10845 Olive Boulevard, Suite 260, Saint Louis, Missouri 63141  314.997.6111 www.trileaf.com

 

June 18, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Trileaf Corporation’s Petition for Exemption to Operate

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

FAA Regulatory Docket
June 18th, 2015

Page 2

I. PETITION SUMMARY

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. No.

112-95 (2012), 126 Stat. 11 (“Section 333”) and the Federal Aviation Administration’s 

(“FAA”) general exemption authority under 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), Trileaf Corporation

(“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for exemptions from 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H

(Airworthiness Certificates), 14 C.F.R. Part 27 (Airworthiness

Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft), 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b)(1),

91.109(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151, 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1)

91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a)-(b). The proposed exemptions, if granted, would allow

Petitioner to conduct commercial operations of small unmanned aircraft systems 

(“UAS”) weighing 55 pounds or less.

Based on the small size of Petitioner’s UAS, the qualifications and experience of 

Petitioner’s pilot, and the limited environments within which Petitioner will operate, the

requested exemptions fall squarely within the zone of safety envisioned by Congress and

set forth in Section 333. Additionally, the enhanced safety achieved by replacing

significantly larger manned aircraft carrying crew and flammable fuel with small UAS

carrying no passengers or crew and operated under the specific guidelines and procedures

proposed by Petitioner gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operations enabled

by the instant Petition are in the public interest. Thus, the requested exemptions should

be granted.
June 18th, 2015

Page 3

II. STATUTORY AUTHORITY

A. Section 333

Section 333, titled “Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” provides a 

mechanism for seeking expedited FAA authorization of safe civil UAS operations in 

the NAS. Section 333(a) states that the FAA “shall determine if certain unmanned 

aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system before completion of 

the [comprehensive] plan and rulemaking required by section 332(b)(1) of this Act or 

the guidance required by section 334 of this Act.” In Section 332(b)(1), Congress made

it clear that Section 333 provides a mechanism for “expedited operational 

authorization.”

Section 333(b) identifies several factors that the FAA should consider in determining

whether commercial UAS operations should be approved. These include UAS that, “as

a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to 

airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a

hazard to users of the [NAS] or the public or pose a threat to national security.” See

Section 333(b).

B. Section 44701(f)

In addition to the specific authority conferred by Section 333, the FAA Administrator has

general authority to grant exemptions from the FAA’s safety regulations and minimum 

standards when the Administrator decides a requested

exemption is in the public interest. See U.S.C. § 44701(f).
June 18th, 2015

Page 4

III. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a national engineering firm specializing in telecommunications

engineering, surveying, and environmental compliance that has been providing these

services for the past 22 years. Petitioner will be utilizing this exemption to increase the

accuracy, productivity and most importantly the safety of said services. Deploying

UAS’s will allow the petitioner to gather valuable and required information without

risking the lives of tower climbers and construction crews. Petitioner seeks the

requested exemptions and Certificate of Authorization to permit Petitioner to offer

commercial UAS operations for the following applications and industries:

• Aerial Surveying/Mapping

• Line of Site Surveying

• Telecommunications Tower Structural Mappings

• Telecommunications Tower Inventory Audits

• Utility System Inspections

• Construction Monitoring/Site Inspections

• Migratory Bird Nest Evaluations/Monitoring

• Wildlife and Forestry Surveys

• Environmental Site Assessments

• Commercial Real Estate Photography 
June 18th, 2015

Page 5

Further, the FAA recently issued grants of Exemption in circumstances similar:

to Snowy Owl ., Exemption No. 11752, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0947, 

Mountain High Aviation ., Exemption No. 11581, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-

00874., Astraeus Aerial Exemption No. 11062, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-

0352., Clayco, Inc. Exemption No. 11109, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0507.,

VDOS Global, LLC Exemption No. 11112, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0382.,

Aeryon Labs, Exemption No. 11213, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-00642. 

For operations that are substantially similar to those proposed herein as well as 

approved and similarly approved UAS’s. 
June 18th, 2015

Page 5

IV. REQUESTED EXEMPTIONS

Petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Part 21 prescribes, in pertinent part, the procedural requirements for issuing and changing

design approvals, production approvals, airworthiness certificates, and airworthiness 

approvals.

Part 27 sets forth airworthiness standards for normal category rotorcraft.

