Mark E. McKinnon

Matthew J. Clark Mark.McKinnon@dentons.com

Matthew.Clark@dentons.com

D 703.336.8708

D 703.336 .8714

Dentons US LLP

1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

United States

T 703.336.8800

F 703.336.8750 Salans FMC SNR Denton

McKenna Long

dentons.com

August 7

, 2015

To Whom it May Concern:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Moderni zation and Reform Act of 2012 (Reform Act )

and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Michigan State University ( hereinafter sometimes referred to as " MSU

,

" University " or "Michigan" ) here by applies for a Summary Grant of Exemption from the Federal

Aviation Regulations (FARs ) identified below to operate small unmanned aerial vehicles ( i.e., small

unmanned aircraft systems or UAS ) for conducting aerial data collection in support of is resear ch

and educational endeavors

. Specifically, MSU seeks to operate the following vehicles: DJI Phantom

Series, DJI Inspire 1, 3D Robotics X8, 3D Robotics X8+, Aeromao Aeromapper

, Microdrone MD4

-

1000

, Blade 180QX, Ascending Technologies (AscTec) Pelican , 3D Robotics Quadcopter, and the

Align T

- REX 450 Plus DFC

. MSU respectfully submits that this Petition for Exemption qualifies

for expedited approval, as the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA ) has previously issued grants

of exemption in circumstances simi lar in all material respects to those presented herein

.

In addition to this Petition for Exemption, MSU will also submit The University UAS

Operations Manual

. MSU submits this material as a confidential document under separate cover

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.35(b), as the material contain s confidential commercial and pr oprietary

information that MSU has not and will not share with others. The information contained in the

material is not generally available to the public and is protected from release unde r the Freedom of

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition of the Michigan State University for Summary Grant of Exemption Pursuant

to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012U.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 2

For your convenience, this Petition is organized as follows:

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

P AGE

I. B A CKGROUND & D ESCRIPTION OF P ETITIONER

................................ ................................ 3

II. D ESCRIPTION OF P ROPOSED O PERATION

................................ ................................ ........... 4

III. R ELEVANT S TATUTORY A UTHORITY

................................ ................................ ................. 5

IV. MSU' S P ROPOSED UAS O PERATIONS M EET THE R EQUIREM ENTS OF S ECTION

333 OF THE R EFORM A CT

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5

A. Approval is Warranted Based on the UAS's Size, Weight, Speed, and

Operational Capability

................................ ................................ ............................. 6

B. Approval is Warranted Based on the Operational Restrictions in MSU's

Operating Documents

................................ ................................ .............................. 8

V. R EGULATIONS F ROM W HICH E XEMPTION I S S OUGHT

................................ ...................... 8

A. 91.9(c), 45.23(b) and 45.27(a): Aircraft Marking and Identification

Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 9

B. 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b):

Maintenance Inspections

................................ ................................ ........................ 10

C. 61.23(a) and (c), 61.113, 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.315: Private,

Recreational and Sport Pilot Medical Certificate, Privileges a nd

Limitations

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 11

D. 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

................................ ................................ .... 12

E. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual in the Aircraft and 91.203(a) and

(b): Carrying Civil Aircraft Certification and Registr ation

................................ ... 12

F. 91.103: Preflight Action

................................ ................................ ........................ 13

G. 91.109(a): Flight Instruction

................................ ................................ ................. 13

H. 91.119(c): Minimum Safe Altitudes Over Other Than Congested Areas

.............. 14

I. 91.121: Altimeter Settings

................................ ................................ .................... 14

J. 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

................................ 15

VI. D RUG AND A LCOHOL P ROGRAM

................................ ................................ ...................... 16

VII. P UBLIC I NTEREST

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 16

VIII. P RIVACY

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 16

IX. F EDERAL R EGISTER S UMMARY

................................ ................................ ........................ 16

X. C ONCLUSION

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 16U.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 3

I. B ACKGROUND & D ESCRIPTION OF P ETITIONER

Michigan State University faculty, staff and students work every day to advance the common

good in uncommon ways. They tackle some of the world’s toughest problems to find solutions that

make life better.

The nation’s pioneer land

- grant university, MSU is one of the top research universities in the

world. Home to nationally ranked and recognized academic, residential college, and service

- learning

programs, MSU is a diverse community of dedicated students and scholars, athletes and artists,

scientists and leaders. Founded in 1855, MSU became the prototype for the 69 Land Grant

universities founded under the Morrill Act of 1862. MSU was the first institution of higher learning

in the United States to teach scientific agriculture. MSU continues today with more than 200

programs of u ndergraduate, graduate and professional study. It is the only university in the U.S.

with schools of allopathic, osteopathic and veterinary medicine.

