HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

i

BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

___________________________________________________

iSite, LLC

Petitioner. Docket No. FAA-2015-_____

PETITION OF ISITE, LLC

FOR SUMMARY GRANT EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS 

TO OPERATE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE 

FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012

Lisa Ellman

Patrick R. Rizzi

Matthew Clark

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

matt.clark@hoganlovells.com

COUNSEL FOR ISITE, LLC

DATE: October 19, 2015 
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SMALL UAS 

OPERATIONS.......................................................................................................................... - 1 -

2. PROPOSED UAS AND CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS................................................... - 2 -

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

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

2.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the PIC and other 

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

2.4 Conditions and limitations regarding iSite manuals related to UAS 

operations................................................................................................................... - 8 -

2.5 Conditions and limitations regarding closed-set filming UAS 

operations................................................................................................................... - 9 -

3. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA ................................ - 11 -

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

FOR EXEMPTION.................................................................................................................... - 11 -

4.1 Contact information:.................................................................................................. - 11 -

4.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which iSite seeks 

an exemption:............................................................................................................. - 12 -

4.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought:................................. - 13 -

4.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest: ................... - 24 -

4.5 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: ........................................................................................................................ - 25 -

4.6 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:.............................................................................. - 26 -

4.7 Additional information that supports request:....................................................... - 26 -

4.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the 

U.S.: ............................................................................................................................. - 26 -

4.9 Attachments: .............................................................................................................. - 27 -

5. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................... - 27 -
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 1 -

1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SMALL UAS OPERATIONS

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, iSite, LLC (“iSite”) seeks an exemption from certain 

sections of the FAR (detailed below in Sections 4.2 and 4.3) so that it may operate one or more 

small UAS for aerial data collection and closed-set filming. Specifically, iSite seeks to operate the 

DJI Inspire 1, DJI Phantom 2 Vision, and the DJI Phantom 3. iSite respectfully submits that this 

Petition qualifies for expedited approval, as the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) has 

previously issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those 

presented herein. 

As explained below, iSite’s proposed UAS operations will comply with the conditions and 

limitations imposed in recent summary grant exemptions. See, e.g., Exemption No. 12794 

(September 9, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-2647) (“Aeronautic Imagery Exemption”); Exemption No.

11741 (June 5, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-0892) (“Witt Tech Exemption”); Exemption No. 11691 (May 

26, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-0119) (“OpenSky Drones Exemption”); Exemption No. 12897 

(September 17, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-2336) (“Goodwyn Group Exemption”). Compliance with 

these conditions and limitations will ensure that the proposed operations do not adversely affect 

safety and will provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than that provided by the rules from 

which exemption is sought. See FAR § 11.81. Given iSite’s agreement to comply with these 

conditions and limitations, and given that this Petition is similar in all material respects to previously 

filed petitions that have been granted on a summary grant basis, and that the proposed UAS 

operations fall within the “aerial data collection” and “close-set filming” categories 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 iSite and delay 

its research and implementation of these use cases. Accordingly, and consistent with the

Aeronautic Imagery Exemption, at 1, the Witt Tech Exemption, at 1, and the OpenSky Drones 

Exemption, at 1, good cause exists for the FAA to move forward with consideration of this Petition 
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 2 -

and the grant of the requested exemptions without publishing a summary of the Petition in the 

Federal Register.

In addition to this Petition for Exemption, iSite will also submit a Motion Picture and 

Television Flight Operations Manual (“MPTOM”) under separate cover. iSite submits this MPTOM as 

a confidential document under separate cover pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.35(b), as the material 

contains confidential commercial and proprietary information that iSite has not and will not share with 

others. The information contained in the MPTOM is not generally available to the public and is

protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.

