Blue

-Chip Unmanned Aerial Solutions , Inc.

Clint P. Stevens 1965 South Beech St. Wichita, KS 67207 316
-305
-5498 clint.stevens@bluechipuas.com
November 20 , 2014
Air Line Pilots Association I nternational Attn: Mark Reed 535 Herndon Parkway P.O. Box 1169 Herndon, VA 20172

- 1169 **Re: Comments**  **submitted on**  **behalf of**  **the Airline**  **Pilots Association**  **International (ALPA)**  **in response**  **to Blue** **- Chip**  **Unmanned Aerial**  **Solutions, Inc.**  **exemption request**  **under Section**  **333 of**  **the FAA**  **Modernization Reform**  **Act of**  **2012; docket**  **ID FAA** **- 2014** **- 0787** **- 0001**  Mr. Reed, Thank you for your recent comment submission on behalf of the ALPA in response to Blue

-Chip Unmanned Aerial Solutions, I nc. request for exemption under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization Reform Act of 2012; docket ID FAA
-2014
-0787
-0001
. We very much value the concerns of every

citizen especially those whom we will share the skies. Our number one priorit y is to conduct the safest operations possible which include mitigating all risks associated with flight operations both to the air and ground
. As directed by

Congress in the “Reform Act” of 2012, the FAA has been given the tough task of fully

integrating UAS into the NAS. To achieve this, the FAA has to identify those organizations which will help facilitate the process of successful integration and which are in the public’s best interest. Given the proven experience and capabilities the Blue

-Chips offer, the FAA would provide a great service to the general publi c and the integration process by approving the exemption in question. Inaddition, the FAA will receive an immense amount of data which can be levied to assist in the rules promulgation.Attachment 1 Blue

-Chip UAS Address to ALPA Individual Concerns

1. Reliability, safety and operation of the small UAS: The anticipated operation is expected to occur below 400 feet above the surface in Class E and G airspace. ALPA does not support sUAS operation proposing flight operations in Class E airspace under the provisions of Section 333. If in fact this operation is in Class E airspace below 400’ AGL, it is then potentially in extremely close proximity to routine manned aircraft operations. The consequences of failure of the sUAS to remain in the intend ed airspace then become considerably greater and mitigations must be developed to ensure that cannot happen. ALPA’s long

-held position is all aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS) must operate to the same high level ofsafety. There must be means both to ensure that the sUAS remains within the defined airspace and to ensure that the hazard of other aircraft intruding on the operation is mitigated

.
 All Blue

-Chip UAS operations will be conducted below 400’ AGL primarily in Class G airspace. In the event the operational area moves into Class E airspace, all preplanning actions will be taken to mitigate associated risks flying within that specified class. These actions will be to inform the ATC tower/airport manager by NOTAM along with the approved FAA civil COA not later than 48 hours prior to operations commencing
. Inaddition, operations within Class E airspace will require two-way radio communication between the pilot in command (PIC) and the control tower (when applicable) at all times in

-which flight operations are active. Additionally, the Blue

-Chips previous experience in flight operations and controlling multiple assets in the same airspace provides the knowledge required to assist in airspace deconfliction to ensure the UAV employ ment is in the optimal position as to mitigate any risk associated with aircraft flyingin the same proximity and at all times provide the right

of

-way to the manned aircraft. 2. Pilot and Observer Communication: The petition does not clearly state how the pilot and the observer will be able to communicate with each other as required by FAA N 8900.227. Voice communication with the pilot is a limited mitigation if both the pilot and observer are not able to maintain a visual observation of both the aircraft and the area per FAA N 8900.227.

 Based on your concerns we have addressed this issue within our updated exemption submitted Nov 20, 2014. Communication between the PIC and visual observer (VO) will be conducted over two-way radio, cell phone and/or other FAA approved communication devices to reduce the risk associated with loss of visual on the aircraft when the PIC and VO are geographically separated. 3. Flammability Assessment of Lithium

-Ion and Lithium

-Ion Polymer Battery Cell Designed for Aircraft Power Usage: The lithium polymer batteries that serve as the power supply have numerous associated fire and e xplosion hazards as outlined in DOT/FAA/AR

-09/55, “Flammability Assessment of Lithium

-Ion and Lithium

-Ion PolymerPage 2 Battery Cell Designed for Aircraft Power Usage (January 2010).” The safe carriage of

the batteries and the mitigations in place for known risks should be addressed.

