September 14, 2015

Mr. James Williams

Manager, Flight Standards Service

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

Shawn Barry

President

Grit & Hustle Media, LLC

PO Box 625

Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678­0625

(949) 288­3455

shawn@shawnbarry.me

www.gritandhustle.media

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operation

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12­140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for exemption from multiple regulatory provisions to allow the use of small unmanned aerial

systems on land controlled by agents of Grit & Hustle Media, LLC (GHM) to assist in the safe evaluation of

infrastructure and operations for our clients.

Dear Mr. Williams:

Grit & Hustle Media, LLC (GHM) respectfully requests an exemption from several provisions of Title 14 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) to permit the use of small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) to assist in

the evaluation of infrastructure and operations for our clients. This request is motivated primarily by the desire to

maximize safety in infrastructure and operations. While an exemption would not eliminate the current need for

in­person visual inspection required by various federal regulatory departments, it would allow GHM to broadly

evaluate assets and operations with sUAS, resulting in a safer and more efficient infrastructure network.

Accordingly, the grant of an exemption is consistent with Congress’ intent, reflected in Section 333 of the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Modernization Act),1that safe systems be permitted in the national

airspace prior to the issuance of final regulations governing general use of these systems.2 A summary of this

request suitable for publication in the Federal Register is provided as Appendix A.

Appendix B provides the manufacturer's information regarding the design, aircraft performance, and fail­safe

features. We have provided manufacturer information related to operating limitations, normal and emergency

procedures, and maintenance and inspection procedures. As we add aircraft designs, we will update this

appendix appropriately.

Appendix C provides the Grit & Hustle Media’s Operations Manual for flights covered under this Exemption

Request.

1 P.L. 112­95, 126 Stat 11, February 14, 2012.

2 Section 333(b) (2) specifically contemplates that the FAA may issue a certificate of waiver upon a finding that

a type of UAS, as a result of its size, weight, speed, operational capacity, proximity to airports and populated

areas, and operations 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.
Background Information

GHM is in the business of Consulting on, Building & Maintaining Mission Specific sUAS for our clients. GHM

Clients look to us for Safe Operations of sUAS. We have developed specific GHM Safe UAV Operational

Procedures. Increasingly, we have clients looking to operate sUAS for Infrastructure Safety & Maintenance

Inspections.

Infrastructure Safety Inspection Operations:

Utility Inspection

Railroad Inspection

Pipeline Inspection

Oil­Field Inspection

Petro/Chemical/Manufacturing Inspection

Construction Site Inspection

Agriculture Inspection

Real Estate Inspection

As part of this GHM is requesting FAA Exemption for sUAS operations for safety, inspection and video capture

usage.

Regulatory Basis for Exemption Request

In addition to the waiver authority provided in §333 of the Modernization Act, the FAAmay grant an exemption

under 49 U.S.C. §44701(f) if it has determined that such an exemption is in the public interest. The FAA has

imposed a separate requirement in its procedural regulations, providing that the petitioner shall explain why

granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide at least an

equivalent level of safety as compliance with the underlying regulation. In this case, approval of this exemption

would advance the public interest by significantly enhancing the safety and efficiency of infrastructure

operations and by providing the FAA with valuable user experience on sUAS in a context with appreciable

economic and societal benefits. As described more fully below, the requested exemption would permit the

operation of sUAS under tightly controlled conditions, thus ensuring that operations will not have an adverse

impact on safety. To the contrary, as explained below, GHM anticipates that use of sUAS will enhance safety in

infrastructure operations. Granting an Exemption is in the Public Interest. The safety and efficiency of

infrastructure operations is heavily dependent upon constant analysis of assets, right­of­way, infrastructure and

other assets/facilities. There are a wide variety of factors that can affect conditions and cause problems for

infrastructure. Even relatively small objects or minor failures can lead to accidents or other incidents causing

downtime of infrastructure. Extreme weather events can lead to flooding or overheating infrastructure. For

example earthquakes, landslides, and abandoned vehicles at grade crossings can block infrastructure. The

potential for sabotage and terrorism – or even just trespassing – are also among the many risks that modern

infrastructure faces.

