REQUEST FOR S ECTION 333 PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

MARCH 2 , 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

RE: Petition of ADAM R. ANDERSON for Summary Grant of Exemption Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14 CFR § 11.81

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Reform Act) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Adam R. Anderson hereby applies for a Summary Grant of Exemption from the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) identified below, to operate small unmanned aerial vehicle ( s ) ( i.e., small unmanned aircraft systems or UAS) for conducting
aerial data collection (aerial photography, videography, surveying, inspection, and other types of aerial data collection) in support of his desire to operate such UAS for a commercial purpose.

Specifically, Mr. Anderson seeks permission t o operate the following UAS vehicle : Phantom 3 Pr ofessional.

Mr. Anderson 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 similar in all material respects to t hose presented herein.

All details and information required by 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 is contained in the attached file titled Attachment1_14CFR11.81 information.

Respectf ully Submitted for Adam R. Anderson

By: Christopher Carrozzella, Esquire Law Office of Christopher Carrozzella, LLC 15 S. Elm Street P.O. Box 37 Wallingford, CT 06492

P: 203

- 284

- 1445 E: chris@chrislawct.comA

. Operator’s name and Address :

Adam R. Anderson 1485 Mountain Road West Suffield, CT 06093 Cell: 860

- 303

- 2387 Email: aanderson81@gmail.com

Mr. Anderson is the h older of Sport Pilot Certificate #: 3789745 and is sued on 1/11/2015

.

He holds a Valid US Driver’s license issued by the State of Connecticut bearing number : 117184081; expiration date: 11/2/2019

His Last Flight Review per 1 4 C.F.R. § 61.56: Not applicable since licensed within the past 2 years.

He currently has logged 80 To tal Flight hours at the time of this petition

.

B

. The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which relief is required

Adam Anderson seeks an exemption from several interrelated provisions of 14 C.F.R. Parts 21, 61 and 91 for purposes of conducting the requested operations using a
small UAS.

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 b etter than or equal to the rules from which exemption is sought, including:

14 CFR 21 , Subpart H ; (airworthiness certificates ) 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a) ( Civil aircraft airworthiness )

In prior petitions for exemptions, 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 and thus no airworthiness certificate is required. The operating documents for the UAS 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) & (c) ( Medical certificates: Requirement and duratio n ) 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) and (5) ( Recreational pilot privileges and limitations ) 14 CFR 61.113 (a); ( Private pilot privileges and limitations ) 14 C.F.R. § 61.315 (a) (sport pilot privileges and limitations)In this case, while the UAS will be operated as part of a commercial operation, it

carries neither passengers nor cargo. R ecently, the FAA determined that holders of recreational and sport pilot certificates would also have adequate aeronautical knowledge to pilot a UAS. Accordingly, because these in dividuals would also be subject to security screening by the Department 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. ( See Grant of Exempt ion No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. at FAA

- 2014

- 0642 )

. The decision further went on to state that as long as the operator holds a driver’s license the medical certificate requirements would not be necessary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14 C.F.R. 91.119(c) (minimum safe altitude s - Over other than congested areas )

Relief from § 91.119(c) is necessary because the aircraft will be operated at altitudes

below 500 feet AGL . An exemption is required because the proposed UAS operations will normally 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 than 500 feet away from the UA S. Compared to flight operations with rotorcraft weighing far more than the maximum weights 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 conve ntional aircraft. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved given the size, weight, 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 restri cted 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 distance of at least 500 feet from nonparticipating persons, unless that person is in a posit ion where he or she is shielded from the UAS and any possible debris resulting from UAS failure. Procedures will be in place to ensure flight operations can be safely terminated if a nonparticipating person within 500 feet of the UAS leaves a shielded posi tion. Further, UAS operations will occur at least 500 feet away from vehicles or structures 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 operation s near the PIC or Observer will not present an undue hazard per § 91.119(a).

Adherence to these restrictions in the operating documents will ensure the proposed operations can be conducted without compromising safety to persons or property on the ground.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

14 C.F.R. 91.121 (altimeter settings)

The UAS is not equipped with an altimeter. When the UA S is not equipped with a barometric altimeter, an alternate means for measuring and reporting UA S altitude is necessary, such as GPS. The UAS in fact is equipped with a barometric pressure sensorand GPS equipment, which automatically ensures that a ground level pressure setting will

be established prior to each flight, and provides the PIC with altitude information of the UA S

on the heads

- up display of the controller

. Prior to each flight in accordance with the user manual, the petitioner is able to program the maximum flight altitude and radius limits as well as the Home Point which would include setting the altitude indicator to zero feet AGL

. In addition, should GPS signal be lost the UAS has the capability to return to a predetermined location within the private or controlled

- access property

. Proposed operations would be at a limited altitude of 400 feet AGL or lower. All operations will be within line of sight of the operator and under daytime VMC conditions.

The FAA has stated that an equivalent level of safety to the requirements 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 visual line of sight (VLOS), (3) where GPS based altitude information is relayed in real time to the operator at a ground

- based on

- screen display and, (4) where prior to ea ch flight, a zero altitude initiation point is established for the PIC to confirm accuracy of the onboard GPS (See Grant of Exemption Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352 ). All four requirements will be adhered to by th e petitioner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14 C.F.R. 91.151(a)(1) (fuel requirements day VFR)

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 requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) is therefore required. In fact the user manual specs limit the maximum flight time to 23 minutes with a fully charged battery.

