HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

___________________________________________________

Holland Engineering, Inc.,

Petitioner. Docket No. FAA-2015-_____

PETITION OF HOLLAND ENGINEERING, INC.

FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS

TO PERMIT UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) OPERATIONS

Lisa Ellman and Patrick R. Rizzi

Hogan Lovells US LLP

555 13th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: 202-637-6934 / -5659

Fax: 202-637-5910

lisa.ellman@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

COUNSEL FOR HOLLAND ENGINEERING, INC.

DATE: July 1, 2015
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER .................................................................. - 1 -

2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST ............................................... - 1 -

3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................... - 2 -

3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS............................................ - 3 -

3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations ........................ - 4 -

3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the Pilot in Command and other

crewmember qualifications and training ....................................................................... - 7 -

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding Holland Engineering manuals

related to UAS operations ............................................................................................... - 8 -

4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA........................................ - 10 -

5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION

FOR EXEMPTION........................................................................................................................... - 10 -

5.1 Contact information ......................................................................................................... - 10 -

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which Holland

Engineering seeks an exemption ................................................................................... - 11 -

5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought......................................... - 11 -

5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest ........................... - 26 -

5.5 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 exemption is sought.......................... - 27 -

5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule

from which exemption is sought, and a brief description of the nature

of the exemption sought. ................................................................................................ - 29 -

5.7 Additional information that supports request............................................................... - 29 -

5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S........................ - 29 -

5.9 Attachments...................................................................................................................... - 29 -

6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ - 30 -
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER

Holland Engineering, Inc. (“Holland Engineering”) was founded in 1977 and provides civil

and structural engineering, land surveying, and energy consulting services to clients throughout the

United States. Holland Engineering has a staff of over 90 highly qualified consulting professionals,

many of whom have worked for the firm since it was established. The company’s Professional

Engineers and Land Surveyors are licensed throughout the United States to assist clients all over

the country. Holland Engineering’s dedication to providing these services with integrity and accuracy

has enabled the firm to build longstanding, mutually beneficial relationships with its clients. With this

combination of expertise and technology, and over 30 years of experience, Holland Engineering is

able to offer clients the full range of customized consulting services.

Holland Engineering is constantly looking for ways to improve and add to the services the

firm provides. Being at the forefront of the technological curve is paramount. Through the use of

small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”), Holland Engineering seeks to enhance its aerial data

collection capabilities for the purposes of surveying, monitoring, and inspection.

2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“FMRA”) and 14

C.F.R. (“FAR”) §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81, Holland Engineering requests that the FAA grant

Holland Engineering an exemption from certain sections of the FAR (detailed below in Sections 5.2

and 5.3) so that the company may operate one or more small UAS for conducting aerial data

collection for the purpose of aerial surveying, imaging, and remote sensing in support of engineering

operations, monitoring (including air monitoring in support of environmental activities), and

inspections. These proposed operations involve aerial data collection, consistent with grants like
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 2 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

Exemption No. 11213 (March 24, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0642) (“Aeryon Labs Exemption”), as well

as previously granted summary grant exemptions. As explained below, Holland Engineering’s

proposed UAS operations, as conditioned and limited herein, will not adversely affect safety, but

rather will provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than that provided by the current rules,

large manned aircraft operations, and other current data collection, surveying, monitoring, and

inspection methods. See FAR § 11.81.

Holland Engineering respectfully requests that the FAA grant the requested exemption on an

expedited basis. To that end, as detailed below, Holland Engineering agrees to comply with the

conditions and limitations imposed in recent summary grant exemptions, including ones involving

aerial data collection, including aerial surveying, monitoring, and inspection activities. See, e.g.,

Exemption No. 11867 (June 23, 2015; Docket FAA−2015−1098) (“InTec Exemption”); Exemption

No. 11846 (June 15, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-0505) (“Holder Construction Exemption”).

Given Holland Engineering’s agreement to comply with these conditions and limitations, and

given that this Petition is similar in all material respects to those petitions for which summary grant

exemptions have been granted, and that the proposed UAS use falls within the “aerial data

collection” category of uses permitted by numerous summary grant exemptions, no new precedent

would be set by granting the requested exemption, and any delay in the FAA’s acting on this Petition

would be detrimental to Holland Engineering and delay its implementation of these use cases.

Accordingly, as with the InTec Exemption, at 1, and the Holder Construction Exemption, at 1, good

cause exists for the FAA to move forward with consideration of this Petition and the grant of this

exemption without publishing a summary of the Petition in the Federal Register.

3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The small UAS operations proposed in this Petition will be subject to the following conditions

and limitations. As noted above, these conditions and limitations are the same conditions and

limitations as those in previously granted small UAS Section 333 exemptions, including recent

summary grant exemptions. To facilitate the FAA’s review of this Petition, Holland Engineering
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 3 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

provides a chart at the end of this Section 3 cross-referencing the conditions and limitations from the

InTec Exemption and the Aeryon Labs Exemption with the corresponding conditions and limitations

outlined below. Collectively, these conditions and limitations ensure that the proposed small UAS

operations will not adversely affect safety and will provide at least an equivalent level of safety to

that provided by the current rules, large manned aircraft operations, and other data collection,

surveying, monitoring, and inspection methods.

