AARON COBB

City of Frisco (petitioner)

6101 Frisco Square Blvd. Frisco, TX 75034

Phone: 972­292­5075

Email: acobb@friscotexas.gov

Following the Grant of Exemption No. 11138 in the matter of the Petition of Douglas Trudeau, Realtor,

and Regulatory Docket ID. FAA­2014­0481, Petitioner City of Frisco​requests an exemption from the

same specific sections of 14 CFR:

1.61.113(a) and (b): PRIVATE PILOT PRIVILEGES and LIMITATIONS

2.63.13: APPLICABILITY

3.91.7(a): CIVIL AIRCRAFT WORTHINESS

4.91.119(c): MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDES

5.91.121: ALTIMETER SETTINGS

6.91.151(a)(1): FUEL REQUIREMENTS

7.91.405(a): MAINTENANCE REQUIRED

8.91.407(a)(1): OPERATION AFTER MAINTENANCE REBUILDING ALTERATION

9.91.409(a)(1) and (2): INSPECTIONS

10.91.417(a) and (b): MAINTENANCE RECORDS

14 C.F.R. 21 and 14 C.F.R. 91: Airworthiness Certificates, Manuals:

14 C.F.R. 21, Subpart H, entitled Airworthiness Certificates, sets forth requirements for procurement

of necessary airworthiness certificates in relation to FAR § 91.203(a)(1). The size, weight and

enclosed operational area of the Petitioner's UAS permits exemption from Part 21 because the UAS

meets (and exceeds) an equivalent level of safety pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act. The

FAA is authorized to exempt aircraft from the airworthiness certificate requirement under both the Act

(49

U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit the FAA to

exempt UAS's from the airworthiness certificate requirement in consideration of the weight, size,

speed, maneuverability and proximity to areas such as airports and dense populations. The petitioners

UAS meets or exceeds each of the elements.

14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an airworthiness certificate. As no such

certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated by the FARs, this Regulation is inapplicable.

14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. As there are no on board

pilots or passengers, and given the size of the UAS, this Regulation is inapplicable. The FAA has

previously issued exemptions to this regulation in Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 8738, 9299, 9299A,

9565, 9565B,

10167, 10167A, 10602, 10700 and 32827.
14 C.F.R. § 91.121 regarding altimeter settings is inapplicable insofar as the UAS utilizes

electronic global positioning systems with a barometric sensor.

14 C.F.R. § 91.203 (a) and (b) provides for the carrying of civil aircraft certifications and

registrations. They are inapplicable for the same reasons described above. The equivalent

level of safety will be achieved by maintaining any such required certifications and

registrations by Petitioner, City of Frisco​.

14 C.F.R. § 45.23: Marking of The Aircraft.

Applicable Codes of Federal Regulation require aircraft to be marked according to

certain specifications. UAS's are unmanned. They therefore do not have a cabin, cockpit or pilot

station on which to mark certain words or phrases. Further, two­inch lettering is difficult to place on

such small aircraft with dimensions smaller that minimal lettering requirement. Regardless, the

Petitioner will mark his UAS in the largest possible lettering by placing the word

“EXPERIMENTAL” on its fuselage as required by 14 C.F.R. §45.29 (f) so that I the pilot, or anyone

assisting as an assistant/observer with the UAV will see the markings. The FAA has previously issued

exemptions to this regulation. Exemptions Nos. 8738, 10167, 10167A and 10700.

14 C.F.R. § 61.113: Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: PIC.

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) & (b), private pilots are limited to non­commercial operations.

The petitioner believes he can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by current Regulations

because his UAS does not carry any pilots or passengers. Further, while helpful in understanding

airspace regulations, laws and guidelines, a pilot license will not ensure remote control piloting skills.

The risks attended to the operation of my UAS is far less than the risk levels inherent in the

commercial activities outlined in 14 C.F.R. § 61, et seq. Thus, allowing the Petitioner to operate the

UAS and meet and exceed current safety levels in relation to 14 C.F.R.

§61.113 (a) & (b).

14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes.

14 C.F.R. § 91.119 prescribes safe altitudes for the operation of civil aircraft. It allows helicopters to

be operated at lower altitudes in certain conditions. The Petitioner's UAS will never operate at an

altitude greater than 200 AGL; safely below the standard of 400 AGL. The Petitioner will however

operate the UAS in safe areas, providing a level of safety at least equivalent to or below those in

relation to minimum safe altitudes. Given the size, weight, maneuverability and speed of the UAS, an

equivalent or higher level of safety will be achieved.

