benefit is derived from the use of sUAS in precision agriculture applications through the environmental conservation that results, such as water conservation and effi cient irrigation, soil erosion monitoring, crop health monitoring, etc.

3Beyond Mr. Bane and his clientele, the use of UAS in aerial data collection and inspection applications benefits the general public because it is much more effi cient than traditional ways of using a manned aircraft or helicopter to achieve the same result. These small UAS carry no passengers, pilot, or combustible fuel, and present little danger to the public when operated safely. Allowing commercial UAS operations will also promote the growth of the emerging UAS industry that will result in economic benefits for the public as a whole. Additionally, the public interest is served by introducing a new viable alternative to aerial inspection photography and videography by traditional manned aircraft, thus presenting American consumers with a new aff ordable choice of service in a marketplace where only three options for aerial inspection services (manned aircraft photography, satellite earth observation imagery and physical inspection by trained personnel) had previously existed. Additionally, the use of UAS in aerial inspection applications benefits the public interest as it provides a safe, viable alternative to physical inspection conducted by individuals that would have to climb or traverse over di ffi cult and potentially unsafe terrain and structures; the use of UAS for aerial inspection eliminates the risk of bodily injury or death that exists when an individual must physically inspect in dangerous positions or under hazardous conditions. In general, the public interest is benefited by maximizing the effi ciency of the application while minimizing the risks involved in the use of traditional methods of aerial data collection. The name and contact information of the applicant are: Mr. Phillip A. Bane Phone: 712-483-2495 E-mail: philbane@iccusa.net
The Petitioner requests exemption under Section 333 to enable safe commercial UAS operations for the activities stated. Please contact Mr. Bane if you require additional information or clarification.

Sincerely,

Phillip A. Bane

4APPENDIX Specific Exemption Requests and Equivalent Level of Safety Showings 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H: Airworthiness Certificates 14 C.F.R. §91.203(a) and (b) - Civil aircraft: Certifications required. Section 91.203 requires all civil aircraft to have a certificate of airworthiness. Part 21, Subpart H, entitled Airworthiness Certificates, establishes the procedural requirements for the issuance of airworthiness certificates as required by FAR §91.203(a). The Petitioner requests an exemption from these rules and will utilize an internal airworthiness process based on inspections and pre-flight checks resulting in an equivalent level of safety. Such an exemption meets the requirements of an equivalent level of safety under Part 11 and Section 333 of the Reform Act. The Federal Aviation Act 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 UAS involved. 14 C.F.R. §45.23(b) - Display of marks; general. These regulations provide that each aircraft must display "N" and the aircraft’s registration number in letters at least 3 inches high. Additionally, the aircraft must display the word "EXPERIMENTAL" in letters at least 2 inches high near the entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station. Given the small size of the UAS, this requirement is impossible to match. The equivalent level of safety will be achieved by having the registered N-number in 1 inch lettering on the side of the fuselage.
14 C.F.R. PART 67 - Medical Standards and Certification 14 C.F.R. §61.23(a) - Medical certificates: Requirement and duration. Regulations provide that a person must hold at least a second class medical certificate when exercising:

• Second-in-command privileges of an airline transport pilot certificate in part 121 of this chapter (other than operations specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section); or

• Privileges of a commercial pilot certificate Given the size of the UAS in this petition and the limited flight area and the safety features integrated in the autopilot, the Petitioner believes that an Equivalent Level of Safety can be reached if the operator has a valid driver’s license. 14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b), §61.133 - Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: Pilot in Command; Commercial Pilot Privileges and Limitations Subsections (a) and (b) of §61.113 prohibit private pilots from operating aircraft in commercial operations, and §61.133(a) requires an individual operating an aircraft for compensation or hire to hold a commercial pilot certificate. The Petitioner requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b) and 14 C.F.R. §61.133(a) so that the above mentioned UAS may be operated by individuals who have a private pilot certificate. Based upon the design features of the UAS, its autopilot system, and safety factors, the FAA should permit operation of UAS by operators with a private pilot certificate when the conditions described above have been satisfied. The above-described conditions are in-line with those set forth in Volume 16, Chapter 4, Section 1 of FAA Order 8900.1. The Petitioner proposes to conduct operations in accordance with these restrictions. Given these conditions and restrictions, an equivalent level of safety to manned operations will be achieved through operation with a private pilot certificate. The risks associated with the operation of multi-rotor aircraft (given the size, speed, operational capabilities, and lack of combustible fuel) are far much less than the level of risk associated with fixed wing and rotorcraft operations, both private and commercial, as contemplated by Part 61, that allowing operations of these UAS, as set forth above, meets or exceeds the

