Power Transmission and Distribution, Inc.

Three Penn Center West, Suite 300

Pittsburgh, PA 15276

Telephone: 412.787.1170

Fax: 412.787.2270

April 4, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Request for Exemption under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012 and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations from Certain 

Provisions of 14 C.F.R. 

AMENDMENT

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Power Transmission and Distribution, Inc. (PT&D) requests to amend its 

petition to include two parts:

I. Part A of its amended petition requests that the FAA grant PT&D's request to 

use small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“sUAS”) identified on the List of 

Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) under Section 333 at regulatory docket 

FAA-2007-3330. 

II.Part B of its amended petition requests that the FAA grant PT&D's request to 

operate sUAS to provide security for critical electrical infrastructure. 

This part of PT&D's request may be considered as different enough from 

previous petitions as to be novel, yet the operations would be constrained so 

much as to be safe.

PT&D requests that the FAA consider these two parts separately such that any 

delay in granting one part would not delay granting of the other.

PT&D Petition – Part A

The original petition submitted by PT&D requested an exemption to use sUAS” 

and for one purpose. Since the petitioner filed, new information has come to light 
about the potential for the petitioner to use other models of sUAS and for 

additional purposes. This AMEMDMENT requests broadening the sUAS such that PT&D 

can operate any aircraft identified on the List of Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems 

(UAS) under Section 333 at regulatory docket FAA-2007-3330. PT&D requests this 

instead of its request to operate just the one sUAS named in PT&D's original 

petition. 

This AMENDMENT also requests broadening the proposed operations that PT&D can 

perform to include any operations described in petitions granted previously by the

FAA that, having been previously granted to other petitioners, subject to the same 

restrictions, would not set a precedent. PT&D requests this instead of just the 

one operation PT&D named in its original petition. 

Among operations the FAA has already allowed, PT&D has good and valuable 

services that it can provide immediately upon the FAA granting its petition using 

aircraft identified on the List of Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) under 

Section 333 at regulatory docket FAA-2007-3330.
PT&D Petition – Part B

As stated in its original petition, PT&D would like to offer monitoring 

services for security purposes, specifically to enhance the security of critical 

electrical infrastructure in the United States. Many of these facilities operate 

in remote areas and are unmanned. It is impractical to operate sUAS at these 

facilities using on-site pilots and operators. There are too many sites to protect 

with manned security, especially in remote locations, that the expense would be 

prohibitive if staffing for such positions were even possible. Currently, such 

facilities are monitored using fixed cameras. However, because these cameras are 

fixed, they have limitations. The mobility of a drone-mounted camera offers 

significant, obvious advantages over fixed cameras.

There are several reasons why such operations would be safe for use at 

electrical substations, for example:

1. The sUAS flight can be limited to the boundaries of the substations, which 

are mostly unmanned. On the rare occasions that utility personnel are inside 

the fence of a substation, workers wear hardhats.

2. The sUAS flying over a substation need fly only high enough to clear the 

equipment. For security, optimal altitude is lower than 200 feet above 

ground level.

3. At substations, all of the equipment on the ground belongs to the operator of 

the equipment. On the off-chance that a sUAS used for surveillance were to 

fall, it would fall on equipment owned by the operator.

4. For substation security, smaller sUAS make more sense than larger ones, and 

multi-copter aircraft would make more sense than fixed-wing aircraft because 

of the relatively small area over which the sUAS would operate.

Several current restrictions prevent using sUAS for remote, unmanned 
operations because the restrictions are designed to apply much more broadly than 

the example above where sUAS can enhance substation monitoring services.

PT&D asks that the FAA grant its petition allowing these things for remote, 

unmanned security at electrical substations:

1. The Pilot In Command (PIC) and operator may be considered as being the 

hardware and software systems operated by the electric utility that 

owns the critical infrastructure that the sUAS is monitoring, or

2. The PIC and operator may be considered present by way of remote 

communications so the electric utility may operate the sUAS from a 

remote, off-site security center.

3. The Visual Line of Sight could be considered as the live video from 

the sUAS that will be transmitted to the owner of the critical 

infrastructure, even if the owner is viewing the video from a remote 

location, or 

4. The Visual Line of Sight requirement could be considered as 

inapplicable for monitoring remote, unmanned facilities because the 

sUAS will only operate at low altitudes and over facilities void of

people or, on rare occasions, containing few people wearing hardhats.