As a result, pursuant to federal regulations and company policy, our client’s maintenance employees routinely

inspect the infrastructure, such as bridges, tunnels, support structures, and signals. At present, this work is

done primarily by company personnel in motor vehicles, on foot, in specialized equipment. This is often a

labor­intensive and sometimes arduous job. While our clients do all they can to make these inspections as safe

as possible, there is an irreducible element of risk involved whenever employees are required to go out on

structures. Employees may need to climb over or onto structures, which can be slippery, rough, and/or

exposed to the elements. Some structures, such as bridges, are high above the ground. Equipment moving
through inspection zones can increase risk as well, especially in high­traffic areas. While the use of sUAS for

supplemental infrastructure and general asset evaluation would not eliminate these risks entirely (as it is an

additive safety measure), it would reduce the risks to employees by allowing for remote aerial review.

Additionally, the sheer amount of assets and the widely dispersed locations – in many instances far from

sizeable population centers – means that visual inspection in all instances by company personnel can be

inefficient. Aerial analysis by traditional fixed wing aircraft is impractical because the required altitudes for safe

flight reduce visibility below meaningful levels – it is simply not possible to see all asset anomalies from such

heights. Helicopters present better vantage points; however manned helicopters are much more costly, subject

to human safety and carry highly explosive jet fuel making them impractical for deployment. By using sUAS for

supplemental asset evaluation, GHM will be able to substantially upgrade its capacity to detect and address

issues with the right­of­way and other assets before they become a problem for safe operations. Thus, the use

of sUAS has the potential to improve efficiency, resulting in faster and safer delivery of goods, energy & natural

resources vital to the U.S. economy.
Granting an Exemption will not Adversely Affect Safety

GHM notes that there is no applicable standard for an equivalency determination. Some have argued that the

appropriate standard is that for model aircraft, noting that their operations, if conducted for recreational

purposes, would fall completely within the allowable operations for model aircraft. We believe it is difficult to

argue that there is sufficient correlation between model operations controlled by the Academy of Model

Aeronautics and the ones contemplated by GHM. At the same time, it is clear that equivalency cannot be

established for traditional, manned civil aircraft because the design and use profiles between traditional aircraft

and sUAS are simply too different. As such, we believe it makes more sense to focus on why the contemplated

operations would not adversely affect safety, which is all that §11.81(e) requires.

Granting an exemption will not adversely affect safety. GHM contemplates conductingsUAS operations over

client owned or controlled land, solely during daylight hours, at altitudes well below that which would pose a risk

to other aircraft. In general, sUAS operations are intended to be conducted in areas distant from both congested

areas and airports. Moreover, because of the inherent risks presented by standard infrastructure operations,

our clients have already taken steps to secure property against unauthorized public access. For example,

substantial stretches of pipeline, utilities, railroad track and oil production sites are fenced, elevated, or

otherwise secured to prevent access. Otherlong stretches of infrastructure are, as noted above, in very remote

wilderness areas. The nature of operations anticipated by GHM requires that the sUAS be flown at relatively low

altitudes and relatively low speeds. GHM expects that in most instances, the sUAS will be flown less than 75

feet from the highest structure along the path of the sUAS. Accordingly, the risk of interference with another

aircraft is minimal. GHM also plans to conduct sUAS operations at least three miles from any public airports

(including heliports). In the event an operation needs to be conducted closer to an airport, GHM will inform the

airport operator and airport air traffic control tower of the contemplated operation and will comply with any

directions issued by air traffic control at that airport.

Approval of exemptions allowing commercial operations of sUASs in the infrastructure aerial inspection industry

will enhance safety by reducing risk. Conventional operations, using jet or piston powered aircraft, operate at

extremely low altitudes just feet from the subject being inspected and in extreme proximity to people and

structures; and present the risks associated with vehicles that weigh in the neighborhood of 4,000lbs., carrying

large amounts of jet A or other fuel (140 gallons for jet helicopters). Such aircraft must fly to and from the

inspection site. In contrast, a sUAS weighing fewer than 55 lbs. and powered by batteries eliminates virtually all

of that risk given the reduced mass and lack of combustible fuel carried on board. The sUAS is carried to the

inspection site. The sUAS will carry no passengers or crew and, therefore, will not expose them to the risks

associated with manned aircraft flights.

The operation of small UASs, weighing less than 55 lbs., conducted in the strict conditions outlined above, will

provide an equivalent level of safety supporting the grant of the exemptions requested herein, including 333

Aircraft Exemption Status exempting the applicant from conventional aircraft requirements and allowing

commercial operations. These lightweight aircraft operate at slow speeds, close to the ground, and in a

controlled environment and, as a result, are far safer than conventional operations conducted with turbine

helicopters operating in close proximity to the ground and people.

