1



### 1110 Molly Road Fairbanks, AK 99709

15 January, 2015

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

Re: Request for Exemption from Certain Regulations per Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 33 3 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Refo rm Act), and 14 CFR
Part 11, PT Aeronautics hereby applies f or an exemption from the listed Federal Aviati on Regulations (FARs) to allow commercial operation of sUAS (small Unmanned Aircraft Systems) , so long as such operations are conducted in compliance with the conditions outlined herein or as established by the FAA as required by Section 333.

I. Description of the Petitioner:

PT Aero nautics is a Fairbanks, Alaska bas ed company born of operations , research, and engineering experience at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The petitioner’s experience includes engineerin g and operations on a variety of sUAS

. We have been involved in projects ranging from wildlife
research to sea ice monitoring to wildfire support

.

As a commercial entity, we intend to offer the following aerial services:

 Surveying and Photogrammetry

 Aerial Surveillance

 Aerial Photography and Videography

 Infrastructure Inspection

 Aerial Mapping

 Precision Agriculture

 Flight Training

 Research and Development

A list of specific Regulations from which exemption is requested is listed below in Section V

.2

II. Background and basis for the petition:

The passing by Congress of Section 333 (a) through (c) of the Reform Act provides a mechanism for such exemption requests. In passing the act , Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to fairly consider whether certain UAS may operate safely in the national airspace system (NAS) before completion of the rulemaking required under section 332 of the Reform Act. In making this determination, the Secretary is required to determine which types of UAS do not create a significant
hazard to us ers of the NAS or the public, or pose a threat to national security. The UAS size, weight, speed, and operational capability; operation of the UAS in close proximity to airports and populated areas; and operation of the UAS within visual line of sight of the operator are conditions to be
considered. If the Secretary determines that such UAS “may operate safely in the national airspace system, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft in the national airspace system .” Reform Act, Section 333 (a). This petition follows the precedent of over 2000 previously granted exemptions in which requirements for such safe operations have been
established.

III. Public Benefit and Operational Safety

From the dawn of their use in th e military theater, Unmanned Aircraft have had one fundamental purpose: to remove the risk associated with sending a human into a dangerous situation . While
manned aviation is far safer for civil pilots and crew than for those at war, there is still an i nherent
risk involved in every manned aviation flight. The main goal of the petitioner ’s commercial operations is to eliminate casualty risk entirely from certain aerial imagery and monitoring flights

, thus opening these capabilities to persons and agenci es that would otherwis e be unable to accept
such risk or the financial burden associated with it. In addition, unmanned aerial imagery can
remove risks to humans and the enviro nment associated with low

- altitude aerial and ground

- based monitoring and inspe ction. Examples of this include an increased level of safety in infrastructure inspection (currently performed by persons scaling scaffold or ladders, or from ground

- based boom apparatus) and monitoring of sensitive biological systems such as animal breed ing colonies and delicate wetland ecosystems (currently monitored on foot or from loud, low

- flying manned aircraft).

While the risks of striking persons on the ground or other manned aircraft are real, we will provide
an overall lower

- risk environment than manned aviation for dull, dirty, and dangerous aerial sensing work through the considerations listed below.

A. UAS Design Safety

. All sUAS operated by the petitioner will

 Be under 55 lbs gross weight at takeoff.

 Be operated in frequency bands allocated by t he FCC as unlicensed or amateur

.

 Operate below 87 kts (100 mph).

 Use geo

- fencing, which will limit the range and altitude at which the vehicle can operate.

 B e operated only in visual line

- of

- site (VL OS) of the pilot or observer.

 Only operate under 5 00’ AGL

.

 R e turn

, at a safe altitude

, to the launch position and land or circle in the event of loss o f
link with the control station.

 T er minate fl ight via parachute deployment, c ontrolled landing

- in

- place

, or CFIT in an unpopulated location upon combined loss of link to control station and loss of GPS signal.

 Maintain a minimum 5

- minute power reserve at the time of landing.3  Be registered with the FAA, and marked as large as practi cable, IAW 14 CFR 45C.

 Be maintained by the operator in a condition for safe flight IAW manufacturer specifications and industry best practice. We have an FAA licensed A&P mechanic on staff who will oversee maintenance operations.

B. Flight Crew Safety. Al l pilots , trainees, and observers operating under the authority of this petition will

 I f acting as PIC, hold at least an FAA Private or Sport Pilot license

.

 If acting as VO, h old at least a valid driver’s license.

 H old an FAA 3 rd Class medical if operating in the vicinity of airports under a letter of agreement (LOA) with the administrator.

 Be properly trained for the operation of the sUAS either IAW manufacturer’s training protocol or by a comprehensive training program established by the petitioner.