2. PROPOSED UAS AND CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The FAA is familiar with and has already determined that all three of the vehicles chosen by

iSite meet the requirements of Section 333 of FMRA due to their weight, speed and operational 

capabilities: the DJI Inspire 1, DJI Phantom 2 Vision, and the DJI Phantom 3. See e.g.,

 DJI Inspire 1: Exemption No. 11946 to RTI Group LLC; Exemption No. 11254 to Upward 

Aerial; Exemption No. 11659 to Fovea Aero Systems; Exemption No. 11668 to SkyForge Robotics LLC

 DJI Phantom 2 Vision: Exemption No. 11768 to Copper City Aviation Services LLC; 

Exemption No. 11267 to ETAK Systems Inc.; Exemption No. 11310 to Colin Hinkle

 DJI Phantom 3: Exemption No. 13076 to Aerial Scouts Inc.; Exemption No. 11788 to 

Birds Eye Aerial Photography, Inc.; Exemption No. 11696 to Midwest UAV Imagining

The FAA has found the following shared characteristics of the DJI Inspire 1, DJI Phantom 2 

Vision, and the DJI Phantom 3 to warrant approval for a grant of exemption:

 They all weight less than 55 pounds including payload;

 They all have the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain in-flight

contingencies or failures and use an auto-pilot system to maintain UAS stability and 

control. The UAS is also able to respond to a loss of GPS or a lost-link event with a precoordinated, predictable, automated flight maneuver. These safety features provide an 

equivalent level of safety compared to a manned aircraft performing a similar operation 

and mitigate the risk of command and control link failures;

 The radio frequencies used for operations and control of the UAS comply with the 

Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and other appropriate government 

oversight agency requirements; and

 The UAS all operate at a speed of 87 knots or less.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 3 -

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 contained in previously granted Section 333 exemptions, including recent 

summary grant exemptions. To facilitate the FAA’s review of this Petition, iSite provides a chart at 

the end of this Section 2 cross-referencing the conditions and limitations from the Aeronautic 

Imagery Exemption, OpenSky Drones Exemption, and/or the Goodwyn Group 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 the rules from which exemption is sought.

2.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS

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

limitations:

2.1.1 Operations under the exemption will be limited to the DJI Inspire 1, DJI Phantom 2 

Vision, and the DJI Phantom 3. The UA will have a gross weight of not more than 

55 pounds, including energy sources, equipment, and payload. Proposed 

operations of any other UAS will require a new petition or a petition to amend this 

exemption. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 1; OpenSky Drones 

Exemption Limitation No. 1.] 

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

speed recommended by the UA manufacturer, and in no event will it be operated at 

a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption

Limitation No. 3; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 3.]

2.1.3 The UA will be identified by its serial number and registered with the FAA in 

accordance with FAR Part 47. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 22; 

OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 22.] 

2.1.4 The UA will have identification markings in accordance with FAR Part 45, with the 

markings being as large as practicable. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation

No. 22; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 22.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 4 -

2.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations

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

limitations:

2.2.1 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 iSite want to conduct operations that cannot be conducted under the terms 

of the blanket COA accompanying this exemption, iSite will apply for a new or 

amended COA. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 21; OpenSky 

Drones Exemption Limitation No. 21.]

2.2.2 Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are 

permitted. [Goodwyn Group Exemption Limitation No. 2.] 

2.2.3 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 iSite. iSite will make the letter agreement available to the FAA or any law 

enforcement official upon request. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 

16; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 16.]

2.2.4 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. 

[Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 6; OpenSky Drones Exemption

Limitation No. 6.] 

2.2.5 The UA will be operated within the visual line of sight (“VLOS”) of the PIC and VO

at all times. The PIC will maintain VLOS with human vision unaided by any device 

other than corrective lenses as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical 

certificate or U.S. driver’s license. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitations No. 

5, 6; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitations No. 5, 6.] The VO may be used to 

satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS 

capability. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 6; OpenSky Drones 

Exemption Limitation No. 6.] 

2.2.6 During each UAS operation, the PIC and the VO will be able to communicate 

verbally with each other at all times. Electronic messaging or texting by the PIC 

and the VO shall not permitted during UAS flight operations. [Aeronautic Imagery

Exemption Limitation No. 6; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 6.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 5 -

2.2.7 The PIC will be 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. 

[Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 20; OpenSky Drones Exemption

Limitation No. 20.] 

2.2.8 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., nonfunctioning 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 documented, and the UAS is 

found to be in a condition for safe flight. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation 

No. 10; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 10.] 

2.2.9 The operator shall be responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure 

that it is in a condition for safe operation. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation 

No. 9; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 9.]

2.2.10 During each UAS operation, the UA will remain at or below 400 feet above ground 

level (“AGL”). [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 4; OpenSky Drones 

Exemption Limitation No. 4.]