 Within the Sensurion Magpie Maintenance Manual this specific topic is addressed in detail. Provided are multiple warnings and procedures identifying the risks associated with the use of LiPo batteries to ensure their care, handling and usage are in accordance with their manufacturers recommendations
. Inaddition, step by step guidance is provided to properly remove and replace batteries from the aircraft, charging requirements and limitations and proper disposal procedures to ensure all associated risks are mitigated and hazards minimized. 4. Communication and Command (C2) linkfailure modes, strategies and mitigations. C2 linkfailures are one of the most common failures on a UAS, lost link mitigations should require safe modes to prevent fly

-aways or other scenarios. If lost link occurs, mitigations like auto
-hover, return
-to
-home and Geo

-Fencing boundary protection must be incorporated into the navigation and control systems for a UA to safely land (without harm to person or property) or re

-establish C2. The petition states that if the sUAS losses GPS it will commence an automated landing immediately. Without GPS to guide the sUAS in a C2 lost link scenario it does not seem plausible that this function could be safely accomplished. Additionally, the radio frequency spectrum that is commonly accessed for small UAS is unprotected. Mitigations for spectrum interference, weather, terrain and obstacles (man

-made or natural) should be developed to ensure safe operations.

 Based on your concerns we have addressed this issue within our updated exemption submitted Nov 20, 2014. In addressing this concern in our exemption we made a slight oversight in explaining how the risk mitigation technique would be executed. The Sensurion Magpie is designed to “return-to-home” or original launch position, in the event of lost link lasting longer then the allowable time frame identified with the aircraft manual
. Within our mission and flight planning procedures, we identify the home (launch/land) location by assessing obstacles and ground area to ensure a safe automated recovery

with hand held transmitter will take place in the event link is not reestablished. Additionally, operations will only be conducted in optimal meteorological conditions and will be aborted in the event excessive wind or other conditions arise during flight. With operations being conducted in rural, noncongested environments, RF interference is a minimal concern as the aircraft will communicate in both the 900MHz and 2.4GHz spectrums. 5. 14 CFR 21 and 14 CFR 91.203: The petition seeks an exemption from the aircraft airworthiness process and 14 CFR 91.203. The FAA has stated that any UAS manufacturer is welcome to submit and undergo certification evaluation of their aircraft ALPA opposes this attempt to avoid certifying the airworthiness of this sUAS. This sUAS should be certified to the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS.Page 3

 Thank you for your concern. Unlike many other companies choosing to utilize UAVs which do not or will not obtain an airworthiness certificate, we have accomplished due diligence in identifying and working with a manufacturer who is actively pursuing special airworthiness certificates for their aircraft. Our exemption request from this requirement is only in the interim while the manufacturer works with the FAA to obtain said certificate. Please reference N106MP active as of 11/12/14 for the Sensurion Magpie. Our aircraft has a slight modification to carry the payload desired and therefore will be going through the SAC process in the near future based on the recent approval for this airframe. 6. 14 CFR 61.113 (a

) and (b ), 14 CFR 61.133(a) The petition is proposing commercial operations that will be for “compensation or hire,” ALPA believes that the pilot must hold at least a current FAA Commercial Pilot Certificate for an appropriate category and class for the type of aircraft being flown as well as specific and adequate training on the UAS make and model intended to be used. Similarly, a current 2nd Class FAA Medical certificate should be required for a UAS pilot operating an aircraft for compensation or hire commercial operations as is required in the NAS today.

