18400 V ON K ARMAN A VENUE , S UITE 800 I RVINE , C ALIFORNIA 92612

- 0514 T ELEPHONE (949) 760

- 1121 / F AX (949) 720

- 0182
Direct Dial Number: (949) 224

- 6247 Direct Facsimile Number: (949) 224

- 6407 E

- Mail Address: pfraidenburgh@buchalter.com

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com October 20, 2014

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

Mountain High Aviation, LLC’s Petition for Exemption to Operate Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

FAA Regulatory Docket

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PETITIONER COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER Mountain High Aviation, LLC Paul J. Fraidenburgh Attn: Joseph Hovelman BUCHALTER NEMER 445 Dead Indian Memorial Drive 18400 Von Karman Ave , Suite 800 Ashland, OR 97520 Irvine, CA 92612 541.552.5150 949.224.6247 joseph.hovelman@mthighaviation. com pfraidenburgh@buchalter.comOctober 20, 2014 Page 2

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com I. PETITION SUMMARY Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 , Pub. L. No. 112

- 95 (2012) , 126 Stat. 11 (“Section 333”) and the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) general exemption authority under 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), Mountain High Aviation, LLC (“ Petitioner ”) hereby petitions for exemption s from 14
C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H (Airworthiness Certificates), 14 C.F.R. Part 27 (Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft), 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103 (b)(1) , 91.109(a), 91.119 (c) , 91.121, 91.151, 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405 (a), 91.407(a)(1) 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a)

- (b). The proposed exemption s , if granted , would allow Petitioner to conduct commercial operations of small unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”) weighing 55 pounds or less

. Based on the small size of Petitioner’s UAS , the qualifications and experien ce of Petitioner’s pilot , and the limited environment s within which Petitioner will operate, the requested exemptions fall squarely within the zone of safety envisioned by Congress and set forth in Section 333. Additionally, the e nhanced safety achieved by replacing significantly larger manned aircraft carrying crew and flammable fuel with small UAS carrying no passengers or crew and operated under the specific guidelines and procedures proposed by Petitioner gives the FAA go od cause to find that the UAS operations enabled by the instant Petition are in the public interest. Thus, the requested exemptions should be granted

.October 20, 2014 Page 3

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com II. BACKGROUND Petitioner is a multifaceted technology company that holds an FAA Part 135 Certificate and provides a broad range of remote sensing and aviation solutions to a variety of industries and government agencies

. Petitioner seeks to build on its years of successful and safe operations and leverage its aviation skills and knowledge to offer the widest possible range of UAS services in a manner that is consistent with the intent of Congress in enacting Section 333. Petitioner seeks the requested exemptions and a Certificate of Authorization to permit Petitioner to offer on

- demand commer cial UAS operations for a host of industries and applications incl uding:

• Aerial surveying

• Remote sensing

• Precision agriculture

• Aerial filmmaking and photography

• Public entity support operations

• U tility system inspections and patrolling

• Construction site in spection and monitoring

• Wildlife and forestry monitoring

• Educational and research operations

• Flare stack inspection, and

• Pipeline inspection and patrollingOctober 20, 2014 Page 4

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com Petitioner’s team of pilots and technical experts have extensive experience in remote sensing, aviat ion, data collection, information technology, project management, and mechanical engineering. Petitioner ’s approach to UAS integration is aimed at bui lding on Petitioner’ s preexisting infrastructure for operating within the National Airspace System (“NAS” ) , including, to the greatest extent possible, adopting Petitioner’s safe operations procedures for Petitioner’s Part 135 and special missions operations. This will allow Petitioner to fully integrate with the established systems that govern all air operations, whether conducted under Part 91 or Part 135.
III. STATUTORY AUTHORITY A. Section 333 Section 333 , titled “Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” provides a mechanism for seeking expedited FAA authorization of safe civil UAS operations in the N AS

. Section 333 (a) states that the FAA “shall determine if certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system before completion of the [comprehensive] plan and rulemaking required by section 332(b)(1) of this Act or the guidance required by section 334 of this Act.” In Section 332(b)(1), Congress made it clear that Section 333 provides a mechanism for “expedit ed operational authorization.” Section 333(b) identifies several factors that the FAA should consider in det ermining whether commercial UAS operations should be approved. These include UAS that, “as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity toOctober 20, 2014 Page 5

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the [NAS] or the public or pose a threat to national security.” See Section 333(b).
B. Section 44701(f) In addition to the specific authority conferred by Section 333, the FAA Administrator has general authority to grant exemptions from the FAA’s safety regulations and minimum standards when the Administrator decides a req uested exemption is in the public interest. See U.S.C. § 44701(f).
IV. REQUESTED EXEMPTIONS Petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:
Part 21 prescribes, in pertinent part, the procedural requirements for issuing and changing design approvals, production approvals, airworthiness certificates, and airworthiness approvals.
Part 27 sets forth airworthiness standards for normal category rotorcraft. 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.October 20, 2014 Page 6

