800.727.1941 | dwmlaw.com Rodney A. Lake 207.253.0560 Direct

rlake@dwmlaw.com

84 Marginal Way, Suite 600

Portland, ME 04101

- 2480

207.772.1941 Main

207.772.3627 Fax

July 1 , 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Summary Processing Exemption Request

, Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act

, from 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(a)&(c), 61.101(e)(4)& (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a),

91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1)&(2), and

91.417(a)&(b)

Dear Sir or Madam:

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

Altimedia LLC ( “ Altimedia ” ), operator of s mall Unmanned Aircraft Systems ( “ UASs, ” or “ s UAS s ” )

equipped to conduct commercial flights for aerial data collection, including photography

, filming,

newsgathering, and property inspection, hereby petitions for an exemption from the listed Federal

Aviation Regulations ( “ FARs ” ) to allow commercial operation of its sUASs , so long as such

operations are conducted within and under the conditions outlined herein or as may be established by

the FAA in an exemption granted under Section 333 of the Reform Act

. As explained further

below, Altimedia requests that this application receive “ s ummary grant ” p rocess ing . To that

end, Altimedia will accept the conditions set forth in Grant of Exemption No. 11784 to

Precision Unmanned Aerial, LLC (see Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 0288).

As this e xemption request is similar in all material respects to Exemption No. 11784 already granted,

and given that Al timedia will accept the conditions set forth in Exemption No. 11784, this

e xemption request should qualify for “ summary grant ” processing as the FAA has already given

public notice of and granted similar exemptions. In addition to Exemption No. 11784, t he FAA has

granted other exemption s in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in thisJ uly 1 , 2015

Page 2

petition as well

. For example, i n each of the Grants of Exemption Nos. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial

( Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0352),11109 to Clayco, Inc . (Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0507), 11112 to

VDOS Global, LLC (see Docket No. FAA

− 2014

− 0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. ( Docket

No. FAA

− 2014

− 0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using sUASs carrying no

passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of si gnificantly greater proportions carrying crew

in addition to flammable fuel, ga ve the FAA good cause to find that the s UAS operation s enabled by

the exemption s were in the public interest. As with the approval of each of the aforementioned

grants of exemption

, therefore, approval of this exemption would enhance safety and fulfill the

Secretary of Transportation ’ s mandate to “ establish requirements for the safe operation of

[unmanned aircraft systems] in the national airspace s ystem. ” Section 333(c) of the Reform Act.

The name and address of the petitioner is:

Altimedia LLC

Attn: Samuel Johnson

103 Falmouth Street

Westbrook, ME 04092

Regulations from which exemption is requested:

14 C.F.R. §§ 61.23 (a) & (c)

14 C.F.R. §§ 61.101(e ) (4) & (5)

14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a)

14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a)

14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a)

14 C.F.R. § 91.119 (c)

14 C.F.R. § 91.121

14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) (1)

14 C.F.R. § 91.405 (a)

14 C.F.R. § 407 (a) (1)

14 C.F.R. §§ 409 (a)(1)& (2)

14 C.F.R. §§ 417 (a) & (b)

Section 333 of the Reform Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to determine, before

completion of the rulemaking required under Section 332, whether certain unmanned aircraft

systems may operate safely in the national airspace system. In making this determination, the

Secretary is required to determine which types of UASs do not create a hazard to users of the

national airspace system or the public

, or pose a threat to national security in light of the following:

· The UAS ’ s size, weight, speed, and operational capability;

· Operation of the UAS in close proximity to airports and populated areas; and

· Operation of the UAS within visual line of sight of the operator.J uly 1 , 2015

Page 3

Reform Act § 333(a). Lastly, if the Secretary determines that such vehicles “ may operate safely in

the national airspace system, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such

aircraft in the national airspace system. ” Id. § 333(c) (emphasis added). Additionally, the FAA

Administrator has general authority to g rant exemptions from the agency ’ s safety regulations and

minimum standards when the Administrator decides a requested exemption is in the public interest.

See 49 U.S.C. § 106(f) (defining the authority of the Administrator); 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) (permitting

exemptions from §§ 44701(a), (b) and §§ 44702

– 44716, et seq. ).