3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS

Holland Engineering intends to operate the small, lightweight Aibotix X6 V2 UAS (“Aibotix

X6”) under the requested exemption. The Aibotix X6 is a battery-powered, multi-rotor UAS. The

Aibotix X6 has been the UAS designated to be used in previously granted exemptions, including

Exemption No. 11216 (March 20, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0912) (“Solusia Air Exemption”) and

Exemption No. 11356 (April 17, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-1086) (“Boyd Exemption”).

Each UAS operated under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and

limitations:

3.1.1 Operations under the exemption will be limited to the Aibotix X6 UAS.

The UA will have a gross weight of not more than 55 pounds, including

energy sources, equipment, and payload. Proposed operations of any

other UAS will require a new petition or a petition to amend this

exemption. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 1; InTEC

Exemption Limitation No. 1.]

3.1.2 The UA will not be operated at airspeeds greater than the maximum UA

operating speed recommended by the UA manufacturer, and in no

event will it be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per

hour). Holland Engineering may use either groundspeed or calibrated

airspeed to determine compliance with the maximum speed restriction.

[Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 3; InTEC Exemption Limitation

No. 3.]

3.1.3 The UA will be identified by its serial number and registered with the

FAA in accordance with FAR Part 47. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 22; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 22.]

3.1.4 The UA will have identification markings in accordance with FAR Part

45, with the markings being as large as practicable. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 22; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 22.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 4 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations

All UAS operations under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and

limitations:

3.2.1 All UAS operations will be covered by an Air Traffic Organization

(“ATO”)-issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”). All UAS

operations will be conducted in accordance with the airspace

requirements in the ATO-issued COA. Should Holland Engineering

want to conduct operations that cannot be conducted under the terms

of the blanket COA accompanying this exemption, Holland Engineering

will apply for a new or amended COA. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 21; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 21.]

3.2.2 Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television

filming are not permitted under this exemption. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 2; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 2.]

3.2.3 The UA will not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport’s reference

point (“ARP”) as denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory,

or for airports not denoted with an ARP, the center of the airport symbol

as denoted on the current FAA-published aeronautical chart, unless a

letter agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or such an

operation is otherwise permitted by a COA issued to Holland

Engineering. Holland Engineering will make the letter agreement

available to the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request.

[Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 16; InTEC Exemption Limitation

No. 16.]

3.2.4 The minimum crew for each UAS operation will consist of one Pilot in

Command (“PIC”) and one Visual Observer (“VO”). The PIC will be

designated before the flight, and cannot transfer his or her designation

for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can

perform the functions prescribed for the VO. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 6; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 6.]

3.2.5 The UA will be operated within the visual line of sight (“VLOS”) of the

PIC and VO at all times. The PIC will maintain VLOS with human

vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses as specified

on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate or U.S. driver’s

license. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitations Nos. 5 and 6; InTEC

Exemption Limitations Nos. 5 and 6.] The VO may be used to satisfy

the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS

capability. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 6; InTEC Exemption

Limitation No. 6.]

3.2.6 During each UAS operation, the PIC and the VO must be able to

communicate verbally with each other at all times. Electronic

messaging or texting by the PIC and the VO is not permitted during

UAS flight operations. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 6;

InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 6.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 5 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

3.2.7 The PIC is prohibited from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering

wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough available power

for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after that

for at least five minutes or, if greater, with the reserve power

recommended by the UA manufacturer. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 20; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 20.]

3.2.8 Prior to each UA flight, the PIC will conduct a pre-flight inspection and

determine that the UAS (including the Ground Control Station) is in a

condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection will account for all

potential discrepancies, e.g., non-functioning components, items or

equipment. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe

operation of the UAS, the UA is prohibited from operating until the

necessary maintenance has been performed, and the UAS is found to

be in a condition for safe flight. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

10; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 10.]

3.2.9 The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to

ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 9; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 9.]

3.2.10 During each UAS operation, the UA will remain at or below 400 feet

above ground level (“AGL”). [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 4;

InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 4.]

3.2.11 Altitude reports made to ATC or other persons must be reported in feet

AGL. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 4; InTEC Exemption

Limitation No. 4.]

3.2.12 All UAS operations will be conducted over private or controlled-access

property with permission from the property owner/controller or

authorized representative. Permission from the property

owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each

flight to be conducted. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 27;

InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 27.]

3.2.13 The UA will operate at least 500 feet from all non-participating persons,

vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

(a) Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event

of an accident. Holland Engineering must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection; and if a

situation arises where non-participating persons leave such

protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations

must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of

non-participating persons; and/or

(b) The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures

has granted permission for operating closer to those objects

and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of

operating closer to those objects and determined that it does

not present an undue hazard.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 6 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

The PIC, VO, operator trainees, and essential persons are not

considered non-participating persons under this exemption.

[Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 26; InTEC Exemption Limitation

No. 26.]

3.2.14 All UAS operations will take place during visual meteorological

conditions (VMC) only. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 15;

InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 15.]

3.2.15 Holland Engineering will not operate UAS flights under Special Visual

Flight Rules (SVFR). [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 15; InTEC

Exemption Limitation No. 15.]

3.2.16 All UAS operations will take place during daylight hours. UAS

operations will not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 C.F.R. §

1.1. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 15; InTEC Exemption

Limitation No. 15.]

3.2.17 During each UAS operation, the UA will avoid, remain clear of, and

yield right-of-way to all manned aviation operations and activities at all

times. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 24; InTEC Exemption

Limitation No. 24.]

3.2.18 The UA will not be operated less than 500 feet below, or less than

2,000 feet horizontally from, a cloud, or when visibility is less than 3

statute miles from the PIC. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 17;

InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 17.]

