KL3 3010423.3 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

Petition for Exemption ) 

Pursuant to Pub. Law 112-95 § 333 ) 

and 14 CFR Part 11 ) 

concerning Unmanned Aircraft Systems ) 

Used for Search and Rescue Purposes ) 

and Certificate of Authorization Request ) 

 ) 

__________________________________________) 

PETITION OF RPSEARCH SERVICES, INC. 

FOR REGULATORY EXEMPTION 

AND CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION REQUEST 

Dated: April 30, 2015 

Filed Electronically 

Please address all communications with respect to this Petition to: 

Brendan M. Schulman 

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036 

Phone: (212) 715-9247 

Fax: (212) 715-8220 

 

Counsel for Petitioner 

RPSearch Services, Inc.

Email: BSchulman@KramerLevin.com 

 
2 

I. Introduction: Search and Rescue 

According to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center, an average of 1,700 people are 

reported missing each day in the United States.1 Many of them are at grave risk in dangerous 

situations: lost children, stranded hikers, marooned boaters, mentally ill, psychologically troubled 

or intoxicated individuals, or victims of abduction or other crimes. The sheer number of missing 

people, combined with the challenges of searching in the vast open areas of our country’s 

geography, overwhelm community groups, families, emergency responders and taxpayer-funded 

resources. Missing persons have been, and will continue to be, effectively, efficiently, and safely 

located by aerial imagery of locations of interest, which provides invaluable information to 

searchers on the ground. 

Petitioner RPSearch Services, Inc. (“RPSS”) respectfully submits this Petition for 

Exemption from regulations the FAA considers applicable to the civil operation of unmanned 

aircraft systems, and that the FAA considered necessary for an operator to be exempted from, for 

operations concerning search and rescue.2 The benefits of these operations to the public and to the 

nation are unquestionable, and safety is assured when they are conducted under the proposed 

procedures herein by an experienced and knowledgeable operator. 

 

1 See NCIC Missing Person and Unidentified Person Statistics for 2013, http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/cjis/ncic/ncic-missing-person-and-unidentified-person-statistics-for-2013 (last visited May 20, 

2014). 

2

 Petitioner takes no position with respect to which federal aviation regulations, if any, legally apply to the 

proposed operations. 
3 

II. The Identity and Interests of the Petitioner 

Petitioner RPSearch Services, Inc. has been a pioneer in the implementation of protocols 

and operating procedures for the use of unmanned aircraft systems for search and rescue purposes. 

Its current designated pilot in command, Eugene Robinson, was the first person to successfully 

obtain a certificate of waiver or authorization (COA) on behalf of a public operator, (the 

Wimberly, Texas Fire Deparment), in 2008. Mr. Robinson has lectured across the country 

concerning the safe and responsible use of UAS during search and rescue operations, including 

appropriate coordination with incident commanders and local authorities. Mr. Robinson has also 

served as the designated pilot-in-command for the National Institute for Standards and Technology 

in its program to use UAS to study wildfires, flying over 70 successful missions without incident 

under that agency’s public aircraft COA. 

In September, 2014, the FAA also granted Mr. Robinson an emergency COA via NIST to 

use its UAS in the search for a missing person in Plano, TX. More recently, Mr. Robinson was 

granted an emergency COA through the Wimberly Fire Department to conduct a missing-person 

search operation using a UAS in Baytown, Texas for two missing teenagers. Mr. Robinson has 

trained law enforcement and first responders in UAS search and rescue procedures, and has 

successfully used UAS to locate and rescue missing persons, alive, in a foreign country. In short, 

petitioner is a responsible, successful, safety-conscious UAS operator who will conduct the 

proposed operations within the parameters set out in the operating procedures and the grant of 

exemption that is requested. 

The name and address of the Petitioner is: 
4 

RPSearch Services, Inc. 

 290 Brunson Lane 

 Wimberly, TX 78676 

Email: texhills@verizon.net 

Petitoner requests that communications also be directed to its counsel: 

Brendan M. Schulman, Esq. 

 Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP 

 1177 Avenue of the Americas 

 New York, NY 10036 

 Phone (212) 715-9247 

 Fax (212) 715-8220 

 Email: BSchulman@KramerLevin.com 

III. RPSearch’s Request Would be in the Public Interest and Benefit the Public as a 

Whole 

The benefit to the public interest of RPSearch’s request is unquestionable. 