As a leading research university, MSU’s external funding exceeded $528 million in the 2013

-

2014 academic year. MSU continues to focus on developing its worldwide research program. MSU

has an extensive campus of 5,200 acres in East Lansing, Michigan, and approximately 19,600 acres

throughout Michigan used for agricultural and natural resources research and e ducation.

MSU’s extensive campus and land holdings, along with activities in each county in the state

of Michigan through its MSU Extension Program, provide numerous opportunities to conduct

research and engage in aerial imaging and remote sensing activ ities. The ability to deploy a UAS

relatively quickly and repeatedly and at low altitudes allows for acquiring very high resolution

remotely sensed research data and valuable aerial images that would otherwise be too costly, unsafe,

or impossible to acqui re using manned aircraft or other traditional methods. The ability to operate

UAS would benefit MSU’s research programs in significant ways. For these reasons, MSU seeks an

exemption for commercial operations of small UAS for performing aerial data colle ction in support

of its educational and research endeavors.

In accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 11.81(a), MSU provides the following information in support

of its Petition for Exemption

.

The contact information for Petitioner is as follows:

Lynn A. Kris er

Associate General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

Michigan State University

Hannah Administration Building

426 Auditorium Road, Room 494

East Lansing, Michigan 48906

Phone : (517) 355

- 7609

Fax: ( 517 ) 432

- 3950

Email: kriser@msu.eduU.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 4

II. D ESCRIPTION OF P ROPOSED O PERATION

MSU seeks an exemption pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act to use a number of

different UAS platforms for aerial data collection in support of a broad range of educational and

research endeavors

. By way of example, education and research programs supported by the proposed

UAS operations, include, but are not limited to: remote sensing and aerial surveys, active robotics

research and development, aeronautical and avionics research and dev elopment, UAS flight

instruction and skills development, precision agriculture, natural resource management/exploration,

geographical mapping applications, photogrammetry, water and land use management,

building/infrastructure inspection and surveys, aeria l photography and videography, geographical

mapping applications, and wildlife/forestry monitoring and surveys. Aerial data collected by

Petitioner's UAS would also be used to promote and market MSU

, as well as support student

re creational and sport activi ties

.

All of the UAS platforms MSU intends to use have already been approved by the FAA in

previously granted exemptions, or otherwise exhibit the same characteristics in terms of their weight,

speed and operational capabilities which meet the requiremen ts of Section 333 of the Reform Act.

In addition, MSU has a proven track record of safe UAS operations. The FAA has issued

Petitioner several Certificate of Waiver or Authorizations (COAs) for research activities located in

areas under the jurisdiction of the Minneapolis A ir Route Traffic Control Center and of Lansing Air

Traffic Control :

 COA Number 2014

- CSA

- 14 : Operation of the Aeromao Aeromapper, UAS in Class

G airspace at 400 feet and below AGL in the vicinity of and under the jurisdiction of

Lansing Air Traffic Control

.

 COA Number 2014

- CSA

- 124 : Operation of the Aeromao Aeromapper and 3D

Robotics X8 , UAS in Class G airspace below 400 AGL at sites in Alger, Le elanau, &

Missaukee counties, Michigan under the jurisdiction of Minneapolis Air Route

Traffic Control Center

.

MSU is committed to maintaining the highest standards of flight safety, and will leverage its

knowledge and experience gained operating UAS under its public COAs to ensure that the proposed

op erations are conducted safety. All UAS operatio ns will be performed in accordance with the

accompanying MSU operating documents, and in accordance with the requirements of an applicable

COA

. Among other things, and as detailed in the operating documents, all UAS operations will

occur in uncontrolled ai rspace

, unless specific authorization is granted by the FAA or applicable

authorities

, within visual line

- of

- sight (VLOS) of the pilot and visual observer, and will be limited to

daytime Visual Flight Rules ( VFR ) conditions

. Moreover, MSU 's operating docum ents incorporate

redundant safeguards to enhance safety.

The proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption are not new or novel to the FAA

. The

FAA has previous ly issued grants of exemption to use small UAS for aerial data collection in

support of s imilar educational and research activities

, including:U.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 5

 Exemption No. 11552 to Sinclair Community College to conduct educational research

and training (Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0374);

 Exemption No. 11304 to Auburn University Aviation Center to conduct training courses

to instruct students in the operation of unmanned aircraft and their associated systems.

(Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 1014 ); and

 Exemption No. 11265 to the City of Roswell Coalition to perform research, development

and validation of a formal UAS training curriculum (Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0732).

The low

- risk UAS operations proposed by MSU in this Petition for Exemption fall squarely

within the category of aerial data collection that has been subject to previous approval

.

III. R ELEVANT S TATUTORY A UTHORITY

Th is Petition for Exemption is submitted pursuant to Section 333(a) through (c) of the

Reform Act

. Congress has directed the FAA "to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned

aircraft systems into the national airspace system." Pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act, the

FAA Administrator is to permit unmanned aircraft systems to operate in the NAS where it is safe to

do so based on the following considerations:

 The UAS's size, weight, speed and operational capability;

 Operation of the UAS in cl ose proximity to airports and populated areas; and

 Operation of the UAS within the visual line of sight of the operator.

Additionally, the FAA Administrator has general authority to grant exemptions from the

agency's safety regulations and minimum standard s when the Administrator decides a requested

exemption is in the public interest

. See 49 U.S.C. § 106(f) (defining the authority of the

Administrator); 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) (permitting exemptions from §§ 44701(a), (b) and §§ 44702

– 44716, et seq. )

. A part y requesting an exemption must explain the reasons why the exemption: (1)

would benefit the public as a whole, and (2) would not adversely affect safety (or how it would

provide a level of safety at least equal to the existing rules)

. See 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 (petitions for

exemption).

IV. MSU ' S P ROPOSED UAS O PERATIONS M EET THE R EQUIREMENTS OF S ECTION 333 OF

THE R EFORM A CT

MSU 's proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption qualify for expedited approval via

the summary grant process pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act

, as each of the statutory

criteria and relevant factors are satisfied and the FAA has previously issued grants of exemption in

circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in this Petition for Exemption

.U.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 6

A. Approval is Warranted Based on the UAS's Size, Weight, Speed, and

Operational Capability

The FAA is familiar with and has already determined that the following vehicles chosen by

MSU meet the requirements of Section 333 of the Reform Act due to their weight, speed a nd

operational capabilities : DJI Phantom series, DJI Inspire 1, 3D Robotics X8 and X8+, Microdrone

MD4

- 1000, and the Aeromao Aeromapper

. See e.g.,

 DJI Phantom Series 1

. Exemption No. 11804 issued to Orbic Air, LLC (Docket No. FAA

2015

- 0413).

 DJI Inspire 1 : Exemption No. 11254 to Upward Aerial; Exemption No. 11659 to Fovea

Aero Systems; Exemption No. 11668 to Sky

- Forge Robotics LLC

 3D Robotics X8 : Exemption No. 11521 to SkyWard IO, Inc.; Exemption No. 11446 to

Trumbull Unmanned, LLC; and Exemption No. 11 335 to Voler, Inc.

 3D Robotics X8+: Exemption No. 11626 to Olssson Associates; Exemption No. 11617 to

Aerial Precision Survey

 Aeromao Aeromapper: Exemption No. 11447 to enrGies

 Microdrone MD4

- 1000 : Exemption no. 11713 to Property Drone Consortium LLC;

Exemption No. 11522 to Pro Drones Canada Inc.; Exemption No. 11546 to Raecon

Industries

In addition to the above referenced vehicles that the FAA has already approved and found

suitable for aerial data collection, MSU also seeks to operate the Blade 180QX

, Ascending

Technologies (AscTec) Pelican , 3D Robotics Quadcopter, and the Align T

- REX 450 Plus DFC

.

 Blade 180QX : The Blade 180QX is an extremely small quadcopter that weights

approximately 3.35 oz. It has four 8.5mm b rushed motors and its dimensions are 13.98 in

(length) x 3.15 in (height) x 5.35 in (propeller diameter). The vehicle uses a command and

control frequency of 2.4 GHz. Flight endurance is approximately 5

- 10 minutes. The FAA

has previously approved a larger Blade QX variant, the Blade 350QX

. See Exemption No.

11358 to New Heights Aerial Media, LLC. (Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 1110).

 AscTec Pelican 2 : This small lightweight battery powered quadcopter measures 651 x 651 x

188 mm and has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 1.65 kg. The maximum ai rspeed of the

1 The DJI Phantom series includes: the DJI Phantom 1, DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 2 Vision,

DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, and DJI Phantom 3.

2 For additional details on the AscTec Pelican, see the AscTec Pelican User Manual available at:

http://wiki.asctec.de/display/AR/User+ManualU.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 7

vehicle is 16 m/s (~36 mph) and it has a maximum flight time of approximately 16 minutes

with a full payload. The Pelican operates on a command and control frequency of 2.4 GHz.