3.2.19 The UAS will not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or

vehicle. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 25; InTEC Exemption

Limitation No. 25.]

3.2.20 Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the

UAS operation or UA flight characteristics (e.g., replacement of a flight

critical component) must undergo a functional test flight prior to

conducting further operations under this exemption. Functional test

flights will only be conducted by a PIC with a VO, and must remain at

least 500 feet from other people. The functional test flight must be

conducted in such a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to

persons and property. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 8;

InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 8.]

3.2.21 If the UAS loses communications or its GPS signal during any

operation, the UA must return to a pre-determined location within the

private or controlled-access property. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 18; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 18.]

3.2.22 The PIC will abort the UAS operation and UA flight in the event of

unpredicted obstacles or emergencies. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 19; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 19.]

3.2.23 The documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and

flight of the UAS and any documents required under 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 7 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

and 91.203 will be available to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of

the UAS at any time the UA is operating, and will be made available to

the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 23; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 23.]

3.2.24 Any incident, accident or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or

vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable

COA will be reported to the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80)

within 24 hours. Accidents will be reported to the National

Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) per instructions contained on the

NTSB website: www.ntsb.gov. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

28; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 28.]

3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the Pilot in Command and other

crewmember qualifications and training

The PIC and other crewmembers for each UAS operation under the requested exemption

will be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

3.3.1 The PIC must hold (i) either an ATP, commercial, private, recreational

or sport pilot certificate; and (ii) a current FAA airman medical

certificate or a valid driver’s license issued by a State, the District of

Columbia, Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory/possession, or the Federal

Government. The PIC must satisfy the flight review requirements of 14

C.F.R. § 61.56 in an aircraft for which the PIC is rated on his or her

pilot certificate. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 13; InTEC

Exemption Limitation No. 13.]

3.3.2 The operator will not permit any PIC to operate the UAS unless the PIC

demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner

consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption,

including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining

appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures.

PIC qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner

consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of

training Holland Engineering’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and

experience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely operate

the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated

under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption.

These training operations, however, may only be conducted during

dedicated training sessions. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 14;

InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 14.]

3.3.3 During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons

not essential for flight operations are considered non-participants, and

the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 14; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 14.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 8 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding Holland Engineering manuals related to

UAS operations

Holland Engineering has a manual for the Aibotix X6 UAS, as well as a training program

(collectively, the “Manuals”). The Manuals will be subject to the following limitations and conditions:

3.4.1 The Operating Documents1 must be accessible during UAS operations

and made available to the FAA upon request. If a discrepancy exists

between the conditions and limitations in the exemption and the

procedures outlined in the other Operating Documents, the conditions

and limitations in the exemption take precedence and must be

followed. Otherwise, Holland Engineering must follow the procedures

as outlined in the Operating Documents. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 7; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 7.]

3.4.2 Holland Engineering may update or revise its Operating Documents,

and it is Holland Engineering’s responsibility to track such revisions and

present updated and revised documents to the FAA or any law

enforcement official upon request. Holland Engineering must also

present updated and revised documents if it petitions for an extension

or amendment of the exemption. If Holland Engineering determines

that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA

granted the requested exemption, then Holland Engineering must

petition for an amendment to the exemption. Holland Engineering will

contact the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) if questions arise

regarding updates or revisions to the Operating Documents. [Aeryon

Labs Exemption Limitation No. 7; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 7.]

3.4.3 Each UAS operated under the exemption will comply with all

manufacturer safety bulletins. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

12; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 12.]

3.4.4 Holland Engineering will follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance,

overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the

UAS and UAS components. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

11; InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 11.]

In sum, Holland Engineering’s operations under this exemption will be subject to the same

conditions and limitations imposed in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the InTEC Exemption.

1

The “Operating Documents” means this exemption, the Manuals, and all other documents

needed by Holland Engineering to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in accordance with the

conditions and limitations stated in this grant of exemption. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 7;

InTEC Exemption Limitation No. 7.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 9 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

CROSS-REFERENCES

Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

InTEC Exemption Limitation No.

Petition Limitation No.

1 3.1.1

2 3.2.2

3 3.1.2

4 3.2.10, 3.2.11

5 3.2.5

6 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6

7 3.4.1, 3.4.2

8 3.2.20

9 3.2.9

10 3.2.8

11 3.4.4

12 3.4.3

13 3.3.1

14 3.3.2, 3.3.3

15 3.2.14, 3.2.15, 3.2.16

16 3.2.3

17 3.2.18

18 3.2.21

19 3.2.22

20 3.2.7

21 3.2.1

22 3.1.3, 3.1.4

23 3.2.23
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 10 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

24 3.2.17

25 3.2.19

26 3.2.13

27 3.2.12

28 3.2.24

4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA

In accordance with FMRA Section 333, Holland Engineering requests that the Secretary of

Transportation determine that Holland Engineering’s proposed small UAS operations (i) do not

create a hazard to users of the National Airspace System or the public, and (ii) do not pose a threat

to national security.

Holland Engineering further requests that, based on the Secretary’s determination, the FAA

determine – as it did in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the InTEC Exemption – that relief from FAR

Part 21 and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of FAR Part 36 is not

necessary for the UAS operations proposed in this Petition.2

5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR

EXEMPTION

As required by FAR § 11.81, Holland Engineering provides the following information in

support of this Petition:

5.1 Contact information:

Name: Holland Engineering, Inc. submits this Petition for Exemption, through

counsel, Lisa Ellman and Patrick Rizzi.