Thousands of people go missing each day, and the subsequent search that is conducted for those 

whose disappearance raise concerns overwhelms taxpayer and community resources. The use of 

manned aircraft is in many instances more expensive, and more dangerous, than the operations 

proposed herein. Thus, the operations are of enormous public benefit and, as set out herein, 

present at least an equivalent level of safety under 14 CFR part 11. 

IV. The Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Petitioner intends to operate two models in connection with the operations proposed 

herein, at or below 400 feet above ground level. The following is a summary of the technical 

specifications and other considerations of each UAS. Additional documentation from each 

manufacturer is being submitted as together with this Petition. 

Configuration 1 

Spectra 
5 

 Aircraft Type: Spectra AP flying wing 

 Manufacturer: RPFlightSystems, Inc. 

 Construction: EPS foam/ABS/composite 

 Aircraft Empty Weight: 3.3 lbs. 

 Aircraft RTF AUW: 4.5 – 5.5 lbs. 

 Propulsion: Electric single propellorr 

 Power : 5.4AH lithium polymer flight batteries 

 Onboard electronics: Manual control system RX, flight control system 

 Optics : (1) still imager, up to (2) video 

 Launch Type : Hand launch 

 Landing Type : Skid, net retrieval 

 Launch Speed : 15 mph 

 Cruise Speed : 25-34 mph (@ 75% power) 

 Cruise Speed : 25 mph (@ 50% power) 

 Landing Speed : 12 mph 

 Stall : 12 – 18mph (depending upon wing loading) 

 VNE : 75 mph 

 Duration : 1 hour (5.4Ah battery, 50% power) 

Construction: The Spectra is constructed of foam (expanded polystyrene) wings 

with internal bracing. Center section may include carbon fiber skeleton and outer 

skin of vacuformed ABS. 

Propulsion: Aircraft utilize brushless, three phase, AC motors. They utilize a 

switching electronic speed control to provide throttle management. 

 

 Hazard mitigation 

The Spectra is designed to collect imagery utilizing a lightweight and relatively 

slow airframe. This reduces the potential for injury by reducing the mass that can 

be delivered in a small area. These UAS are considered “frangible” in that they will 

come apart on impact without concentrating force in any vector. They do not use 

internal combustion motors and do not carry any flammable liquids for operation. 

The aircraft utilizes a redundant communications fail safe so that that if either the 

command over-ride link or the telemetry fails, the UAS will abort the mission and 

return to the launch area. 
6 

Demonstrated Capabilities and Prior FAA Approvals 

The Spectra was one of the first UAS to receive authorization via a Certificate of 

Authorization (COA) granted by the FAA for use by a public entity (Hays County, 

Texas Emergency Management Office), in 2008. See FAA COA 2007-AHQ-25-

COA. The COA was renewed a total of two more times during its tenure with the 

EMO. See 2009-CSA-2-COA and 2010-CSA-28-COA.

Additionally, on behalf of the Emergency Service District #4 of Hays County, 

Petitioner’s PIC assisted the Wimberly Fire department in applying for and 

receiving a COA for Spectra operations in December of 2014. See 2014-CSA-143-

COA. 

Radio Frequency Spectrum 

The Spectra utilizes an FCC-approved command-and-control systems and telemetry 

downlink operating on the 900 MHz and 2.4 GHz bands. 

Configuration 2 

DJI Inspire 1 

 Aircraft Type: Multi-rotor, Inspire 1 

 Manufacturer: DJI 

 Construction: Carbon fiber, plastic, aluminum 

 Aircraft Empty Weight: 3.3 lbs. 

 Aircraft RTF AUW: 4.5 – 5.5 lbs. 

 Propulsion: Electric – four two blade propellers 

 Power : 5.4AH lithium polymer flight batteries 

 Onboard electronics: Manual control system RX, flight control system 

 Optics : (1) still imager, up to (1) video video, 2.4/5.8Ghz Lightbridge. 