A party requesting an exemption must explain the reasons why the exemption: (1) would benefit

the public as a whole, and (2) would not adversely affect safety (or how i t would provide a level of

safety at least equal to the existing rules). See 14 C.F.R. § 11.81. The public interest will be served

by granting Altimedia ’ s p etition for e xemption, given that Congress has established a national

policy that favors early integ ration of s UAS s into the national airspace system. G ranting the

requested exemption will significantly improve safety and reduce risk by alleviating the public ’ s exposure to danger and emissions associated with manned aircraft performing s imilar aerial dat a

collection. Moreover, in the unlikely event that one of Altimedia ’ s sUASs crash, there would be no fuel to ignite and explode. Any accident involving Altimedia ’ s lightweight s UAS s would present

significantly less danger to the pilot and other individuals on the ground than one involving a full

size , manned aircraft.

The FAA has previously granted exemptions to the following regulations to allow aerial data

collection: 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.23 (a) &(c), 61.101(e ) (4) &(5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c),

91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (2), and 91.417(a)&(b)

. E.g. , Exemption

No. 11784, p. 2.

As explained below, Altimedia seeks an exemption from these same regulations, on the same terms

as granted in Exemption No. 11784.



## Regarding the Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Altimedia ’ s sUASs are all rotorcraft, weighting 55 or fewer pounds each

, including payload.

Specifically, Altimedia is requesting a grant of exemption for operation of the following three s UAS

models:

· DJI Phantom 2 Vision+

· DJI Sp r eading Wings S1000 +

· DJI Inspire 1

Each of these three UAS models have been the subject of prior FAA grants of exemption.

E.g.

, Grants of Exemption Nos. 11784 to Precision Unmanned Aerial, LLC (Docket No.

FAA

− 2015

− 0288) (covering the DJI Inspire 1), 11311 to Next Generation Aviation Services, LLC

( Docket No. FAA

– 2014

– 1055 ) ( covering DJI Spreading Wings S1000+ ), and 11398 to Vetus Wind,

LLC ( Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 0145 ) (covering DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ ). Since the FAA has already

granted exemptions specifically involving the three UAS models at issue here, and since AltimediaJ uly 1 , 2015

Page 4

agre es to accept the conditions set forth in prior exemptions, a separate analysis of the physical and

operational characteristics of each would be redundant and as such, should not be required under the

FAA ’ s summary grant process.

The sUASs to be operated under this request all weigh less than 55 pounds, including payload , will

be operated at speed s of no more than 87 knots (100 miles per hour), will carry neither a pilot nor

passenger, will carry no explosive materials or flammable liquids, a nd will operate exclusively within

restricted area s . In no case will the sUASs be operated at airspeeds greater than the maximum

operating airspeed s recommended by the sUAS manufacturer s

. Altimedia ’ s sUASs use radio

frequencies for operation that comply with Fe deral Communications Commission requirements.

For the reasons stated above, o perating in compliance with the conditions set forth in Exemption

No. 11784 will provide an equivalent level of safety to operations conducted without the grant of

the requested exemption.

With respect to the unmanned aircraft systems, Altimedia specifically requests exemption from the

following regulations , for the reasons described :

14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a)

— Civil aircraft airworthiness

Section 91.7(a) provides that “ [n]o person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in

an airworthy condition. ” Under the statutory authority provided to the Secretary of

Transportation to waive the airworthiness certification requirement of 49 U.S.C.

§ 4 4704, Altimedia understands that airworthiness certificates will not be required for

the subject sUASs. Given the various safety

- related conditions contained in

Exemption No. 11784 (including pre

- flight inspections), as well as the sUAS

manufacturers ’ maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit

requirements

— all of which Altimedia has agreed to follow

— a PIC will always be

required to ensure a sUAS is in a condition safe for flight prior to commencing

operations. Consequently, even in the absence of airworthiness certification the

subject sUASs will, in practical effect, be operated only when they are in a condition

safe for flight. In this manner, the safety policy underlying section 91.7(a) will be

satisfied; therefore, an exemption f rom its application is appropriate.

14 C.F.R. § § 91.405(a)

, 91.407(a)(1)

, 91.409(a)(1) & (2)

, 91.417(a)&(b)

— Maintenance

, inspections required

Section 91.405(a) provides that each owner or operator of an aircraft “ [s]hall have

that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between

required inspections

... have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this

chapter. ” Section 91.40 7(a)(1) provides that an aircraft having undergone

maintenance, preventative ma intenance, rebuilding, or alter ation may not be

operated unless “ [i]t has been approved for return to service by a person authorized

under §43.7

... ” Sections 91.409(a)(1)& (2) provide that an aircraft may not be

operated unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had either anJ uly 1 , 2015

Page 5

“ annual inspection, ” or an “ inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate

...” Sections 91.417(a)&(b) provide that certain ma intenance records must be kept

for specified amounts of time.