The safety of those on the ground is protected by the fact that no one will be allowed into the area without the

permission of the company. Security will be established for the flight area as part of the pre­flight control. Each

individual within the secure area will be briefed prior to flight and will consent to being in the area. All others will

be excluded from the area.
GHM initially intends to use a dedicated staff for sUAS operations. All operations will be within visual line­of­sight

(i.e., no more than approximately 0.5 miles from the manipulator of the controls, or pilot/operator in command

(PIC or OIC)). Each PIC will conduct at least three take­offs and landings with the sUAS on which he or she is

trained every 90 days. PIC’s will establish their qualifications thru a combination of aeronautical knowledge, UAS

airmanship skills, and verification through testing of flight ability before infrastructures operations have

commenced. Depending on the type of operation,additional ground­based visual observers may be employed

as well. These observers will be within constant visual line of sight and in constant contact with the PIC. The

visual observers will assist the PIC in avoiding objects near the sUAS.

There are no standards for either Private or Commercial sUAS pilot certificates. The safe operation and control

of the UAS as described in this application does not depend on the type of FAA license held by the PIC. Given

the restricted and controlled airspace within which operations will take place, the key factors needed by the PIC

are knowledge of the airspace within which the operation will take place and how that airspace fits into the

National Airspace System (NAS). That knowledge can be and is gained primarily through ground school and not

through flight training in fixed wing or rotor aircraft, nor is it dependent on the acquisition of a commercial or

private pilot’s certificate. Those certificates demonstrate knowledge of the factors and skills needed for the safe

operation of those types of aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft). It cannot be assumed that a commercial pilot,

approved to operate a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft, has the skill or ability to safely operate a small unmanned

aerial vehicle, operating at 400 AGL or lower, within strictly controlled pre­approved airspace. Besides

knowledge of airspace regulations, dexterity in the control and operation of the sUAS acquired from actual

operation of the aircraft is the most important factor in establishing an equivalent level of safety.

If the PIC has acquired the necessary knowledge of airspace requirements, the relevant issues are (1) where

the aircraft will be flown, (2) the size of the aircraft relative to what is being used today to accomplish the same

mission, and (3) what precautions will be taken to ensure the safety of those in the area of operation. We

propose that the PIC has at least an FAA Private Pilot's Certificate and a Class III medical; the aircraft be

operated within a secure environment; and that no one be allowed to enter the secure environment unless they

are part of the operation, have been fully briefed of the risks prior to operation of the sUAS, and have consented

to the risks associated with being in the operating area. Should there be a mishap, the sUAS being flown pose

significantly less of a threat than the helicopters and fixed wing aircraft now being employed because they are a

fraction of the size, carry no flammable fuel, do not carry crew or passengers, and pose an infinitesimal risk to

others. This is in stark contrast to conventional aircraft that are flown to the site, carry explosive fuel, carry

passengers and crew, and operate in a much larger area.

From a practical standpoint, there are relatively few licensed full­scale aircraft pilots who are also qualified to fly

the type of sUAS that are utilized for infrastructure image­capture operations. There are even fewer commercial

pilots that can fly these sUAS – to the point that to do both is considered rare. Assuming that it is unlikely for a

company to find a pilot that has both qualifications, that company would either have to source a qualified sUAS

pilot to train and obtain a commercial certificate, or find a commercial certificated pilot who would be willing to

learn to fly a sUAS to the competency level required for professional use.

Minimum requirements for the PIC include:

1. A minimum of 200 flight cycles and 25 hours of total time as a sUAS rotorcraft pilot and at least 10 hours

logged as a sUAS pilot with a similar sUAS type (single blade or multirotor);

2. A minimum of 5 hours as sUAS pilot with the make and model of sUAS to be utilized for operations

under the exemption and 3 take offs and landings in the preceding 90 days;
3. Have undergone a qualification process as specified in the Flight Operations & Procedures Manual

consisting of a knowledge & skill test of the aircraft to be used.

Another consideration supporting the certificate requirement is that pilots holding a private pilot certificate are

subject to security screening by the Department of Homeland Security. This requirement should ameliorate

security concerns over UAS operations under this exemption.

GHM intends to use commercially available sUAS Components for sUAS. These sUAS systems will be tested

for quality & safety in our test facility before being deployed to the field. The sUAS is less than 55 lbs. fully

loaded, carries neither a pilot nor passenger, and operates exclusively within a secured area. We have a routine

maintenance schedule to verify that the sUAS will remain in safe and operational condition. Please see

Appendix B, for Specific Types of sUAS.

Notes Regarding: 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H

In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of PL 112­95 in reference to 49 USC 44704,

and in consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its

operation, we request that this aircraft exemption meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, if granted

Section 333 relief of 14 CFR part 21, and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36,

is not necessary.