 Launch Type : VTOL 

 Landing Type : VTOL 

 Launch Speed : 15 mph vertical 
7 

 Speed Evelope : 15-35 mph 

 Cruise Speed : 0-25 mph 

 Landing Speed : 0 mph 

 Stall : N/A 

 VNE : N/A 

 Duration : 15 minutes (typical) 

 Propulsion 

The Inapire 1 utilizes (4) four brushless, three phase, AC motors. These utilize a 

switching electronic speed control to provide throttle management. 

 

Hazard mitigation 

The Inspire 1 is designed to collect its imagery utilizing VTOL capabilities where a 

fixed wing airplane would have difficulties in either take off or landing. The 

Inspire 1 is equipped with a return to launch area (RTH) feature. The Inspire 1 does 

not use internal combustion motors for propulsion and does not carry any 

flammable liquids for operation. Risk is further mitigated by the Inspire 1's ability 

to stay aloft while moving slowly, or to hover in place, unlike a fixed-wing UA 

which must continue lateral motion during flight. 

Prior FAA Approvals 

The DJI Inspire 1 has been approved for use by the FAA in connection with an 

exemption for aerial photography for the motion picture and television industry. 

See Exemption Grant No. 11279 (April 1, 2015). 

Radio Frequency Spectrum 

The Inspire 1 utilizes FCC-approved command-and-control and video systems 

operating on the 5.8 GHz and 2.4 GHz bands. 

V. Flight Safety Operations and Procedures 

Petitioner proposes to operate each UAS for the purposes indicated herein pursuant 

to its Flight Safety Operations and Procedures (“FSOP”). The FSOP was developed over the 

course of nearly a decade, and is being submitted together with this Petition. The FSOP consists of 

procedures and standards relating to Personnel Qualifications, Flight Operations and Mission 

Profiles, Launch and Landing Zones, Preflight, Takeoff and Post-flight Checklists, In-flight 

Communications, and NIMS (National Incident Management System) / IC Interface, all developed 
8 

with an emphasis on the safety of UAS operations. The operation will be conducted by the pilot in 

command (“PIC”) who will maintain visual contact with the UAS during its flight within visual 

line of sight, while the UAS captures images of the ground for analysis. The UAS will be operated 

at or below a speed of 35 miles per hour, in Class G airspace at least 5 miles from airports (unless 

otherwise specifically authorized by FAA). Other operational parameters and various measures 

taken to ensure public safety are set out in the FSOP. 

VI. Summary of Exemptions Sought 

RPSearch seeks exemption from the following regulations, to the extent the FAA 

deems them applicable to the operation of civil UAS for the indicated purposes: 

14 CFR Part 21 

14 CFR Part 36 

14 CFR 45.23(b) 

14 CFR 61.3 

14 CFR 61.23(a) and (c) 

14 CFR 61.101 

14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b) 

14 CFR 61.315 

14 CFR. 91.7 (a) 

14 CFR 91.9 (b) (2) 

14 CFR 91.103 

14 CFR 91.105 

14 CFR 91.109 

14 CFR 91.119 

14 CFR 91.121 

14 CFR 91.151 (a) 

14 CFR 91.203 (a) & (b) 

14 CFR 91.405 (a) 

14 CFR 91.407 (a) (1) 

14 CFR 91.409 (a) (2); and 

14 CPR 91.417 (a) & (b) 
9 

VII. The Specific Exemptions Sought and Reasons 

A. 14 CFR Part 21 and 

14 CFR Part 36 

Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR part 21 concerning airworthiness certificates, as 

well as any associated noise testing requirements of part 36, with respect to the UAS identified in 

Section IV. As set out herein, the size, weight, speed, operational capability, visual line-of-sight 

operation, and intended operating area of these UAS meet the conditions of FMRA Section 333. 

Moreover, the proposed operations, conducted pursuant to the RPSS FSOP, present an equivalent 

level of safety or better. An exemption ought to be granted or, in the alternative, a finding made 

that relief from parts 21 and 36 are not necessary for Petitioner’s intended operation. (See, e.g., 

Grant of Exemption No. 11282, Docket. No. FAA-2014-0977 (April 6, 2015), finding that such an 

exemption is “not necessary.”) 