Mailing address: Lisa Ellman and Patrick Rizzi

2 Aeryon Labs Exemption, at 7; InTEC Exemption, at 2. If the FAA concludes that the UAS

operations proposed in this Petition require an exemption from FAR Parts 21 and/or 36, then Holland

Engineering requests that the FAA include that relief in the exemption.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 11 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

Counsel for Holland Engineering, Inc.

Hogan Lovells US LLP

555 13th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone/Facsimile number:

(T) 202-637-6934 (Ellman) / 202-637-5659 (Rizzi)

(F) 202-637-5910

E-mail addresses:

lisa.ellman@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which Holland Engineering

seeks an exemption:

FAR § 61.23(a) and (c) – Medical certificates: Requirement and Duration.

FAR § 61.101(e)(4) and (5) – Recreational pilot privileges and limitations.

FAR § 61.113(a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

FAR § 61.315(a), (c)(2), and (c)(3) – What are the privileges and limitations of my

sport pilot certificate?

FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness.

FAR § 91.119(c) and (d)(1) – Minimum safe altitudes: General.

FAR § 91.121 – Altimeter settings.

FAR § 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required.

FAR § 91.407(a)(1) – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance,

rebuilding, and inspections.

FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) – Inspections.

FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) – Maintenance records.

5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought:

Holland Engineering proposes to conduct small UAS operations, as described herein, for

aerial data collection for the purpose of aerial imaging, remote sensing, and aerial surveying in

support of engineering and industrial operations, as well as environmental activities. In order to be

able to conduct these UAS operations, Holland Engineering petitions the FAA, pursuant to FAR §§

11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81(b), for an exemption from the following sections of the FAR for the

reasons noted:
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 12 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

FAR § 61.23(a) and (c) -– Medical certificates: Requirement and Duration.

FAR § 61.101(e)(4) and (5) – Recreational pilot privileges and limitations.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(e) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (i) of this section, a

recreational pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft— . . .

(4) For compensation or hire;

(5) In furtherance of a business; . . . .

FAR § 61.113(a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(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.

(c) ****.

FAR § 61.315(a) and (c)(2), (c)(3) – What are the privileges and limitations of my sport

pilot certificate?

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in

command of a light-sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c)

of this section. . . .

. . . .

(c) You may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft: . . .

(2) For compensation or hire.

(3) In furtherance of a business. . . .

Holland Engineering requests an exemption from these regulations to the extent necessary

to permit Holland Engineering to conduct UAS operations using PICs who hold (i) an FAA private
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 13 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

pilot, recreational pilot, or a sport pilot certificate, and (ii) an FAA airman medical certificate or a state

driver’s license. While Holland Engineering recognizes that the FAA normally requires a PIC to hold

a commercial pilot certificate where there is compensation either to the pilot or for the operation,

Holland Engineering requests that the FAA exempt Holland Engineering and its PICs from this

requirement since the use of at least a sport pilot as the PIC for the UAS operations under this

exemption will be more safe than the use of a commercial pilot for manned aircraft operations.

Unlike conventional aircraft, the Aibotix X6 UAS is lightweight, remotely controlled, and batterypowered (not fuel/gas), and it has no crew or passengers. The fulfillment of the additional

requirements for a sport, recreational or private pilot to become qualified as a commercial pilot would

not lead to any additional safety benefits when UAS operations are involved.

The differences between the aeronautical knowledge and aeronautical experience

requirements for sport pilots and for commercial pilots are significant in the traditional world of

manned aircraft. However, no aspect of this incremental additional knowledge or aeronautical

experience is significant for the daytime, VMC, low-altitude, visual-line-of-sight, small UAS

operations over private or controlled-access properties with property owner/controller permission as

proposed in this Petition. Put another way, there are stark and fundamental differences between the

type of experience and aeronautical knowledge that the PIC of a commercial manned aircraft with

passengers and property should have, versus the type of experience and aeronautical knowledge

that the PIC of a small UAS should have, in order to avoid imperiling passengers or property. In

Holland Engineering’s case, the small amount of property carried aboard the UA will be Holland

Engineering’s property. While the PIC will be compensated, all risk of damage to the property (in

fact to the UAS itself) will be borne by Holland Engineering. There is no expectation or need for the

PIC of the small UA to have the type of experience or aeronautical knowledge that a commercial

pilot for a manned aircraft would have. Similarly, the differences between the flight proficiency

requirements for sport pilots and commercial pilots are not substantively significant here where the

operations will be conducted strictly during daylight VMC conditions, within VLOS, at altitudes no

higher than 400 feet AGL. In addition, Holland Engineering has a training program to ensure that the
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 14 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

experience, knowledge, and flight proficiency needed to operate the Aibotix X6 UAS safely are

achieved for its PICs. Accordingly, there is no reason to require the UAS PIC to have more

aeronautical knowledge, experience, and flight proficiency than that required for a sport pilot

certificate.

Given that Holland Engineering plans to operate its Aibotix X6 UAS over private or

controlled-access property and at low altitudes during daytime in VMC, the parallel nature of sport

pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those of commercial pilot requirements, the limited

airmanship skills necessary to operate this small UAS, and the lack of additional safety benefits for

the proposed UAS operations here resulting from commercial pilot experience, the PIC under this

exemption should only be required to hold, at most, a sport pilot certificate. Such a condition would

be consistent with the certificate requirements imposed on the PIC in the Aeryon Labs Exemption

and the InTEC Exemption.

