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 13 th 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 I SITE, LLC

DATE: October 1 9 , 2015HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUM MARY OF PROPOSED SMA LL UAS OPERATIONS

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... - 1
- 2. PROPOSED UAS AND CON DITIONS AND LIMITATI ONS

................................ ................... - 2
- 2.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the p roposed 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 DETERMIN ATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA

................................ - 11
- 4. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITIO N 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 exempt ion 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 exempti on 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 SUM MARY OF PROPOSED SMA LL 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. iSit e 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 explai ned 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 ”). Complia nce 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 pr ovided 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 f all within the “aerial data collection” and “close

- set filming” categor ies 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 b e 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 PetitionHOGAN 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 (“MP TOM”) 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
contain s 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, an d 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 Sky

Forge Robotics LLC

 DJI Phantom 2 Vision : Exemption No. 11768 t o 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 ap proval 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 co ntingencies 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 pre

coor dinated, 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 followi ng conditions
and limitations. As noted above, these condition s and limitations are the same conditions and
limitations as those contained in previously granted Section 333 exemptions , including recent

summa ry 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 re garding 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 so urces, 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 Dr ones 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)

. [ Aeronauti c 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 i n

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

Certificat e of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”). All UAS operations will be conducted in accordance wi t h the airspace req uirements in the ATO

- issued COA

. Should i Site want to conduct operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the blanket COA accompanyin g this exemption, i Site 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 ai rports not denoted with an ARP , the center of the airpor t symbol as denoted on the current FAA

- published aeronautical chart , un less a letter agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or such an operation is otherwise permitted by a COA issued to i Site

. i Site 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 O bs erver (“VO ”). The PIC will be designated before the flight , and cannot transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight. Th e PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the fu nctions 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 lens es as specified on the PIC’s FAA

- issued airman medical certificate or U.S. driver’s license

. [ Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation s No. 5 , 6 ; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation s 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 o peration, 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 unl ess (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 manufacture r. [ 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 inspect ion and determine

that the UAS (including the Groun d 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 sa fe operation of the UAS, the UA is pr ohibited 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 fe et 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 Exemp tion Limitation No. 4 ; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 4 .]

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

as well as other private or controlled

- access property with permission from the property owner/controlle r or authorized representative. For properties not owned or controlled by i Site , p ermission 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. i Site 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 ope rations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of non

- participating persons; and/orHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 6

- (b) T he owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted

permission for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety ass essment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it d oes not present an undue hazard.

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

participating 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 meteoro logical conditions ( “ VMC ” )

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

2.2.15 i Site 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

- of

way 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

hori zontally 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 a ny 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 compon ent) 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 operati on, the UA

will return to a pre

- determined location within the private or controlled

- accessHOGAN 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 av ailable 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 a n 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 th e 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 i Site ’ s PICs and VO s (training, proficiency, and experience

- building) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UA S will be operated under this exemption will be permitted under the terms of this exemption. These training operations, however, may only be conducted durin g dedicated trainingHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 8

- sessions. [ Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 14 ; OpenSky Drones Exem ption 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 i Site manuals related to UAS operations
i Site 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 Documents 1 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 pr ocedures outlined in the other Operating Documents , the conditions and limitations in the exemption take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, i Site must follow the procedures as outlined in the Operating Documents. [ Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 7 ; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitatio n No. 7 .]

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

to track such revisions and present updated and revised Operating D ocuments to the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. i Site must also present up dated and revised Operating D ocuments if it petitions for an extension or amendment of the exemption. If i Site d etermines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted the requested exemption, then i Site must petition for an amendment to the exemption. i Site 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 Exem ption Limitation No. 7 .]

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

b ulletins

. [ Aeronautic Imagery Exemption Limitation No. 12 ; OpenSky Drones Exemption Limitation No. 1 2 .]

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 t his 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 l imitations regarding closed
- set filming UAS operations iSite will comply with the following additional conditions and li mitations 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 th e 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. 3 0 .]

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. 3 1 .] In sum, i Site ’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

- REFERENCESHOGAN 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 .2.23HOGAN 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 DETERMIN ATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA
In accordance with FMRA Section 333, i Site 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. i Site further requests that, based on the Secretary’s determination, the FAA determine

– a s 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 PETITIO N FOR EXEMPTION As required by FAR § 11.81, i Site provides the following information in support of this
Petition:
4.1 Contact information:
Name : iSite, LLC submits this Petition for Exemption, thr ough 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 Par ts 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 i Site , LLC Hogan Lovells US LLP 555 13 th 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 i Site seeks an exemption:

FAR Descr iption § 61.23(a) and (c) Medical certificates: Requirement and Duration. § 61.101(e)(4) and (5) Recreation al 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 rel ief is sought:
i Site 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 dis aster first response activities and wildlife/forestry management. In order to be able to conduct these UAS operations, i Site petitions the FAA, pursuan t 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)

– Recreation al 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 fur therance 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 comp ensation 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.