2.2.11 Altitude reports made to ATC or other persons shall be reported in feet AGL.

[Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 4; OpenSky Drones Exemption

Limitation No. 4.] 

2.2.12 All UAS operations will be conducted over properties owned or controlled by iSite

as well as other private or controlled-access property with permission from the 

property owner/controller or authorized representative. For properties not owned 

or controlled by iSite, permission from the property owner/controller or authorized 

representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted. [Aeronautic Imagery

Exemption Limitation No. 27; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 27.] 

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

vehicles, and structures unless: 

(a) Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect non-participating 

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

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 must cease 

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

and/or 
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 6 -

(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 nonparticipating persons under this exemption. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption

Limitation No. 26; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 26.] 

2.2.14 All UAS operations will take place during visual meteorological conditions (“VMC”) 

only. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 15; OpenSky Drones 

Exemption Limitation No. 15.] 

2.2.15 iSite will not operate UAS flights under Special Visual Flight Rules (“SVFR”). 

[Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 15; OpenSky Drones Exemption

Limitation No. 15.] 

2.2.16 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. [Aeronautic Imagery

Exemption Limitation No. 15; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 15.] 

2.2.17 During each UAS operation, the UA will avoid, remain clear of, and yield right-ofway to, all manned aviation operations and activities at all times. [Aeronautic 

Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 24; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 

24.] 

2.2.18 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. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 17; OpenSky Drones 

Exemption Limitation No. 17.]

2.2.19 The UAS will not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle.

[Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 25; OpenSky Drones Exemption

Limitation No. 25.] 

2.2.20 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) shall 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 will be conducted in such a manner so as to not pose an undue 

hazard to persons and property. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 8; 

OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 8.]

2.2.21 If the UAS loses communications or its GPS signal during any operation, the UA 

will return to a pre-determined location within the private or controlled-access 
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 7 -

property. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 18; OpenSky Drones 

Exemption Limitation No. 18.]

2.2.22 The PIC will adhere to the written emergency procedures in the Manuals, and will 

abort the UAS operation and UA flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or 

emergencies. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 19; OpenSky Drones 

Exemption Limitation No. 19.] 

2.2.23 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. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 23; OpenSky Drones 

Exemption Limitation No. 23.]

2.2.24 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. [Aeronautic Imagery

Exemption Limitation No. 28; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 28.] 

2.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the PIC 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:

2.3.1 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. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 13; 

OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 13.] 

2.3.2 iSite 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 iSite’s PICs and VOs 

(training, proficiency, and experience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to 

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

under this exemption will be permitted under the terms of this exemption. These 

training operations, however, may only be conducted during dedicated training 
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 8 -

sessions. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 14; OpenSky Drones 

Exemption Limitation No. 14.] 

2.3.3 During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not 

essential for flight operations are considered non-participants, and the PIC shall 

operate the UA with appropriate distance from non-participants in accordance with 

14 C.F.R. § 91.119. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 14; OpenSky 

Drones Exemption Limitation No. 14.]

2.4 Conditions and limitations regarding iSite manuals related to UAS operations

iSite has the manufacturer’s manuals for the DJI Inspire 1, DJI Phantom 2 Vision, and DJI 

Phantom 3 (collectively, the “Manuals”). The Manuals will be subject to the following limitations and 

conditions:

2.4.1 The Operating Documents1 must be accessible during UAS operations and made 

available to the FAA upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions 

and limitations in the exemption and the procedures outlined in the other Operating 

Documents, the conditions and limitations in the exemption take precedence and 

must be followed. Otherwise, iSite must follow the procedures as outlined in the

Operating Documents. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 7; OpenSky 

Drones Exemption Limitation No. 7.]

2.4.2 iSite may update or revise its Operating Documents, and it is iSite’s responsibility 

to track such revisions and present updated and revised Operating Documents to 

the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. iSite must also present 

updated and revised Operating Documents if it petitions for an extension or 

amendment of the exemption. If iSite determines that any update or revision would 

affect the basis upon which the FAA granted the requested exemption, then iSite

must petition for an amendment to the exemption. iSite will contact the FAA’s UAS 

Integration Office (AFS-80) if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the 

Operating Documents. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 7; OpenSky 

Drones Exemption Limitation No. 7.]