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. In Exemption No. 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. ( FAA

- 2014

- 0642) , th e FAA determined that a requirement prohibiting the PIC from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there was enough available power for UAS to operate for the intended operational time and to operate after that fo r 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 impose substantially similar requirement s and an exemption from § 91.151(a)'s fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions is therefore appropriate

.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 C.F.R. 91.405(a) (maintenance required )

14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1) ( Ope ration after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration ) 14 C.F.R. 91.409(a)(1) and (2) (I nspections)
14 C.F.R. 91.417 (a) and (b) (M aintenance records)

An exemption from the several maintenance/inspection 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 equivalent level of safety will be achieved because the petitioner will perform

maintenance and inspections in accordance with the operating documents , which include User manual, Quick Start Guide, Advanced Safety Guidelines, and Advanced Intelligent Flight Battery Safety Guidelines, and all online materials provided by the manufacturer

. Further, as required by the operating documents, the PIC will conduct a thorough detailed

pre

- flight inspection of the UAS and all associated equipment to account for all discrepancies and/or inoperable components , including an electronics test, motor te st, propeller installation, and compass calibration

. A post

- flight inspection will be performed to identify any malfunctioning components of the UAS. Maintenance will be performed 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 functional test flight will be conducted following the replacement of any flight

- crit ical components. As required by the operating documents, the PIC who conducts the functional test flight will make an entry in the UAS aircraft records of the flight.

The operating documents also include requirements to follow the UAS
manufacturer’s main tenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and aircraft components. Moreover, the operating documents also include procedures 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 required by Petitioner's operating documents ensure that an equivalent or higher level of safety will be achieved

.

C

. The proposed operations, including the extent of relief sought and reasons for seeking such relief

Mr. Anderson’s Petition for Exemption is requesting authorization to operate his UAS for compensation or hire, or in furtherance of a business to perform a variety of operations, such as aerial photography, videography, surveying, inspection, and other types of aerial data collection, to include but not be limited to aerial videograph y and photography , aerial surveys, mapping, and inspections of real estate, and other landscapes for real estate

-related businesses, other commercial entities, as well as for owners of private or controlled

access property with their permission

.

The mak e and model of the aircraft for proposed operations

Phantom 3 Professional Serial #: P77DCE22010440

UAS Certificate number: FA3E779L7F (issued 12/21/2015 & expires 12/21/2018)

An application for registration of the subject UAS per Federal Aviation regula tions (14 C.F.R. part 47) will promptly be filed following the granting of this petition for exemption or prior thereto.

Identification (N

- Number) markings will be placed on the subject UAS in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 45, Subpart C, which will be as large as practicable.

The proposed operations in this Petition for Exemption are not new or novel to the FAA. This UAS platform has already been approved by the FAA in previously granted exemptions, or otherwise exhibit the same characteristics in terms of its weight, speed and operational capabilities which meet the requirements of Section 333 of the Reform Act.

D

. How granting the exemption would be in the public interest

The public interest will be served by granting Adam Anderson’s Petition for Exemption. Congress has established a national policy that favors early integration of UAS into the NAS in controlled, safe working environments such as those proposed in this Petition. Granting this Petit ion 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 required rulemaking. Enhance d safety is achieved since the UAS carries no passengers or crew

. R educed environmental impact is achieved by virtue of the UAS operating on battery power instead of flammable fuel together with reduced emissions and noise

.

Until the advent of UAS vehicles such as the Phantom 3, commercial aerial data collection could only be obtained by man

- powered flight in aircraft or helicopters. Now Adam Anderson and others can provide such services to the public at large on a much more economic and competitive basis.

E

. How the operator will maintain an equivalent level of safety or no adverse impact to safety

In addition to what has already been stated above, a n equivalent level of safety with no adverse impact to the safety of the general public is attained by virtue of the size, weight, speed and operational capabilities of the Phantom 3 Professional. The fact that the UAS must be in visual site of the operator, limited flight time due to battery constraints, limited payload, and its fail safe RTH (return to ho me) features, all attest to the fact the operator,Adam Anderson, will ensure a level of safety better than or equal to the rules from which

exemption is sought with no adverse impact to the safety of the general public at large.

F

. A summary that can be publish ed in the Federal Register

Adam R. Anderson seeks exemption from the following rules in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations:

14 CFR 21, Subpart H; 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a) ; 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) & (c) ; 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) and (5) ; 14 CFR 6 1.113 (a); 14 C.F.R. § 61.315 (a) ; 14 C.F.R. 91.119(c) ; 14 C.F.R. 91.121 ; 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a)(1) ; 14 C.F.R. 91.405(a) ; 14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1) ; 14 C.F.R. 91.409(a)(1) and (2) ; 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) and (b)

.

The se exemption s will permit Adam Anderson to oper ate his UAS for compensation or hire,

or in furtherance of a business to perform a variety of operations involving aerial data collection. These exemptions will enhance safety by reducing risk to the general public and property owners from the substantial hazards associated with using conventional fixed

- wing
aircraft or rotorcraft for aerial data collection

.

G

. Other:

No additional information

Respectf ully Submitted for Adam R. Anderson

By: Chris topher Carrozzella, Esquire Law Office of Christopher Carrozzella, LLC
15 S. Elm Street
P.O. Box 37 Wallingford, CT 06492

P: 203

- 284

- 1445 E: chris@chrislawct.com