HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

___________________________________________________

Cooper’s Hawk UAV, Inc.,

Petitioner. Docket No. FAA-2015-_____

PETITION OF COOPER’S HAWK UAV, 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 COOPER’S HAWK UAV, INC.

DATE: July 27, 2015
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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 Cooper’s Hawk 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........................................................................................................................... - 11 -

5.1 Contact information ......................................................................................................... - 11 -

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which Cooper’s Hawk

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

5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought......................................... - 12 -

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...................................................................................................................... - 30 -

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

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER

Cooper’s Hawk UAV, Inc. (“Cooper’s Hawk”) is an aerial data collection company focused on

agriculture research to help reduce the environmental impact of chemical use in agricultural

applications, reducing the input cost for the farmer and increasing the quality and production

capabilities in the agricultural arena. Its goal is to provide enhanced logistics that can help meet the

growing demand for food and keep the U.S. economy and U.S. communities strong. While Cooper’s

Hawk plans to initially perform professional Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“UAS”) operations for aerial

data collection dedicated to increasing the efficiency and opportunities for the agriculture industry, it

may also conduct small UAS aerial data collection operations for other industries as well, such as

insurance, oil and gas, forestry, real estate, search and rescue, infrastructure, and geological mining.

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, Cooper’s Hawk requests that the FAA grant

Cooper’s Hawk 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 inspections in support of various industries. These

proposed operations involve aerial data collection, consistent with grants like Exemption No. 11213

(March 24, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0642) (“Aeryon Labs Exemption”), as well as previously granted

summary grant exemptions. As explained below, Cooper’s Hawk’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.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 2 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

Cooper’s Hawk respectfully requests that the FAA grant the requested exemption on an

expedited basis. To that end, as detailed below, Cooper’s Hawk agrees to comply with the

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

aerial data collection for purposes of agriculture field inspection and precision agriculture. See, e.g.,

Exemption No. 12015 (July 13, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-1399) (“Birdseye Farming Exemption”);

Exemption No. 11797 (June 11, 2015; Docket FAA−2015−1053) (“Leading Edge Exemption”);

Exemption No. 11966 (June 30, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-1016) (“Brandau Exemption”).

Given Cooper’s Hawk’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 Cooper’s Hawk and delay its implementation of these use cases.

Accordingly, as with the Leading Edge Exemption, at 1, and the Birdseye Farming 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, Cooper’s Hawk provides

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

Edge 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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 3 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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

Cooper’s Hawk intends to operate the following small, lightweight, battery-operated UAS

under the requested exemption: PrecisionHawk Mark III, PrecisionDrone Pacesetter, PrecisionDrone

Scout, PrecisionDrone Onset, DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 3, and DJI Spreading Wing S900 and

S1000. UAS from these same manufacturers have been the UAS designated to be used in

previously granted exemptions, including the Birdseye Farming Exemption (PrecisionHawk Hawkeye

Mk-III); the Brandau Exemption (DJI Phantom Vision+); Exemption No. 11316 (April 9, 2015; Docket

FAA-2014-1063) (Precision Drone Pacesetter); Exemption No. 11822 (June 15, 2015; Docket

FAA−2015−1093) (DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, DJI Phantom 3, DJI Inspire 1); Exemption No. 11260

(April 1, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0736) (DJI Inspire, DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus, DJI Spreading

Wings S1000); Exemption No. 11710 (May 29, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-0797) (DJI Inspire 1, DJI S900, DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus); and Exemption No. 11388 (April 20, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-

0001) (DJI S-900, DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, DJI Phantom 2);

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 PrecisionHawk

Mark III, PrecisionDrone Pacesetter, PrecisionDrone Scout,

PrecisionDrone Onset, DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 3, and DJI

Spreading Wing S900 and S1000 UAS.1 Each 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; Leading Edge 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

1

The UAS for which Cooper’s Hawk seeks an exemption herein are referred to in this Petition as

“its small UAS” or “these small UAS”.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 4 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

hour). Cooper’s Hawk may use either groundspeed or calibrated

airspeed to determine compliance with the maximum speed restriction.

[Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 3; Leading Edge Exemption

Limitation No. 3.]