Notes Regarding: 14 C.F.R. § 45.23 (b). Marking of the Aircraft

Given the size of the sUAV, two­inch lettering will be impossible. UA will be identified by serial number,

registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N­Number) markings in accordance with

14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings will be as large as practicable.

Notes Regarding: 14 CFR § 91.7(a) Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

GHM’s request is based on the fact that no airworthiness certificate will be issued forthe UAS. GHM’s UAS will

not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H. Based on the fact that an

airworthiness certificate will not be issued, exemption from § 91.7(a) is not necessary.

Notes Regarding: 14 CFR § 91.9(b)(2) Civil aircraft flight manual, marking & placard

Certifications required, the original intent of these regulations was to display an aircraft’s airworthiness,

certification, and registration documents so they would be easily available to inspectors and passengers. Based

on the FAA Memorandum subject “Interpretation regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at

an unmanned aircraft’s control station,” dated August 8, 2014, the requested relief from 14 CFR §§ 91.9(b)(2)

and 91.203(a) and (b) is not necessary.
Notes Regarding: §91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument & certain flight tests

Small UASs, by their design, do not have fully functional dual controls. Flight control is accomplished through

the use of a control box that communicates with the aircraft via radio communications. Aircraft being

considered for use by GHM allow the UAS Instructor to place the aircraft into ‘loiter’ mode (fixed altitude

stationary hold). In the event of the student losing control, the UAS Instructor can quickly and via alternate

equipment (equipment not in the hands of the student) place the aircraft into a mode that then allows the

instructor to bring the aircraft back into control and back to the pre­determined and/or safe landing location.

GHM does not describe training scenarios in which a dual set of controls would be utilized or required, i.e. dual

flight instruction, provided by a flight instructor or other company­designated individual, that would require that

individual to have fully functioning dual controls. Rather, GHM evaluates the qualification of its PICs based on

their experience with the UAS to be operated and verifies through testing, in lieu of formalized training. As such,

GHM does not seek relief from 14 CFR § 91.109.

Notes Regarding § 14 CFR 91.119(b)

Relief from § 14 CFR 91.119(b), operation over congested areas, is not applicable, because the GHM’s

operations will only be conducted within the secured area described herein.
GHM Safety Operations & Procedures Overview:

Technology Considerations:

Best­in­class, tried and proven technologies that are in advanced iterations. Software from highly­reputable

industry partners will include features:

1. Auto descent (landing) if communication signal were to be severed. If the sUAS loses communications,

the sUAS will have capability to return to a pre­determined location within the Security Perimeter and

land.

2. Auto descent (landing) if battery were to drop lower than nominal level.

3. Flights will be terminated at 25% battery power reserve.

4. Live video for operator gives real­time positioning feedback. In other words, we can monitor the scene

from the vehicle's perspective for collision avoidance, and to maintain spatial orientation.

5. The sUAS will have the capability to abort a flight in case of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies.

6. On­Screen­Display (OSD) contains operating information to ascertain vehicle health at all times: speed,

altitude, number of GPS satellites (when available), heading and voltage.

7. GPS lock supplies for return­to­home (RTH). Should Command and Control (C2) link failures occur

(highly improbable), vehicle returns automatically to the point of launch.

8. Altitude information will be provided to the sUAS pilot via a digitally encoded telemetric data feed, which

downlinks from the aircraft to a ground­based on­screen display. This altitude information will be

generated by equipment installed on board the aircraft, using GPS triangulation, or digitally encoded

barometric altimeter, or radio altimeter, or any combination thereof. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude

initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the pilot.

Mechanical/Physical:

1. We will fly line­of­sight (LOS) only. The vehicle will always remain in direct LOS to the pilot, thus

eliminating the concern of signal severance (flying behind objects/walls).

2. The sUAS will weigh less than 55 lbs and travel at less than 50 knots.

3. Batteries should far exceed the capacity required for actual flight time.

4. Flights will be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet AGL.

5. Fireproof bags for storage and charging of high capacity Lipo batteries on­site.

6. UA operated under this exemption will be marked in accordance with 14 CFR part 45 or as otherwise

authorized by the FAA.

Personnel:

1. Spotters ensure safe operation and act as a redundant set of eyes for operators (pilot, gimbal op,

director)

2. Radio spectrum analysis for interference on the frequencies utilized for vehicle control/communication.

3. A briefing will be conducted in regard to the planned sUAS operations prior to each day’s activities. It will

be mandatory that all personnel who will be performing duties within the boundaries of the safety

perimeter be present for this briefing.