 Be properly trained in safe maintenance practices.

 In the case of the P IC , log flight hours and currency IAW 14 CFR 61.51

.

 Abort flight ope rations using RTL functionality or other flight termination in the event of an emergency or for traffic deconfliction.

 Use operations manuals and checklists for every stage of flight; such materials will be at hand in the vicinity of the GCS during flight ops.

C. Operational Safety

. All flight operations will

 Be conducted after the air vehicle has undergone a thorough prefligh t inspection to assure
that it is in a condition for safe operation, IAW manufacturer operation instructions and/or safety che cklists created by the petitioner

.

 Comply with operations and maintenance recordkeeping and reporting requirements set forth by the FAA in response to this petition.

 Comply with all manufacturer operatio ns and maintenance instructions, and with any safety bulletin s issued by the manufacturer of the UAS.

 Be o perated by pilots trained to operate the UAS in a manner consistent with manufacturer’s operational instructions and any conditions set forth by the FAA in response to this petition.

 Only be conducted once a N OTAM has been issued for the operational area.

 Be conducted under visual flight rules (VFR) and in visual me teorological conditions (VMC).

 Be conducted at least 5 miles from a towered airport and 2 m iles from a non

- towered airport

, unless a spe cific LOA exists with the administrator.

 Always give way to manned flight operations , and operations of less maneuverable UAS

.

 Be conducted at least 500’ from non

- participating persons unless such persons are protected from UAS debris by sufficient barriers.

 Be conducted at least 500’ from structures or vehicles, unless the owner or controller of the structure or vehicle has granted permission to operate closer.

 Be based on private or controlled access property, or on public property with the IAW the policy of t he controlling agency.

D. Additional Safety Considerations. All training, maintenance, or functional test flights will

 Only take place during dedicated training, maintenance, or functional test flight sessions.

 Be performed at least 500’ feet from structures and non

- participating persons.4

In the event of an accident or incident, the operator will report to the UAS Integration office within 24 hours, and to the NTSB as applicable.

IV. SPECIFIC sUAS FOR WHICH EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED

The sUAS for which we request exemption are listed below.

Aircraft Exemption # under which aircraft has been previously approved DJI Phantom 11267, 11309 DJI Inspire 11204, 11239 DJI Flamewheel 11318, 11397 DJI Spreading Wings 11260, 11423, 11401
3DRobotics Aero 11393, 11379
3DRobotics IRIS+ 11741, 11778
3DRobotics Solo 11633, 11832 Aeromapper EV2 11405, 11447 Hobby King Bixler 12079, 12104

Each of these sUAS has been previously exempted by another petitioner. We chose previously exempted systems for our operations specifically in order to streamline the exemption process. Each of these systems’ autopilots 

### allow for return to home functionality in the event of a loss of
communication link b etween the aircraft and PIC. Each system also al low s for a geofence to be set up that will not allow the PIC or autopilot to accidentally fly out of the pre

- determined safe flight area.

Specification pages for DJI controllers, including the Naza and Wookong series, are easily
available on the DJI Wiki pages at http://wiki.dji.com/en/index.php/Main_page

.

Specification pages for 3DR controllers, including the APM and Pixhawk, are also readily
available online through the Arduplane and Arducopter information portals at http://plane.ardupilot.com and http://copter.ardupilot.com

, respectively.

In the case of the Pixhawk autopi lot, there are dual independent sensor sets for both IMU suite, barometer, and compass. The autopilot also supports dual GPS, RTK GPS, laser altimeter, and sonar. Safety in further increased by redundant power supplies, independent attitude, navigation, an d communication software loops, and a completely independent second processor for manual control and communication in the unlikely case of total system failure in flight.

Manufacturer’s operations and maintenance information for each sUAS operated by the petitioner will be kept on file and will be collocated with the sy stem GCS when the system is in

use.5

V. S PECIFIC REGULATIONS FROM WHICH EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED, and EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF

SAFETY ACHIEVED.

14 CFR 21 , Subpart H: Certification Procedures for products and parts, Airworthiness Certificates. Airworthiness Certification procedures have not been established for sUAS parts, nor are Airworthiness Certificates available for this class of aircraft. We believe that an equivalent level o f safety can be attained by 1) careful attention by operators and maintainers to manufacturer’s instructions and procedures, 2) flight termination hardware and programming, 3) proper training of operators and maintainers, and 4 ) operational constraints and conditions in accordance with typical Section 333 Exemptions which eliminate casualty risk in the event of a catastrophic failure of the sUAS. The petitioner will keep records of wear and failure of parts and will provide this information to the FAA on

r equest. Furthermore, 

### all of the sUAS we are requesting be included in our exemption have been approved by the FAA in previous Section 333 Exemptions

.