3.1.3 Each 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; Leading Edge Exemption Limitation No. 22.]

3.1.4 Each 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; Leading Edge Exemption Limitation No.

22.]

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 Cooper’s Hawk want to

conduct operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the

blanket COA accompanying this exemption, Cooper’s Hawk will apply

for a new or amended COA. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

21; Leading Edge 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; Leading Edge 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 Cooper’s Hawk.

Cooper’s Hawk will make the letter agreement available to the FAA or

any law enforcement official upon request. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 16; Leading Edge 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; Leading Edge 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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 5 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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; Leading

Edge 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; Leading

Edge 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;

Leading Edge Exemption Limitation No. 6.]

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; Leading Edge 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; Leading Edge 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; Leading Edge 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;

Leading Edge 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; Leading Edge

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;

Leading Edge 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:
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 6 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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

of an accident. Cooper’s Hawk 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.

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

considered non-participating persons under this exemption.

[Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 26; Leading Edge 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;

Leading Edge Exemption Limitation No. 15.]

3.2.15 Cooper’s Hawk will not operate UAS flights under Special Visual Flight

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

Edge 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; Leading Edge

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; Leading Edge

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;

Leading Edge 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; Leading Edge

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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 7 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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

Leading Edge 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; Leading Edge 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; Leading Edge 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

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; Leading Edge 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; Leading Edge 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; Leading

Edge 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 Cooper’s Hawk’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 8 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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;

Leading Edge 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; Leading Edge Exemption Limitation No.

14.]

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding Cooper’s Hawk manuals related to UAS

operations

Cooper’s Hawk will have manuals and checklists for each of the UAS make/model types it

plans to operate under the requested exemption (collectively, the “Manuals”). The Manuals will be

subject to the following limitations and conditions:

3.4.1 The Operating Documents2 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, Cooper’s Hawk must follow the procedures as

outlined in the Operating Documents. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 7; Leading Edge Exemption Limitation No. 7.]

3.4.2 Cooper’s Hawk may update or revise its Operating Documents, and it is

Cooper’s Hawk’s responsibility to track such revisions and present

updated and revised documents to the FAA or any law enforcement

official upon request. Cooper’s Hawk must also present updated and

revised documents if it petitions for an extension or amendment of the

exemption. If Cooper’s Hawk determines that any update or revision

would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted the requested

exemption, then Cooper’s Hawk must petition for an amendment to the

exemption. Cooper’s Hawk 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;

Leading Edge Exemption Limitation No. 7.]

2

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

needed by Cooper’s Hawk 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;

Leading Edge Exemption Limitation No. 7.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 9 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

3.4.3 Each UAS operated under the exemption will comply with all

manufacturer safety bulletins. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

12; Leading Edge Exemption Limitation No. 12.]

3.4.4 Cooper’s Hawk 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; Leading Edge Exemption Limitation No. 11.]

In sum, Cooper’s Hawk’s operations under this exemption will be subject to the same

conditions and limitations imposed in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the Leading Edge Exemption.

CROSS-REFERENCES

Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

Leading Edge 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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 10 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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

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, Cooper’s Hawk requests that the Secretary of

Transportation determine that Cooper’s Hawk’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.

Cooper’s Hawk further requests that, based on the Secretary’s determination, the FAA

determine – as it did in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the Leading Edge Exemption – that relief
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 11 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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.3

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

EXEMPTION

As required by FAR § 11.81, Cooper’s Hawk provides the following information in support of

this Petition:

5.1 Contact information:

Name: Cooper’s Hawk UAV, Inc. submits this Petition for Exemption, through

counsel, Lisa Ellman and Patrick Rizzi.

Mailing address: Lisa Ellman and Patrick Rizzi

Counsel for Cooper’s Hawk UAV, 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 Cooper’s Hawk 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.

3 Aeryon Labs Exemption, at 7; Leading Edge 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 Cooper’s

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

- 12 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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:

Cooper’s Hawk proposes to conduct small UAS operations, as described herein, for aerial

data collection for the purpose of aerial surveying, imaging, and inspections in support of the

agriculture and various other industries. In order to be able to conduct these UAS operations,

Cooper’s Hawk 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:

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) ****.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 13 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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. . . .