B. 14 CFR 45.23(b) 

Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR 45.23(b) concerning aircraft markings, to the 

extent such relief is necessary. Given the size of the UAS, its operation within visual line of sight 

of the operator, and other factors, such an exemption is warranted. Petitioner will, if required, 

mark each UAS with the word “RESTRICTED” in lettering as large as practicable. However, 

Petitioner notes that because its UAS’s will not be certificated under § 21.185, such marking is not 

actually required, and therefore Petitioner alternatively requests a finding confirming same. 
10 

C. 14 CFR 61.23(a) & (c), 

14 CFR 61.101, 

14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b), and 

14 CFR 61.315 

Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR 61.101 concerning limitations on recreational 

pilot privileges, 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b) concerning limitations on private pilot privileges, and 

14 CFR 61.315 concerning limitations on sport pilot privileges, together with an exemption from 

14 CFR 61.23(a) concerning medical certificates. The RPSS FSOP establishes a level of safety 

exceeded by that provided by a commercial pilot’s certificate in the operation of a passenger 

aircraft. The UAS intended to be operated do not carry any person and therefore present an 

equivalent or better level of safety compared to manned aircraft operations. Although RPSS’s 

current FSOP does not strictly require a pilot certificate, Petitioner’s current designated pilot in 

command, Mr. Robinson, holds a private pilot’s certificate, and Petitioner will accept as a 

condition of an exemption that the operator hold either a recreational, sport pilot or private pilot 

certificate. With respect to medical certification, 14 CFR 61.23(a), Petitioner proposes that the 

PIC hold either a current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by 

a state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. 

D. 14 CFR 91.7(a) 

Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.7(a) concerning civil aircraft airworthiness. 

Given the size of the UAS, its operation within visual line of sight of the operator, and other 

factors providing an equivalent level of safety, such an exemption is warranted. Moreover, 

because petitioner proposes that no airworthiness certificate be issued for the UASs to be operated 

under this exemption, § 91.7(a) is inapplicable. Therefore, in the alternative, Petitioner requests a 

determination that an exemption from § 91.7(a) is not necessary. 
11 

E. 14 CFR 91.9(b)(2) 

Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.91(b)(2) concerning flight manuals and 

placard requirements. Because all persons involved in the operation will be on the ground, not on 

board the UAS, such an exemption is clearly warranted. Moreover, the FAA determined in an 

August 8, 2014 legal interpretation that keeping such documentation at the control station, as 

Petitioner intends to, meets the requirements under these regulations and therefore an exemption is 

not necessary. See Memorandum from Mark. W. Bury to John Duncan, “Interpretation regarding 

whether certain required documents may be kept at an unmanned aircraft's control station” (August 

8, 2014).3 

F. 14 CFR 91.103 

Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.103 concerning preflight action, and 

particularly that portion of the regulation concerning FAA-approved flight manuals (which do not 

exist). Petitioners’ pre-flight actions concerning UAS operations are set out in its FSOP, reflect 

that the pilot in command will “become familiar with all available information” concerning the 

proposed flight, and therefore present an equivalent or better level of safety. Given the size of the 

UAS, its operation within visual line of sight of the operator, and other factors, such an exemption 

is warranted. Alternatively, given that Petitioner will account for all relevant site-specific 

conditions in its preflight procedures, Petitioner asks for a finding that an exemption from § 91.103 

is not necessary for the intended operation. 

 

3

 Available at

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations

/data/interps/2014/Duncan-AFS-1-2%20-%20%282014%29%20Legal%20Interpretation.pdf
12 

G. 14 CFR 91.105 

Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.105 concerning “Flight crewmembers at 

stations” and seat belt/harness fastening. Because there is no crew on board the UAS, and persons 

involved in the operations will be present at the UAS ground station pursuant to the FSOP, 

Petitioner believes that such an exemption is warranted due to Petitioner’s FSOP providing an 

equivalent level of safety, or alternatively that an exemption is not necessary for the operation. 

Although it does not appear that the FAA has addressed § 91.105 in various Section 333 UAS 

exemptions granted to date, we note that § 91.105 is listed in the FAA’s Public Guidance 

document as a regulation from which an exemption may be required (Rev. 9/25/2014 at page 7).4

Petitioner therefore requests either an exemption or an acknowledgement that an exemption is not 

necessary. 

H. 14 CFR 91.109 

Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.109 concerning flight instruction and dual 

controls. Petitioner will evaluate the qualifications of its PICs based on their experience and 

capabilities with the UAS to be operated, as set out in the FSOP Section I (“Personnel 

Qualifications”). Moreover, as each PIC will have previously been qualified by the FAA as a 

certificated recreational, sport, or private pilot, the operations proposed herein may be conducted 

without an exemption from § 91.109 being required. Thus, Petitioner requests either an exemption 

or confirmation that none is required. 

