1 

## Summary of Regulations from which ERM is Seeking Exemption and Statement towards the Public Interest

Explosives Risk Managers LLC (ERM) requests exemption from the following regulations to operate unmanned aircraft systems (UA S ) based on the justification provided with a summary of each standard. ERM will operate UA only in accordance to the manufacturer’s recommendations
, ERM’s standard operating procedures (SOP) , industry standards and the terms of the exemption

.

Section 61.113 (a) and (b) prescribes that

— (a) No person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as PIC of an aircraft.
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as PIC 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.

Justification for exemption: Because the UAS will not carry a pilot or passengers on board, the proposed operations can achieve an equivalent level of safety by requiring the person operating the unmanned aircraft ( UA ) to have taken an FAA ground school course rather than to have obtained a commercial pilot certificate.

The aircraft will be operated within controlled and restricted areas, and all flights will be planned and coordinated in advance such that a commercial pilot certificate is unwarranted. The risks associated with the operation of UAS are so diminished from the level of risk associated with commercial operations contemplated by 14 CFR part 61, Certification: Pilots, Flight Instructors, and Ground
Instruct ors, when drafted, that allowing operations of the UAS with a private pilot as the operator, as requested, exceeds the current level of safety achieved by 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b).

ERM requires a pilot certificate for UAS operations. Pilots holding an FA A issued private or commercial pilot certificate are subject to the security screening by the Department of Homeland Security that certificated airmen undergo. As previously determined by the Secretary of Transportation, the requirement to have an airman certificate ameliorates security concerns over civil UAS operations conducted in accordance with Section 333.
Under current regulations, civil operations for compensation or hire require a PIC holding a commercia l pilot certificate per 14 CFR P art 61. Bas ed on the private pilot limitations in accordance with pertinent parts of 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b), a pilot holding a private pilot certificate cannot act as a PIC of an aircraft for compensation or hire unless the flight is only incidental to a business or employment.2 However, in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus), the FAA determined that a PIC with a private pilot certificate operating the Astraeus UAS would not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to perso ns or property on the ground.
ERM proposes to operate with a pilot who does not possess an FAA issued pilot certificate. This is similar to other petitions for exemption previously filed with and considered by the FAA. As in Exemption Nos. 11062 (Astraeus ) and 11138 (Douglas Trudeau), ERM ’s proposed operation does not differ significantly from these grants of exemption. The petitioner plans to operate in the NAS over controlled access property with the permission of the land owner/controller, while also li miting property access to consenting participants while operations are underway.
Given: 1) the similar nature of ERM’s proposed operating environment to that of Astraeus and other petitioners granted exemption , 2) the parallel nature of private pilot aeron autical knowledge requirements to those of commercial requirements [ref: Exemption No. 11062], and 3) the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, the additional manned airmanship experience of a commercially certificated pilot would not correlate t o the airmanship skills necessary for ERM ’s proposed operations. Therefore, a PIC holding a private pilot certificate and a third

- class airman medical certificate is appropriate for the proposed operations.

With regard to the airmanship skills necessary to operate the UAS, ERM proposes a training program. ERM will not permit any PIC to operate the UAS unless that P IC has demonstrated through ERM’s training program that the PIC is able 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. ERM is responsible for assessing its operations and identifying any additional skills required t o operate safely under normal and abnormal conditions. Normal condition skills may include the ability to maintain altitude, maintain VLOS, and navigational skills. Abnormal condition skills may include the ability to avoid obstacles, avoid air traffic,

an d respond to loss of link.

A risk assessment is not required by FAA or conducted for thousands of civilian flights over explosives
every day. Nonetheless, ERM will conduct a pre

- flight quantitative risk analysis (QRA), as described in ERM’s SOP, to ensure that the risks of flying the UA in the vicinity of explosives, if present, are below tolerable levels.