The FAA has previously approved other AscTec models, including the Falcon 8. See e.g.

, Exemption No. 11277 to Advanced Aerial Inspection Resources; Exemption No. 11268 to

HURVData LLC; Exemption No. 11208 to Sky

- Futures USA, Inc. Additional technical data

and safety functions for the Blade 180QX are located in Appen dix A

.

 3D Robotics Quadcopter : This battery powered quadcopter has four electric motors

configured in a quadcopter formation. The vehicle weights significantly less than 55 pounds

and operates at a speed below 87 knots. The FAA has previously approved se veral other 3D

Robotics rotorcraft UAS.

 Align T

- REX 450 Plus DFC : This battery powered RC helicopter measures 634 mm in

length, 205 mm high, and has a main rotor diameter of 715 mm. The aircraft has a flying

weight of approximately 584 g and oper ates on a command and control frequency of 2.4

GHz. The FAA has previously approved several larger and heavier variants of the Align T

Rex. See e.g

., Exemption No. 11229 to Jeffrey J. Walsh permitting operation of the Align T

Rex 500E ; Exemption No. 1135 2 to SkyPan International permitting operation of the Align

T Rex 700E F3C ; and Exemption No. 12088 to RC Aerial Cam, LLC permitting operation of

the T

- Rex 800E DFC PRO

.

Figure 1 : Side

- by

- Side Comparison of the T

- Rex 800E and T

- Rex 450

The following shared characteristics of the DJI Phantom Series, DJI Inspire 1, 3D Robotics

X8 and X8+, Aeromao Aeromapper

, Microdrone MD4

- 1000

, Blade 180QX, AscTec Pelican , 3D

Robotics Quadcopter, and the Align T

- REX 450 Plus DFC warrant approval for a grant of

exemption:

 They all weigh less than 55 pounds in cluding payload;

 They all have the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain in

- flight

contingencies or failures and uses an auto

- pilot system to maintain UAS stability and con trol.U.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 8

The UAS is also able to respond to a loss of GPS or a lost

- link event with a pre

- coordinated,

predictable, automated flight maneuver. These safety features provide an equivalent level of

safety compared to a manned aircraft performing a similar ope ration and mitigate the risk of

command and control link failures;

 The radio frequencies used for operations and control of the UAS comply with the Fede ral

Communications Commission (FCC ) and other appropriate governmen t oversight agency

requirements; an d

 The UAS all operate at a speed of 87 knots or less

.

B. Approval is Warranted Based on the Operational Restrictions in MSU 's

Operating Documents

The University UAS Operations Manual

, and the manufacturer's manuals for the selected

UAS platforms (her einafter collectively referred to as "operating documents") contain all the

procedures and limitations necessary to safely and successfully perform the proposed operations

. To

expedite the FAA's safety assessment of MSU 's proposed UAS operations, MSU has t ailored its

operating documents to comply with the condition s and limitations imposed on similarly situated

petitioners seeking to use small UAS for aerial data collection

. See e.g., Grant of Exemption No.

11552 issued to Sinclair Community College, Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 0374

. In particular, the

operating documents contain systems and procedures to permit MSU to comply with the conditions

and limitations in the FAA's Grant of Exemption

. Id

.

V. R EGULATIONS F ROM W HICH E XEMPTION I S S OUGHT

The Federal Aviation Ac t expressly grants the FAA the authority to issue exemptions

. This

statutory authority, by its terms, includes exempting civil aircraft, as the term is defined under §

40101 of the Act, including UAS, from its safety regulations and minimum standards when the

Administrator decides a requested exemption is in the public interest. 3

MSU seeks an exemption from several interrelated provisions of 14 C.F.R. Parts 45, 61 and

91 for purposes of conducting the requested operations using small UAS

, including:

3 See 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) (authorizing the grant of exemptions from requirements of regulations

prescribed pursuant to Sections 44701(a) and (b) and Sections 44702

- 44716).

FAR De scription

91.9(c); 45.23(b) and

45.27(a) Aircraft Marking and Identification Req ui rements

91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1);

91.409(a)(1) and (2); Maintenance and Inspection Req ui rementsU.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 9

Listed below are the specific sections of 14 C.F.R. for which an exemption is sought, and the

operating procedures and safeguards that Petitioner has established which will ensure a level of

safety better than or equal to the rules from which exemption is sought. 4

A. 91.9(c), 45.23(b) and 45.27(a): Aircraft Marking and Identification

Req ui rements

MSU seeks an exemption from the aircraft marking and identification req ui rements contained

in 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9(c), 45.23(b) and 45.27(a).