 

4

 Available at 

https://www.faa.gov/uas/legislative_programs/section_333/how_to_file_a_petition/media/section333_p

ublic_guidance.pdf). 
13 

I. 14 CFR 91.119 

Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.119 concerning minimum safe altitudes. 

Each UAS will be operated no higher than 400 feet above ground level, and, under the FSOP, safe 

alternative landing and “abort site” locations will be selected in advance of each flight, in 

compliance with 14 CFR 91.119(a) which permits operations “[a]nywhere.” 

With respect to the balance of § 91.119 concerning minimum altitudes, Petitioner 

proposes to conduct operations at least 50 feet from non-essential or non-participating persons, 

and prior to each operation the PIC will make a safety assessment of the risk of operating within 

the proximity of structures, vehicles and vessels. Petitioner believes that given the size, weight 

and speed of the UAS to be operated, these parameters in the FSOP present an equivalent level of 

safety compared to the 500 foot minimum safe altitude of a manned aircraft set out in § 91.119(c). 

Petitioner is aware that in prior UAS exemption grants, the FAA has included as an 

operating condition a 500-foot minimum distance separation from uninvolved persons. Petitioner 

hereby requests the FAA either to raise the maximum operational altitude under RPSS’s proposed 

exemption to 500 feet above ground level (from the typical 400 feet), or, preferably, to reduce the 

required distance separation from uninvolved persons to no greater than 400 feet, so that 

Petitioner's UAS, when in operation, may pass above persons in the operational area. (In 

Petitioner’s experience, the requested minimum separation parameter of 50 feet provides a very 

high level of safety.) In consideration of the benefits of, and strong public interest in, the proposed 

operations, which are potentially life-saving, this request ought to be granted, and would not 

adversely affect safety. 
14 

J. 14 CFR 91.121 

Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.121 concerning altimeter settings. 

Petitioner's UAS will utilize a GPS altitude read-out, set to zero at the ground elevation of the 

departure location, thus indicating to the operator the operational altitude in feet above ground 

level. This approach will provide an equivalent level of safety. 

K. 14 CFR 91.151 

Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.151 concerning fuel requirements. The 

Petitioner's Configuration 1 uses the Spectra UAS airplane equipped with 5.4 Ah lithium polymer 

flight batteries. Petitioner's flight duration under its FSOP is 30 minutes or less, which results in 

approximately 50% of the battery power remaining at landing. Petitioner's Configuration 2 uses 

the DJI Inspire 1 battery-powered multi-rotor-craft which has an automated readout of remaining 

battery power at the ground station and will automatically initiate a return to launch and landing 

when the battery is low. Petitioner will land the Inspire 1 when the battery is at or above 50% 

capacity. In both configurations, an equivalent level of safety is achieved, in particular because 

each UAS is operated within visual line of sight, can be landed within moments of a low-battery 

condition, and the UAS never has the need to travel any significant distance to an alternate airport 

or landing area. 

L. 14 CFR 91.203(a) and (b) 

Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.203(a) and (b) concerning airworthiness 

certificates. Each of the UAS to be operated weighs under 6 pounds, and will be operated within 

visual line of sight, pursuant to the RPSS FSOP, by a knowledgeable certificated operator. An 
15 

exemption from airworthiness certification is warranted pursuant to Section 333 of FMRA in 

consideration of the weight, size, speed, and operational capabilities of the Petitioner's UAS. 

M. 14 CFR 91.405(a) 

14 CFR 91.407 (a) (1) 

14 CFR 91.409 (a) (2); and 

14 CPR 91.417 (a) & (b) 

Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 

91.417 (a) and (b), concerning maintenance inspections. Petitioner proposes to maintain each 

UAS in accordance with the manufacturer's suggested maintenance procedures, and to conduct 

preflight inspections in accordance with the FSOP for each operation. This approach provides an 

equivalent level of safety with respect to the operational condition of the UAS. Moreover, the 

UAS are not contemplated to have an airworthiness certificate, and therefore no exemption is 

needed with respect to maintenance requirements arising from airworthiness certificates. 