5present level of safety provided under 14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b) and §61.133(a). 14 C.F.R. §91.7(a) - Civil aircraft airworthiness This regulation requires that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in airworthy condition. The Petitioner requests that an exemption be granted allowing commercial operation without an airworthiness certificate. Given the size of the aircraft, self-certification of airworthiness will provide an equivalent level of safety. 14 C.F.R. §91.9(b)- Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements. This regulation provides that no person may operate an aircraft unless a current, approved flight manual is in the aircraft. The Petitioner assumes that the intent of this requirement is to ensure that flight manual information is available to the aircrew while operating the aircraft. The Petitioner requests an exemption to this requirement since the aircraft is not only too small to carry documentation, but the documentation would not be available to the crew. The equivalent level of safety will be achieved by keeping a hard copy of the user manual with the ground crew. 14 C.F.R. §91.109(a) - Flight instruction; Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests Sections 91.109(a) provides that no person may operate a civil aircraft that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls. The UAS in this exemption is a remotely piloted aircraft, and, by design, not equipped with fully functional dual controls. Flight control is accomplished through the use of a control box that communicates with the aircraft via radio communications. Utilizing a pilot skilled in remote piloting will provide an equivalent level of safety. 14 C.F.R. §91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General. The regulation provides that over sparsely populated areas, the aircraft cannot be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. The regulation provides that over congested areas, the aircraft must be operated at or above "an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft". Since the UAS in this exemption application will be operating at a maximum of 400 feet AGL, this requirement cannot be followed. To provide an equivalent level of safety, the Petitioner will only fly over private property with the permission of the land owner. The land owner will be briefed of the expected route of flight and the associated risks to persons and property on the ground. The Petitioner maintains that due to the small size of the UAS, the hazard to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures is not comparable to manned aircraft and that this distinction should be considered in granting the exemption. Furthermore, the Petitioner will not operate over any open air assembly of persons. 14 C.F.R. §91.121 - Altimeter settings. The regulation states that aircraft shall maintain cruising altitudes by reference to an altimeter setting available within 100 nautical miles of the aircraft. The UAS will fly below 400 feet AGL and will not need to maintain hemispherical cruising altitudes in order to de-conflict with other aircraft. To provide an equivalent level of safety, the autopilot calculates the reference altitude (ground level) with the on-board GPS during the pre-flight tests. The GPS and barometer data are then used to calculate the altitude in-flight. 14 C.F.R. §91.151(a) - Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions. The regulation states that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under day-VFR conditions unless there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and to fly after that for at least 30 minutes. As the aircrafts in this request are electric-powered, this requirement is inapplicable. An equivalent level of safety is achieved through a low battery power warning. The UAS in this application are designed to automatically return to base and land safely when the power is too low.

614 C.F.R. Subpart E (§91.401 - §91.417) - Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations The regulation provides that the operator is primarily responsible for maintaining the aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with Part 39 and 43. Paragraphs 91.407 and 91.409 require that the aircraft be "approved for return to service by a person authorized under 43.7" after maintenance and inspection. The Petitioner plans to have the qualified PIC perform maintenance and inspection of the aircraft and that the PIC shall "be authorized to approve the aircraft for return to service." The PIC will ensure that the aircraft is in an airworthy condition prior to flight and conduct detailed inspections after every 10 flight hours. Additionally, checklists will be utilized with all of the necessary pre-flight procedures prior to every flight operation. The PIC will document work performed in accordance with 91.417. It is maintained that due to the size, construction, and simplicity of the aircraft, the PIC can ensure an equivalent level of safety.

7