2.4.3 Each UAS operated under the exemption will comply with all manufacturer safety 

bulletins. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 12; OpenSky Drones 

Exemption Limitation No. 12.]

2.4.4 iSite will follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, 

inspection, and life limit requirements for the UAS and UAS components. 

 

1

“Operating Documents” means this exemption, the Manuals, iSite’s MPTOM, and all other 

documents needed by iSite to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in accordance with the 

conditions and limitations stated in this grant of exemption. [Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation 

No. 7; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 7.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 9 -

[Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 11; OpenSky Drones Exemption

Limitation No. 11.]

2.5 Conditions and limitations regarding closed-set filming UAS operations

iSite will comply with the following additional conditions and limitations for closed-set motion 

picture and television filming productions:

2.5.1 iSite will submit a MPTOM as documented in this grant of exemption. [Goodwyn 

Group Exemption Limitation No. 29.]

2.5.2 At least 3 days before aerial filming, iSite will submit a written Plan of Activities to 

the local Flight Standards District Office (“FSDO”) with jurisdiction over the area of 

proposed filming. The 3-day notification may be waived with the concurrence of 

the FSDO. The plan of activities must include at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights;

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted

under this grant of exemption;

c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on-scene operation of

the UAS;

d. Make, model, and serial or N-Number of UAS to be used;

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the aerial filming;

f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners

and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those who 

gave permission must be made available to the inspector upon request;

g. Signature of exemption holder or representative; and

h. A description of the flight activity, including maps or diagrams of any area, city,

town, county, and/or state over which filming will be conducted and the altitudes

essential to accomplish the operation. [Goodwyn Group Exemption Limitation No. 

30.]

2.5.3 Flight operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet from participating 

persons consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as 

specified in iSite’s MPTOM. [Goodwyn Group Exemption Limitation No. 31.]

In sum, iSite’s operations under this exemption will be subject to the same conditions and 

limitations imposed in the summary grant Aeronautic Imagery Exemption, OpenSky Drones 

Exemption and/or the Goodwyn Group Exemption. 

CROSS-REFERENCES
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 10 -

Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No.

OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No.

Petition Limitation No.

1 2.1.1

*** ***

3 2.1.2

4 2.2.10, 2.2.11

5 2.2.5

6 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6

7 2.4.1, 2.4.2

8 2.2.20

9 2.2.9

10 2.2.8

11 2.4.4

12 2.4.3

13 2.3.1

14 2.3.2, 2.3.3

15 2.2.14, 2.2.15, 2.2.16

16 2.2.3

17 2.2.18

18 2.2.21

19 2.2.22

20 2.2.7

21 2.2.1

22 2.1.3, 3.1.4

23 2.2.23
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 11 -

24 2.2.17

25 2.2.19

26 2.2.13

27 2.2.12

28 2.2.24

Goodwyn Group Exemption Limitation No. Petition Limitation No.

2 2.2.2

29 2.5.1

30 2.5.2

31 2.5.3

3. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA

In accordance with FMRA Section 333, iSite requests that the Secretary of Transportation 

determine that its 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. iSite further 

requests that, based on the Secretary’s determination, the FAA determine – as it did in the 

Aeronautic Imagery Exemption and the OpenSky Drones Exemption – that relief from FAR Part 21 

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

the UAS operations proposed in this Petition.

2

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

EXEMPTION

As required by FAR § 11.81, iSite provides the following information in support of this 

Petition:

4.1 Contact information:

Name: iSite, LLC submits this Petition for Exemption, through counsel, Lisa Ellman

 

2 Aeronautic Imagery Exemption, at 2; OpenSky Drones 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 iSite requests that the FAA include that relief in the exemption.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 12 -

Patrick R. Rizzi and Matthew J. Clark.

Mailing address: Lisa Ellman, Patrick R. Rizzi and Matthew J. Clark

 Counsel for iSite, LLC

 Hogan Lovells US LLP

 555 13th Street, NW

 Washington, DC 20004

Telephone/Facsimile number:

(T) 202-637-6934 (Ellman) / 202-637-5659 (Rizzi) / 703-610-6154 (Clark)

(F) 202-637-5910 

E-mail addresses:

lisa.ellman@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

matt.clark@hoganlovells.com

4.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which iSite seeks an 

exemption:

FAR Description

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

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

§ 61.113(a) and (b) Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in 

command.