Each of these regulations specify maintenance and inspection standards in reference

to 14 C.F.R. Part 43. An exemption from these regulations is needed because Part 43

and these sections only apply to aircraft with airworthiness certificates, which the

sUASs to be operated under this grant of exemption will not have.

An equivalent level of safety will be achieved because maintenance and inspections

will be performed in accordance with the oper ating documents and any required

manufactu rer safety or service b ulletins. Further, the PIC will conduct a pre

- flight

inspection of the s UAS s and all associat ed equipment to account for all

discrepancies or inoperable components. Maintenance will be perfor med and

verified to address any conditions potentially affecting safe operation of the s UAS s and no flights will occur unless, and until, all flight critical components of the s UAS s have been found to be airworthy and in a condition safe for operation. A f unctional

test flight will be conducted following the replacement of any flight

- critical

components.

Therefore, an exemption from the requirements described in section s 91.405(a),

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1)&(2), and 91.417(a)&(b), concerning maintenance a nd

inspections, is appropriate.



## Regarding the Unmanned Aircraft PIC

Altimedia ’ s s UAS pilot in command ( “ PIC ” ) shall hold either an airline transport, commercial,

private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. The PIC shall also hold 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

t erritory, a possession, or the f ederal government.

Altimedia will not allow any PIC to operate a sUAS unless the PIC demonstrates the ability to safely

operate the s UAS in a manner consistent with how the s UAS will be operated under this exemption,

including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons,

vessels, vehicles, and structures. Flights for the purpose of training Altimedia ’ s PICs and visual

observers ( e.g., training, proficiency, and experience

- building) will be conducted under the terms of

the requested exemption.

Altimedia will , additionally, comply with the conditions set forth in Exemption No. 11784 , which

will provide an equivalent level of safety with respect to PIC qualifications as would operations

without the requested exemption.J uly 1 , 2015

Page 6

With respect to the s UAS PICs, Altimedia specifically requests exemption from the following

regulations:

14 C.F.R

. § § 61.23 (a) & (c)

— Medical certificates: Requirement and duration

Section s 61.23(a)&(c) designate those operations requiring a medical certificate, or a

U.S. driver ’ s license. Consistent with current FAA policy a medical certificate is no

longer required

— irrespective of the pilot certificate held by the PIC

— with respect

to operations conducted under section 333 exemptions. Rather, “ a Section 333

operator only needs a valid drive r ’ s license to satisfy the medical requirement. ”

FAA Summary Grants Speed UAS Exemptions , available at:

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=82485 (last visited June 15, 2015).

Given current FAA policy in this context, an exemption from the requirement of

sections 61.23(a)&(c) is appropriate.

14 C.F.R. § § 61.113 (a)

, 61.101(e ) (4) & (5)

, 61.315(a)

— Private

, recreational , and sport

p ilot p rivileges and l imitations

Section 61.113 (a) limit s private pilots to non

- commercial operations

. Specifically, it

provides that “ no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a 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 co mmand of an

aircraft. ”

Because the sUASs will not carry pilot (s) or passengers, the proposed operations can achieve the equivalent level of safety of current operations by requiring the PIC

operating the aircraft to hold a certificate issued by the FAA authorizing operation

of any aircraft ( viz., ATP, commercial, p rivate, r ecreational or s port). Unlike

conventional , manned aircraft that carr y pilot (s) and passengers, sUASs are remotely

controlled with no living beings on board. The area of operation is controlled and

restricted, and all flights are planned and coordinated in advance

. The risks

associated with the operation of these sUASs are so diminished from the level of

risk associated with commercial operations contemplated by Part 61, that allowing

operations of the sUASs with any pilot certificate issued by the FAA exceeds the

present level of safety achieved by Part 61. Therefore, an exemption from the

limitations, described in section 61.113(a), on commercial activity of private pilots

, is

appropriate.