● 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(c), Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, Marking and Placard R eq ui rements

,

pr ovides that:

No person may operate a U.S.

- registered civil aircraft unless that aircraft is identified

in accordance with Part 45 of this chapter.

● 14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b), Markings of the Aircraft, states:

When marks include only the Roman capital letter "N" and the registration number is

displayed on limited, restricted or light

- sport category aircraft or experimental or

4 See 14 C.F.R. § 11.81(e), which requires a petition for exemption to include:

The reasons why granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how

t he exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the

rule from which you seek exemption. 91.417(a) and (b)

61.23(a) and (c), 61.113;

61.101(e)(4) and (5)

, 61.31 5 Private, Recreational and Sport Pilot Medical Certificate,

Privileges and Limitations

91.7(a) Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

91.9(b)(2); 91.203(a) and

(b) Carrying Aircraft Flight Manual, Certification and Registration in

the Aircraft

91.103 Prefligh t Action

91.109(a) Flight Instruction

91.119(c) Minimum Safe Altitudes Over Other than Congested Areas

91.121 Altimeter Settings

91.151(a) Fuel Req ui rements for Flight in VFR ConditionsU.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 10

provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near

each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot stat ion, in letters not less than 2 inches

nor more than 6 inches high, the words "limited," "restricted," "light

- sport,

"experimental," or "provisional," as applicable.

● 14 C.F.R. § 45.27(a), Rotorcraft, states:

Each operator of a rotorcraft must display on th at rotorcraft horizontally on both

surfaces of the cabin, fuselage, boom, or tail the marks req ui red by § 45.23.

In prior grants of exemption under Section 333 of the Reform Act

, the FAA determined that

exemption from these req ui rements was warranted prov ided that the aircraft "have identification (N

Number) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R Part 45, Subpart C if the markings are as large as

practicable." 5 All UAS flown by MSU will bear N

- number markings that are as large as practicable

in accordance wi th 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Subpart C. 6

B. 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance

Inspections

MSU seeks an exemption from the maintenance inspection req ui rements contained in 14

C.F.R. § 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a) ( 1) and (2); 91.417(a) and (b)

. These regulations specify

maintenance and inspection standards in reference to 14 C.F.R. Part 43. 7 An exemption from these

regulations is needed because Part 43 and these sections only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness

certificate, which the UAS to be operated under this grant of exemption will not have.

An eq ui valent level of safety will be achieved because maintenance and inspections will be

performed in accordance with the operating documents and any req ui red manuf acturer Safety or

Service Bulletins

. Further, as req ui red by the operating documents, the PIC will conduct a pre

- flight

inspection of the UAS and all associated eq ui pment to account for all discrepancies and/or

inoperable components

. Maintenance will be pe rformed and verified to address any conditions

potentially affecting safe operation of the UAS and no flights will occur unless, and until, all flight

critical components of the UAS have been found to be airworthy and in a condition safe for

operation

. A f

unctional test flight will be conducted following the replacement of any flight

- critical

components

. As req ui red by the operating documents, the PIC who conducts the functional test flight

will make an entry in the UAS aircraft records of the flight

.

T he operating documents also include req ui rements to follow the UAS manufacturer’s

maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the air craft and

5 FAA Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352.

6 See, e.g., FAA Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352, at 14

.

7 See, e.g., 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a) (stating that each owner or operator of an aircraft "[s]hall have the

aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections

...have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter

. ").U.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 11

aircraft components

. Moreover

, the operating documents also include procedure s 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 Petitioner's UAS

. As a whole,

the maintenance and inspection procedures req u i red by Petitioner's operating documents ensure that

an eq ui valent or higher level of safety will be achieved.

C. 61.23(a) and (c), 61.113

, 61.101(e)(4) and (5)

, 61.315 : Private, Recreational

and Sport Pilot Medical Certificate, Privileges and Limitations

M SU seeks exemption from these sections

, which restricts private

, recreational or sport pilot

certificate holders from flying aircraft for compensation or hire, and would also req ui re a second

class medical certificate

. The purpose of Part 61 is to ensure t hat the skill and competency of any

PIC matches the airspace in which the PIC will be operating, as well as req ui ring certifications if the

private pilot is carrying passengers or cargo for hire

. In this case, while the UAS will be operated as

part of a co mmercial operation, it carries neither passengers nor cargo

.