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

pilot certificate?

§ 91.7(a) Civil aircraft airworthiness.

§ 91.119(c), (d) Minimum safe altitudes: General.

§ 91.121 Altimeter settings.

§ 91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

§ 91.405(a) Maintenance required.

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

maintenance, rebuilding, and inspections.

§ 91.409(a)(1) and (2) Inspections.

91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 13 -

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

iSite intends to conduct aerial data collection, as well as closed-set filming for the motion 

picture, television, and web industry by operating the small UAS models described herein. By way 

of example, the proposed aerial data collection activities, includes, but is not limited to: aerial 

inspection, aerial survey and remote sensing, infrastructure and construction monitoring/inspection, 

aerial photography and videography, precision agriculture, natural resource management and 

exploration, risk management, emergency and disaster first response activities, damage 

assessment, emergency and disaster first response activities and wildlife/forestry management. In 

order to be able to conduct these UAS operations, iSite petitions the FAA, pursuant to FAR §§ 

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

- 14 -

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. . . . 

. . . .

(2) For compensation or hire.

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

iSite requests an exemption from these regulations to the extent necessary to permit iSite 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 iSite

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, iSite requests that the FAA exempt iSite 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, iSite’s UAS are lightweight, remotely controlled, batterypowered (not fuel/gas), and carry 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, VLOS, small UAS operations over 

private or controlled access properties with property owner/controller permission as proposed in this 

Petition. Put another way, there are stark and fundamental differences between the type of 

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

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

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

- 15 -

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

iSite. 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. 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 iSite plans to operate its 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 requirements, the limited airmanship skills necessary to 

operate this small UAS, and the lack of additional safety benefits for the proposed UAS operations 

here resulting from commercial pilot experience, the PIC under this exemption should only be 

required to hold, at most, a sport pilot certificate. Such a condition would be consistent with the 

certificate requirements imposed on the PIC in the Aeronautic Imagery Exemption and the OpenSky 

Drones Exemption.

For these reasons, and consistent with recent summary grant exemptions, iSite requests that 

the FAA grant an exemption to permit iSite to use as PIC of its proposed UAS operations pilots who 

hold at least a sport pilot certificate and either an FAA third-class airman medical certificate or a 

state driver’s license, so long as they satisfy the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, 

including the PIC qualification and training requirements.

FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness.

The regulation states in relevant part: 

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. . . . 
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 16 -

To the extent necessary for the proposed operations in this Petition, iSite requests an 

exemption from this provision.

3

 The UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate under FAR Part 

21, Subpart H, and thus relief is requested from this regulation. See Exemption No. 11110 

(December 10, 2014; Docket FAA-2014-0367) (“Trimble Exemption”), at 16. An exemption is 

warranted because iSite understands that, notwithstanding the lack of an airworthiness certificate, 

the FAA will consider its “compliance with [iSite’s Manuals] to be sufficient means for determining an 

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

based on compliance with such Manuals. Trimble Exemption, at 16.

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: 

...

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

any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within 

a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over 

open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated 

closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. 

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is 

conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

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

(b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with 

any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

...

iSite requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit it to 

conduct UAS operations at altitudes lower than those permitted by FAR § 91.119, since the ability to 

operate at those altitudes are one of the key benefits of using small UAS for these flights. Even at 

these low altitudes, iSite’s UAS operations will be conducted at a level of safety at least equal to that 

 

3

 iSite requests exemption from FAR § 91.7(a) based on the relief granted in the Trimble 

Exemption, at 16, 21. However, iSite 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

- 17 -

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), iSite intends to comply with this requirement to the same 

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

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

landing “without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.” iSite 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). 

Regarding sub-paragraph (b), iSite plans to operate these small UAS over properties that 

iSite owns or controls and other private or controlled-access properties (with owner/controller 

permission) in areas that are not congested or densely populated. Accordingly, iSite does not 

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

Finally, with respect to sub-paragraph (c), iSite requests an exemption to allow UAS operations 

down to the surface, both in sparsely populated areas and in “other than congested” areas. iSite’s

UAS operations require lower-level flying, but have a number of self-imposed restrictions to ensure 

at least an equivalent level of safety. See Proposed Limitations 2.2.12 and 2.2.13.