S ection s 61.101(e)(4)& (5) , and 61.315(a), prescribe similar limitations for holders of

recreational, and sport, pilot certificates. Specifically, sections 61.101(e)(4)&(5)

restrict persons holding recreational pilot certificates from acti ng as pilot in

command of an aircraft “ [f]or compensation or hire ” or “ [i]n furtherance of a

business. ” Section 61.315(a), by reference to paragraph (c), prohibits a holder of a

sport pilot certificate from acting as pilot in command of a light

- sport aircraft “ [t]hat

is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire, ” “ [f]or compensationJ uly 1 , 2015

Page 7

or hire, ” or “ [i]n furtherance of a business. ” 14 C.F.R. § § 61.315(c ) (1)

- (3)

. For the

same reasons describe d immediately above with respect to private pilot limitations,

the level of safety provided by the conditions with which Altimedia has agreed to

comply exceeds that provided by a single individual holding a commercial pilot ’ s

certificate operating a conven tional , manned aircraft

. Therefore, an exemption from

the limitations described in sections 61.101(e)(4)&(5) and 61.315(a)

, on commercial

activity of recreational and sport pilots

, is appropriate.



## Regarding the Operation of the Unmanned Aircraft

With respect to operations of its sUASs, Altimedia will comply with the conditions set forth in

Exemption No. 11784

. Furthermore , Altimedia specifically requests exemption from the following

regulations:

14 C.F.R. § 91.119 (c)

— Minimum s afe a ltitudes over other than congested areas

Section 91.119 establishes minimum safe altitudes for operation of civil aircraft.

Under section 91.119(c), over other than congested areas and except when necessary

for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraf t below “ 500 feet above the

surface, ” or, when over open water or sparsely populated areas, “ closer than 500 feet

to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. ”

An exemption from the limitations set forth in section 91.119(c) will produce a level

of safety equivalent to that achieved through compliance with those limitations, given

the size, weight, speed of the sUASs as well as the ir locations of operation

. No flight

will be taken without the permission of the owner of the property over which it is t o

be conducted . Compared to flight operations with aircraft weighting more than 55

pounds and given the lack of flammable fuel, any risk associated with these ope rations

is far less than those presented with conventional aircraft operated in compliance wit h

section 91.119(c)

. In addition, the low

- altitude operations of the s UAS s will ensure

separation from conventional aircraft operated in compliance with Section 91.119 (c)

. Finally , g iven that the s UAS s will never operate at altitudes higher than 400 above

ground level

, it simply would not be practicable for Altimedia t o comply with the

limitations set forth in section 91.119(c). Therefore, an exemption from the

limitations described in section 91.119(c) , concerning minimum safe altitudes over

other than congested areas, is appropriate.

14 C.F.R. § 91.121

— Altimeter s ettings

Section 91.121 requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude

by reference to an altimeter that is set “... to the elevation of the departure airport or

an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure. ” While the s UAS s that

Altimedia w ill operate do not contain altimeters, they do relay GPS

- based altitude

information in real time to the PIC. Combined with the limitation that all operationsJ uly 1 , 2015

Page 8

will be conducted within visual line

- of

- sight, the GPS altitude information will

provide an equiva lent level of safety to that achieved through compliance with section

91.121. Therefore, an exemption from the limitations described in section 91.121

, concerning altimeter settings

, is appropriate.

14 C.F.R. § 91.151

— Fuel r equirements for f light in VFR c onditions

Section 91.151(a) (1) prohibits beginning “ 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

— [d] uring the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes. ”

The batteries powering the s UAS s generally provide approximately 20

– 25 minutes

of powered flight. Thus, the 30 minute reserve requirement in section 91.151 (a)(1)

would preclude s UAS flights altogether

. Given the limitations on the sUAS s ’

proposed flight area

, a longer time frame for flight in daylight VFR conditions is

reasonable. Altimedia believes that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by

limiting flights to durations that allow for 5 minutes of battery reserve time. This

restriction would be more than adequate to return s UAS s to their planned landing

zone s from anywhere in their limited operating area. Therefore, an exemption from

the fuel requirements of section 91.151 is appropriate.

*********

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the FEDERAL

REGISTER, should it be determined that publication is needed:

Petitioner seeks an exemption from the following rules in Title 14 of the Code of Federal

Regulations:

14 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(a)&(c), 61.101(e)(4)&(5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c),

91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1)&(2), and 91.417(a)&(b).

The exemption will enhance sa fety by reducing risk to the general public and property owners

from the substantial hazards associated with using conventional fixed

- wing aircraft or,

rotorcraft for aerial data collection.

*********J uly 1 , 2015

Page 9

For the reasons described above Altimedia ’ s petition for exemption satisfies the requirements of

Section 333 of the Reform Act of 2012, and thus we respectfully request that the exemption be

granted.

Should you have any questions or require additional information to process this exemption request,

please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Best r egards,

/s/ Rodney A. Lake

Rodney A. Lake

Counsel for Altimedia LLC

RAL/cp