14 CFR 45.23 and 45.29 : Marking of aircraft. The sUAS for which we request exemp tion are not large

enou gh to display registration markings as required in this regulation. In addition, the sUAS will not carry an airworthiness certificate, and thus will not be subject to placarding with airworthiness categories such as “experimental” or “provisional”. We re quest exemption from this FAR and will provide an equivalent level of safety by applying indelible placarding of the aircraft’s registration numbers with as large a character as is practicable on the aircraft’s hull and by conducting a thorough preflight b riefing with all affected persons before the flight. This is consistent with item #22 in 

### typical Section 333 exemptions.

14 CFR 61. 101, 61. 113 , and 14 CFR 61.133 : Recreational, Private , and Commercial Pilot privileges and
limitations. We request exemption from the requirement that the PIC of commercial sUAS flights have a commercial pilot certificate with a second

- class medical. We propose an equivalent level of safety 

### by using careful preplanning, required training, and reduced compl exity of operations, combined with
at least a Sport P ilot certificate (or sUAS operator certificate, should that certificate become available), and a valid US driver’s license . We require pilots to have a pilot certific ate in order that flight crew 1) ha ve an understanding of aeronautical knowledge and 2) understand the consequences of interfering with manned flight. This mirror’s FAA’s guideline in item #13 in typical Section 333 exemptions where a PIC of an sUAS must hold least a Sport Pilot certificate and, for medical testing, at least a Driver’s License and that the PIC maintain currency in their type and category of manned aircraft.

14 CFR 91.7 (a) : Operating an aircraft in an airworthy condition. Reference exemption request for 14

CFR P art 21 (h)

, above . We request exemption as airworthiness standards do not exist for this size and class of aircraft. We will provide an equivalent level of safety as described in t he exemption request for

14 CFR P art 21 (h) above.

14 CFR 91.9 (b)(2) : Flight manual in aircraft. Due to the small size of sUAS and that the flight manual is generally required to be on board the aircraft in order that it be accessible to the pilot, we request exemption from this FAR. An equivalent level of safety will be provided by en suring an operating manual provided by the manufacturer, and including supplemental material generated by the petitioner,
be co

- located with the PIC at the ground control station for the system as per the FAA’s guideline in item #7 in typical Section 333 e xemptions.6

14 CFR 91.103 (b)(2) : Preflight Action. FAA

- approved rotorcraft and airplane flight manuals are not available for the sUAS for which we request exemption, thus, we cannot fully comply with this FAR. We request exemption, and will provide an equivalent level of safety using 1)All manufacturer

- provided (non

- approved) flight and maintenance manuals and checklists, 2) Petitioner

- developed operational checklists (where the manufacturer does not provide a checklist or to supplement manufacturer
che cklists) and other supplemental material , and 3) thorough training of flight and ground crew on preflight checks. This is consistent with the FAA’s guidelines in item #10 of a typical Section 333 exemption.

14 CFR 91.105: Flight Crewmembers at stations. Exemption from this FAR is not necessary. Though the nature of sUAS prevents the flight crewmembers from being physically present on the aircraft, the required flight crewmembers (generally a PIC and a visual observer) will be at their stations throughou t the duration of the flight.



### 14 CFR 91.109: Flight instruction



### . Section 91.109 provides that no person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual c ontrols. We request exemption from this FAR and can provide an equivalent level of safety because of 1) the physical station of the flight crew during training activities and 2) the autonomous nature of the vehicle, and 3) the operational safeties in effe ct to mitigate casualty risk. During training, the trainee may hand off the controls to the PIC by passing the controls physically to the PIC’s possession, or the trainee may step out of the way and let the PIC take over. This is not possible in most man ned aircraft due to cockpit limitations . In addition, the vehicle will almost always be under some level of autonomous flight, so a brief interruption while control is transferred will not disrupt flight. Finally, the operational constraints requested in this exemption provide an equivalent level of safety even if a misha p should occur during training; the petitioner will abide by the FAA’s guideline in item #7 in typical Section 333 exemptions. For training activities involving direct control or free

- fli ght (non

- autonomous r/c

- type flight such as that done by model aircraft operato rs), dual controls will be used until the trainee has shown a level of command of the system so as to operate it safely.