5. Also, considering that most damage is done to electrical facilities 

between midnight and 3 AM, and for the same reasons stated in the 

previous point, the restriction against flying sUAS at night should 

not apply.

The operation could be limited to covering a pre-determined area on the 

ground (above and around an electrical substation, for example) in Class G airspace 

below 200 feet. (For security purposes, even lower altitude is usually better as 

long as flights would clear the height of the electrical equipment.)
Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the 

Reform Act) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Power Transmission and Distribution, Inc. files 

this petition to operate Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“sUAS”) in order to 

enhance electric utility efforts to protect critical infrastructure facilities.1 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued Reliability Standard CIP-014-1 to 

enhance physical security measures for the most critical Bulk Power System 

facilities and thereby lessen the overall vulnerability of the Bulk-Power System 

facilities against physical attacks. One of the requirements of owners or 

operators of critical facilities is to develop and implement a security plan 

designed to protect against attacks to those facilities identified as critical.

Specifically, petitioner seeks an exemption from the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (“FARs”) listed in Appendices A and B to allow commercial operation

of its sUAS, so long as such operations are conducted within and under the 

conditions outlined herein or as may be established by the FAA in a grant of this 

petition. 

Approval of the exemption for petitioner will allow commercial operation of 

small quadcopters similar to those made by DJI, 3D Robotics, Yuneec, Ascending 

Technologies and many others in Class G airspace nationwide unless otherwise 

prescribed by an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or 

Authorization (“COA”). The sUAS operations contemplated by this petition are in 

the public interest because they will provide information to owners of critical 

facilities about potential threats beyond what is practical using alternative 

technologies such as fixed cameras and perimeter sensors. The sUAS covered by this 

petition are small battery-powered craft weighing under 55 lbs. inclusive of 

battery and payload. Operation of the sUAS under the strict conditions proposed 

below will provide an equivalent level of safety, as Congress intended, while still 

 

1 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on November 20, 2014 issued Physical Security Reliability 

Standard Docket No. RM14-15-000 ORDER NO. 802 pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the 

Commission Reliability Standard CIP-014-1 (Physical Security). The North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

(NERC), the Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO), submitted Reliability Standard CIP-014-1 

for Commission approval in response to a Commission order issued on March 7, 2014.
allowing commercial operations. Operations using these sUAS are practical for 

monitoring facilities in remote locations whereas conventional operations conducted 

with manned helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft would be impractical and cost 

prohibitive.

The seven factors the FAA considers before granting exemptions to Section 333 

are size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports, proximity 

to populated areas, and operation within the visual line of sight. The petitioner's 

request satisfies all of these considerations or the spirit of these considerations 

for this request, which is intended for the development of systems to monitor 

critical facilities. 

Additional Considerations

The petitioner requests that the FAA consider this Part B of its petition as 

in the interest of national security. Electricity service is essential to life, 

health, and the economy, and it is in the national interest to protect this 

country's electrical facilities using the best, cost effective methods available. 

Small UAS offers a great opportunity to enhance security by giving the operators of 

such facilities the ability to see beyond what they can currently using 

conventional methods.

Petitioner PT&D would like to work with the FAA, FERC, Homeland Security and 

any other agency necessary to develop operating guidelines and restrictions that 

make it possible to accommodate the sUAS operations requested in this petition.
B-I. Publishable Summary 

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

in the Federal Register, should it be determined that publication is needed: 

B-II. 

Petitioner seeks an exemption from the following rules: 

14 C.F.R 21(h); 14 C.F.R. 43.7; 14 C.F.R. 43.11; 14 C.F.R. 45.11; 14 C.F.R. 45.27; 

14 C.F.R. 45.29; 14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) and (c); 14 C.F.R. 61.101(e)(4) and (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. 91.9(b)(2); 14 

C.F.R. 91.9(c); 14 C.F.R. 91.103(b)(2); 14 C.F.R. 91.105; 14 C.F.R. 91.109; 14 

C.F.R. 91.113(b); 14 C.F.R. 91.119 (c); 14 C.F.R. 91.121; 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a); 14 

C.F.R. 91.203(a) and (b); 14 C.F.R. 215; 14 C.F.R. 91.403; 14 C.F.R. 91.405(a); 14 

C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1); 14 C.F.R. 409(a)(1) and (2); and 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) and (b) 

to operate commercially small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) (55 lbs. or less). 