4. The operator will obtain the consent of all persons involved in the sUAS operations and ensure that only

consenting persons will be allowed within 100 feet of the flight operations.

5. Observer and pilot will at all times be able to communicate by voice.

6. Written and/or oral permission from the relevant property holders will be obtained.

7. Pilot and observer will have been trained in operation of UAS generally and received up­to­date

information on the particular UAS to be operated.
Operations:

1. The unmanned aircraft (UA) must weigh less than 55 pounds (25 Kg), including energy source(s) and

equipment. Operations authorized by this petition of exemption are limited to the following aircraft

described in Appendix B. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a

petition amendment to this request.

2. The UA may not be flown at a ground speed exceeding 50 knots.

3. Flights must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL), as indicated

by the procedures specified in the operator’s manual. All altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL.

4. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. This requires the PIC

to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, as specified on the

PIC’s FAA­issued medical certificate.

5. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement

as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate

verbally at all times.

6. The operator’s manual included as Appendix C and this petition of exemption must be maintained and

made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and

limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operator’s manual, the conditions and

limitations herein take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the

procedures as outlined in its operator’s manual.The operator may update or revise its operator’s

manual. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised

documents to the Administrator upon request. The operator must also present updated and revised

documents if it petitions for extension or amendment. If the operator determines that any update or

revision would affect the basis for which the FAA grants this petition for exemption, then the operator

must petition for amendment to their exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS­80) may be

contacted if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operator’s manual.

7. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for safe flight. If the

inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from

operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a

condition for safe flight. The Ground Control Station, if utilized, must be included in the preflight

inspection. All maintenance and alterations must be properly documented in the aircraft records.

8. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or flight

characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo a functional test flight in

accordance with the operator’s manual. The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an

entry in the UAS aircraft records of the flight. The requirements and procedures for a functional test flight

and aircraft record entry must be added to the operator’s manual.

9. The operator must follow the manufacturer’s UAS aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul,

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements. When unavailable, aircraft

maintenance/component/overhaul, replacement, and inspection/maintenance requirements must be

established and identified in the operator’s manual. At a minimum, requirements for the following must

be included in the operator’s manual:

a. Actuators / Servos;

b. Transmission (single rotor);

c. Powerplant (motors);

d. Propellers;

e. Electronic speed controller;

f. Batteries;

g. Mechanical dynamic components (single rotor);
h. Remote command and control;

i. Ground control station (if used); and

j. Any other components as determined by the operator;

10. The Pilot In Command (PIC) must possess at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current

third­class medical certificate. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 14

CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

11. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of infrastructure inspections, the PIC must have

accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b), a minimum of 200 flight

cycles and 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot and at least 10 hours logged as a UAS pilot

with a similar UAS type (single blade or multirotor). Prior documented flight experience that was

obtained in compliance with applicable regulations may satisfy this requirement. Training, proficiency,

and experience­building flights can also be conducted under this petition of exemption to accomplish the

required flight cycles and flight time. During training, proficiency, and experience­building flights, all

persons not essential for flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the

UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

12. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of infrastructure inspection, the PIC must have

accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b), a minimum of five hours as

UAS pilot operating the make and model of UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption and

three take­offs and three landings in the preceding 90 days. Training, proficiency, experience­building,

and take­off and landing currency flights can be conducted under this petition of exemption to

accomplish the required flight time and 90 day currency. During training, proficiency,

experience­building, and take­off and landing currency flights all persons not essential for flight

operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance

from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

13. Prior to any flight operations authorized by this petition of exemption, the PIC and VO must have

successfully completed a qualification process, as outlined in the operator’s manual. As this is a

requirement stipulated by the operator, the test must be developed and implemented by a qualified

person designated at the sole discretion of the operator. A record of completion of this qualification

process must be documented and made available to the Administrator upon request.

14. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of infrastructure inspection, a flight demonstration,

administered by an operator­approved and ­qualified pilot must be successfully completed and

documented. This documentation must be available for review upon request by the Administrator.

Because the knowledge and airmanship test qualifications have been developed by the operator, and

there are no established practical test standards that support a jurisdictional FAA FSDO evaluation and

approval of company designated examiners, the petitioner will conduct these tests in accordance with

the operator’s manual.

15. The UA may not be operated directly over any person, except authorized and consenting personnel,

below an altitude that is hazardous to persons or property on the surface in the event of a UAS failure or

emergency.