N. Other Exemptions 

Petitioner requests relief from any other federal aviation regulation that the FAA 

deems applicable to and preclusive of the proposed UAS search and rescue operations in the 

absence of such an exemption. 

VIII. Request for Blanket COA 

Petitioner hereby requests a blanket, nationwide Certificate of Waiver or 

Authorization for airspace use within Class G airspace, at or below 400 feet. The need for a 

blanket COA for Petitioner's proposed operation (or an exemption from the need to obtain one) is 

self-evident. Unlike other pre-planned small UAS operations (such as aerial cinematography, 

agriculture, or industrial inspection), search and rescue requires an operational response on little or 
16 

no notice, and minutes can literally make a difference between life and death. We understand that 

the typical holder of a Section 333 exemption waits approximately three weeks in order to receive 

a COA after the request is made, a timeframe that obviously is unworkable for search and rescue 

operations. 

FMRA Section 333 directly contemplates that a certificate of waiver or 

authorization is not necessarily required for the operation of civil UAS. It provides that in making 

a Section 333 determination concerning operation of unmanned aircraft systems, “the Secretary 

shall determine . . . . whether a certificate of waiver, certificate of authorization, or airworthiness 

certification under section 44704 of title 49, United States Code, is required for the operation of 

unmanned aircraft systems.” FMRA Section 333(b) (emphasis added). By using the word 

“whether,” Congress specifically contemplated that a COA would not necessarily be required for 

any civil operation. Therefore, the FAA has the authority to either exempt Petitioner from the 

need to obtain a COA, or to issue to Petitioner a standing blanket COA that is suited for the 

contemplated search and rescue operations. 

In the past year, Petitioner's PIC Eugene Robinson has twice had the experience of 

seeking an emergency COA from the FAA. Although the FAA's staff was prompt and courteous 

each time, the emergency COA took many hours to issue, resulting in the loss of more than an 

entire operational day. (UAS flights are conducted during daylight hours only, thus a delay of 

even an hour or two can cause the aerial search to be delayed 12 hours until dawn the next day). 

As an illustration of the difficulties inherent in trying to obtain specific COA 

approval for each search and rescue operation on an expedited basis, Petitioner sets out herein the 

details of a recent experience involving its PIC Eugene Robinson. In February 2015, Mr. 
17 

Robinson was contacted in connection with a requested search for two missing teenagers in the 

Baytown, Texas area and the proposition that the UAS operated under COA by the Wimberly Fire 

Department be used to assist. Mr. Robinson contacted Dallas Flight Standards District Office at 

2130 hrs Central Time on February 26 to request emergency COA approval via an amendment to 

the existing Wimberly Fire Department UAS COA. He was referred to FAA Operations Center in 

Washington, D.C. The representative at Operations Center, in turn, referred Mr. Robinson to the 

FAA UAS Intergration Office (UAIO). The representative at UAIO indicated that Air Traffic 

Organization and Flight Standards would need to be contacted for approval. At 2240 hrs Central 

Time, Mr. Robinson was told by the UAIO representative that nothing more could be done 

concerning approval until the next morning, thus precluding a planned roll-out for an operation at 

dawn. 

At 0715 hrs on February 27, Ft. Worth FSDO contact Mr. Robinson and advised 

that documentation would be required from the fire department whose COA would be amended for 

the emergency. That documentation was provided to FAA 15 minutes later, at 0730 hrs. Mr. 

Robinson did not receive word back from UAIO until 1445 hrs that the emergency COA would be 

approved. Mr. Robinson then began the process of initiating a NOTAM, which involved various 

discussions with Houston TRACON, which discussions continued into the following morning, 

concluding at 0835 hrs. 

The actual search operation using the UAS commenced at 1025 hrs Central Time on 

February 28. Thus, rather than a planned search start time at 0600 hrs on the morning of February 

27, the operation was delayed over 28 hours, until mid-morning on February 28, due to the 

protracted COA approval process, and even though it was acknowledged by the FAA that the 
18 

situation was an emergency. This does not appear to be an atypical timeframe for the process. In a 

prior emergency COA approval concerning a missing-persons search conducted in Plano Texas in 

September 2014, it similarly took approximately 22 hours for the emergency COA to be issued 

after the request was made by Mr. Robinson. Petitioner respectfully submits that a standing COA 

granted for search and rescue operations is overwhelmingly in the public interest because it will 

enable life-saving operations to commence sooner, and reduce the administrative burden on the 

FAA itself. 