Approval of the exemption requested by petitioner will allow commercial 

operation of small quadcopters for the purpose of gathering aerial data, aerial 

photography and videography, and will allow petitioner to operate in Class G 

airspace nationwide, unless otherwise prescribed by an ATO-issued COA. The 

requested exemption should be granted because operation of small UAS is safer than 

manned operations performing the same functions, making the sUAS operations 

contemplated by this petition to be in the public interest. The aircraft are small 

and will operate at slow speeds, and close to the ground. The substantial increase 

of safety and decrease of risk to human life, coupled with the low risk use of sUAS 

to conduct these operations, weigh heavily in favor of granting the exemption. 

Petitioner’s Contact Information 

Alexander Galatic

Power Transmission and Distribution, Inc.

Three Penn Center West, Suite 300

Pittsburgh, PA 15276

Telephone: 412.787.1170

Fax: 412.787.2270

Counsel for Petitioner: 

B-III. Petitioner

Power Transmission and Distribution, Inc. is located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 
and provides services primarily to the electric power industry.

B-IV. Proposed Operations

a. The sUAS 

The petitioner intends to work with manufacturers and consultants to develop sUASbased security systems, and has not yet identified specific models of sUAS that the petitioner 

will be using to develop such systems. The sUAS industry is immature, and innovation is 

rapidly evolving the technology. The petitioner does not request a blanket exemption to use any

technology available. Rather, the petitioner suggests that any sUAS that has been approved for 

use by a petitioner seeking exemption from Section 333 should be allowable to subsequent 

petitioners, so long as the petitioner intends to use the sUAS in a manner consistent with that of 

the exempted petitioners. 

In the case of Power Transmission and Distribution, Inc., the intent is to ascend to a 

fixed altitude and then scan the area. The sUAS will fly over the critical facility where no 

people are likely to be other than the owners of such facilities or their employees and 

contractors wearing hardhats, so the sUAS presents no danger to people or equipment.

b. The Crew 

The crew will consist of a pilot in command (PIC) and a visual observer 

(VO) to set up the programmed flight pattern that subsequently can be 

initiated using either manually or using automated systems controlled by the 

electric utility owner. If granted by the FAA, PT&D requests to automate 

such crew functions after the initial setup and testing.

c. Flight Conditions 

The sUAS will be used to inspect areas around utility facilities in 

Class G airspace (unless otherwise prescribed by an ATO-issued COA) under 400 

feet above ground level (“AGL”) and under controlled conditions over 

restricted property. Petitioner will work with the local FSDO as required 

when planning operations, however, petitioner defers to the FAA and FERC for 

guidance considering that the locations of critical infrastructure is 
sensitive and deserving of protection from public dissemination that could 

diminish the security of such facilities rather than enhance it. 

d. Flight Operations 

The purpose of the sUAS flights for which exemption is requested will 

be to conduct area inspections in and around utility facilities. 

e. Aircraft and Equivalent Level of Safety 

Petitioner proposes that the exemption apply to sUAS that have the 

characteristics and that operate with the limitations proposed herein. These 

limitations provide for a level of safety at least equivalent to or higher 

than manned aircraft operations under the current regulatory structure. 

Approval of the commercial operations outlined in this petition

improves national security by enhancing protection of equipment used to 

deliver electricity, a service essential to life, health and the economy. 

Petitioner plans to implement flight constraints that will ensure that no 

security threat is present. 

f. Proposed Conditions of the Exemption 

1. The sUAS, including battery and technical payload will weigh no more than 

approximately 55 lbs.

2. sUAS operations under this exemption will be limited to conducting 

operations for the purpose of inspecting areas around utility facilities 

in Class G airspace nationwide, unless otherwise prescribed by an ATO 

issued COA. 

