## United States of America Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration Washington, DC

Regulatory Docket No._____________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION OF:

Aerial Imaging Technologies LLC, dba Aeritek

FOR AN EXEMPTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 14 CFR Part 21 Subpart H, 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 9 1.109(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b) CONCERNING THE
OPERATION OF THE DJI S900 AND 3D ROBOTICS AERO

- M SMALL UNMANNED
AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT

OF 201 2, PUBLIC LAW 112

- 95 FEBRUARY 14 2012, SECTION 333

Submitted on April 1 st , 2015

Aerial Imaging Technologies LLC

, dba Aeritek
Kevin D. Barth
VP of Flight Operations & Co

- Owner
2370 Merri Anne Drive Jacksonville, FL 32216 Tel: (612) 221

- 8652
kevin.barth@aeritek.comAerial Imaging Technologies LLC

dba Aeritek
Kevin D. Barth
VP of Flight Operations & Co

- Owner
2370 Merri Anne Drive Jacksonville, FL 32216
kevin.barth@aeritek.com

April 1 st , 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Rob Pappas:

I, Kevin D. Barth, am writing, in my capacity as VP of Flight Operations and co

- owner of Aerial Imaging Technologies LLC, dba Aeritek of Jacksonville, FL, hereinafter referred to as Aeritek, pursuant to the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

, (FMRA) Public Law 112

- 95 February 14, 2012, Section 333 requesting exemption from the applicable Federal Aviation Regulations (FARS) contained herein to operate small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) within the National Airspace Syste m (NAS) for commercial purposes of which are in the public interest.

Specifically, Aeritek wants to engage in commercial operations that allow us to operate two sUAS’s. The first sUAS we intend to operate is a DJI S900 rotorcraft. The second sUAS we

in tend to operate is a 3D Robotics Aero

- M. Having a combination of a rotorcraft and a fixed wing sUAS will allow us to provide our clients with a sUAS that is appropriate for their needs. The DJI S900 will be primarily used for aerial photography, and insp ections, while the 3D

Robotics Aero

- M will be primarily used f or photogrammetry, precision agriculture, and mapping

.

Enclosed within this application for exemption, one will find the following documents: “ Aeritek sUAS, PIC, and Operation of sUAS ”, and “Aeritek Operation Manual ”. The aforementio ned

documents are submitted as confidential document s under 14 CFR §11.35(b), as they contain confidential and proprietary information that Aeritek has not and will not share with others.

These documents contain operating conditions and procedures that are not available to the public and are protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552 et seq.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me a t any time. We look forward to working with your office to promote and maintain the safest National Airspace System in the world.

Sincerely,

Kevin D. Barth

## Table of Contents

SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4

INTRODUCTION OF PETITIONERS

................................ ................................ ...................... 4

INTERESTS OF PETITIONERS

................................ ................................ ............................... 5

RELE VANT STATUTORY AUTHORITY

................................ ................................ ............... 5

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PETITIONER

................................ ................................ .............. 6

THE EXTENT OF RELIEF AERITEK SEEKS AND THE REASON
WHY AERITEK SEEKS THE RELIEF

................................ ................................ .................. 10

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING AERITEK AN EXEMPTION WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT IS, THE PUBLIC
AS A WHOLE

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 14

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING AERITEK AN EXEMPTION WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT SAFETY, HOW THE
EXEMPTION WOULD PROVIDE A LEVEL OF SAFETY AT LEAST EQUAL TO THAT PROVIDED BY THE RULE FROM
WHICH AERITEK SEEKS THE EXEMPTION

................................ ................................ ... 15

FEDERAL REGISTRY SUMMARY

................................ ................................ ....................... 194 SUMMARY

Aeritek seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 21 Subpart H, 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.15 1(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b) to operate unmanned aircraft
systems pursuant to the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of

2012

, Public Law 112

- 95 February 14, 2012, Section 333. This exemption will allow Aeritek to operate two small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS), the DJI S

- 900 and the 3D Robotics Aero

M for the purpose of aerial photography , photogrammetry, inspections, preci sion agriculture, and mapping.

INTRODUCTION OF PETITIONERS

Aeritek, headquartered in Jacksonville, FL, is a recently formed partnership within the State of Florida that intends to engage in commercial sUAS operations after official exemption by the FAA i s received pursuant to the FMRA Section 333.