For these reasons, and consistent with recent summary grant exemptions, Holland

Engineering requests that the FAA grant an exemption to permit Holland Engineering to use as PIC

of its proposed UAS operations pilots who hold at least a sport pilot certificate and either an FAA

third-class airman medical certificate or a state driver’s license, so long as they satisfy the conditions

and limitations proposed in this Petition, including the PIC qualification and training requirements.

FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness.

The regulation states in relevant part:

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy

condition. . . .

Holland Engineering requests an exemption from this provision to the extent necessary to

permit Holland Engineering to conduct the small UAS operations proposed in this Petition. The

Aibotix X6 UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate under FAR Part 21, Subpart H, and thus

Holland Engineering requests relief from this regulation. See Exemption No. 11110 (December 10,

2014; Docket FAA-2014-0367) (“Trimble Exemption”), at 16. An exemption is warranted because

Holland Engineering understands that, notwithstanding the lack of an airworthiness certificate, the
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 15 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

FAA will consider its “compliance with [Holland Engineering’s Manuals] to be sufficient means for

determining an airworthy condition” and that Holland Engineering must still determine the UA’s

airworthiness prior to each flight based on compliance with such Manuals. Trimble Exemption, at

16.3

FAR § 91.119(c) and (d)(1) – Minimum safe altitudes: General.

The regulation states:

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate

an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency

landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town,

or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude

of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of

2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(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.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft.

If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on

the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums

prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided

each person operating the helicopter complies with any

routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by

the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may

be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in

paragraph (c) of this section.

Holland Engineering requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to

permit Holland Engineering to conduct its UAS operations at altitudes lower than those permitted by

3 Holland Engineering requests exemption from FAR § 91.7(a) based on the relief granted in the

Trimble Exemption, at 16, 21. However, Holland Engineering notes that the FAA determined that no such

exemption was needed in Exemption No. 11062 (September 25, 2014; Docket FAA-2014-0352)

(“Astraeus Exemption”) at 19, 22.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 16 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

FAR § 91.119, since the ability to operate at such altitudes is one of the key benefits of using small

UAS for these flights. Even at these low altitudes, Holland Engineering’s UAS operations will be

conducted at a level of safety at least equal to that which would be achieved if larger manned aircraft

were to be used at the altitudes required by FAR § 91.119.

With respect to paragraph (a), Holland Engineering intends to comply with this requirement

to the same extent as would a manned aircraft, meaning that the UA must operate at an altitude

such that the loss of a single power unit aboard the UA or used by the UAS would still permit an

emergency landing “without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.” Holland

Engineering agrees with the FAA’s reasoning on this issue in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, and

therefore does not believe that relief is required from paragraph (a).

With respect to paragraph (b), Holland Engineering plans to operate these small UAS over

private or controlled-access properties (with owner/controller permission) in areas that are not

congested or densely populated. Accordingly, Holland Engineering does not believe that an

exemption is necessary from this paragraph (b) covering “congested areas.”

With respect to paragraph (c), Holland Engineering requests an exemption to allow UAS

operations down to the surface, both in sparsely populated areas and in “other than congested”

areas. Holland Engineering’s UAS operations require lower-level flying, but have a number of selfimposed restrictions to ensure at least an equivalent level of safety. For example,

 All operations will be conducted over private or controlled-access property.

 Permission from the property owner/controller will be obtained prior to the beginning

of each UA flight.

 The UA will operate at least 500 feet from all non-participating persons, vessels,

vehicles, and structures unless:

o Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect non-participating

persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. Holland

Engineering will ensure that non-participating persons remain under such

protection; and if a situation arises where non-participating persons leave
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 17 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations will cease

immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of the non-participating persons;

and/or

o The UA is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where 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 determined

that it does not present an undue hazard.

Even with a grant of this exemption, the UAS operations will be at least as safe as operations

by manned aircraft that comply with this paragraph. Flying a manned aircraft, given its weight, size,

speed, and fuel load, would pose a significant risk compared to the use of a small UA, with a much

smaller size and lighter weight, operating at much slower speeds, with batteries rather than a

significant fuel load, at all times within VLOS of the PIC on the ground who has a wide view.

Accordingly, as the FAA determined in the Trimble Exemption, at 17-18, relief is warranted here

provided that Holland Engineering adheres to its Manuals and the additional conditions and

limitations outlined above and in the exemption. For these reasons, Holland Engineering requests

relief from the entirety of paragraph (c), as was recently granted in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and

the InTEC Exemption.

To the extent necessary, Holland Engineering also requests relief from paragraph (d)(1),

which applies only to helicopters and allows operation at lower altitudes only if on a prescribed

helicopter route. Flying a manned helicopter would pose a significantly greater risk than using a

small UA for the proposed operations, even if the helicopter is on a specific route or at a specific low

height prescribed by the FAA. A manned helicopter is much heavier, larger, and faster than a small

UA. Moreover, unlike an unmanned, battery-powered small UA, the helicopter has people on-board

and a fuel load. The operation of a small UA at all times within the VLOS of the PIC on the ground

would be at least as safe as a manned helicopter operation operating in conformity with the

requirements of paragraph (d)(1), and therefore an exemption from Section 91.119(d)(1) is

warranted.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 18 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

FAR § 91.121 – Altimeter settings.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising

altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference

to an altimeter that is set, when operating—

(1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to—

(i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along

the route and within 100 nautical miles of the aircraft;

(ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the current reported

altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or

(iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio,

the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate

altimeter setting available before departure; or

(2) At or above 18,000 feet MSL, to 29.92′′ Hg.