3. Flights will be operated within line of sight of a PIC and VO initially, 

but if the FAA permits, such functions will be automated. 

4. Flights will be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet AGL, as 

indicated by the procedures specified in the operating documents. All 

altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL. 
5. The sUAS will not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 50 knots. 

6. Minimum flight crew for each operation will consist of the sUAS PIC and a 

VO for the initial setup. If the FAA permits, the crew functions will be 

automated because automation is crucial to viability of the service.

8. The sUAS will be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC 

and VO at all times during the programming phase. If the FAA permits, 

allowing remote operations by the utility, the VLOS requirement will cease 

after the original setup of the automated flight pattern.

16. The PIC will not begin a flight unless (considering wind and forecast 

weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed 

to the intended landing point and prepare to land with at least 25% 

battery power remaining. If the FAA permits, allowing remote operations, 

battery life determinations will be automated and the automated system 

will operate under the same constraint.

17. Actual total flight time for each operational flight will result in no 

less than a 25% battery reserve. 

18. The sUAS will be programmed so that if it loses communications or loses 

its GPS signal, it will return to a pre-determined location within the 

planned operating area and land or be recovered in accordance with the 

operating documents 

19. If the sUAS and its radio control link disconnect during flight, the 

system’s failsafe protection will be triggered and the sUAS will return 

to home and land automatically, rather than flying off uncontrollably or 

landing at an unknown location. 

20. Petitioner will obtain all required permissions and permits from 

territorial, state, county or city jurisdictions, including local law 

enforcement, fire, or other appropriate governmental agencies. 

21. UA operations will not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR 

§ 1.1. unless the FAA and other government agencies allow such flights 
for the purposes of enhancing security of the electrical system.

26. The sUAS will not be operated within 5 nautical miles of an airport 

reference point as denoted on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart 

unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management has been 

obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as 

required by the operator’s COA. Any letter of agreement with the airport 

management will be made available to the Administrator upon request. 

27. All operations shall be conducted in Class G airspace or as otherwise 

prescribed in an ATO issued COA. 

28. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption will be 

identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, 

and have identification markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, 

Subpart C. Markings will be as large as practicable. 

29. Before conducting operations, petitioner will ensure that the radio 

frequency spectrum used for operation and control of the sUAS complies 

with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate 

government oversight agency requirements. 

30. The sUAS will remain clear of all manned aviation operations and 

activities at all times because it will be flying low over an electrical 

substation where no manned aircraft will be. 

31. The sUAS will not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or 

vehicle. 

32. Petitioner will report any accidents to the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: 

www.ntsb.gov. 

g. Privacy 

In order to protect critical facilities, the area surrounding the 

facilities must be monitored in order to detect potential threats. Further, 
to protect such critical facilities, it is imperative to protect their 

identity and location. Their existence is not secret, but the fact that the 

facilities are critical to national and local security is secret, and such 

secrecy must be maintained.

This petition requests exemption in order to develop systems that will 

be able to detect potential threats and notify security personnel in as 

timely manner as possible so protective actions might be taken. 

All data collected will be for private use only and will not be 

distributed through public channels. No attempt will be made to identify any 

individuals filmed during the flights except in cases where they are 

trespassing upon or damaging customer property, or interfering with the 

petitioner’s or its customers’ operations. 

h. Public Interest and Safety 

The planned sUAS use will enhance the security of that nation's power 

grid. This type of data collection has previously been done by fixed cameras 

with much more limited range. Using manned aerial vehicles is impractical in 

many respects including logistics and expenses.

The enhanced safety and reduced environmental impact achieved using a 

sUAS and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of 

significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to flammable 

fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the sUAS operation enabled by 

this exemption is in the public interest. 

Satisfaction of the criteria provided in Section 333 of the Reform Act 

of 2012 – size, weight, speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports 

and populated areas and national security – provide more than adequate 

justification for the grant of the requested exemption allowing commercial 

operation of petitioner’s sUAS in the utility security industries. 