14 C.F.R. 91.405 (a); 407 (a) (1); 409 (a) (2); 417(a) & (b): Maintenance Inspections.

See: Safety/Flight Manual (“Operating Documents”) ­ Section 333 Exemption Petition

The above­cited Regulations require, amongst other things, aircraft owners and operators to “have

[the] aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections,

except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part

43 of this chapter. . . .” These Regulations only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate.

They will not, therefore, apply to Petitioner, City of Frisco​’s UAS. However, as a safety precaution

the Petitioner will inspect the UAS before and after each flight.
The reason City of Frisco​is seeking the relief is to allow the petitioner City of Frisco​to operate a

commercially available such as the DJI PHANTOM 2 VISION+ or 3DR SOLO quad­copter (or

equivalent) unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct aerial videography and photography for

hobby, recreational and commercial video purposes.

Frisco, Texas has been named as one of the fastest growing cities in the United States. There is a

current housing and commercial boom including the Dallas Cowboys moving their headquarters and

training facility to Frisco. A UAS is a quick, low cost and safe way to capture photographs and short

videos that promote both the area and showcase the growth. There is a great market demand for such

aerial services to document the growth and the general beauty of the area while respecting and

following FAA laws and guidelines.

The petitioner believes that his use of an UAS will pose no threat to the public given its small size and

lack of combustible fuel. The petitioner proposes that use of his UAS will minimize ecological impact

and promote education and economic growth in and around Frisco, Texas.

Petitioner City of Frisco​notes the FAA's findings in the Grant of Exemption No 11138 in the matter

of the petition of Douglas Trudeau, Realtor, and Regulatory Docket No. FAA­2014­0481: The FAA

finds that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The enhanced safety and reduced

environmental impact achieved using a UA with the specifications described by the petitioner and

carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions,

carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation

enabled by this exemption is in the public interest.

Petitioner City of Frisco​submits the following representations of flight controls that will be

applied:

• I (City of Frisco)​will only operate my UAS within the 400 foot permissible ceiling set by

the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012;

• My UAS will only operate for 10­15 minutes per flight;

• I will land my UAS prior to manufacturer recommended minimum level of battery power;

• I will pilot my UAS through remote control only by line of sight;

• The UAS will have GPS a flight safety feature whereby it hovers and then slowly

lands if communication with the remote control pilot is lost;

• I will actively analyze weather and flight data and other sources of information to constantly

update and enhance flight operations;

• I will only operate in reasonably safe environment that are strictly controlled, are away from

power lines, elevated lights and actively populated areas and only during daylight hours;
• I conduct extensive pre­flight inspections during which safety carries primary importance;

• I always obtain all necessary permissions prior to operation;

• I have procedures in place to abort flights in the event of safety breaches or potential danger.

Petitioner City of Frisco​notes the Conditions and Limitations relative to the Grant of Exemption No.

11138 in the matter of the petition of Douglas Trudeau, Realtor, and Regulatory Docket No.

FAA­2014­ 0481 and will comply with the 33 items as listed in the Exemption. Petitioner City of

Frisco​will have an almost identical model UAS.

Following the Grant of Exemption No. 11138 in the matter of the Petition of Douglas Trudeau, Realtor,

and Regulatory Docket ID. FAA­2014­0481, Petitioner City of Frisco​requests an exemption from the

same specific sections of 14 CFR:

1.61.113(a) and (b): PRIVATE PILOT PRIVILEGES and LIMITATIONS

2.63.13: APPLICABILITY

3.91.7(a): CIVIL AIRCRAFT WORTHINESS

4.91.119(c): MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDES

5.91.121: ALTIMETER SETTINGS

6.91.151(a)(1): FUEL REQUIREMENTS

7.91.405(a): MAINTENANCE REQUIRED

8.91.407(a)(1): OPERATION AFTER MAINTENANCE REBUILDING ALTERATION

9.91.409(a)(1) and (2): INSPECTIONS

10.91.417(a) and (b): MAINTENANCE RECORDS

Petitioner City of Frisco​seeks an exemption for the purpose of a AUV for municipal photography and

videography to provide the City of Frisco and its partners with footage and to use such footage for

marketing/promotional purposes.

The Petitioner notes the FAA's findings in the Grant of Exemption No 11138 in the matter of the

petition of Douglas Trudeau, Realtor, and Regulatory Docket No. FAA­2014­0481: The FAA finds

that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. The enhanced safety and reduced environmental

impact achieved using a UA with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no

passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in

addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled by this

exemption is in the public interest.