In the Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial 8

, the FAA determined that the

unique characteristics of UAS operation outside of controlled airspace did not warrant the addition al

cost and restrictions attendant with req ui ring the PIC to have a Commercial Pilot Certificate and

Class II Medical Certificate

. The fulfillment of the additional req ui rements for a private pilot to

become qualified as a commercial pilot would not lead to any ad ditional safety benefits when UAS

operations are involved

.

More recently, the FAA determined that holders of recreational and sport pilot certificates

would also have adequate aeronautical knowledge to pilot a UAS

. Accordingly, because these

individua ls would also be subject to security screening by the De partment of Homeland Security

(DHS ), the FAA determined that holders of recreational and sport pilot certificates would be

qualified to serve as the PIC for UAS operations. 9

The restrictions Petit ioner has placed on its UAS operations meet or exceed the restrictions

similarly imposed on Astraeus Aerial and other operators in more recently granted exemptions under

Sect ion 333 of the FAA Reform Act

. MSU will operate away from persons and property tha t is not

the subject matter of the flight

. MSU will also req ui re all PICs to be thoroughly trained in the unique

aspects of UAS flight

. As set forth in the operating documents, pilots will have experience not only

in UAS operations generally but have logge d flight time in the specific make and model used for the

operations before they are permitted to participate in commercial flights on behalf of MSU

. The pilot

qualification, training, and currency req ui rements in the operating documents ensure that MSU 's

pilots are competent and proficient in the UAS they are operating

. The Petitioner's training and

qualification req ui rements are consistent with those contained in prior FAA

- issued grants of

8 FAA Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352

.

9 See Grant of Exemption No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0642 at pgs.

8

- 9).U.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 12

exemption

, and will provide a higher level of competency and profi ciency for its pilots and will

ensure at least an eq ui valent level of safety.

D. 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

Inasmuch as there will be no airworthiness certificate issued for the UAS, MSU seeks an

exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), which req ui res that a civil aircraft be in an airworthy condition

to be operated

. While the petitioner’s UAS will not have an airworthiness certificate, the FAA has

determined that for the purposes of this exemption the pilot may determine the aircraft is in an

airworthy condition prior to flight

. The operating documents contain procedures which allow the PIC

to determine whether the aircraft is in a condition safe for flight, and an exemption from § 91.7(a) is

therefore warranted

.

E. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual in the Aircraft and 91.203(a) and

(b): Carrying Civil Aircraft Certification and Registration

Title 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2) and § 91.203(a) and (b) req ui re the operator to carry

airworthiness documents and other aircraft manuals onboard the aircraft

.

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2):

(b) No person may operate a U.S.

- registered civil aircraft

–

... (2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is req ui red by § 21.5 of this

chapter, unless there is available in the aircraft a current approve d Airplane or

Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any

combination thereof.

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 91.203(a) and (b):

(a) Except as provided in § 91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it

has withi n it the following:

(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate...

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate req ui red

by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715

is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.

Given the small size and configuration of the UAS, it would be impossible to keep

airworthiness documents and other aircraft manuals on board the UAS because there is simply no

room and the UAS has no cabin or cockpit

.

In an FAA Office of Chief Counsel's Opinion dated August 8, 2014, and prepared by Dean E.

Griffith, Attorney, AGC

- 220, it was acknowledged that the intent of 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b) and 91.203(a)

and (b) is met if the pilot of the unmanned aircraft has access to the UAS flight manual, registration

certificate, and other req ui red documents from the ground control station from which he or she isU.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 13

operating the aircraft. 10 As this FAA Office of Chief Counsel Opi nion clarifies, the intent of the rule

is to ensure the pilot has access to these key documents during flight

. Therefore, an eq ui valent level

of safety will be achieved by ensuring that the pilot has access to the documents at the ground

control station fr om which he or she is piloting the UAS. 11

F. 91.103: Preflight Action

Petitioner seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103, which req ui res a PIC to become

familiar with specific information before each flight, including information contained in the F AA

approved Flight Manual on board the aircraft

. While the PIC will be familiar with all information

necessary to safely conduct the flight, an exemption is requested to the extent that an FAA

- approved

Flight Manual is req ui red

.

Adherence to the req ui remen ts in the operating documents will ensure that the UAS is in an

airworthy condition prior to flight

. The PIC will perform a series of checklists designed to identify

any defects or inoperable components, which cover pre

- flight, take

- off, landing and post

- f light

procedures

. The PIC will also be req ui red to review weather, flight req ui rements

, battery charge,

landing and takeoff distance, UA performance data, and contingency landing areas

— before initiation

of flight

. Petitioner's operating documents will be k ept at the ground control station and will be

accessible to the PIC at all times while operating the UAS.