Aeritek was founded by owners, Grant Ward, President, and K evin Barth, Vice President of Flight Operations. Both of the founders have a strong passion for developing a sUAS company that provides clients with a range of precise aerial imaging solutions through the safe and legal competitive advantage an FAA exemption brings.

In addition to their passion, both o f them have a significant amount of experience and qualifications related to the sUAS and manned aircraft industries

. Grant worked for Link Division of the Singer Company installing and maintaining flight simulators for the US Air

Force

. He has flown radi o control helicopters and rotorcrafts for recreational purposes for the last eight years; as well as professional building of sUAS. Over the course of those eight years, he has accumulated approximately 1500 hours of flying sUAS’s. With an electrical eng ineering degree from Ohio Institute of Technology, Grant has knowledge and experience relating to maintaining, building and repairing of sUAS.

Kevin holds a B.S. in Aviation Management and Flight Operations from Jacksonville University. The aviation man agement portion of his degree consisted of the business core that included subjects such as: accounting, quantitative analysis, microeconomics, macroeconomics, along with the aviation core that included subjects such as: Aviation Law, Advanced Air Traffic Control, Crew Resource Management (CRM), Advanced Aircraft Systems of the B

- 777 and CRJ 700, and Aviation Automation. The Flight Operations portion of his degree, allowed him to earn his commercial single and multi

- engine pilot certificates along with his Certified Flight Instructor certificate while going to school at the same time.

In support of the FAA’s continuing mission to provide the safest, and most efficient aerospace system in the world, Kevin appreciates those efforts as he had an internship at American Airlines within the flight safety department. While working within the flight safety department at American, Kevin gained valuable experience with different Safety Management Systems (SMS). Some of those SMS programs included: FOQA, Flight ASAP, Cabin ASAP, and LOSA. In addition, he got to observe the flight and cabin ASAP ERT where the Airlines,5

Union, and FAA representatives are present. Those experiences demonstrates his high regard for safety in all aerospace operations, whether, manned, or un

- manned, and provides Aeritek with a safety first mindset.

With the above listed experiences and knowledge, Aeritek has an excellent combination that will allow them to safely operate sUAS’s for commercial purposes upon the granting of an exemption by the FAA.

INTERESTS OF PETITIONERS

Aeritek’s mission is to provide clients with accurate aerial imaging solutions that are obtained through the safe and legal use of sUAS’s to create efficient and technical analysis for applications that will benefit ind ustries and organizations such as: construction companies,

pre cision agriculture, and utility companies.

The operation below is a specific example of a property that Aeritek seeks to conduct photogrammetry and crop scouting to show methodology of operations for explanatory purposes

of this exemption. However, Aeritek does not want to li mit itself to the specific property

descr ibed below . Accordingly, Aeritek will comply with existing FAA procedure s and the document titled, “ FAA UAS Civil COA Request ” before operations are conducted within the NAS to ensure safety.

As described within this application for explanatory purposes , Aeritek seeks to operate its
DJI S900 and 3D Robotics Aero

- M sUAS’s over a rural piece of property located in Putnam County , Florida for purposes of photogrammetry and crop scouting to allow for a more efficient application of fertilizers which ultimatel y reduces the negative effects on the environment which is in the public interest.

The COA process makes applicable FAA Air Traffic Control facilities aware of proposed UAS operations, and provides the FAA the ability to consider airspace issues unique to UAS operations.

RELE VANT STATUTORY AUTHORITY

With the passage of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), Public

Law 112

- 95 February 14, 2012, Congress has directed the FAA to “ safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the National Airspace System. Pursuant to Section 333 of the FMRA, the Secretary of Transportation is to consider whether certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the NAS before completion of the formal UAS rulemaking that is predicated to go into effect in September of 2015. Based on FMRA Sections 333 (a) through (c) below: Aeritek believes it fits within the prescribed statutory requirements.

SEC. 333. SPECIAL RUL ES FOR CERTAIN UNMANNED

AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.6 (a) IN GENERAL.

— Notwithstanding any other requirement of this subtitle, and not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall determine if
certain unmanned ai rcraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system before completion of the plan and rulemaking required by section 332 of this Act or the guidance required by section 334 of this Act.
H. R. 658

— 66

(b) ASSESSMENT OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.

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

—

(1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and popul ated areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national security; and

(2) whether a certificate of waiver, certificate of authorization,
or airworthin ess certification under section 44704 of title 49, United States Code, is required for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems identified under paragraph (1).