16. Regarding the distance from participating persons, the operator’s manual has safety mitigations for

authorized and consenting personnel. At all times, those persons must be essential to the operations.

17. Regarding distance from nonparticipating persons, the operator must ensure that no persons are

allowed within 500 feet of the area except those consenting to be involved and necessary for the

infrastructure inspection operations. This provision may be reduced to no less than 200 feet if it would

not adversely affect safety and the Administrator has approved it. For example, an equivalent level of

safety may be determined by an aviation safety inspector’s evaluation of the infrastructure inspection

area to note terrain features, obstructions, buildings, safety barriers, etc. Such barriers may protect
nonparticipating persons (observers, the public, news media, etc.) from debris in the event of an

accident.

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a pre­determined

location within the security perimeter and land or be recovered in accordance with the operator’s

manual.

19. The UAS must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in accordance with

the operator’s manual.

20. Each UAS operation must be completed with 25% battery power remaining.

21. The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization

(COA) prior to conducting any operations under this petition of exemption. This COA will also require the

operator to request a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than

48 hours prior to the operation.

22. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial number, registered in

accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N­Number) markings in accordance with 14

CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

23. The operator must develop procedures to document and maintain a record of the UAS maintenance,

preventative maintenance, alterations, status of replacement/overhaul component parts, and the total

time in service of the UAS. These procedures must be added to the operator’s manual.

24. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer's Safety Bulletins.

25. The operator must develop UAS technician qualification criteria. These criteria must be added to the

operator’s manual.

26. The preflight inspection section in the operator’s manual must be amended to include the following

requirement: The preflight inspection must account for all discrepancies, i.e. inoperable components,

items, or equipment, not covered in the relevant preflight inspection sections of the operator’s manual.

27. Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation and control of the UA

must comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government

oversight agency requirements.

28. At least three days before scheduled infrastructure inspection, the operator of the UAS affected by this

exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local FSDO with jurisdiction over the area of

proposed infrastructure inspection. The 3­day notification may be waived with the concurrence of the

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

a. Dates and times for all flights;

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS infrastructure inspection operations

conducted under this petition of exemption;

c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on­scene operation of the UAS;

d. Make, model, and serial or N­number of UAS to be used;

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the infrastructure inspection event;

f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners and/or local

officials to conduct the infrastructure inspection event; the list of those who gave permission

must be made available to the inspector upon request;

g. Signature of exemption­holder or representative; and

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

and/or state over which infrastructure inspection will be conducted and the altitudes essential to

accomplish the operation.

29. The documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the PIC at the Ground

Control Station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. These documents must be made available

to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.
30. The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all other manned operations and activities at all

times (including, but not limited to, ultralight vehicles, parachute activities, parasailing activities, hang

gliders, etc.).

31. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All operations must be

conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rules

(SVFR) are not authorized.

32. The UAS may not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle.

33. The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud

or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC.

34. The UA may not operate in Class B, C, or D airspace without written approval from the FAA. The UA

may not operate within 5 nautical miles of the geographic center of a non­towered airport as denoted on

a current FAA­published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management

is obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by the operator’s

COA. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available to the Administrator

upon request.

35. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries of the

operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to the FAA’s UAS Integration Office

(AFS­80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov. Further flight operations may

not be conducted until the incident, accident, or transgression is reviewed by AFS­80 and authorization

to resume operations is provided.
Support for Petition for Exemption

In accordance with the procedural requirements of 14 C.F.R. §11.81, GHM provides the following information:

Contact Information:

Shawn Barry

President

Grit & Hustle Media, LLC

PO Box 625

Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678­0625

(949) 288­3455

shawn@shawnbarry.me

www.gritandhustle.media

Regulatory Provisions from which GHM seeks an Exemption

GHM believes it may need an exemption from the following provisions to conduct the contemplated operations.

In some instances, relief is needed because relief from another provision renders compliance with the

regulation at hand infeasible.