 Based on your concerns we have addressed this issue within our updated exemption submitted Nov 18, 2014. We are no longer requesting exemption from this CFR as we are adopting the qualification requirements identified within Astraeus Aerial approval, exemption #11062. Blue

-Chip UAS PICs will be rated private pilots at a minimum and will retain at least a third

-class medical as identified with the precedent setting approval referenced above. We are open to adjusting the requirements based on FAA direction and will require second

-class medical and commercial certificates in the event that decision is given. 7. 14 CFR 91.7 Civil Aircraft Airworthiness: ALPA’s long

-held position is all aircraft in the National Airspace System ( NAS) must operate to the same high level of safety. Thus sUAS likewise must be in airworthy condition.

 Airworthy condition will be achieved by keeping in

-line with manufacturer recommendations and through the utilization of frequent inspections as identif ied within our exemption request. With the Sensurion Magpie receiving a SAC, this only furthers our ability

to achieve and maintain airworthiness with our air vehicles. 8. 14 CFR 91.103 Pre

-Flight Action: Petition request exemption from the requirements set forth preflight actions to determine the safety of the flight. However, in section (b )(2) relief is granted, “For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b )(1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature. ALPA opposes this attempt to avoid determining the safety of this sUAS flight to the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS.Page 4

 As stated in our exemption request, this request is specifically addressed towards the portion of runway

and air traffic control requirements. Small UAS do not use traditional runways (Magpie is hand launched) and the majority of the operations will be conducted in Class G uncontrolled airspace removed from control towers. Previously, we have shown that operations within controlled airspace will require the PIC to maintain constant communication with the control tower through the use of approved radio communication equipment. In addition, as indicated within exemption, pre-flight actions taken will include a mission brief, risk mitigation to include weather conditions, emergency and abort procedures, flight plan information and any other change in procedures which would impact operating other than within standard procedures. 9. 14 CFR 91.109 Flight Instruction: The petitioner requests an exemption to the requirement for dual controls when conducting flight instruction. While the petitioner’s rationale for this may have some merit, the broader issue is that the petitioner makes no reference to any attempts to comply with (or request a waiver to) 14 CFR 61.195 which defines the requirements for flight instructors. Thus there is no indication at all regarding what the qualifications ofpersons, who may be providing instruction, will be. 14 CFR 91.113 Right of Way, “See and Avoid” requirements: A means, given the absence of an onboard pilot, to meet this significantly complex requirement must be specified.

 Based on your concerns we have addressed this issue within our updated exemption submitted Nov 18, 2014. We are no longer requesting exemption from this CFR as we have the ability

to utilize dual controls through the use of a “buddy box” during all flight instruction. In addition, all initial flight instruction will be conducted by Sensurion and their certified instructor staff. Any additional flight training will be conducted by

in-house instructors who have obtained a Sensurion instructor certification on the specific aircraft being instructed which falls directly in

-line with the CFR. 11. 14 CFR 91.119: Minimum safe altitudes: General. ALPA’s long

-held position is all aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS) must operate to the same high level of safety, this include maintaining a safe altitude for both airplanes and helicopters.

 14 CFR 91.119 indicates that no aircraft may operate under 500 ft AGL in noncongested areas except in sparsely populated areas which is in

-line with the majority of Blue

-Chip UAS operations. We are proposing to reduce the minimum distance from personnel, vehicles and structures from 500 ft to 250 ft based on the size, weight speed and drastically

reduced risks compared to traditional aircraft where the 500 ft rule was applied against. In good faith, we are not opposed to maintaining the 500 ft requirement if indeed the FAA decides the 250 ft proposal in an undue risk in this point of the integration process.Page 5 12. 14 CFR 91.121 Altimeter setting: According to the petition, the aircraft will not have

a barometric altimeter as required by 14 CFR 91.121 so the ability to accurately maintain altitude must be addressed. Processes or mitigations, such as redundant control capability, fail

-safe systems, backups and specific, validated procedures for system and equipment failures must be in place. These processes or mitigations must cover engineering processes, software development and control, electronic hardware development and control, configuration management, and quality assurance to ensure the aircraft and its control system(s) operate to the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS.