(c) REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFE OPERATION.

— If the Secretary
determines under this section that cert ain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe

Accordingly, if the Secretary of Transportation determines that such sUAS’s may operate safely within the NAS, the S ecretary shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft in the NAS. The proposed operations in this petition for exemption qualify for expedited approval under Section 333 above. Each of the statutory criteria and other relevant fac tors are
satisfied.

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PETITIONER

Grant Ward

– President and Co

- Owner

– grant.ward@aeritek.com
Kevin D. Barth

- VP of Flight Operations and Co

- Owner

- kevin.barth@aeritek.com

Aerial Imaging Technologies LLC
dba Aeritek
2370 Merri Anne Drive Jacksonville, FL 322167

THE SPECIFIC SECTION OR SECTIONS OF 14 CFR FROM WHICH AERITEK
SEEKS AN EXEMPTION

Part 2 1, Subpart H prescribes, in pertinent part, the procedural requirements for issuing
airworthiness certificates.

Section 45.23(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that when marks include only the Roman capital letter “N” and the registration number is displa yed on limited, restricted or light

- sport category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2
inch es nor more than 6 inches high, the words “limited,” “restricted,” “light

- sport,” “experimental,” or “provisional,” as applicable.

Section 61.113(a) and (b) prescribe, in pertinent part, that

—

(a) No person who holds a private pilot certificate may act a s 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 aircr aft 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.

Section 91.7(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

Section 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation of U.S.

- registered civil aircraft unless there is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

Section 91.103 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that fligh t, to include

—

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be completed, and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has been advised by ATC;

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing distance information:

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing take off and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein; and8 (2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.

Section 91.109(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft (except
a manned free ballo on) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.

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

(a) Any where. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight

- shift

- control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface

—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight

- shift

- control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

Section 91.121 requires, in pertinent part, each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising

a ltitude by reference to an altimeter that is set “...to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.”

Section 91.151(a) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR
condition s 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, during the day, to fly
after that for at least 30 minutes.

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in Subpart E of the same part and shall, between required9

inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of the chapter.

Section 91.407(a)(1) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating an aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless it has been approved for return to s ervice by a person authorized under § 43.7 of the same 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
air worthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

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

—

(a) 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, prope ller, 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 certif icate 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, i ncluding 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 met hod 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

m ajor alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances.10 (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 sh all 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.

THE EXTENT OF RELIEF AERITEK SEEKS AND THE REAS ON WHY AERITEK
SEEKS THE RELIEF

1) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR Part 21 Subpart H Relief from 14 CFR Part 21, Certification procedures for products and

parts , Subpart H, Airworthiness certificates, is requested to the extent that would allow Aeritek to operate its two sUAS’s without an airworthiness certificate.

Aeritek seeks relief because it meets the requirements for exemption that’s in accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of PL 112

- 95 in reference to 49 USC 44704 given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area, proximity to airports and populated areas associated with the aircraft and its operation.

2) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seek s relief from 14 CFR 45.23(b) Relief from 14 CFR 45.23(b), markings of aircraft is requested to the extent Aeritek is exempt from displaying the words, “limited,” “restricted,” “light

- sport,” “experimental,” or “provisional,” as applicable near the entranc e.

Aeritek seeks relief because the sUAS’s has no entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station on which the word “Experimental” can be placed. In addition, Aeritek’s sUAS’s will not be certificated under 14 CFR 21.191 as it meets the requirements in Section 333 of PL 112

- 95.

3) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b).11 Relief from 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b), Private pilot privileges and

limitations , is requested to the extent Aeritek is exempt fro m the limitation that a private pilot may not engage in compensation or hire operations. Under current regulations, civil operations for compensation or hire require a PIC holding a commercial pilot certificate per 14 CFR part 61. Based on the private pilo t 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.

Aeri tek seeks relief because 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 person s or property on the ground. Additionally, 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.

4) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.7(a)

Relief from 14 CFR 91.7(a), Civil aircraft airworthiness , is requested to the extent Aeritek is exempt from operating an aircraft in an airworthy condition.

Aeritek seeks relief based on the fact that no airworthiness certificate will be issued for the sUAS’s and that no FAA regulatory standard exists for determining airworthiness. Aeritek feels compliance with its operating documents
to be a sufficient means for determinin g an airworthy condition.

5) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.9(b)(2) Relief from 14 CFR 91.9(b)(2), Civil Aircraft Flight Manual , is requested

to the extent Aeritek is exempt from having a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof in the aircraft.

Aeritek seeks relief due to the fact the aircraft is not only too small to carry the aircraft flight manual docu mentation, the documentation would not be
available to the crew.12

6) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.103

Relief from 14 CFR 91.103, Preflight Action , is requested to the extent Aeritek is not required to bec ome familiar with certain information, specifically,

information contained in the FAA

- Approved Flight Manual on board the aircraft. The PIC will be familiar with all information necessary to safely conduct the flight, just not the FAA

- Approved Flight Manu al because it is non

- existent.

Aeritek seeks relief because an FAA

- Approved Flight Manual will not be

non

- exist. Although, there will be no approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual available, Aeritek will still comply with other applicable require ments of 14 CFR 91.103(b)(2).

7) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.109(a) Relief from 14 CFR 91.109(a), Flight Instruction , is requested to the

extent Aeritek is not required to have fully functioning dual controls for an aircraft that is being used for flight instruction.

Aeritek seeks relief because their sUAS’s by design, do not have functional dual controls. Instead, flight control is accomplished through the use
of a remote control that communicate s with the aircraft via radio communications.

8) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.119(c) Relief from 14 CFR 91.119(c), Minimum Safe Altitude, is requested to the

extent Aeritek may operate below 400 feet ab ove the surface and away from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure in non

- congested areas. Section 91.119 prescribes the minimum safe altitude under which aircraft may not operate, including 500 feet above the surface and away from any person, vessel , vehicle,

or structure in non

- congested areas. Aeritek will have a maximum operating
altitude of 400 feet AGL.

Aeritek seeks relief due to the fact that since the aircraft will be operating at a maximum altitude of 400 feet above the surface, we canno t comply with this requirement, therefore, we request exemption.13

9) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.121

Relief from 14 CFR 91.121, Altimeter Setting , is requested to the extent Aeritek is not required to have a barometric altimeter. The current regulation requires a person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitudes or flight level by reference to an altimeter that is set to the elevation of the departure point or barometric pressure. Accordingly, Aeritek will have a GPS altitude readout
instead of barometric altimeter.

Aeritek seeks relief due to the fact that their sUAS’s do not have a

barometric altimeter.

10) Extent of Relief Aeritek S eeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.151(a)

Relief from 14 CFR 91.151(a), Fuel Requirements , is requested to the

extent to operate at less than the minimums prescribed within 14 CFR 91.151(a). The current regulation provides that no pe rson may begin a flight in an airplane under day

- VFR conditions unless there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and to fly thereafter for 30 minutes. Aeritek feels the intention of this section is to provide a reserve of “energy” as a safety buffer.

Aeritek seeks relief due to the fact that relief has been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less than the minimums prescribed in 14 CFR § 91.151(a), including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. In addition, similar UAS

sp ecific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, VFR conditions.

11) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b)

Relief f rom 14 CFR 91.405(a), Maintenance Required , 91.407(a)(1), Operation after maintenance , preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration

, 91.409(a)(1) and (2) Inspections , and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records , is requested to the extent that the regul ations listed above do not apply to the sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate.

Aeritek seeks relief due to the fact that the sections listed above and Part 43 only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate, which Aeritek’s
sUAS’s will not have.14

T HE REASONS WHY GRANTING AERITEK AN EXEMPTION WOULD BE IN THE

PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT IS, THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE

Congress has already proclaimed that safe integration of sUAS’s into the National Airspace System is in the public’s interest. Granting Aeritek’s exemption request is in the public interest for multiple reasons described below:

I. Conducting aerial photography, inspections, photogrammetry, crop scouting, and topographical mapping in manned aircraft poses a much greater risk to the general public than operating a sUAS’s proposed herein that weighs less than 25 pounds.

Manned aircraf

t capable of performing the same operations typically weigh between 2,000 pounds and 5,000 pounds, much greater than the weight of a sUAS, and poses a much greater safety risk to the general public. In addition, manned aircraft carry significantly greater proportions of flammable fuel which causes a much greater risk to the safety of the general public and can inflict a lot more damage as opposed to the sUAS’s.