IX. Regulations from Which Exemption is Requested

FAR 

Provision 

Applicable 

condition(s) in 

Section 5 of 

petition 

FAA Exemption Decision 

21(h) 

1, 2, 3, 4, 

5, 16, 25, 

28, 29 

Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11111, 11110, 

11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 

11156, 11157, 11166, 11167, 11170, 

11171, 11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 

11178, 11184, 11185, 11188, 11189, 

11191, 11192, 11193, 11195 

43.7 13, 14 No. 11208 

43.11 12 No. 11208 

45.11 29 No. 11208 

45.27 29 No. 11188 

45.29 29 Nos. 11136, 11157, 11170, 11185, 11193 

61.23(a) 

and (c), 

61.101(e)(

4) and 

(5), 

7 

See Appendix A for argument regarding 

why petitioner should be exempted from 

the private pilot license requirement 
61.113(a), 

61.315(a), 

91.7(a) 12 

Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11136, 

11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 

11158, 11160, 11161, 11166, 11167, 

11170, 11171, 11172, 11174, 11177, 

11178, 11184, 11185, 11188, 11189, 

11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204 

91.9(b)(2) 22 

Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 

11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 

11153, 11156, 11157, 11062, 11063, 

11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 

11109, 11110, 11111, 11112, 11114, 

11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 

11157, 11174, 11177, 11178, 11184, 

11185, 11189, 11192, 11193, 11195 

91.9(c) 30 Nos. 11136, 11170, 11171, 11174, 11185 

91.103(b)(

2) 

3, 9, 15, 

16, 17, 18, 

19, 20 

Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11138, 11150, 

11153, 11156, 11158, 11160, 11161, 

11166, 11167, 11171, 11172, 11176, 

11177, 11178, 11184, 11185, 11188, 

11188, 11189, 11191, 11192, 11193, 
11195, 11204 

91.105 6 No. 11185 

91.109 7, 8 

Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11112, 

11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 

11157, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 

11174, 11177, 11184, 11185, 11189, 

11191, 11192, 11193, 11194, 11195, 

11206, 11208 

91.113(b) 3, 31 No. 11238 

91.119(c ) 4, 33 

Nos. 11162, 11163, 11164, 11165, 11166, 

111080, 111109, 11110, 11111, 11112, 

11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 

11156, 11160 11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 

11171, 11172, 11174, 11176, 11178, 

11185, 11188, 11189, 11190, 11193 

91.121 4 

Nos. 11162, 11163, 11164, 11165, 11166, 

111080, 111109, 11136, 11138, 11150, 

11153, 11156, 11160 11161, 11166, 11167, 

11170, 11171, 11174, 11176, 11178, 

11185, 11188, 11189, 11190, 11193 

91.151(a) 16, 17 

Nos. 11110, 11153, 11156, 11161; 111109, 

11110, 11112, 11136, 11138, 11150, 

11153, 11156, 11160 11161, 11166, 11167, 
11170, 11171, 11172, 11174, 11176, 

11178, 11185, 11188, 11189, 11190, 11193 

91.203 (a) 

and (b) 

22 

Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 

11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 

11153, 11156, 11157, 11170, 11171, 

11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 

11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 

11191, 11192, 11193, 11195 

91.215 25, 26 No. 11185, 11195 

91.403 12, 13, 14 No. 11185 

91.405(a) 12, 13, 14 

Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 

11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 

11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11160, 

11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 

11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 

11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 

11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204 

91.407(a)(

1) 

14 

Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 

11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 

11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11160, 

11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 
11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 

11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 

11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204 

91.409(a)(

1) 

12, 13, 14 

Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 

11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 

11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11160, 

11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 

11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 

11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 

11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204 

91.409(a)(

2) 

12, 13, 14 

Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 

11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 

11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11160, 

11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 

11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 

11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 

11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204 

91.417(a) 12, 13, 14 

Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 

11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 

11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11160, 

11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 

11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 

11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 
11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204 

91.417(b) 12, 13, 14 

Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11111, 

11112, 11114, 11136, 11138, 11150, 

11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11160, 

11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171,

11172, 11174, 11176, 11177, 11178, 

11184, 11185, 11188, 11188, 11189, 

11191, 11192, 11193, 11195, 11204 
Appendix A: Burns & McDonnell’s argument for exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) 

and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a). 