 Blue

-Chip UAS is no longer requesting an exemption from this CFR due to the fact the Sensurion Magpie in fact has an onboard barometric altimeter. 13. 14 CFR 91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions: The use of batteries as the only source of power for an aircraft in the NAS is a substantial shift from traditional propulsion methods on which current safety margins are based and requires more regulatory exploration to determine best safety practices. The FAA will need to conduct analysis of the aircraft performance and operational environments to determine whether the safety baseline of this technological functionality can be performed reliably and repeatedly to an equivalent level of safety.

 The FAA has set precedence on this matter with the approval of Astraeus Aerial exemption #11062 in which they have indicated a 25% battery reserve. Blue

-Chip UAS proposes a 10% battery reserve on the primary

power source based on two hours of flight time which would allow for 12 minutes reserve time. The Magpie UAS is also equipped with a redundant reserve battery used only

in emergency

situations to include primary

battery f ailure. Between the 10% life on the primary battery and the redundant reserve battery we believe this proposal equates to at least an equivalent level of safety especially when compared to manned flight reserve requirements of 30 minutes. 14. 14 C.F.R. 91.405(a), .407(a), .409(a ) (2), .417(a

) & (b): Maintenance Inspections: The petition states, “Pre/Post and routine inspections and maintenance will be conducted...”and requests exemption from regular periodic maintenance inspections and record keeping. The foundation of a check and balance maintenance is the safety methodology that provides accountability, and is precisely the reason why FAA certified maintenance pro

fessionals should perform all required inspections. Additionally, owner/operators must be required to keep records verifying certain maintenance is in compliance. ALPA opposes this attempt to avoid compliance with established aircraft maintenance and record keeping and this sUAS aircraft should comply with the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS.

 The exemption request for this section serves only as an interim until the SAC is approved for the modification of the Magpie. In which event these CFRs will applyPage 6 fully in regards to the airworthiness certificate. While the SAC is going through the approval aircraft an exemption will be needed not to avoid maintenance and inspections rather to mitigate the CFRs as they cannot be fully complied with in regards to the UAV as currently written when an airworthiness certificate does not exist. Inaddition, as indentified with the exemption request, Blue

-Chip UAS will conduct Pre and Post flight inspections, routine inspections, annual inspections and unscheduled maintenance above and beyond the recommendations within the Sensurion maintenance manual. Each inspection and all maintenance performed will be documented and maintained on file for a minimum of one year. Finally, we are concerned that because the waiver request is not for a single specific operation or location, but rather for all operations of the same general type, the FAA’s oversight task is considerably increased. Specific details of every operation must be communicated to the FAA for approval to ensure that operation

-and location

-specific mitigations result in the same current level of safety being maintained. FAA’s limited resources may be significantly taxed by the continuing use of waiver requests until such time as the Small UAS rule can be promulgated.

 In regards to your concern on the multiple applications, we spoke with the FAA special rules office on this subject, specifically whether or not separate exemptions need to be submitted or if a single exemption would suffice. The direction we were provided was based on the flight operations and characteristics. If the flight operations and characteristics differ drastically pending the application than separate exemptions may

be required; however, if the flight operations and characteristics are virtually the same then a single exemption may suffice. With the advice provided, Blue

-Chip UAS submitted a single exemption to cover the applications we believe we will provide support too
. Given the understanding that the operational areas will not change based on the application the flight operations and characteristics should also not change or vary little at most
. The aircraft will not react differently whether taking an image of the ground or collecting data from a ground sensor through WiFi. The only difference may

be the orbit/flight path that would be used to acquire the applicable data desired in which there is little to no difference in flight characteristics whether the aircraft is flying a linear, circular, race track or figure-eight flight path/orbit. During the mission planning phase the flight path/orbit will be identified and such risk mitigation techniques will be utilized to ensure all operations are within the given boundaries identified by the FAA. Finally, in the event the FAA special rules office decides that multiple exemption requests need to be submitted in our scenario we will promptly develop and submit for comment/review each individual application we desire to provide services for.