II. In terms of emissions and reducing the overall level of carbon dioxide, sUAS’s

have a fractio n of the carbon footprint as compared to the much higher carbon footprint of manned aircraft. Since emissions and negative impacts on the atmosphere would be reduced, sUAS’s as proposed herein would be in the public’s interest.

III. In terms of environmental impact, the beneficial information received from photogrammetry and crop scouting allows farmers within the agriculture industry the ability to reduce the amount of fertilizer containing phosphorus by means of precision applicatio n made possible by sUAS’s. Since fertilizer containing phosphorus usually makes its way into lakes and rivers causing negative effects, reduction of such fertilizer would be in the public’s interest.

IV. In terms of estimating, calculating, and documen ting soil erosion by performing aerial photography and topographic mapping, sUAS’s can provide this analytical data for a reduced cost and higher safety margins as opposed to having manned aircraft conduct similar operations. That data is in the interest of the public and can provide community and government agencies with critical information that would not have been practical without the use of sUAS’s to capture that data.

V. In addition, granting an exemption for Aeritek will help the FAA with the

resea rch and data collection efforts to develop and promulgate rules applicable to commercial sUAS’s operations. Aeritek is more than willing to assist in this effort. Indirectly, the public will benefit from this information because it will lead

to a safer N AS.15

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING AERITEK AN EXEMPTION WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT SAFETY, HOW THE EXEMPTION WOULD PROVIDE A LEVEL OF SAFETY AT LEAST EQUAL TO THAT PROVIDED BY THE RULE FROM

WHICH AERITEK SEEKS THE EXEMPTION

1) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR Part 21 Subpart H does not adversely affect safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the 3D

Robotics Aero

- M, each weigh less than 25 pounds with payload, does not carry a pilot or passengers, carries no explosives or flammable liquid fuels, and operates

within non

- congested areas. The appropriate FAA facility will have advance notice of all operations through the existing process of the certificate of

authorization which has applicable mitigation factors that provide an equal and greater level of safety. In terms of national security, the sUAS’s do not pose a threat due to the size, speed, weight, lack of explosives or flammable liquid fuels, and inability to carry substantial external load.

2) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 45.23(b) does not adversely affect safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the

3D Robotics Aero

- M will be registered and marked on the fuselage or frame in

accordance with 14 CFR Part 47 and 14 CFR Part 45. This is in accordance with previous FAA exemptions.

3) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 61.133(a) and (b) does not adversely affect safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the

3D Robotics Aero

- M will be operated by the Pilot in Command (PIC) with a minimum of a private pilot license and second class medical. The lev el of safety described above is consistent with exemption no. 11062 to Astraeus in which the FAA determined that a PIC with a private pilot certificate operating the UAS would not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons

or pro perty on the ground. The FAA Press Release on February 15, 2015, titled, DOT and FAA Propose New Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

, describes that under the proposed rule, the person actually flying a small UAS would be an “operator.” An operator would have to be at least 17 years old, pass16 an aeronautical knowledge test and obtain an FAA UAS operator certificate. To maintain certification, the operator would have to pass the FAA knowledge tests every 24 months. Accordingly, Aeritek’s pilots will exceed the existing and proposed standards regarding the NAS regulations, see and avoid, and situational awareness concepts etc. because they have a current private pilot certificate. Therefore, an exemption to Aeritek does not adversely affect safety, an d provides an equivalent or higher level of safety as described above. Additionally, as previously determined by the Secretary of Transportation, the requirement to have an airman certificate ameliorates security concerns over civil UAS operations
conduct ed in accordance with Section 333 of the FMRA of 2012.

4) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.7(a) does not adversely affect safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and t he

3D Robotics Aero

- M have an outstanding safety record that demonstrates they are in fact airworthy. Additionally, given the size of sUAS’s described above, the procedures regarding preflight safety checks described below ensures that safety

will not be adversely affected and provides an equivalent level of safety. Not to mention, the FAA has granted the following exemptions to 14 CFR 91.7(a): 10167, 10602, and 10700.

5) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.9(b)(2) does not adversely affect

s afety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the

3D Robotics Aero

- M will have the appropriate flight manuals at the ground

station where the PIC of the sUAS has immediate access to i t at all times, instead of the manual being in the physical aircraft. The safety related purposes of this manual requirement will not adversely affect safety by having the flight manual at the ground station and is an equivalent level of safety. Addition ally, the FAA has granted numerous exemptions to the above regulation.

6) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.103 does not adversely affect safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the D JI S900 and the

3D Robotics Aero

- M will not have an FAA approved flight manual on board the aircraft, however, the PIC will take all required preflight actions that include:17 review of current and forecast weather, takeoff and landing distances, aircraft

pe rformance data given current conditions at time of operation, before the commencement of each flight. Therefore, safety will not be adversely affected and an equivalent level of safety will be provided by following the conditions and
limitations described below.

7) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.103 does not adversely affect safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the

3D Robotics Aero

- M will not have an FAA approve d flight manual on board the aircraft, however, the PIC will take all required preflight actions that include: review of current and forecast weather, flight battery requirements, takeoff and landing distances, aircraft performance data given current condi tions at time of operation, before the commencement of each flight. Therefore, safety will not be adversely affected and an equivalent level of safety will be provided because Aeritek’s PIC will take certain actions before each flight to ensure safety of flight described within the operating documents.

8) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.109(a) does not adversely affect safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the

3D Robotics Aero

- M will conduct training during dedicated training sessions. Given the size and speed of the sUAS’s described above, an equivalent level of safe training can still be performed without fully functioning dual controls

because there will be no non

- participating persons in the vicinity when dedicated training sessions are being conducted.

9) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.119(c) does not adversely affect safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the

3D Robotics Aero

- M will remain at appropriate distances from non

- participating persons. In open a reas, the sUAS’s will remain 500 feet away from all persons other than essential flight personnel that includes th e PIC and Visual Observer (VO). In non

- open areas, if barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently
protect non

- participating persons from debris in event of an accident, Aeritek seeks to operate closer than 500 feet from persons afforded such protections. In18 regards to aircraft separation between manned aircraft, operating at a maximum altitude of 400 feet allows a 100 foot safety buffer zone between manned and unmanned aircraft which provides an equivalent level of safety similar in concept

t o Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums (RVSM). Aeritek will also have the permission of the property owner prior to conducting such operations so the necessary precautions can be taken to minimize any risks to non

- participating persons. Additionally, the excellent safety record of the sUAS’s described above demonstrates these sUAS’s can be operated safely at lower altitudes and closer operating environments.

10) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.121 does not adversely affect safety

and associat ed equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the

3D Robotics Aero

- M will have a GPS altitude readout in feet AGL which is consistent with the proper reporting of altitude to (ATC). The PIC will confi rm that the altitude at the operation site matches the GPS altitude readout. Additionally, the PIC will constantly monitor as part of a “scan” that will ensure the sUAS’s are operated below the maximum altitude of 400 feet. Therefore, safety will not be adversely affected and the equivalent level of safety is described
above.

11) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.151(a) does not adversely affect safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the

3D Robotics Aero

- M will have their flights terminated by the PIC with no less than 25% remaining battery power available. This restriction is more than adequate to return the sUAS’s described above to the landing area from any

locati on within the operating area where VLOS is maintained. Accordingly, the aforementioned does not adversely affect safety and provides an equivalent level of safety. Additionally, the restric tion described above is consistent with FAA exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, VFR conditions.

12) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b) does not adversely affect safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intend s to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the

3D Robotics Aero

- M will be operated in accordance with operating documents19 where the operator will: perform the necessary preflight inspections to determine airworthiness prior to flight, perform required ma intenance, and will keep a log of any maintenance performed. As described in Appendix A, the PIC will conduct detailed inspections after every 10 hours of flight time and maintain a log of those inspections. Maintenance performed by the PIC is limited to updating software, firmware, replacing propellers, and any preventative maintenance. Accordingly, the procedures described above and contained within Appendix A ensure that safety is not adversely affected and provide an equivalent level of safety given the sUAS’s size, weight, and speed.

FEDERAL REGISTRY SUMMARY

Pursuant to 14 CFR 11.81, information to include for exemption, subpart F, the below summary is provided for publication in the Federal Register:

The section or sections Aeritek seeks exemption:

Aeritek seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 21 Subpart H, 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409( a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b) to operate unmanned aircraft systems pursuant to the Federal Aviation

Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

, Public Law 112

- 95 February 14, 2012, Section 333.

Brief description of the nature of exemption A eritek seeks:

This exemption will allow Aeritek to operate two small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS), the DJI S

- 900 and the 3D Robotics Aero

- M for the purpose of aerial photography, photogrammetry, in spections, precision agriculture , and mapping.