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 International

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, Inc. 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 priority 

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 public and the integration process by

approving the exemption in question. In addition, 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 intended 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 of safety. 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. In addition, 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 employment is in the optimal position as to mitigate any risk 

associated with aircraft flying in the same proximity and at all times provide the rightof-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 explosion hazards as outlined in 

DOT/FAA/AR-09/55, “Flammability Assessment of Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Ion Polymer 
Page 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. In addition, 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) link failure modes, strategies and mitigations. C2 

link failures 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 identified 

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 of persons, 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 failure. 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 professionals 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 apply
Page 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. In addition, 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.