Burns & McDonnell requests an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and 

(c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), so that the PIC of the sUAS 

will not be required to possess any pilot license (sports, recreational, 

private or commercial). As the FAA and numerous other national airspace 

regulators have recognized, sUAS operations conducted by persons who do not 

hold a pilot’s license can still achieve the equivalent level of safety of 

current operations by manned aircraft with pilots holding any level of 

pilot’s license. 

Although it recognizes that a pilot’s license is unnecessary for safe 

sUAS operation, the FAA has to date declined to allow grant exemptions under 

Section 333 that would permit individuals who possess any pilot license 

(sports, recreational, private or commercial) to conduct commercial sUAS 

operations. It has specified two reasons for declining to do so. First, it 

has stated that it does not possess the authority under Section 333 to exempt 

individuals from the requirement under 49 U.S.C. §44711 to hold an airman 

certificate authorizing the airman to serve in the capacity for which the 

certificate was issued. Exemption No. 11110 at 14. Second, the FAA has 

concluded that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) security screening 

required of all certified airmen meets the statutory requirement in Section 

333 that operations not pose a threat to national security. Exemption No. 

11110 at 15. 

Burns & McDonnell respectfully requests that the FAA reconsider its 

position. There is no dispute that it is unnecessary for an operator of a 

sUAS to go through the rigorous process of becoming a certified pilot in 

order to safely operate a UA. In addition, the FAA does have the authority to 

exempt sUAS operators from the requirement in 49 U.S.C. §44711to hold an 

airman certificate for “serv[ing] in the capacity for which the certificate 
was issued.” Indeed, it has exercised that authority repeatedly in the 

Section 333 process. Finally, the FAA’s security concerns can be addressed 

by a variety of methods involving operator background checks to be conducted 

by government agencies. 

1. The FAA and foreign regulators recognize that obtaining a manned aircraft pilot license 

is unnecessary for safe operation of a UA. 

The FAA, like the other national airspace regulators that have considered the 

issue, has concluded that sUAS operations conducted by persons who do not hold a 

pilot’s license can still achieve the equivalent level of safety of current 

operations by manned aircraft with pilots holding any level of pilot’s license. In 

its recent sUAS NPRM, the FAA stated: 

“While these airman certification requirements are necessary for manned 

aircraft operations, they impose an unnecessary burden for many small sUAS 

operations. This is because a person typically obtains a private or 

commercial pilot certificate by learning how to operate a manned aircraft. 

Much of that knowledge would not be applicable to small sUAS operations 

because a small sUAS is operated differently than manned aircraft. In 

addition, the knowledge currently necessary to obtain a private or commercial 

pilot certificate would not equip the certificate holder with the tools 

necessary to safely operate a small sUAS... Thus, requiring persons wishing 

to operate a small sUAS to obtain a private or commercial pilot certificate 

imposes the cost of certification on those persons, but does not result in a 

significant safety benefit because the process of obtaining the certificate 

does not equip those persons with the tools necessary to mitigate the public 

risk posed by small sUAS operations.” Operation and Certification of Small 

Unmanned Aircraft, 80 Fed. Reg. 9543 at 9550 (proposed Feb. 23, 2015 (to be 

codified at 14 C.F.R. Parts 21, 43, 45, et al.). 
The FAA’s conclusion that manned aircraft flying experience is unnecessary 

for the operation of a sUAS is supported by research by the FAA and the Army 

Research Laboratory. They demonstrate that sUAS, even those much larger than the 

sUAS proposed by Burns & McDonnell, can be safely flown by non-certificated pilots 

with a small amount of training. For example, one Army Research Laboratory study 

concluded: 

"[T]he specific motor skills needed to control the radio-controlled UAV would 

have to be learned by aviators independently of the motor skills learned in 

flying an aircraft. In particular, the somatic and visual cues that pilots 

use during aircraft landings would not be useful (and perhaps even counterproductive) for the different skill sets and perceptual viewpoint necessary 

for radio-controlled landings.” 2

Additional research reports lend further support for the exclusion requested. 

For example, a report sponsored by the FAA concluded that "We know that certain 

systems, like the U.S. Army Hunter and Shadow systems, are successfully flown by 

pilots with no manned aircraft experience." 3

In addition, foreign government airspace regulators that have examined the 

issue have consistently recognized that the skills required to fly a manned 

aircraft are irrelevant to operating a UA. For that reason, they have concluded 

that sUAS operators do not need to have a private or commercial pilot’s license. 