In conclusion
, if risks identified in the QRA are tolerable, a PIC holding a private pilot certificate
, a third

class airman medical certific ate and who has completed ERM ’s training requirements, can conduct the proposed UAS operations without adversely affecting the safety of the NAS and persons or property on the ground.3 Section 91.7(a) prescribes that no person may operate a civil aircraf t unless it is in an airworthy condition.
Justification for exemption: Since no such certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated by FAA regulations, this regulation is inapplicable. ERM will operate UA only in accordance to the manufacturer’s recommendations and ERM’s standard operating procedures (SOP)

.

Section 91.119 (c) prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes 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.

Justification for exemption: 14 CFR § 91.119 establishe s safe altitudes for operation of civil aircraft.
ERM seeks relief to operate at altitudes up to 4 00 AGL, underneath navigable airspace and in class E and G airspace during the day

. A n equivalent level of safety will be achieved given the size, weight, speed of the UA as well as the location where it is operated. No flight will be taken without the permission of the property owner or local officials. Because of the advance notice to the property owner and participants in the filming or surveillance acti vity, attempts will be made to contact all affected individuals regarding the planned flight operations. Compared to flight operations with aircraft or rotorcraft weighting far more than the UA proposed herein, and the lack of flammable fuel, any risk ass ociated with these operations is far less than those presently presented with conventional aircraft. In addition, the low

altitude operations of the UA will ensure separation between these UA operations and the operations of conventional aircraft that mus t comply with § 91.119.
As discussed in Exemption No. 11109 (Clayco, Inc.), operations conducted closer than 500 feet to the ground may require that the UA be operated closer than 500 feet to essential persons, or objects that would not be possible without additional relief. As required by the ERM SOP, prior to conducting UAS operations, all persons not essential to flight operations (nonparticipating persons) must remain at appropriate safe distances or under protective cover . In open areas, this requires the UA to remain 500 feet from all unprotected persons other than essential flight personnel (i.e. PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons).

The maximum gross weight ERM’s UA is approximately 3 pounds. If barriers or structures are present that c an sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA or debris in the event of an accident, then the UA may operate closer than 500 feet to persons afforded such protection. The PIC will also ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations will cease immediately.
When considering how to immediately cease operations, the primary concern is the safety of those nonparticipating persons. O perations may be conducted closer than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles and structures when the owner/controller of any such vessels, vehicles or structures grants permission for4 the operation and the PIC makes a safety asse ssment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determines that it does not present an undue hazard.

Section 91.121 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude by reference to an a ltimeter that is set when operating below 18,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.
Justification for exemption: ERM’s UAS has a GPS altitude readout instead of a barometric altimeter. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved via the operating documents requiring confirmation of the altitude of the launch site shown on the GPS altitude indicator before flight.

The UAS will not have a typical barometric a ltimeter onboard the aircraft, rather it uses information generated from a GPS to transmit altitude information to the PIC. ERM may choose to set the GPS altitude indicator to zero feet AGL rather than local barometric pressure or field altitude before fl ight. The UA will operate at limited altitude.

Section 91.151(a) (1) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under visual flight rules (VFR) conditions during the day 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 30 minutes

. Justification for exemption: Regarding the fuel requirements, in order to meet the 30

- minute reserve requirements in 1 4 CFR § 91.151, UAS flights would have to be limited to approximately 10 minutes. Given the limitations on the UA’s proposed flight area and the location of its proposed operations within a predetermined area, a longer timeframe for flight in daylight cond itions is reasonable. An equivalent level of safety can be achieved by limiting flights to 60 minutes or when low battery power is indicated by the UAS , whichever occurs first.

Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, prior relief has been granted f or manned aircraft to operate at less than prescribed minimums, including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. In addition, similar UAS

- specific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, VFR conditions. The operating documents indicate that two low

- voltage (low battery) alerts are issued

- warning that the first alert should be followed (30%

- low battery level warning). Also, the UAS has an automated function which results in immediate landing when a low battery (15% battery level warning) is detected. The PIC will not begin a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough power to fly to the intended landing point at normal cruising speed and land the UA with 30% battery power remain ing.5 Section 91.405(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each owner of an aircraft 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, h ave discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43, Maintenance, Preventive Maintenan ce, Rebuilding, and Alteration.
Justification for exemption: Since no such inspections and maintenance will be applicable in the form contemplated by FAA regulations, th is regulation is inapplicable. ERM will operate UA only in accordance to the manufacturer’s recommendations and ERM’s standard operating procedures (SOP).