G. 91.109(a): Flight Instruction

Petitioner seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a), which provides in pertinent part

that "[n]o person may operat e a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for

flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls." UAS and remotely piloted

aircraft, by their design, do not have functional dual controls

. Instead, fligh t control is accomplished

through the use of a device that communicates with the aircraft via radio communications

. Accordingly, an exemption will be req ui red for the flight instruction req ui rements of 14 C.F.R. §

91.109(a)

.

Given the size and speed of th e UAS that Petitioner intends to use, an eq ui valent level of safe

training can still be achieved without dual controls because no pilot or passengers are aboard the

10 Memorandum from Mark Bury, FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law, Legislation

and Regulation, to John Duncan, FAA Flight Standards Service (Aug. 8

, 2014); see also Docket No.

FAA

- 2014

- 0352 at 16

- 18

.

11 See also Exemption No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. at pg. 11:

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR § 91.9(b)(2): Civil aircraft flight

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

Certifications required. The FAA has previously determined that relief from these

sections is not necessary. See Exemption No. 11062. Relevant materials may be kept

in a location accessible to the PIC in compliance with the regulati ons.U.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 14

UAS, and as req ui red by the operating documents, all persons will be a safe distance away i n the

event that the UAS experiences any difficulties during flight instruction

. Moreover, all flight training

will be conducted in controlled and sterile environment

. As a whole, the procedures provided for in

the operating documents ensure that UAS fligh t instruction can be performed safely.

H. 91.119 ( c) : Minimum Safe Altitudes Over Other Than Congested Areas

MSU requests an exemption from the minimum safe altitude req ui rements of 14 C.F.R. §

91.119 (c)

. 12 Section 91.119 prescribes the minimum safe altitudes under which aircraft may not

operate, including 500 feet above the surface and away from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure

in non

- congested areas

. See 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c)

.

An exemption is req ui red because the proposed UAS operations will normall y need to occur

below 400 feet AGL

. Additionally, due to the nature of the proposed operations, the PIC and/or

Observers may need to be less th an 500 feet away from the UAS

. Compared to flight operations with

rotorcraft weighing far more than the maximum w eights proposed herein, and given the lack of

flammable fuel with the UAS, any risk associated with these operations is far less than those that

presently exist with conventional aircraft

.

An eq ui valent level of safety will be achieved given the size, wei ght, and speed of the UAS,

as well the controlled location where the operations will occur

. In order to avoid any risk to manned

aircraft, flight operations will be restricted to below 400 feet AGL

. As set forth in the operating

documents

, the UAS will be operated in a controlled environment, and all flights will occur at a

lateral dis tance of at least 500 feet from nonparticipating persons, unless that person is in a position

where he or she is shielded from the UAS and any possible debris resulting from U AS failure

. Procedures will be in place to ensure f light operations can be safely terminated if a nonparticipating

person within 500 feet of the UAS leaves a shielded position

. Further, UAS operations will occur at

least 500 feet away from vehicles or str uctures unless the property owner/controller has granted

permission and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects

, and operations near the PIC or Observer will not present an undue hazard per § 91.119(a)

. Adheren ce to these restrictions in MSU 's operating documents will ensure the proposed operations

can be conducted without compromising safety to persons or property on the ground

.

I. 91.121: Altimeter Settings

To the extent necessary for MSU to conduct the prop osed operations, Petitioner requests an

exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121, which req ui res a person operating an aircraft to maintain

cr ui sing altitude or flight level by reference to an altimeter that is set to the elevation of the departure

airport or bar ometric pressure

.

12 Relief from § 91.119(a) will not be necessary because Petitioner will be able to perform an

emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the ground in the event of a

failure

. Petitioner's proposed UAS operations will not occur o ver congested areas, and therefore an

exemption from § 91.119(b) will not be necessary

. See e.g

., Grant of Exemption No. 11157 to

Slugwear, Inc., dba Likeonatree Aerial at p g. 15 (Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0534 ).U.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 15

The FAA has stated that an eq ui valent level of safety to the req ui rements of 14 C.F.R. §

91.121 can be achieved in circumstances where: (1) the UAS will be operated 400 feet AGL or

below, (2) within VLOS, (3) where GPS based altitude inf ormation is relayed in real time to the

operator at a ground

- based on

- screen display and, (4) where prior to each flight, a zero altitude

initiation point is established for the PIC to confirm accuracy of the onboard GPS. 13

The UAS that Petitioner intends to use for performing the proposed operations meet all these

operational characteristics

. Moreover, the operating documents req ui re the PIC to calibrate the

aircraft's GPS compass prior to each flight operation

. As the FAA has determined in circumstances

s imilar to this Petition for Exemption, Petitioner's UAS and the safety mitigation procedures

contained in the operating documents, ensure that an eq ui valent level of safety will be achieved, and

a grant of exemption to the req ui rements of § 191.121 is ther efore appropriate.