. . . i Site requests an exemption from these regulation s to the extent necessary to permit i Site 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 certifica te or a state driver’s license

. While i Site 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, i Site requests that the FAA exempt i Site and its
PICs from this require ment since the use of a t 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 lightwe ight, remotely controlled, batt ery powered (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 additiona l 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. Howev er, 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 propos ed in this
Petition. Put another way, there are stark and fundamental difference s 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 experienc e and aeronautical knowledge that the PIC of a small UAS should have, in order to avoid imperiling passengers or property. InHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 15

- i Site ’ s case, the small amount of property carried aboard the UA will be i Site ’ s property. While the
PIC will be compensated, al l risk of damage to the property (in fact to the UAS itself) will be borne by
i Site . 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, experi ence , and flight proficiency than that required for a sport pilot cert ificate.
Given that i Site plans to operate its UAS over privat e 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 limite d airmanship skills necessary to

oper ate 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 onl y be required to hold, at most, a sp ort pilot certificate. Such a condition would be consistent with the certificate require ments imposed on the PIC in the Aeronautic Imagery Exemption and the OpenSky Drones Exemption

. For these reasons , and consistent with recent summary grant exemptions , i Site r equests that the FAA grant an exemption to permit i Site to use as PIC of its proposed UAS opera tions pilots who
hold at least a sport pilot certificate and either a n 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 ce rtificate 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 i Site understands that, notwithst anding the lack of an airworthiness certificate, the FAA will consider its “compliance with [ i Site ’ s Manuals ] to be sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition” and that i Site 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 alt itudes:

... (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

... i Site requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit it to conduct UAS operatio ns 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, i Site ’ 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 s uch 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 t he 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, w ith respect to sub

- paragraph (c), i Site requests an exemption to allow UAS operations down to the surface, both in sparsely populated areas and in “ other than congested ” areas. i Site ’ 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 Limitation s 2 .2.12 and 2 .2.13. Even with a grant of this exemption, the UAS operations will be at le ast 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 wei ght, operating at much s lower speeds, with batteries rathe r 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 her e provided that i Site adheres to its Manuals and the additional conditions and limitations outlin ed above and in the exemption. For these reasons, i Site requests relief fro m 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, i Site also requests relief from paragraph (d)(1), which applies only to helicopters and allows operation at lower altitudes only if o n 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, an d 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. i Site recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that any UA it operates maintain s 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

re lative to the local elevation. To the extent that this methodology does not satisfy FAR § 91.121 or any other regulation, i Site requests an exemption to permit UAS operations using this methodology.HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 19

- FAR § 91.151

– Fuel requirements for flight in VFR condi tions. 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.
i Site requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit i Site 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 me ans 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 thes e 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

ext remely 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” (ba ttery power) could take up much, if not all, of the time available for
iSite’s UAS operations

. i Site 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 fromHOGAN 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, particular ly in light of the
FAA’s acceptance of a 5

- minute reserve in the Aeronautic Imagery Exemption and the OpenSky Drones Exemption

. i Site believes that these limitations will further ensure at least an equivalent level of safety. Accordingly , i Site requests a n exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit it to plan and
conduc t 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, ha ve discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter; (b) ****.
i Site 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 cert ain conditions and limitations. i Site has proposed in Section 2
of this Petition several conditions and limitations r elated 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 , i Site requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit i Site 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 inHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 21

- accordance with paragraph (b), appropriately mark any inoperative instr ument 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 bee n 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.

. . . . i Site 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 c onditions and limitations

. i Site 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 , i Site requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit i Site 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

r equired, 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” ins pection in the required maintenance records. (b)  .
i Site 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 F AR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and that achieving an adequate level of safety required
certain conditions and limitations

. i Site has proposed in this Petition maintenance and inspection

related conditions and limitations which it believes provide a level of s afety 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 , i Site 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, roto r, 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

- limite d 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 aircra ft, 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 retai ned 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 retur n to service. (c) ** **.

i Site requests an exemption from the maintenance record requirements in FAR § 91.417(a) and (b)

. The FAA determined in the Astraeus Exemptio n that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b), and that an adequate level of safety required certainHOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 24

- conditions and limitations

. i Site 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 t hat 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 , i Site 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 FA R 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 assessmen t 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
reduc ing the public ’ s exposure to da nger 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 a ircraft. 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, i Site has discussed how it will en sure 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 t he 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 risk s of any small UAS operation proposed in this Petition inter fering 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 controll ed acce ss 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 V LOS 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 r espond 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 co mmand and control link
failures.
T he 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 structure s 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 accord ance with the Manual s ; and (ii) i Site will co ordinateHOGAN 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 fil ming 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 (wh ich 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 ensur e 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:

i Site proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary:
Docket No.: FAA

- 201 5

-

______ Petitioner: i Site , 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), 9 1.407(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:
i Site 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.:
i Site does not req uest t o exercise the privileges of this exem ption 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 for egoing reasons, i Site respectfully requests that the FAA grant this Petition for Exemption.
Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Ellman Patrick R. Rizzi Matthew J. Clark 4 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.