Section 91.7(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil

aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

Section 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation of U.S. registered civil aircraft unless there

is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual,

approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof. 

Section 91.103(b)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot in command shall, before

beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight, 

to include, “For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following 

takeoff and landing distance information:... For civil aircraft for which an approved

Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing

distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein.”

Section 91.109(a) provides that “[n]o person may operate a civil aircraft (except a

manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully

functioning dual controls.”
June 18th, 2015

Page 6

Section 91.119(c) prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person

may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: “Over other than congested areas.

An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated 

areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to

any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.”

Section 91.121 requires, in pertinent part, each person operating an aircraft to

maintain cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set “to the elevation of the 

departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.”

Section 91.151(a) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under

VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is 

enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising 

speed, (1) during the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or (2) at night, to fly 

after that for at least 45 minutes.

Section 91.203 prohibits, in subpart (a), any person from operating a civil aircraft unless 

it has within it (1) an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate; and (2) an effective 

U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States,

the second copy of the Aircraft Registration Application as provided for in

§ 47.31(c). Section 91.203 prescribes, in subpart (b), that no person may operate a civil

aircraft unless an airworthiness certificate or a special flight authorization issued under §

91.715 legible to passengers or crew is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance.
June 18th, 2015

Page 7

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner

shall have the aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of the same part and shall,

between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section,

have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in Part 43 of the chapter.

Section 91.407(a)(1) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating an aircraft 

that has undergone maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration

unless it has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under

§ 43.7 of the same chapter.

Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an

aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an inspection for the

issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. 

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that-

(a) Each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the 

periods 

(b) specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventative maintenance, and alteration and 

records 

(2) of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved 

(3) inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each 

(4) engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include-

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the

 Administrator) of the work performed; and
June 18th, 2015

Page 8

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for return 

to service.

(2) Records containing the following information:

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each 

rotor.

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, 

and appliance. 

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which are required 

to be overhauled on a specified time basis.

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the last

inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its 

appliances are maintained.

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives

including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number 

and revisions date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time

and date when the next action is required.

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration

 to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed: 

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until 

(2) the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work 

is performed.

(3) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and 
June 18th, 2015

Page 9

(4) transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under § 43.11 of this 

chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved

for return to service.

V. PETITIONER’S PROPOSED OPERATIONS SATISFY SECTION 333.

A. Unmanned Aircraft System

Petitioner intends to operate a Riegl Ricopter, and a DJI Inspire 1 under the requested 

exemptions. Thus, the following specifications and limitations apply to all UAS for which 

Petitioner herein seeks an exemption.

The UAS’s to be operated under this request will be less than 55 lbs. fully loaded, will be 

operated at a speed of no more than 32 knots, and will have a ceiling of no higher than

400 feet and will carry neither a pilot nor passenger and no explosive materials or 

flammable liquids, and will be operated exclusively in predetermined environments that 

are controlled as to access. Petitioner’s UAS will use a radio frequency spectrum for

operation and control that complies with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) 

requirements, and will be operated only in accordance with the procedures described in 

Petitioner’s Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (“FOPM”)

Petitioner’s UAS will be equipped with redundant safety mechanisms allowing safe

operation after experiencing certain in-flight failures. If a lost-link event occurs,
June 18th, 2015

Page 10

including the loss of ground communications and/or the loss of a GPS signal, Petitioner’s

UAS will have the ability to perform a pre-coordinated, predictable, automated flight 

maneuver and return to a predetermined location within a designated security perimeter 

for landing. The UAS will further have the ability to abort a flight in the event of

unpredicted obstacles or emergencies. The maximum total flight time for each 

operational flight will be limited to the amount of time the UAS can be flown and still

maintain a reserve battery power of no less than 25%. Thus, good cause exists for 

granting Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) (setting forth fuel 

requirements for flight in VFR conditions).

Regarding Petitioner’s requested exemption from 14 C.F.R. Section 91.109(a), UAS, by 

their design, typically do not have functional dual controls. Given the size and speed of

the UAS, an equivalent level of safe training can be performed without dual controls

because no pilot or passengers are aboard the UAS and all persons will be a safe

Petitioner’s UAS will be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with

14 C.F.R. Part 47, and have identification (N-Number) markings in accordance with 14

C.F.R. Part 45, Subpart C. Markings will be as large as practicable.