Canada, for example, does not require a pilot’s license to operate a UA. Transport 

Canada requires training of sUAS operators, but that training is limited to pilot 

 

2 Michael J. Barnes, Beverly G. Knapp, Barry W. Tillman, Brett A. Walters & Darlene Veliki, Crew systems analysis of 

unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) future job and tasking environments, Technical Report ARL-TR-2081, Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory, page 12 (2000), available at 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a374230.pdf. 

3 Kevin W. Williams, Unmanned Aircraft Pilot Medical Certification Requirements, Report DOT/FAA/AM-07/3, 

FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute, page 2, (2007), available at http://fas.org/irp/program/collect/ua-pilot.pdf. While 

the authors speculated that sUAS use in populated areas may change this assessment, indicating further research was needed 

to address this concern, this concern is inapplicable as TourFactory’s flights will not be in congested areas. See also Jason S. 

McCarley & Christopher D. Wickens, Human Factors Implications of UAVs in the National Airspace, Institute of Aviation, 

Aviation Human Factors Division, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, (2004), available at 

http://www.tc.faa.gov/logistics/grants/pdf/2004/04-G-032.pdf. 
ground school and flight operation training on sUAS, not manned aircraft.4

Moreover, Canada allows this training to be “provided by other pilots, 

manufacturers, [UA] flight training organizations or . . . self taught.” 5

Petitioner has a number of potential PICs who have completed Transport Canada’s 

requirements for commercial sUAS operation yet have no manned aircraft 

certification. These individuals – qualified to operate commercial sUAS in Canada –

should also be allowed to operate commercial sUAS in the United States. Please 

refer to Exhibit 7 for the training syllabus for the ground school course these 

individuals took to qualify them to operate commercial sUAS in Canada. 

Similarly, the United Kingdom’s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) recognized 

that determining “Remote Pilot qualification requirements on the same basis as 

manned aircraft may yield requirements that are too inflexible, too onerous and 

inappropriate for sUAS operations.”6As a result, the CAA only requires sUAS 

operators to demonstrate sUAS operator competence.7While there are a variety of 

ways to demonstrate competence, the most common is to complete a course that will 

lead to a ground exam and flight test Australia, too, requires only passage of a 

UA-specific ground school program in lieu of a manned airman certificate.8Finally, 

more than a dozen countries, including Germany, Italy, France, Spain and the 

Netherlands, have adopted the National sUAS Certificate for Small Unmanned Aircraft 

(BNUC-S) Standard for sUAS pilot certification.9This standard results in a typespecific sUAS certificate and does not require the operator to have a pilot’s 

license. The process involves taking a short ground school course, passing a ground 

 

4 See Civil Aviation, Standards, Transport Canada, Advisory Circular: Guidance Material for Operating Unmanned 

Air Vehicle Systems under an Exemption at 14 and 18-22, (Nov. 27, 2014) available at 

http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-opssvs/ac-600-004.pdf.

5 Id. at 14. 

6 Civil Aviation Authority, Safety Regulation Group, Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace –

Guidance, Section 2, Chapter 5, Page 2 (Aug. 10, 2012), available at https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf. 

7 Civil Aviation Authority, Unmanned Aircraft and Aircraft Systems, available at 

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pagetype=90. 

8 Australian Government Civil Aviation Safety Authority, available at 

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100374. 

9 See EuroUSC International, “Pilot Qualification,” available at http://eurousc.com/services/pilot-qualifications/. 
school test and then passing a practical test on commercial operation of the 

specific sUAS per the sUAS manufacturer’s operations manual. 

All of this experience and evidence indicates that the proposed exemption 

will provide a greater level of safety than operations under 14 C.F.R. §61.113. In 

this instance, the PICs will have gone through training as described above in 

Section III B. This training and education is focused on sUAS generally, and in 

particular on the aircraft to be operated, rather than taking additional time and 

risk to train on a manned aircraft, weighing several thousand pounds and carrying 

highly flammable fuel. 