J. 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

MSU requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a)'s fuel req ui rements for flight in VFR

conditions

. Section 91.151 states:

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane und er 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 cr ui sing 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.

Here, the technological limitations on UAS battery power means that no meaningful flight

operations can be conducted while still maintaining a 30

- minute battery reserve

. An exemption from

the fuel req ui rem ents of 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) is therefore req ui red

.

The FAA has previously granted relief from the fuel requirements of § 91.151(a) for flight in

daytime VFR conditions in circumstances similar to those presented in this Petition for Exemption

. 14

In Exem ption No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. 15

, the FAA determined that a requirement prohibiting

the PIC from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forec ast weather conditions)

there was enough available power for UAS to operate for the intended oper ational time and to

operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve power recommended by the

manufacturer if greater

, would ensure an equivalent level of safety to the fuel requirements of §

91.151(a)

. Petitioner's operating documents impo se this same requirement and an exemption from §

91.151(a)'s fuel req ui rements for flight in VFR conditions is therefore appropriate

.

13 See Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus A erial ( Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352 at 21).

14 See e.g., Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673

.

15 Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0642.U.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 16

VI. D RUG AND A LCOHOL P ROGRAM

MSU will have policies in place to ensure that no person may participate in UAS flight

operation s if they are under the influence of alcohol or any drug

.

VII. P UBLIC I NTEREST

The public interest will be served by granting MSU 's Petition for Exemption

. Congress has

established a national policy that favors early integration of UAS into the NAS in control led, safe

working environments such as those proposed in this Petition

. Granting this Petition for Exemption

helps fulfill Congress' goal in passing Section 333(a) through (c) of the Reform Act

— the FAA

Administrator's assessment of whether certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS before

completion of the statutorily req ui red rulemaking

.

Beyond increased levels of safety, the public stands to benefit enormously from the education

and research programs supported by the proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption. Whether

it is using UAS to advance land and water use conservation efforts, or developing tomorrow's UAS

obstacle avoidance navigation systems, the public as a whole with benefit from the information

gathered and studied as part of the educa tion and research programs supported by the proposed

operations in this Petition for Exemption

.

VIII. P RIVACY

The proposed operations will be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, or

local laws regarding privacy

. MSU will not conduct flight operations over property that it does not

own or control without the prior consent and knowledge of the property owner /controller or

authorized representative.

IX. F EDERAL R EGISTER S UMMARY

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

F EDERAL R EGISTE R

, should it be determined that publication is needed:

Petitioner seeks an exemption from the following rules in Title 14 of the Code of Federal

Regulations:

45.23(b); 45.27(a); 61.23(a) and (c); 61.113; 61.101(e)(4) and (5); 61.315; 91.7(a);

91.9(b)(2); 91.9(c); 91.10 3; 91.109(a); 91.119 (b) ; 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203 (a) & (b); 91.405(a);

91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) & (2); 91.417 (a) & (b)

.

The exemption will enhance safety by reducing risk to the general public and property

owners from the substa ntial hazards associated with using conventional fixed

- wing aircraft or

rotorcraft for aerial data collection in support of university education and research programs

.

X. C ONCLUSION

The proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption satisfy the criteria articulated in

Section 333 of the Reform Act and the FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similarU.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 17

in all respects to those presented by MSU in this Petition for Exemption

. In consideration of the

foregoing, MSU respectfully submits that this Petition for Exemption qualifies for expedited

approval via the FAA's summary grant process.

We thank you for your prompt consideration of our requested exemptions

. Should you have

any questions, or if you need additional information to support the reque sted exemptions, please do

not hesitate to contact us

.

Very truly yours,

Mark E. McKinnon

Matthew J. Clark

Counsel for Michigan State University

AttachmentU.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 18

(The following attached item s will be submitted under separate cover as they contain proprietary and

commercial information exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §

522 et seq.

, and should be held in a separate file pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.35(b)).

Attachm ent s :

 The University UAS Operations ManualU.S. Department of Transportation

August 7 , 2015

Page 19

Appendix A