Section 91.407(a)(1) prescribes that no person may operate any aircraft that has undergone

m aintena nce, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless it has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of this chapter.
Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21.

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribe, in pertinent part, that

— (a) Each registered owner or operator shall keep t he 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 appropr iate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include

— (i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed; and

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and
(iii) The signature and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for return to service.
(2) Records containing the following information:
(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each rotor.

(ii) The current status of life

- limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.
(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft that 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.6 (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) Co pies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) for each major a l teration 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 record s 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 transfer red 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.

Jus tification for exemption: The maintenance requirements in §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) are only applicable to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. ERM’s routine and preflight maintenance will be accomplished by t he operator, who will keep a log of any performed maintenance. The operator is most familiar with the UA and best suited to maintain it in an airworthy condition to provide an equivalent level of safety. If a mechanical issue arises, the UA can land imme diately, and given its small size, it poses minimal risk to persons or property.7 Statement towards the Public Interest
ERM has proposed measures to maintain an equivalent level of safety to the public while being exempted from certain regulatio ns identified above. The UA is lightweight (3 pounds) and will be operated in controlled industrial settings such as mines and construction sites. ERM’s SOP for operatin g UAS provides for a high degree of safety to ground based personnel and the NAS. ER M has proposed measures substantially equivalent to other entities granted exemption by FAA.
To address the unique circumstance of explosive materials potentially being on site while UAS operations are conducted, ERM will conduct a pre

- flight QRA to ensure that risks from a UA

- caused explosives event are below tolerable levels. A similar assessment is not required by FAA or conducted for thousands of civilian flights over explosives each day.

ERM has clearly shown that it can maintain an equivalent level of safety to the public while being exempted from certain regulations identified above.

Additionally, ERM ’s proposed operations will make significant improvements to blasting safety and security and provide significant public benefit

. Flyrock and failure to maintain blast area security account for over half of all accidents during the use of explosives in mining and construction. The U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) reports that 61 percent of all mine blasting accide nts are caused by blast area security failure (49 percent) and flyrock (12 percent)

. From 1978 to 2010 (the latest period reported)
, MSHA has recorded 192 fatal and nonfatal injuries caused by failure to maintain blast area security and 141 fatal and nonfatal injuries caused by flyrock in surface mines. 1 A 1999 report by the National Institute s for Occupational Safety and Health descri bes several fatal accidents in mining and construction due to flyrock and lack of blast area security. 2 Virtually every incident of failure to maintain blast area security c an be prevented by operation of UAS as proposed by ERM. The probability of flyroc k can be greatly reduced by operation of UAS as proposed by ERM. In addition, although no summary statistics are available in mining or construction , fatalities and injuries have occurred to individuals being exposed to environmental hazards while collect ing imaging data or doing post

- blast inspections. 3 ERM proposes to conduct the same activities without exposing individuals
to these same environmental hazards.

The techniques proposed by ERM have been used elsewhere in the world since at least 2012 wi th great

success. 4 ERM is unaware of any detrimental effects from this type of UAS use.

ERM’s proposed use of UAS and FAA exemption from certain regulations identified above is clearly in the public ’s best interest.

1 Mine Blasting Safety: Decades of Progress, Harry Verakis and Thomas Lobb, U.S. Dept. of Labor, MSHA, Technical Support , 38th Annual Conference on Explosives and Blasting Techniques, Nashville, TN, February 12

- 15, 2012. 2 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/userfiles/works/pdfs/fadtf.pdf
3 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/face/stateface/ky/09KY079.html http://www.msha.gov/FATALS/2010/FAB10m23.asp
4 http://www.suasnews.com/2014/02/27259/terrestrial

- lidar

- and

- uav

- aerial

- triangulation

- for

- open

- pit

- mines/ http://www.miningweekly.com/article/uavs

- to

- streamline

- blasting

- technology

- 2012

- 11

- 30