333 Aircraft Exemption Status

14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b)

14 C.F.R. §91.119(c)

14 C.F.R. §91.121

14 C.F.R. §91.151

14 C.F.R. §91.405(a)

14 C.F.R. §91.407(a)

14 C.F.R. §91.409(a)(1)&(2)

14 C.F.R. §91.417(a)&(b)

GHM believes an exemption is only needed from the above­listed regulatory provisions. To the extent that the

FAA believes that additional relief is required for GHM to conduct the operations described here, we request an

exemption from any such regulatory provisions as well.3

3 For example, 14 C.F.R. §91.417(a) imposes certain maintenance record keeping requirements “as

applicable”. Since none of the underlying requirements (e.g., inspection intervals) can be met and will require an

exemption, GHM believes a separate exemption should not be required for §91.417(a).
The Extent of Requested Relief and the Reasons Relief is Needed

Section 333 Aircraft Exemption Status:

Section 333 of the Modernization Act authorizes the FAA to exempt aircraft from the requirement for an

airworthiness certificate based on a consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capability of the

particular UAS, as well as its proximity to airports and populated areas. An analysis of these criteria

demonstrates that the sUAS operated without an airworthiness certificate in the areas and under the conditions

contemplated by GHM will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft)

operating with an airworthiness certificate without the conditions proposed in this request.

The sUAS is less than 55 lbs. fully loaded, carries neither a pilot nor passenger, and operates exclusively within

a secured area. Unlike other civil aircraft, operations under this exemption will be tightly controlled and

monitored by the operator and observer. Operations will be conducted in compliance with the FAA and with

local public safety requirements to provide security for the area of operation as is now done with conventional

equipment, infrastructure, bridge and out building evaluation. These safety enhancements provide an expanded

degree of safety to the inspectors over conventional operations. Lastly, application of these same criteria

demonstrates that there is no credible threat to national security posed by the sUAS, due to its size, speed of

operation, location of operation, lack of explosive materials and inability to carry a substantial external load.

Given the size and limited operating area associated with the aircraft to be utilized by the Applicant, this meets

the requirements of an equivalent level of safety under Part 11 and Section 333 of the Reform Act. The Federal

Aviation Act (49 U.S.C.§44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act both authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft

from the requirement for an airworthiness certificate, upon consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational

capability, and proximity to airports and populated areas of the particular sUAS. In all cases, an analysis of

these criteria demonstrates that the UAS operated without an airworthiness certificate, in the restricted

environment and under the conditions proposed will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft

(fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate without the restrictions and conditions

proposed.
14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b)

§61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot

certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for

compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an

aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection

with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

*****

GHM anticipates initially using a cadre of specially trained staff to conduct the sUAS operations. While these

individuals will not hold commercial pilot licenses. The sUAS will not carry property for compensation or hire

since they will be used solely to assist in evaluation of the infrastructure, equipment, right­of­way, assets,

bridges, tunnels and out­buildings in furtherance of GHM’s client’s primary business, the successful operation

of a infrastructure; however, the employees’ operation of the sUAS will not be incidental to their employment

with GHM, and they will be compensated for such work. Without an exemption, the pilot would be required to

hold a commercial pilot certificate under §61.133. However, the risk associated with the contemplated

operations is less than the risk posed by a traditional aircraft. The sUAS will fly at altitudes well below the

permissible limits for other civil aircraft, eliminating the risk to other aircraft, and within a geographical envelope

under the sole control of GHM clients. Accordingly, the risk would be limited to GHM personnel, who will be

appropriately outfitted in safety gear, and GHM client’s property on the ground. Requiring a commercial pilot

certificate would provide no appreciable safety benefit and would needlessly impose additional cost on GHM.

Because the contemplated operations would not comply with §61.113(b)(1) and none of the other exceptions to

paragraph (a) apply, relief is needed from both paragraphs (a) and (b).
14 C.F.R. 91.119(c)

§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following

altitudes:

***

(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.

*****

GHM submits that the only relief it requires from §91.119 is from the minimum altitudes listed in paragraph (c).

Relief is required from paragraph (c) for fixed wing operations because asset evaluation conducted at 500 feet

or higher is insufficiently distinct to be meaningful. Since operations at this altitude also pose a heightened risk

of collision with another aircraft, safety can only be assured through the grant of an exemption. The anticipated

rotorcraft operations should be adequately addressed by paragraph (d) (1). Additionally, relief should not be

needed from paragraph (a) because an emergency landing of the aircraft due to a power failure will not create

an undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. As noted in the explanation of why an exemption will not

adversely affect safety, GHM clients has exclusive use of the land over which the sUAS will be operated, and

public access is restricted. It also has exclusive use of significant portions of land adjacent to the infrastructure

and structures that will be the objects of evaluation and analysis. GHM’s Clients tightly control access to land

and have the ability to assure that no individuals unassociated with the planned operations are on the affected

land. As such, the risk of injury is minimal. GHM does not contemplate conducting operations over congested

areas, so relief is not requested from paragraph (b).

14 C.F.R. 91.121

14 C.F.R. §91.121 Altimeter Settings

This regulation requires 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.”