The FAA has recently indicated that holders of UAS exemptions under Section 333 

are now granted a “blanket” COA for any operation up to 200 feet AGL. See March 20, 2015 

Memorandum from Elizabeth L. Ray to Terry Biggio, “Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Operations in the National Airspace System.” However, this streamlined (or so-called “blanket”) 

COA apparently still requires the operator to issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) “at least 24 

hours prior to the proposed operation.” Id. In many instances Petitioner expects to be called upon 

with less than 24 hours’ notice. Petitioner requests that its blanket COA issued in connection with 

the requested exemption require only that Petitioner issue a NOTAM “as far in advance of 

operations as practicable,” with no specific minimum notice provision. 

Additionally, Petitioner's FSOP and equipment are optimized for search and rescue 

from an operational altitude of just below 400 feet AGL. The 200 feet AGL in the “blanket” COA 

is too low an altitude for these operations. Without a streamlined COA at an altitude higher than 

200 feet, Petitioner will be waiting days (or weeks) for a civil COA just to be able to operate at a 

modestly higher altitude, rendering the exemption potentially unworkable. Petitioner requests a 

streamlined COA for the highest altitude the FAA will permit, ideally 400 feet AGL. 
19 

An equivalent level of safety is established for these blanket COA parameters 

because, currently, operations of this kind are permitted by FAA by recreational model aircraft 

operators without any COA or NOTAM requirements. Moreover, Petitioner's operations are 

subject to NIMS protocols and coordination with Incident Command and other first responders, 

who will be aware of air traffic in the area. Therefore, unlike commercial UAS operations 

undertaken for industrial purposes, added layers of safety exist. All of these factors support the 

issuance of a streamlined or “blanket” COA for Petitioner RPSearch Services in Class G airspace 

up to 400 feet above ground level, or a determination pursuant to FMRA Section 333(b) that a 

COA is not required for Petitioner’s search and rescue operations. 

IX. A Summary That Can Be Published In The Federal Register: 

The following is a summary that may be included in the Federal Register, should 

the FAA determine that publication of such a summary is required: 

Petitioner RPSearch Services, Inc. seeks an exemption pursuant to Pub. L. 95-112 Section 

333 and part 11 for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems for purposes of search and 

rescue. The benefit to the public interest of such an exemption is unquestionable. 

Thousands of people go missing each day, and the subsequent search overwhelms taxpayer 

and community resources. The use of manned aircraft is in many instances more 

expensive, and more dangerous, than the operations proposed herein. Thus, the operations 

are of enormous public benefit. 

Petitioner’s operations will be conducted at or below 400 feet above ground level, within 

the visual line of sight of the operator, who will be a certificated airman with a sport, 

recreational or private pilot’s certificate, and pursuant to a detailed Flight Safety 

Operations and Procedures manual. 

Petitioner seeks exemption from 14 CFR Part 21, 14 CFR Part 36, 14 CFR 45.23(b), 14 

CFR 61.3, 14 CFR 61.23(a) & (c), 14 CFR 61.101, 14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b), 14 CFR 

61.315, 14 CFR. 91.7 (a), 14 CFR 91.9 (b) (2), 14 CFR 91.103, 14 CFR 91.105, 14 CFR 

91.109, 14 CFR 91.119, 14 CFR 91.121, 14 CFR 91.151 (a), 14 CFR 91.203 (a) & (b), 14 

CFR 91.405 (a), 14 CFR 91.407 (a) (1), 14 CFR 91.409 (a) (2).; and 14 CPR 91.417 (a) &

(b). 
20 

Dated: April 30, 2015 

Respectfully submitted, 

Brendan M. Schulman 

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036 

Tel. (212) 715-9247 

Fax (212) 715-8220 

BSchulman@KramerLevin.com 

Counsel for Petitioner 

Enclosures (filed electronically): 

1. Flight Safety Operations and Procedures 

2. Spectra technical specifications sheet 

3. DJI Inspire 1 User Manual, Safety Guidelines, Maintenance Manual, and Battery 

Safety Information