(b)  .

It is not clear to Holland Engineering that an exemption from this section is required,

because, although the regulation expressly applies only to aircraft maintaining a “cruising altitude”

and dictates the altimeter setting that must be used while at that cruising altitude, cruising altitudes

for VFR flights do not begin – according to FAR § 91.159 – until “more than 3,000 feet above the

surface.”4 Nonetheless, Holland Engineering requests an exemption from FAR § 91.121 to the

extent necessary to permit Holland Engineering to conduct the UAS operations proposed in this

Petition. See, e.g., Aeryon Labs Exemption, at 12; InTEC Exemption, at 2; Astraeus Exemption, at

21-22.

Holland Engineering recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that any UAS operated by

Holland Engineering maintains altitude to an accurate reference such that other aircraft and the FAA

may rely on Holland Engineering’s UAS to be operating as proposed. The PIC will check the UA

altitude reading prior to each takeoff, and will effectively zero the UA’s altitude at the point of takeoff,

4 FAR § 91.159; see also Aeronautical Information Manual, at Chpt. 3, Sec. 1, Tbl. 3-1-1, para. 3-1-

2. (July 24, 2014).
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 19 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

to ensure that measurements of the UA’s altitude are as accurate as possible relative to the local

elevation. To the extent that this methodology does not satisfy FAR § 91.121 or any other

regulation, Holland Engineering requests an exemption to permit UAS operations using this

methodology.

FAR § 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

The regulation states:

(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

normal cruising speed—

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 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.

Holland Engineering requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit Holland

Engineering to plan its UAS operations as described above. The proposed small UAS operations in

this Petition will (i) involve operations in which one or more UAS is transported by means other than

its own power to the operational location, and (ii) begin and end at the operational site, with the

takeoff, entire flight, and landing all taking place within the immediate proximity of each other while

remaining at all times within the VLOS of the PIC.

The goal of FAR § 91.151 is to ensure that pilots plan for an extra 20 or 30 minutes of fuel at

their first intended point of landing in order to account for unexpected possible delays en route and

at the first planned destination. Many of these delays that plague manned aircraft are simply not an

issue with the proposed small UAS operations over private or controlled-access property, because

there is virtually no “en route” portion of the flight, and any problems at the point of landing are

extremely unlikely to cause delays, since a UA can always land just a few feet away if the intended

point of landing becomes unusable.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 20 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

Given the relatively short operating time for the Aibotix X6 UAS, requiring a full 30 minutes of

reserve “fuel” (battery power) could take up much, if not all, of the time available for Aibotix X6 UAS

operations. Holland Engineering believes that using a smaller reserve for UAS flight planning

purposes will be at least as safe as using the reserves required by FAR § 91.151 for manned

aircraft. To that end, and consistent with Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 20 and InTEC

Exemption Limitation No. 20, the PIC under the requested exemption will be prohibited from

beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough

power available for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after that for at least

five minutes or, if greater, with the reserve power recommended by the UA manufacturer. See

Proposed Limitation 3.2.7. Such a battery reserve is more than sufficient, particularly in light of the

FAA’s acceptance of a 5-minute reserve in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the InTEC Exemption.

Holland Engineering believes that these limitations will further ensure that the proposed reserve

planning and operational requirements that Holland Engineering is requesting to use under this

exemption will provide at least an equivalent level of safety.

For these reasons, Holland Engineering requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit

it to plan and conduct UAS operations subject to the reserve power limitation explained above.

FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

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;

(b) ** **.

Holland Engineering requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit Holland

Engineering to conduct the UAS operations proposed in this Petition without having to perform the

inspections and discrepancy repairs required by FAR § 91.405(a). In the Astraeus Exemption and

the Trimble Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 21 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

from FAR § 91.405(a), and that the achievement of an adequate level of safety required certain

conditions and limitations. Holland Engineering has proposed in Section 3 of this Petition several

conditions and limitations related to maintenance and inspections which it believes provide a level of

safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.405(a). For this reason, and consistent with

the exemptions granted from this section in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the InTEC Exemption,

Holland Engineering requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit Holland Engineering to

conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the conditions and limitations

proposed above, without having to perform the inspections and discrepancy repairs required by FAR

§ 91.405(a).

Holland Engineering does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of

FAR § 91.405 is required, since Holland Engineering will make appropriate logbook entries in aircraft

maintenance records in accordance with paragraph (b), appropriately mark any inoperative

instrument or item of equipment for which maintenance has been properly deferred in compliance

with paragraph (c), and appropriately placard listed discrepancies that include inoperative

instruments or equipment in compliance with paragraph (d).

FAR § 91.407(a)(1) – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding

or alteration.

The regulation states:

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone

maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration

unless—

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person

authorized under §43.7 of this chapter; and

(2) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as

applicable, of this chapter has been made.

. . . .

Holland Engineering requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit Holland

Engineering to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to have the UAS
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 22 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

approved for return to service by a person authorized under FAR § 43.7. In the Astraeus Exemption,

the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1),

subject to certain conditions and limitations. Holland Engineering has proposed in this Petition

maintenance-related conditions and limitations which it believes provide a level of safety at least

equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.407(a)(1). For this reason, and consistent with the

exemptions granted from this section in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the InTEC Exemption,

Holland Engineering requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit Holland Engineering

to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and

limitations, without having to have the UAS approved for return to service by a person authorized

under FAR § 43.7.