*****

As the sUAS may not have a barometric altimeter, but instead a GPS altitude read out, an exemption may be

needed. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the operator, pursuant to the Manual and Safety

Checklist, confirming the altitude of the launch site shown on the GPS altitude indicator before flight.Altitude

information will be provided to the sUAS pilot via a digitally encoded telemetric data feed, which downlinks from

the aircraft to a ground­based on­screen display. This altitude information will be generated by equipment

installed on board the aircraft, using GPS triangulation, or digitally encoded barometric altimeter, or radio

altimeter, or any combination thereof. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point will be established and

confirmed for accuracy by the pilot.
14 C.F.R. 91.151

§91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and

forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and,

assuming normal cruising speed –

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes.

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and

forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and,

assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes.

*****

Operating the sUAS in a pre­defined area with less than 30 minutes of reserve fuel does not raise the type of

risk contemplated by §91.151, i.e., that an aircraft could run out of fuel in the event it has to be flown to an

alternate airport or circle the planned airport in the event of unanticipated conditions. GHM does not intend to

use the sUAS for point­to­point flights and will not operate the sUAS beyond visual line of sight. Nor will the

sUAS require an airport in order to land. Rather, GHM will operate the sUAS using pre­planned flight paths

(taking into account weather conditions) designed to allow the sUAS to fly to the point of intended landing. As

such, there is no need for a time­based excess fuel requirement. Rather it should be sufficient to require only

as much additional excess flight capacity as necessary to safely land the sUAS. We believe that a 25% battery

reserve is more than sufficient to meet this objective.
14 C.F.R. 91.405(a), 91.407(a) (1), 14 C.F.R. 91.409(a) (1)&(2) and 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) & (b)

§91.405 Maintenance required.

Each owner or operator of an aircraft –

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

inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as

prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

*****

§91.407 Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless

–

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

*****

§91.409 Inspections.

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

the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had __

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

service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this chapter; or

(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this

chapter.

*****

§91.417 (a) & (b)

*****

GHM believes that an exemption from these three maintenance requirements is appropriate because the FAA

has not developed maintenance standards that would allow an operator to meet the part 91 maintenance

requirements. In particular, there are no individuals authorized by the FAA to approve a sUAS for return to

service under §91.407(a) or to conduct the initial airworthiness and annual return to service inspections

required by §91.409(a). GHM will maintain the aircraft as instructed in the owner’s manual and ASTM F2909,

where applicable, and will not operate the aircraft until it has reasonably determined that any needed repairs

have been made. However, because of the technical impossibility of meeting the requirements of §§91.405(a),

407(a), 409(a) and 417(a)&(b), we believe an exemption from these provisions is appropriate.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number or via the email address provided above should you

have any questions or concerns.

Respectfully submitted,

Shawn Barry

President, Grit & Hustle Media, LLC
Appendix A

Summary for Federal Register Publication

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the Federal Register should

the FAA determine that publication is needed.

Petitioner: Grit & Hustle Media, LLC (GHM)

Sections of 14 C.F.R. Affected:

333 Aircraft Exemption Status

14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b)

14 C.F.R. §91.119(c)

14 C.F.R. §91.121

14 C.F.R. §91.151

14 C.F.R. §91.405(a)

14 C.F.R. §91.407(a)

14 C.F.R. §91.409(a)

14 C.F.R. §91.417(a)&(b)

Description of Relief Sought:

Petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of 333 Aircraft Exemption Status, 14 C.F.R., 61.113(a)&(b)),

91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151, 91.405(a), 91.407(a), 91.409(a), and 91.417(a)&(b) to conduct sUAS operations over

GHM Client’s owned or controlled land, solely during daylight hours, to assist in the safe evaluation and analysis

of infrastructure and operations. In general, sUAS operations are intended to be conducted in areas remote

from both congested areas and airports. The nature of operations anticipated by GHM requires that the sUAS

be flown at relatively low altitudes. GHM expects that in most instances, the sUAS will be flown less than 75 feet

from the highest structure along the path of the sUAS and in no instances will be flown higher than 400 feet

above the ground. Accordingly, the risk of interference with other aircraft is minimal.
Appendix B

Specific type(s), make, and model:

#1 ­ DJI Inspire 1

See Attached Flight Manuals:

Inspire_1_User_Manual_v1.4_en.pdf
Appendix C

Please see the attached Confidential & Proprietary:

Grit & Hustle Media, LLC

Flight Operation & Procedures Manual (FOPM)