Cooper’s Hawk requests an exemption from these regulations to the extent necessary to

permit Cooper’s Hawk to conduct UAS operations using PICs who hold (i) an FAA private pilot,

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

driver’s license. While Cooper’s Hawk 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,

Cooper’s Hawk requests that the FAA exempt Cooper’s Hawk 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, these small UAS [see Limitation No. 3.1.1] are lightweight, remotely controlled, and batterypowered (not fuel/gas), and they have 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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 14 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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 the

case of Cooper’s Hawk, the small amount of property carried aboard the UA will be Cooper’s Hawk’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 Cooper’s Hawk. 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, Cooper’s Hawk will implement a training program to ensure that the experience,

knowledge, and flight proficiency needed to operate its small 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 Cooper’s Hawk plans to operate its small 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 these 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 Leading Edge Exemption, as well as many other recent Section 333 exemptions.

For these reasons, and consistent with recent summary grant exemptions, Cooper’s Hawk

requests that the FAA grant an exemption to permit Cooper’s Hawk 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.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 15 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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. . . .

Cooper’s Hawk requests an exemption from this provision to the extent necessary to permit

Cooper’s Hawk to conduct the small UAS operations proposed in this Petition. These small UAS will

not require an airworthiness certificate under FAR Part 21, Subpart H, and thus Cooper’s Hawk

requests relief from this regulation. See Exemption No. 11110 (December 10, 2014; Docket FAA2014-0367) (“Trimble Exemption”), at 16. An exemption is warranted because Cooper’s Hawk

understands that, notwithstanding the lack of an airworthiness certificate, the FAA will consider its

“compliance with [Cooper’s Hawk’s Manuals] to be sufficient means for determining an airworthy

condition” and that Cooper’s Hawk must still determine the UA’s airworthiness prior to each flight

based on compliance with such Manuals. Trimble Exemption, at 16.4

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.

4 Cooper’s Hawk requests exemption from FAR § 91.7(a) based on the relief granted in the Trimble

Exemption, at 16, 21, and the Leading Edge Exemption, at 2. However, Cooper’s Hawk 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 - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

(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.

Cooper’s Hawk requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit

Cooper’s Hawk to conduct its UAS operations at altitudes lower than those permitted by 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, Cooper’s Hawk’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), Cooper’s Hawk intends to comply with this requirement to the

same extent as would a manned aircraft operation, 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.” Cooper’s Hawk

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), Cooper’s Hawk 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, Cooper’s Hawk does not believe that an exemption is necessary

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

With respect to paragraph (c), Cooper’s Hawk requests an exemption to allow UAS

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

areas. Cooper’s Hawk’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,
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 17 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

 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. Cooper’s

Hawk will ensure that non-participating 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 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 Cooper’s Hawk adheres to its Manuals and the additional conditions and limitations

outlined above and in the exemption. For these reasons, Cooper’s Hawk requests relief from the

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

Edge Exemption.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 18 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

To the extent necessary, Cooper’s Hawk 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,

helicopter-type 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.

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 Cooper’s Hawk 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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 19 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

do not begin – according to FAR § 91.159 – until “more than 3,000 feet above the surface.”5

Nonetheless, Cooper’s Hawk requests an exemption from FAR § 91.121 to the extent necessary to

permit Cooper’s Hawk to conduct the UAS operations proposed in this Petition. See, e.g., Aeryon

Labs Exemption, at 12; Leading Edge Exemption, at 2; Astraeus Exemption, at 21-22.

Cooper’s Hawk recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that any UAS operated by

Cooper’s Hawk maintains altitude to an accurate reference such that other aircraft and the FAA may

rely on Cooper’s Hawk’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, 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, Cooper’s Hawk 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.

Cooper’s Hawk requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit Cooper’s Hawk 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,

5 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

- 20 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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.

Given the relatively short operating time of these small UAS, requiring a full 30 minutes of

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

operations. Cooper’s Hawk 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 Leading Edge 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 Leading Edge Exemption. Cooper’s Hawk

believes that these limitations will further ensure that the proposed reserve planning and operational

requirements that Cooper’s Hawk is requesting to use under this exemption will provide at least an

equivalent level of safety.

For these reasons, Cooper’s Hawk requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit it to

plan and conduct UAS operations subject to the reserve power limitation explained above.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 21 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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) ** **.