Holland Engineering does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of

FAR § 91.407 is required, since Holland Engineering will require that maintenance record entries are

made as required, in compliance with paragraph (a)(2), and since no persons will be carried

following maintenance performed on the UAS, making paragraphs (b) and (c) moot.

FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) – Inspections.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(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.

No inspection performed under paragraph (b) of this section may be

substituted for any inspection required by this paragraph unless it is

performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections and

is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance

records.

(b)  .
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 23 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

Holland Engineering requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit

Holland Engineering to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to obtain

the annual inspection and airworthiness certificate inspection required by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and

(2). In the Astraeus Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required

exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and that achieving an adequate level of safety required

certain conditions and limitations. Holland Engineering has proposed in this Petition maintenance

and inspection-related conditions and limitations which it believes provide a level of safety at least

equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2). For this reason, and consistent with the

exemptions granted from this section in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the InTEC Exemption,

Holland Engineering requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit Holland

Engineering to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed

conditions and limitations, without having to obtain the annual inspection and airworthiness

certificate inspection required by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2).

FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) – Maintenance records.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and

91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following

records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and

alteration and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive,

and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate,

for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine,

propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records

must include—

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the

Administrator) of the work performed; and

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person

approving the aircraft for return to service.

(2) Records containing the following information:
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 24 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine,

each propeller, and each rotor.

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe,

engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on

the aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a

specified time basis.

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including

the time since the last inspection required by the

inspection program under which the aircraft and its

appliances are maintained.

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness

directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each,

the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive

number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive

involves recurring action, the time and date when the next

action is required.

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by §43.9(d) of this

chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and

currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and

appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the

periods prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section

shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by

other work or for 1 year after the work is performed.

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section

shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time

the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or

operator under §43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until

the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return

to service.

(c) ** **.

Holland Engineering requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit Holland

Engineering to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to keep the

records described in FAR § 91.417(a) and (b). The FAA determined in the Astraeus Exemption that

the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b), and that an
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 25 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations. Holland Engineering has

proposed in this Petition maintenance, inspection, and records-related conditions and limitations

which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.417(a) and

(b). For this reason, and consistent with the exemptions granted from this section in the Aeryon

Labs Exemption and the InTEC Exemption, Holland Engineering requests an exemption from FAR §

91.417(a) and (b) to permit Holland Engineering to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this

Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without having to keep the records

described in FAR § 91.417(a) and (b).

Additional FAR Provisions.

The Petition does not seek exemption from certain regulations based on the reasoning and

FAA precedent outlined below in the footnote.5 However, Holland Engineering also requests that, to

the extent that the FAA concludes that an exemption from one or more other provisions of the FAR

5 This Petition does not seek exemption from:

> FAR Part 21 or 36, based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 14.

> FAR § 91.7(b), based on the reasoning in the Trimble Exemption, at 17.

> FAR §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b), based on the reasoning in the FAA’s August 8, 2014

Memorandum titled “Interpretation regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at an

unmanned aircraft’s control station” (“FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum”), the Astraeus Exemption, at

19-20, 22, and the Trimble Exemption, at 17, 20.

> FAR §§ 45.23(b) and 91.9(c), based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 14, and the

Trimble Exemption, at 14, related to FAR § 45.23(b), and assuming that the markings on the UA used to

comply with FAR Part 45, Subpart C requirements are as large as practicable.

> FAR §§ 47.3(b)(2) and 47.31(c), based on the reasoning in the FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum,

and assuming that all UA are registered in accordance with FAR Part 47.

> FAR § 91.103(b)(2), based on the FAA’s reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, which concluded

that an exemption from the preflight action requirements is not necessary when the grant of an exemption

for UAS operations includes conditions that satisfy preflight action requirements. Holland Engineering

proposes such conditions in this Petition.

> FAR § 91.109, based on the FAA’s reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, which concluded that

an exemption from the requirement for dual flight controls for flight or simulator training or for flight testing

is not necessary when there is no indication that dual flight controls will be used during any flight or

simulator training or flight testing.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 26 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

would be required to permit the UAS operations described in this Petition, the FAA grant an

exemption from those FAR provisions as necessary to permit the UAS operations described in this

Petition.6

5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest:

A grant of the requested exemption to allow small UAS to operate for aerial data collection

for the purpose of aerial imaging, remote sensing, and aerial surveying in support of Holland

Engineering’s industrial/engineering operations would be in the public interest for several reasons.

First, the use of UAS by Holland Engineering for these purposes will increase efficiencies

and lower the costs of these activities compared to the current methods for these activities.

Second, the exemption would allow Holland Engineering to undertake these activities with

small UAS and thereby substantially mitigate, if not eliminate, any risks to personnel or manned

aircraft currently used to perform these activities. As the FAA acknowledged in the Total Safety

Exemption7:

“The [Holland Engineering] pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft.

The limited weight and restricted sterile area significantly reduces the potential for

harm to participating and nonparticipating individuals or property in the event of an

incident or accident. The risk to an onboard pilot and crew during an incident or

accident is eliminated with the use of a UA for the inspection operation. In addition,

utilizing UAS to conduct flare stack inspections will reduce the need for inspection

personnel to perform this hazardous [inspection] activity.

Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an incident or

accident. [The Aibotix X6 UA] carries no fuel [it is battery-powered], and therefore

the risk of fire following an incident or accident due to fuel spillage is eliminated.”

The FAA has reached similar conclusions in the context of tower/structure inspections.

“Tower and structure inspections are hazardous and present unique difficulties for

persons conducting inspections and maintenance of this infrastructure. The

inspections are normally conducted utilizing personnel to physically inspect the tower

and structure. Manned helicopters may also be used to transport inspection

personnel to the top of the tower so that a physical inspection may be conducted.

The petitioner plans to utilize a UAS to . . . minimize the need for inspectors to

personally climb such structures. Manned helicopters assisting in tower and

structure inspections can weigh 6,000 pounds or more and are operated by an

6 Holland Engineering would be happy to provide follow-on documentation providing the rationale

underlying any such additional exemptions.

7

Exemption No. 11156 (January 29, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0610), at 11-12.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 27 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

onboard pilot, in addition to other onboard crewmembers, as necessary. . . .

[U]tilizing UAS to conduct tower inspections will reduce the need for inspection

personnel to perform this hazardous activity. . . .”

LowCountryRC Exemption,8at 2-3.

Third, use of small UAS under this exemption would assist, facilitate, and indeed enhance

Holland Engineering’s important surveying, monitoring, and inspection efforts. For example, it would

use the UAS for air monitoring in support of environmental activities.

Fourth, Holland Engineering’s aerial data collection UAS operations would support pipeline

emergency activities, including natural gas pipeline ruptures and oil pipeline breaks. The ability to

access these sites is normally very limited, if not impossible, due to site conditions, and using a UAS

to collect imagery and remote sensing data are paramount to site safety, cleanup, and restoration

activities.

Fifth, the aerial data collection operations proposed in this Petition would be far less risky,

and more efficient, than if conducted with larger, faster, heavier, combustible fuel-powered manned

aircraft.

5.5 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 exemption is sought:

Throughout this Petition, Holland Engineering has discussed many reasons why granting an

exemption from each section of the FAR from which relief is sought would result in UAS operations

that provide a level of safety equal to, or greater than, that provided by the rule from which

exemption is sought. Moreover, the many conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition,

coupled with the operational protocols for this small UAS, also would ensure at least an equivalent

level of safety, as the FAA concluded in the Aeryon Labs Exemption, the InTEC Exemption, the

Astraeus Exemption, and the Trimble Exemption, among others.

8

Exemption No. 11184 (February 23, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0803) (“LowCountryRC

Exemption”).
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 28 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

In general, the risks of any small UAS operation proposed in this Petition interfering with a

manned aircraft would be minimized by numerous factors, including but not limited to:

 the low altitude at which the UAS would operate;

 the locations at which the UAS would operate (e.g., remote areas; private or controlledaccess property; away from airports);

 the small size, light weight, and relatively slow speed of the Aibotix X6 UAS;

 the restriction on UAS operations to VMC and daytime conditions; and

 the requirement for the UA to be operated within the VLOS of the PIC and VO at all

times.

Importantly, the Aibotix X6 UAS has several other safety-related protocols including altitudehold and minimum altitude functions, a “Coming Home” mode, a GPS cage (“a virtual cage”), a

battery failsafe, a start prevention system (if the battery charge is too low for safe flight execution),

lost communications failsafe procedures including failsafe configuration position hold and failsafe

configuration coming home, and systems redundancies. In addition, the UA will be operated with

pre-determined flight paths with the ability for the PIC to take command of the UA at any point during

the mission.

The risks to persons or property on the ground would be substantially mitigated – if not

eliminated – by these same factors, as well as the 500-foot set-off from non-participating persons,

vehicles, and structures absent additional safeguards. Per the conditions and limitations proposed

in this Petition, (i) the PIC will suspend/abort the UAS operation and UA flight in the event of

unpredicted obstacles or emergencies; and (ii) Holland Engineering will coordinate extensively, as

warranted, with the FAA, with local airports, and with property owners to ensure that all UAS

operations under the exemption are at least as safe as would be manned aircraft operations used for

similar purposes.

The conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition (which have been found by the FAA

to be acceptable for other summary grant exemptions) and the operational safety features of the

Aibotix X6 UAS provide substantial protection against interference with manned aircraft operations
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 29 -

\\DC - 044333/000001 - 6674489 v4

or with the safety of persons or property on the ground. For these reasons, granting an exemption

from each section of the FAR from which relief is sought would not adversely affect safety, and

would provide a level of safety at least equal to, or greater than, that provided by the rule from which

exemption is sought.

5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule from

which exemption is sought, and a brief description of the nature of the

exemption sought:

Holland Engineering, Inc. proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary:

Docket No.: FAA-2015-______

Petitioner: Holland Engineering, Inc.

Sections of 14 CFR: 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a) and (b),

61.315(a), (c)(2), and (c)(3), 91.7(a), 91.119(c) and (d)(1), 91.121, 91.151, 91.405(a),

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b).

Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks an exemption to operate small UAS

for aerial data collection for the purpose of surveying, monitoring, and inspection.

5.7 Additional information that supports request:

Holland Engineering is prepared to provide additional information that the FAA might find

helpful, or to answer questions in response to any FAA requests.

5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S.:

Holland Engineering does not request to exercise the privileges of this exemption outside the

United States.

5.9 Attachments:

There are no attachments accompanying this Petition.