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com Section 91.103 (b)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar w ith all available information concerning that fl ight, to include, “ For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff and l anding distance information:... For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flig ht Manual containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein. ” Section 91.109(a) provides that “[n]o person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for fl ight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls.” 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. ” Section 91.121 requires, in pertinent part, each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set “to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.” Section 91.15 1(a) prescribes that 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 cruisingOctober 20, 2014 Page 7

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com speed, (1) duri ng the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or (2) at night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes. Section 91.203 prohibits, in subpart (a) , any person from operating a civil aircraft unless it has within it (1) an appropriate and current a irworthiness certificate; and (2) an effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the second copy of the Aircraft Registration Application as provided for in § 47.31(c). Section 91.203 prescribes, in subpart (b) , that no person may ope rate a civil aircraft unless an airworthiness certificate or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 legible to passengers or crew is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance. Section 91.405(a) requires , in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner shall have the aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of the same part and shall, between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, have discrepancies repai red 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, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless it has been approved for return to service 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 airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.October 20, 2014 Page 8

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com 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 sect ion: (1) Records of the maintenance , preventative maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100

- hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include

- (i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed; and (ii) The date of completio n 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.October 20, 2014 Page 9

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com (iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis. (iv ) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the ti me 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 complian ce, the AD or safety directive number and revisions 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 alterati on 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:October 20, 2014 Page 10

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com (1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until t he 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.
V. PETITIONER’S PROPOSED OPERATIONS SATISFY SECTION 333. A. Unmanned Aircraft System Pe titioner intends to operate several small UAS under the requested exemptions. Thus, the following specifications and limitations apply to all UAS for which Petitioner herein seeks an exemption. The UAS to b e operated under this request will be less than 5 5 lbs. fully loaded, will be operated at a speed of no more than 50 knots , will carry neithe r a pilot nor passenger and no explosive materials or flammable liquids, and will be operate d exclusively i n predetermined environments that are controlled as to access

. Petitioner’s
UAS will use a radio frequency spectrum for operation and control that complies with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) requirements , and will be operated onlyOctober 20, 2014 Page 11

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com in accordance with the procedures described in Petitioner’s Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (“FOPM”)

. 1
Petitioner’ s UAS will be equipped with redundant safety mechanisms allowing safe operation after experiencing certain in

- flight failures. If a lost

- link event occurs , including the loss of ground communications and/ or the loss of a GPS signal, Petitioner’s
UAS will have the ability to perform a pre

- co ordinated , predictable, automated flight maneuver and return to a predetermined location wit hin a designated security p erimeter for landing . The UAS will further have the ability to abort a flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies

. The maximum total flight time for each operational flight will be limited to the amount of time the UAS can be flown and still maintain a reserve battery power of no less than 25%. Thus, good cause exists for granting Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) (setting forth fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions). Regarding Petitioner’s requested exemption from 14 C.F.R. Section 91.109(a) , UAS, by their design, typically do not have functional dual controls. Given the size and speed of the UAS, an equivalent level of safe training can be performed without dual
cont rols because no pilot or passengers are aboard the UAS and all persons will be a safe

1 The FOPM will be submitted separately and confidentially under 14 C.F.R. 11.35(b), as the manual contain s proprietary information that the applicant has not and wil l not share with others. The manual contain s 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.October 20, 2014 Page 12

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com distance away in the event that the UAS experiences any difficulties during flight instruction. The FAA has approved exemptions for flight training without fully functio nal dual controls for a number of aircraft and for flight instruction in experimental aircraft. See Exemption Nos. 5778K and 9862A. Thus, good cause exists for granting the requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91. 109(a)

. Petitioner’s UAS will be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 47, and have identification (N

- Number) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Subpart C. Markings will be as large as practicable. Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R . § 91.121 (Altimeter Settings), Petitioner seeks such relief because Petitioner will not have a typical barometric altimeter onboard t he UAS. Instead, altitude information will be provided to the UAS PIC via a digitally encoded telemetric data feed, whic h downlinks from the aircraft to a ground

- based on

- screen display. The altitude information will be generated by equipment installed onboard the UAS, using GPS triangulation, digitally encoded barometric altimeter, radio altimeter, or any combination ther eof. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the UAS
PIC. Thus, good cause exists for granting the requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121. Given the size, weight, speed, and limited opera ting area associated with the aircraft to be utilized by the applicant, an exemption from 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H (Airworthiness Certificates), subject to certain conditions and limitations, is warranted (ifOctober 20, 2014 Page 13