Cooper’s Hawk requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit Cooper’s Hawk 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 from FAR §

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

limitations. Cooper’s Hawk 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 Leading Edge Exemption, Cooper’s

Hawk requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit Cooper’s Hawk 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).

Cooper’s Hawk does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR §

91.405 is required, since Cooper’s Hawk 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).
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 22 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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.

. . . .

Cooper’s Hawk requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit Cooper’s Hawk to

conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition without having to have the UAS 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. Cooper’s Hawk has proposed in this Petition maintenancerelated 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 Leading Edge Exemption, Cooper’s Hawk

requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit Cooper’s Hawk 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.

Cooper’s Hawk does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR §

91.407 is required, since Cooper’s Hawk 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:
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 23 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

(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)  .

Cooper’s Hawk requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit Cooper’s

Hawk 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. Cooper’s Hawk 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 Leading Edge

Exemption, Cooper’s Hawk requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit

Cooper’s Hawk 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:
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 24 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

(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:

(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.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 25 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

(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) ** **.

Cooper’s Hawk requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit Cooper’s

Hawk 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 adequate

level of safety required certain conditions and limitations. Cooper’s Hawk 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 Leading Edge Exemption, Cooper’s Hawk requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and

(b) to permit Cooper’s Hawk 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.6 However, Cooper’s Hawk also requests that, to the

6 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.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 26 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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

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.7

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 surveying, monitoring, and inspecting in support of the agriculture industry,

as well as other industries, would be in the public interest for several reasons.

First, the use of these small UAS by Cooper’s Hawk for these aerial data collection purposes

will assist agriculture research to help reduce the environmental impact of chemical use in

agricultural applications. This, in turn, will reduce the input cost for the farmer and increase the

quality of agricultural products.

Second, these small UAS operations will enhance the ability of agriculture businesses to

inspect and monitor crops.

Third, use of these small UAS for monitoring and inspection of facilities and properties in

other industries would substantially mitigate, if not eliminate, any risks to personnel or manned

> 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. Cooper’s Hawk

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.

7 Cooper’s Hawk would be happy to provide follow-on documentation providing the rationale

underlying any such additional exemptions.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 27 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

aircraft currently used to perform these activities. For example, in the case of infrastructure

inspections, insurance damages assessments or real estate surveying, these small UAS operations

would be safer than the manned aircraft operations or the use of personnel currently performing

those activities. As the FAA acknowledged in the Total Safety Exemption8:

“The [Cooper’s Hawk] 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 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

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,9at 2-3. In sum, 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 or inspection personnel directly.

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, Cooper’s Hawk has discussed many reasons why granting an

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

8

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

9

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

Exemption”).
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 28 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

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 these small UAS, also would ensure at least an equivalent

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

the Astraeus Exemption, and the Trimble Exemption, among others.

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 these small 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, each of these small UAS has several other safety-related protocols. For

example, depending on the specific model, these UAS have return-to-home or go-home features,

low-battery warnings, position and altitude hold, and/or geo-fencing features.

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) Cooper’s Hawk will coordinate extensively, as

warranted, with the FAA, with local airports, and with property owners to ensure that all of its 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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 29 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

these small, well-known UAS provide substantial protection against interference with manned aircraft

operations 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:

As explained above in Section 2, Cooper’s Hawk believes that good cause exists for not

publishing this Petition in the Federal Register. Nonetheless, if such publication is deemed

necessary, Cooper’s Hawk UAV, Inc. proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary:

Docket No.: FAA-2015-______

Petitioner: Cooper’s Hawk UAV, 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 aerial surveying, monitoring, and

inspection.

5.7 Additional information that supports request:

Cooper’s Hawk 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.:

Cooper’s Hawk does not request to exercise the privileges of this exemption outside the

United States.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 30 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6757065 v2

5.9 Attachments:

There are no attachments accompanying this Petition.

6. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Cooper’s Hawk respectfully requests that the FAA grant this

Petition for Exemption.

Respectfully submitted,

Patrick Rizzi / Lisa Ellman

Hogan Lovells US LLP

COUNSEL FOR COOPER’S HAWK UAV,

INC.