14 CFR 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes

. The nature of sUAS operations is such that they are purposefully flown below the minimum safe altitudes of manned aircraft. Furthermore, the precedent for petition places maximum a ltitudes for sUAS operations below 400’AGL (item #4 in the typical exemption) . We requ est exemption to this FAR and will provide an equivalent level of safety by maintaining 500’ horizontal separation from nonparticipating persons, structures, and vehicles, unless the petitioner has been granted permission from the owner/operator of the str ucture or vehicle. In this case, all nonessential persons will be adequately sheltered from UAS operations occurring within 500’. Kinetic energy evaluations of the system will be performed prior to operations to determine adequate
shelter characteristics

. This is consistent with the typical Section 333 exemption, item #26.

14 CFR 91.121 : Altimeter settings. The sUAS for which the petitioner requests exemption are equipped
with both GPS and dual barometric altimeters. They typically auto

- correct GPS altitude for current barometric conditions upon startup, and flight times will generally not bridge major barometric changes. In addition, flights requested in the context of this petition will not exceed VLOS, and will gen erally return to the point of or igin, thus barometric changes during flight are unlikely to present altitude deconfliction problems even with other sUAS. We request exemption to this FAR and will provide an equivalent level of safety by maintaining a maxi mum operational altitude of 400’ AGL, 100’ below7

minimum safe altitudes for manned aircraft . Even in the event of barometric altimeter OR GPS altimeter failure, this provides an ample buffer from normal manned VFR traffic altitudes . In addition, all of o ur operations will be conducted with a visual observer, in accordance with the typical Section 333 exemption item #6. The VO will be able to verify aircraft altitude using a combination of laser range

finding and visual estimation. Before flight, the acc uracy of the altitude being used by the UAS will be verified against known field elevations.

14 CFR 91.151: Fuel Requirements for flights in VFR conditions . Maximum flight times for most sUAS are below the required 1⁄2

- hour fuel margin requirement of thi s regulation. We request exemption from this regulation and will provide an equivalent level of safety by ensuring a 5

- minute battery margin for battery

- powered sUAS (meaning the sUAS will land with at least 5 minutes of ‘fuel’ remaining). For
sUAS with gas or hybrid powerplants, we will ensure manufacturer’s recommended fuel reserve is maintained at landing, or 20% or 1⁄2 hour fuel reserve, whichever is lesser, to provide an equivalent level of safety. Return to landing under battery or fuel failsafe will be programmed into the aircraft prior to operation and will be automated. This mirrors and expounds upon item #20 in the typical Section 333 exemption.

14 CFR 91.203: Carrying Civil Aircraft Certification and Registration . We request exemption from thi s regulation on the following grounds: 1) As requested above, the sUAS will not be issued an airworthiness certificate. Thus, there will be no airworthiness certificate to display. 2) We will provide an equivalent level of safety by requiring that the re gistration of the sUAS be kept with the airc raft logbooks, which
will be co

- l ocated with the PIC during flight and will be available for inspection by authorities, particip ating personnel, and bystanders, 

### as per the FAA’s guideline in item #23 in typical S ection 333 exemptions.

14 CFR Subpart E (91.401

- 91.417) Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, Alterations
This regulation requires that the operator is primarily responsible f or maintaining the aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 and 43. Paragraphs 91.407 and 91.409 require that the aircraft be "approved for return to servic e by a person authorized under 43.7" after maintenance and inspection. Item #’s 8

- 12 of a typical sec tion 333 exemption address the minimums for achieving an equivalent level of safety upon exemption from this regulation, and it is our intention to adhere to those precedents. In addition, we maintain on

- staff an FAA

- certified A&P Mechanic, who will perfo rm maintenance and record

- keeping training sessions for all PIC’s. PIC’s will be required to keep thorough maintenance logs, and repairs and alterations considered significant (as per item #8 in a typical exemption) will be documented and approved for ret urn to service only by a certificated A&P mechanic. In general, th e PIC will ensure that the aircraft is in an airworthy condition prior to every flight and in addition conduct detailed inspections after every flight. We believe this, along with the FAA’s guidelines in bullet points #8

- #12 in typical Section 333 exemptions, provide for an equivalent level of safety.

VII. SUMMARY

In summary, PT Aeronautics seeks an exemption from the FAA Regulations listed above in order to operate the sUAS listed in Section IV of this request in the NAS. We will use a combination of sUAS design, flight crew training, and operational safety, combined with stringent administrative oversight and meticulous log

- keeping to ensure not only an equivalent level of safety to regulat ions for which we request exemption, but also to exceed such regulations in the benefit to the public. At PT Aeronautics,8

we believe that the safe, responsible use of proven sUAS platforms in a controlled environment can create a safer working environment for dull, dangerous, and dirty tasks. We appreciate the consideration of our request for exemption, and appreciate a prompt decision.

Sincerely,


# Peter Elstner

Director of Operations

PT Aeronautics