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com necessary) and meets the requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 C.F.R. Part 11 and Section 333. The UAS operated without an airworthiness certificate in the restricted environment and under the conditions and limitations proposed by Petitioner will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate issued under 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H , and not subject to the proposed limitations and conditions.
Petitioner wi ll stric tly comply with safety and maintenance procedures included in all applicable UAS manufacturer’s instructions and operating manuals. To the extent such information is not included in the guidelines developed by the manufacturers,
P etitioners wi ll develop a nd document maintenance, overhaul, replacement, and inspection requirements, procedures to document and maintain maintenance records with regard to Petitioner’s UAS, and UAS technician qualification criteria. Petitioner’s operations manuals will include m aintenance requirements for Petitioner’s UAS, including “on

- condition” maintenance and modifications. In light of these mitigating factors, exemptions from 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) are warranted.
Re garding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), it is Petitioner’s understanding that , in light of the operating parameters defined herein, Petitioner’s UAS
may not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, and exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a) may be unnecessary. See , e.g.,October 2 0, 2014 Page 14

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com Exemption No. 11062, Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352 (explaining no such exemption was necessary for the requested UAS operations). To the extent such an exemption is deemed necessary in this instance , Petitioner asserts that it should be granted in light of the safety procedures proposed herein. In accordance with the pertinent part of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(b), the PIC shall be responsi ble for determining whether the aircraft is in a safe condition for flight. Petitioner’s manuals for maintenance and operations shall include safety checklists to be used by the PIC prior to each flight. Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F .R. § 91.9(b)(2) (Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements ) and § 91.203(a) and (b), (Civil aircraft: certifications required), it is Petitioner’s understanding that relief from these regulations is no longer necessary in light of th e FAA Memorandum “Interpretation regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at an unmanned aircraft’s control station,” dated August 8, 2014. To the extent the FAA deems an exemption from this section necessary for Petitioner’s proposed oper ations, such exemption should be granted in light of the mitigating fact that Petitioner will maintain the documents required under 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9 and 91.203 at the UAS ground control station during flights.
B. UAS Pilot in Command Petitioner’s UAS pilot i n command (PIC) will be Petitioner’s Managing Director,
Own er, CEO, and Special Missions Pilot, Joseph Hovelman. Mr. Hovelman has over 23 years of experience in the aviation industry as a research and chief pilot, director of flightOctober 20, 2014 Page 15

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com operations, and projec t manager. Mr. Hovelman’s responsibilities have included management of domestic and international flight operations utilizing fixed wing aircraft, helicopters, pilots, and mechanics . Mr. Hovelman has been responsible for experimental research modificatio ns of aircraft helicopters a nd marine survey vessels, and has served as Chief Pilot for production level wide area assessment and UXO data collection survey flights throughout North America. In addition, Mr. Hovelman has served as Chief Pilot for projects conducted on behalf of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”), the U.S. Department of Energy , U.S . Air Force, U.S. Navy, Stanford Research Institute & University, as well as several other public agencies and private companies. Highlig hts of Mr. Hovelman’s training and certifications include:

• Airline Transport Pilot, Multi Engine Land, Commercial Privileges with Instrument Rating:

 Type rated in JS

- 3101/02, 850 Hrs.

 Pilatus PC

- 12, 1700 Hrs.

 King Air B200/C12, 600 Hrs.

 Queen Air B80, 400 Hrs.

 Cessna C

- 208 Caravan, 2,000 Hrs.

 Cessna 152/172/182/206/210/337

 SR

- 22 Cirrus GTS, 100 Hrs.

 Multiple other aircraft ;October 20, 2014 Page 16

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com • 5,500 Flight hours of survey, research and development and experimental test pilot experience ;

• Department of Defens e Secret Security Clearance, United States
Government

– Current; and

• Multiple professional pilot courses, initial and recurrent, Flight Safety International ProCard, SimCom Int. Highlights of Mr. Hovelman’s pertinent experience include:

• Director of Flight Operations/Chief Pilot on multiple simultaneous projects with multiple aircraft and pilots;

• Project execution and oversight as Chief Pilot/Director of Marine and Flight Operations USACE specific projects, such as Ortho/LiDAR, HeliMag, SAR Radar, and Marine Mag;

• Flown hundreds of missions and millions of acres of Ortho/LiDAR, P

- Band SAR, Hyperspectral and Thermal data collection flights;

• Managed and flew as lead research pilot over 50 NASA missions involving pollution studies, forest fire mapping, and UAV ele ctronics testing and development; and

• Systems design lead on multiple airborne, ground, and marine platforms. Additionally, 100% of Petitioner’s operations will utilize a visual observer (“VO”). The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long a s the PICOctober 20, 2014 Page 17

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and the PIC will be able to communicate verbally at all times during operational flights

. Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103(b)(1), Petitioner will comply with the other appli cable procedures and requirements stated in § 91.103(a) and (b). Specifically, the PIC will take all actions including reviewing weather, flight battery requirements, aircraft performance data, and landing and takeoff distances before initiation of a flig ht. The PIC will also account for all relevant site

- specific conditions in their preflight procedures. Risks presented by sun glare will be mitigated by the PIC’s and VO’s ability to see other air traffic and initiate a return

- to

- home sequence if needed

. C. Operating Parameters of Petitioner’s UAS Petitioner’s UAS operations will be conducted within a predetermined, access controlled environment . In this controlled environment, Petitioner’s operations will remain within VLOS of the PIC and /or VO , below 400 feet AGL , and at speeds below 50
knots

. Flights will be operated at a lateral distance of no less than 100 feet from any inhabited structures, buildings, vehicles, vessels, or nonparticipating persons. The UAS will operate in accordance with t he safety and operational requirements of the FOPM. Prior to the operation, a Safety Risk Analysis Plan (“SRAP”) will be created which includes all safety and operational information necessary to safely carry out the flight. When applicable, all UAS oper ations will be conducted in accordance with any state or local privacy laws.October 20, 2014 Page 18

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com O nly participating persons will be permitted within the operating area. 2 As to Petitioner’s filming operations, and c onsistent with the relief typically provided to manned operat ions under FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1, Petitioner requests relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c) with respect to those participating persons, vehicles, and structures directly involved in the performance of the actual filming. Regarding distance from participating persons, the operations manual set s forth safety factors for authorized and consenting production personnel . Because those procedures are specific to participating persons, no further FSDO or aviation safety inspector approval is necessary for reductions to the distances s pecified in Petitioner’s manual

. Although Petitioner seeks to comply with the waiver process as described in FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1 (Issue a Certificate of Waiver for Motion Picture and Television Filming), the current section of Order 8900.1 has specific
process es that preclude a jurisdictional FAA FSDO from issuing the required Certificate of Waiver, because the section did not originally provide for UAS operations. Thus, Petitioner seeks exemption from the applicable regulations normally waived during that
pro cess. Petitioner proposes that the FAA include the required notifications and coordination with jurisdictional FSDOs through the conditions and limitations accompanying the requested exemption, and that the exemption sought herein will take

2 Pursuant to Order 8900.1 V3, C8, S1, as a pplicable to aerial filming operations, “participating persons” includes all persons associated with the production. Participating persons will be briefed on the potential risk of the proposed flight operations and must acknowledge and accept those risks prior to participation.October 20, 2014 Page 19

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com the place of t he Certificate of Waiver normally issued by a jurisdictional FSDO under 8900.1. Under this rubric, for aerial filming operations, Petitioner will notify every FSDO with jurisdiction over the area that Petitioner plans to operate, just as with manned
filmi ng operations, and those FSDOs will have the ability to coordinate further conditions and limitations with the UAS Integration Office to address any local concerns. Petitioner’s UAS will remain clear and yield the right of way to all manned operations and activities at all times (including, but not limited to, ultralight vehicles, parachute activities, parasailing activities, and hangliders). Petitioner will not conduct UAS operations within 5 nautical miles of the geographic center of a non

- towered airpor t unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained and the operation is conducted in accordance with a Notice to Airmen (“NOTAM”)

. Petitioner will obtain an Air Traffic Organization (“ATO”) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorizati on (“COA”) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of exemption. In fulfilling its requirements under the COA, Petitioner will be required to request a NOTAM not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior to the operation.
D. The Requested Exemption Promotes the Public Interest
T he enhanced safety achieved by replacing significantly larger manned aircraft carrying crew and flammable fuel with small UAS carrying no passengers or crew and operated under the specific guidelines a nd procedures proposed by Petitioner gives theOctober 20, 2014 Page 20

Buchalter Nemer Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale www.buchalter.com FAA good cause to find that the UAS operations enabled by the instant Petition are in the public interest. Moreover, a s the FAA has already recognized, UAS provide “a greater degree of flexibility, which supp lements the current capabilities offered by manned aircraft.” See Exemption No. 11062, Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352, at p. 22. By granting Petitioner’s requested exemptions, the FAA will help drive development of safe and successful commercial UAS operations and will advance the public knowledge base for such operations. Petitioner is committed to promoting the
UAS research efforts of policymakers including the FAA, NASA , and DOD by sharing data from its commercial UAS operations and serving as a resource for future UAS research operations

. Thus, the F AA has good cause to grant this Petition.
VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the exemptions requested herein should be gr anted and Petitioner should be permitted to c onduct small UAS operations in accordance with its manuals and any other operating parameters the FAA deems necessary and appropriate

. Respectfully submitted, BUCHALTER NEMER A Professional Corporation

By Pau l J. Fraidenburgh Counsel for Petitioner Mountain High Aviation, LLC