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 relative 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 iSite adheres to its Manuals and the additional conditions and limitations outlined 

above and in the exemption. For these reasons, iSite requests relief from the entirety of paragraph 

(c), as was recently granted in the Aeronautic Imagery Exemption, at 2, and the OpenSky Drones 

Exemption, at 2.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 18 -

To the extent necessary, iSite also requests relief from paragraph (d)(1), which applies only 

to helicopters and allows operation at lower altitudes only if on a prescribed helicopter route. Flying 

a manned helicopter would pose a significantly greater risk than using a small UA for the proposed 

operations, even if the helicopter is on a specific route or at a specific low height prescribed by the 

FAA. A manned helicopter is much heavier, larger, and faster than a small UA. Moreover, unlike an 

unmanned, battery-powered small UA, the helicopter has people on-board and a fuel load. The 

operation of a small UA at all times within the VLOS of the PIC on the ground would be at least as 

safe as a manned helicopter operation operating in conformity with the requirements of paragraph 

(d)(1), and therefore an exemption from Section 91.119(d)(1) is warranted.

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—

(ii) 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) * * * *.

To the extent necessary to conduct for the proposed operations, iSite requests an exemption 

from the altimeter setting requirements of FAR § 91.121. iSite recognizes the critical importance of 

ensuring that any UA it operates maintains altitude to an accurate reference point. 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, iSite requests an exemption to permit UAS operations using this methodology.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 19 -

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. 

iSite requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit iSite to plan its UAS operations as 

described above. The small UAS operations proposed in this Petition will (i) involve operations in 

which one or more UAS is transported by means other than its own power to the operational 

location, and (ii) begin and end at the operational site, with the takeoff, entire flight, and landing all 

taking place within the immediate proximity of each other while remaining at all times within 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 technological and durational limitations of UAS battery power, requiring a full 30 

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

iSite’s UAS operations. iSite 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 Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 20 and OpenSky Drones 

Exemption Limitation No. 20, the PIC under the requested exemption will be prohibited from 
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 20 -

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

power 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. See

Proposed Limitation 2.2.7. Such a battery reserve is more than sufficient, particularly in light of the 

FAA’s acceptance of a 5-minute reserve in the Aeronautic Imagery Exemption and the OpenSky 

Drones Exemption. iSite believes that these limitations will further ensure at least an equivalent 

level of safety. Accordingly, iSite requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit it to plan and 

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

FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required. 

The regulation states, in relevant part:

Each owner or operator of an aircraft—

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall 

between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have 

discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

(b) ****.

iSite requests an exemption from the maintenance and inspection requirements of 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. iSite has proposed in Section 2

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 Aeronautic Imagery

Exemption and the OpenSky Drones Exemption, iSite requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) 

to permit iSite 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).

iSite does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.405 is 

required, since iSite will make appropriate logbook entries in aircraft maintenance records in 
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 21 -

accordance with paragraph (b), appropriately mark any inoperative instrument or item of equipment 

for which maintenance has been properly deferred in compliance with paragraph (c), and 

appropriately placard listed discrepancies that include inoperative instruments or equipment in 

compliance with paragraph (d). 

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

or alteration.

The regulation states:

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

maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless—

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under §43.7 of 

this chapter; and 

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

chapter has been made. 

. . . . 

iSite requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to allow the proposed operations

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. iSite has proposed 

in this Petition maintenance-related conditions and limitations which it believes provide a level of 

safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.407(a)(1). For this reason, and consistent 

with the exemptions granted from this section in the Aeronautic Imagery Exemption and the 

OpenSky Drones Exemption, iSite requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit iSite 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.

iSite does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.407 is 

required, since iSite 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. 
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 22 -

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

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft 

unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had—

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been 

approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this chapter; or 

(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 

part 21 of this chapter.

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

inspection required by this paragraph unless it is performed by a person authorized to 

perform annual inspections and is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required 

maintenance records. 

(b)  .

iSite requests an exemption from the inspection requirements of 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. iSite has proposed in this Petition maintenance and inspectionrelated 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 Aeronautic Imagery Exemption and the OpenSky Drones Exemption,

iSite requests an exemption to permit iSite to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, 

subject to the conditions and limitations outlined herein, without having to comply with the inspection 

requirements in FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2).