The FAA has concluded in the NPRM that such UA-specific training is more than 

sufficient to provide an equivalent level of safety for sUAS operations. Sometime 

in the next 18-24 months, that position will be enshrined in a valid regulation. 

However, in the meantime, the FAA claims it lacks the authority to relax the 

requirement to possess a pilot certificate. As we show in the next section, that 

position is both incorrect and contradicted by the FAA’s recent decisions. 

2. The FAA does have, and has already, exercised the authority to exempt petitioners from the 

airman certificate requirement. 

The FAA claims that it lacks authority to exempt sUAS operators from the 

requirement of 49 U.S. §44711 to hold an airman certificate authorizing the airman 

“to serve in the capacity for which the certificate was issued.” See, e.g., 

Exemption No. 11110 at 14. This claim is inconsistent with both (i) the statutory 

language of that section and Section 333, and (ii) numerous recent FAA decisions. 

The operative part of 49 USC §44711 provides that a “person may not . . . 

(A) without an airman certificate authorizing the airman to serve in the 

capacity for which the certificate was issued . . . “ If the FAA’s 

interpretation were correct, this language would require that any person 

wishing to operate a sUAS for commercial operations have an airman 

certificate authorizing the person to serve as an airman in commercial 
operations. 

However, in all of its recent grants of Section 333 petitions, the FAA has –

without explicitly acknowledging the fact - exempted commercial sUAS operators from 

the §44711(A) requirement that they hold an airman certificate authorizing them 

“to serve in the capacity for which the certificate was issued.” It has done so 

by allowing them to operate sUAS so long as they hold a private pilot’s or sport 

pilot’s authorization, even though such a certificate does not permit commercial 

operations. Exemption No. 11062 at 15-18; Exemption No. 11110 at 14-16; Exemption 

No. 11191 at 3-5; and Exemption No. 11229 at 3 and 8. 

The FAA argues that it cannot exempt petitioners from the requirements of 

§44711 because, while the specific language of Section 333 grants it limited 

statutory flexibility relative to 49 U.S.C. §44704 for the purposes of 

airworthiness certification, Section 333 does not provide flexibility relative to 

§44711 and other sections of Title 49. Exemption No. 11110 at 14. This argument 

ignores the plain language of Section 333. The relevant language of Section 333 is: 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other requirement of this subtitle, and 

not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary of Transportation shall determine if certain unmanned aircraft 

systems may operate safely in the national airspace system before completion 

of the plan and rulemaking required by section 332 of this Act or the 

guidance required by section 334 of this Act. 

(b) ASSESSMENT OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.—In making the determination 

under subsection (a), the Secretary shall determine, at a minimum—

(1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of 

their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to 

airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight 

do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the 

public or pose a threat to national security; and 
(2) 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 

identified under paragraph (1). 

(c) REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFE OPERATION.—If the Secretary determines under 

this section that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the 

national airspace system, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the 

safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.

The language of Section 333(b) is permissive: it requires that the Secretary 

“determine, at a minimum . . . whether a certificate of waiver, certificate of 

authorization, or airworthiness serve in any capacity as an airman with respect to 

a civil aircraft, . . . used, or intended for use, in air commerce certification 

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

of unmanned aircraft systems identified under paragraph (1).” Nothing in (b) 

precludes the Secretary from determining whether or not a pilot’s license is 

required for operation of a sUAS identified under paragraph (b)(1). 

Indeed, the FAA has implicitly conceded the point by granting exemptions from 

the requirement that commercial sUAS operators hold a commercial pilot certificate. 

From an analytical standpoint, there is no difference between granting an exemption 

from the commercial pilot’s license requirement and granting an exemption from the 

private or sport pilot’s license requirement. Both are clearly exemptions from a 

specific statutory requirement in 49 U.S.C. §44711. If the FAA has the statutory 

authority under Section 333(b) to do the former, it has the same authority to do 

the latter.10

 

10 The FAA has not specifically identified the statutory provision that underpins its authority 

to grant the exemptions from the commercial pilot’s license requirement. Whether the statutory 

basis is Section 333 or some other provision makes no difference. If there is a basis for a partial 

exemption from in 49 U.S.C. § 44711, that basis also justifies an exemption from the entire 

provision.