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 (Altimeter Settings),

Petitioner seeks such relief because Petitioner will not have a typical barometric altimeter 

onboard the UAS. Instead, altitude information will be provided to the UAS PIC via a
June 18th, 2015

Page 11

digitally encoded telemetric data feed, which downlinks from the aircraft to a groundbased on-screen display. The altitude information will be generated by equipment

installed onboard the UAS, using GPS triangulation, digitally encoded barometric 

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

initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the UAS PIC. Thus, 

good cause exists for granting the requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121.

Given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft to be 

utilized by the applicant, an exemption from 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H (Airworthiness

Certificates), subject to certain conditions and limitations, is warranted (if necessary) and

meets the requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 C.F.R. Part 11 and

Section 333. The UAS operated without an airworthiness certificate in the restricted

environment and under the conditions and limitations proposed by Petitioner will be at

least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating

with an airworthiness certificate issued under 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, and not

subject to the proposed limitations and conditions.

Petitioner will strictly comply with safety and maintenance procedures included in all

applicable UAS manufacturer’s instructions and operating manuals. To the extent such

information is not included in the guidelines developed by the manufacturers, Petitioners

will develop and document maintenance, overhaul, replacement, and inspection

requirements, procedures to document and maintain maintenance records with regard to

Petitioner’s UAS, and UAS technician qualification criteria. Petitioner’s operations 
June 18th, 2015

Page 12

manuals will include maintenance requirements for Petitioner’s UAS, including “oncondition” maintenance and modifications. In light of these mitigating factors,

exemptions from 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and

91.417(a) and (b) are warranted.

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), it is Petitioner’s 

understanding that, in light of the operating parameters defined herein, Petitioner’s UAS

may not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21,

Subpart H, and exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a) may be unnecessary. See, e.g., 

Exemption No. 11062, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0352 (explaining no such

exemption was necessary for the requested UAS operations). To the extent such an

exemption is deemed necessary in this instance, Petitioner asserts that it should be

granted in light of the safety procedures proposed herein. In accordance with the pertinent 

part of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(b), the PIC shall be responsible for determining

whether the aircraft is in a safe condition for flight. Petitioner’s manuals for maintenance

and operations shall include safety checklists to be used by the PIC prior to each flight.

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2) (Civil aircraft flight

manual, marking, and placard requirements) and § 91.203(a) and (b), (Civil aircraft:

certifications required), it is Petitioner’s understanding that relief from these regulations

is no longer necessary in light of the FAA Memorandum “Interpretation regarding

whether certain required documents may be kept at an unmanned aircraft’s

control station,” dated August 8, 2014. To the extent the FAA deems an exemption from
June 18th, 2015

Page 13

this section necessary for Petitioner’s proposed operations, such exemption should be

granted in light of the mitigating fact that Petitioner will maintain the documents required

under 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9 and 91.203 at the UAS ground control station during flights.

B. UAS Pilot in Command

Petitioner’s UAS pilot in command (PIC) will be Petitioner’s Employee Anthony 

Cogliano. Some of Mr. Cogliano’s training, certification and experience include:

• Private Pilot, Single Engine Land with Visual Flight Rules:

 Piper Tomahawk, 50 Hrs.

 Cessna 150, 75 Hrs.

 Cessna 152, 75 Hrs.

 Cessna 172, 10 Hrs.

 Piper Warrior, 175 Hrs.

• 400 Flight hours of Training and cross country flight.

• Professional pilot courses, initial and recurrent, and ground school training with 

Bridgewater State College’s Aviation Science Program.

Additionally, 100% of Petitioner’s operations will 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 the PIC will be able to communicate

verbally at all times during operational flights.

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103(b)(1), Petitioner will

comply with the other applicable procedures and requirements stated in § 91.103(a) and
June 18th, 2015

Page 14

(b). Specifically, the PIC will take all actions including reviewing weather, flight battery

requirements, aircraft performance data, and landing and takeoff distances before

initiation of a flight. The PIC will also account for all relevant site-specific conditions in

their preflight procedures. Risks presented by sun glare will be mitigated by the PIC’s

and VO’s ability to see other air traffic and initiate a return-to-home sequence if needed.