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

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, each registered 

owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section: 

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

of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as 

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

rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include—
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 23 -

(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. 

(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) ** **.

iSite requests an exemption from the maintenance record requirements 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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 24 -

conditions and limitations. iSite has proposed in this Petition maintenance, inspection, and recordsrelated 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 Aeronautic Imagery Exemption and the OpenSky Drones Exemption, iSite

requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to allow the proposed operations, subject to 

the conditions and limitations outlined herein, without having to keep the records described in FAR § 

91.417(a) and (b). 

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

analysis in prior FAA grants of exemption. To the extent that the FAA concludes that an exemption 

from one or more other provisions of the FAR would be required to allow the proposed operations in 

this Petition, iSite also seeks an exemption from those FAR provisions. 

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

The public interest will be served in several ways by granting iSite’s Petition. First, Congress 

has established a national policy that favors early integration of UAS into the National Airspace 

System in controlled, safe working environments such as those proposed in this Petition. Granting 

this Petition helps fulfill Congress’ goal in passing Section 333(a) through (c) of the FMRA; namely,

the FAA Administrator's assessment of whether certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS before 

completion of the rulemaking required under Section 332 of the FMRA.

The proposed UAS operations in this Petition will also improve safety and reduce risk by 

reducing the public’s exposure to danger associated with aerial data collection and closed-set filming 

activities utilizing full-size fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft. iSite’s UAS are battery powered and 

create no emissions, as compared to the much faster, larger, and fuel-powered manned aircraft. 

Any accident involving iSite’s lightweight UAS will present significantly less danger to the pilot and 

other individuals on the ground than one involving a full-size helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 25 -

4.5 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, iSite has discussed how it will ensure the safety of other manned 

aircraft and persons and property on the ground if the FAA grants the requested exemptions. 

Consistent with the FAA’s findings in the Aeronautic Imagery Exemption, OpenSky Drones 

Exemption, and the Trimble Exemption, the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, 

coupled with the operational protocols for the selected UAS platforms, ensure a level of safety that is 

equal to or better than that provided by the rules from which exemption is sought. 

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 controlled 

access property; away from airports); 

 the small size, light weight, and relatively slow speed of iSite’s UAS;

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

 the requirement for the UA to be operated within VLOS of the PIC and VO at all times. 

Moreover, iSite’s UAS have the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain in-flight 

contingencies or failures and uses an auto-pilot system to maintain UAS stability and control. The 

UAS is also able to respond to a loss of GPS or a lost-link event with a pre-coordinated, predictable, 

automated flight maneuver. These safety features provide an equivalent level of safety compared to 

a manned aircraft performing a similar operation and mitigate the risk of command and control link 

failures.

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 in accordance with the Manuals; and (ii) iSite will coordinate 
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 26 -

extensively, as warranted, with the FAA, with local airports, and with property owners to ensure that 

all UAS operations under the exemption are at least as safe as would be manned aircraft operations 

used for similar purposes. For closed-set filming operations, adherence to the policies and 

procedures contained in iSite’s MPTOM will ensure the safety of all participants consenting to be 

involved and necessary for the filming production.

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

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

platforms and iSite’s MPTOM protocols ensure that the proposed operations will not interfere with 

manned aircraft and will ensure the safety of persons and 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. 

4.6 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:

iSite proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary:

Docket No.: FAA-2015-______

Petitioner: iSite, LLC

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 conduct small UAS 

operations for aerial data collection and closed-set motion picture and television 

filming.

4.7 Additional information that supports request:

iSite is prepared to provide additional information that the FAA might find helpful, or to 

answer questions in response to any FAA requests. 

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

iSite does not request to exercise the privileges of this exemption outside the United States.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 27 -

4.9 Attachments:

iSite will submit its MPTOM, which contains proprietary and confidential information, under 

separate cover pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.35(b). 

5. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, iSite respectfully requests that the FAA grant this Petition for 

Exemption. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Lisa Ellman

Patrick R. Rizzi

Matthew J. Clark4

Hogan Lovells US LLP

Counsel for iSite, LLC

 

4 Matthew Clark is only licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia and his practice is 

limited consistent with Rule 49(c) of the D.C. Court of Appeals.