C. Operating Parameters of Petitioner’s UAS

Petitioner’s UAS operations will be conducted within a predetermined, access controlled

environment. In this controlled environment, Petitioner’s operations will remain within

VLOS of the PIC and/or VO, below 400 feet AGL, and at speeds below 37 knots. Flights

will be operated at a lateral distance of no less than 100 feet from any inhabited structures,

buildings, vehicles, vessels, or nonparticipating persons. The UAS will operate in

accordance with the safety and operational requirements of the FOPM. Prior to the

operation, a Safety Risk Analysis Plan (“SRAP”) will be created which includes all safety

and operational information necessary to safely carry out the flight. When applicable, all

UAS operations will be conducted in accordance with any state or local privacy laws. 

Only participating persons will be permitted within the operating area.

2. As to Petitioner’s filming operations, and consistent with the relief typically provided

to manned operations under FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1, 

Petitioner requests relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c) with respect to those participating 

persons, vehicles, and structures directly involved in the performance of the actual
June 18th, 2015

Page 15

filming. Regarding distance from participating persons, the operations manual sets forth 

safety factors for authorized and

consenting production personnel. Because those procedures are specific to participating

persons, no further FSDO or aviation safety inspector approval is necessary for

reductions to the distances specified in Petitioner’s manual.

Although Petitioner seeks to comply with the waiver process as described in FAA Order

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1 (Issue a Certificate of Waiver for Motion Picture

and Television Filming), the current section of Order 8900.1 has specific processes that

preclude a jurisdictional FAA FSDO from issuing the required Certificate of Waiver,

because the section did not originally provide for UAS operations. Thus, Petitioner seeks

exemption from the applicable regulations normally waived during that process.

Petitioner proposes that the FAA include the required notifications and coordination with

jurisdictional FSDOs through the conditions and limitations accompanying the requested

exemption, and that the exemption sought herein will take

2 Pursuant to Order 8900.1 V3, C8, S1, as applicable to aerial filming operations, 

“participating persons” includes all persons associated with the production. Participating

persons will be briefed on the potential risk of the proposed flight operations and must

acknowledge and accept those risks prior to participation. 

the place of the Certificate of Waiver normally issued by a jurisdictional FSDO under

8900.1. Under this rubric, for aerial filming operations, Petitioner will notify every FSDO

with jurisdiction over the area that Petitioner plans to operate, just as with manned
June 18th, 2015

Page 16

filming operations, and those FSDOs will have the ability to coordinate further conditions

and limitations with the UAS Integration Office to address any local concerns.

Petitioner’s UAS will remain clear and yield the right of way to all manned operations 

and activities at all times (including, but not limited to, ultralight vehicles, parachute

activities, parasailing activities, and hangliders). Petitioner will not conduct UAS

operations within 5 nautical miles of the geographic center of a non-towered airport

unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained and the operation

is conducted in accordance with a Notice to Airmen (“NOTAM”).

Petitioner will obtain an Air Traffic Organization (“ATO”) issued Certificate of Waiver

or Authorization (“COA”) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of

exemption. In fulfilling its requirements under the COA, Petitioner will be required to

request a NOTAM not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior to

the operation.

D. The Requested Exemption Promotes the Public Interest

The enhanced safety achieved by replacing significantly larger manned aircraft carrying

crew and flammable fuel with small UAS carrying no passengers or crew and operated

under the specific guidelines and procedures proposed by Petitioner gives the 

FAA good cause to find that the UAS operations enabled by the instant Petition are in the

public interest. Moreover, as the FAA has already recognized, UAS provide “a greater
June 18th, 2015

Page 17

degree of flexibility, which supplements the current capabilities offered by manned

aircraft.” 

By granting Petitioner’s requested exemptions, the FAA will help drive development of

safe and successful commercial UAS operations and will advance the public knowledge

base for such operations. Petitioner is committed to promoting the UAS research efforts

of policymakers including the FAA, NASA, and DOD by sharing data from its 

commercial UAS operations and serving as a resource for future UAS research 

operations. Thus, the FAA has good cause to grant this Petition.

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the exemptions requested herein should be granted and

Petitioner should be permitted to conduct small UAS operations in accordance with its 

manuals and any other operating parameters the FAA deems necessary and appropriate.

 Respectfully submitted, 

 Trileaf Corporation

 A Professional Corporation

 By

 

 Anthony Cogliano for Petitioner

Trileaf Corporation