1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC

Reg. Docket No. ________________

In the Matter of Petition for Exemption of:

Asymmetric Technologies, LLC

For an Exemption from the requirements of the

Code of Federal Regulations Sections

Concerning operation of an Unmanned Aircraft System

Pursuant to Section 333 of the

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
2

CONTENTS

I. PETITIONER’S DESCRIPTION............................................................................................... 3

II. PROPOSED OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 4

III. RELEVANT AUTHORITY TO PETITIONER’S EXEMPTION REQUEST ................................... 7

IV. QUALIFICATION FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 333 OF THE REFORM ACT ................. 8

V. REGULATIONS FROM WHICH EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED.............................................. 11

VI. PUBLIC INTEREST.............................................................................................................. 22

VII. PRIVACY ............................................................................................................................ 23

VIII. FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY........................................................................................ 24

IX. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 25
3

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“Reform

Act”)1and 14 C.F.R. 11, Asymmetric Technologies, LLC (“Petitioner”) hereby applies for an

exemption from Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) identified below, to allow commercial

operation of small unmanned aerial vehicles (i.e. small unmanned aircraft systems or “sUAS”).

This exemption is in accordance with protocols outlined in this petition for exemption, the

enclosed Asymmetric Technologies UAS Operations Manual (“Manual”)2, the UAS

manufacturers operations and maintenance manual (“Aircraft Operations Manual”), and any other

requirements established by the FAA pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act.

I. PETITIONER’S DESCRIPTION

Petitioner is a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business based in Columbus, OH

that has provided various operational and sustainment services to the Federal Government and

civilian customers for three years. Additionally, the Petitioner is staffed with personnel who

operated and maintained sUAS in Afghanistan and Iraq during Operation Enduring Freedom and

Iraqi Freedom.

Petitioner is teamed with Burgess & Niple, Inc. (“B&N”). B&N is a design, construction

and inspection firm with over 100 years’ experience in the industry. B&N is a nationally

recognized leader in bridge inspection and since 1969 have inspected more than 10,000 bridges in

the U.S. and abroad, including bridges with main spans exceeding 500 feet.

The Petitioner’s sUAS operational and maintenance expertise is a natural transition to the

infrastructure inspection market and the Petitioner’s partnership with a nationally recognized

infrastructure inspection firm drastically reduces overall risk to the public while conducting

infrastructure inspection operations.

 

1

 Codified at 49 U.S.C. § 40101, as amended by Pub. L. 112-95 Feb. 14, 2012, 126 Stat. 11.

2 Petitioner submits this manual as a confidential document under 14 C.F.R. § 11.35(b), as the entire

Manual contains confidential commercial and proprietary information the Petitioner has not and will not

share with others. The Manual contains operating conditions and procedures that are not available to the

public and are protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. § 552.
4

Consistent with the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 11.81(a), Petitioner provides the following

information in support of its petition of exemption:

The name and address of the Petitioner’s representative is:

Asymmetric Technologies, LLC

Attn: STUART C. SPARKER, ESQ.

General Counsel

1395 Grandview Avenue, Suite3,

Columbus, OH 43212

Phone: 614-725-5310

Fax: 614-928-3202

Email: sparker@asymmetric.com

II. PROPOSED OPERATIONS

The Petitioner proposes to conduct sUAS flight operations in support of a bridge inspection

near US Highway 93 in Mohave County, AZ. The Burro Creek bridge sits above Raster Wash

adjacent to the Burro Creek Wilderness Area (under control of the Bureau of Land Management),

approximately 70 miles south east of Kingman, AZ. The bridge is comprised of twin 960 feet long

steel arches that rise 370 feet above a canyon providing excellent access from multiple ground

locations to conduct flight operations. There is no roadway below the bridge and the river below

the bridge is not navigable by watercraft.

View of Hwy 93 Burro Creek Bridge facing North View of Hwy 93 Burro Creek Bridge facing East
5

The closest airport to the Burro Creek Bridge is the Bagdad Airport.

3 The bridge also falls under

the MOA BAGDAD 1 special use airspace(7,000 ft. - 17,999 ft. AMSL) area, but since operations are

planned under 400 feet, this should pose low risk to any aircraft using the MOA.

Prior to conducting an inspection with the sUAS, the Petitioner will conduct a visual

inspection utilizing traditional climbing and inspection techniques. Armed with this information,

the Petitioner can then conduct a proof of concept - collecting data and information via sUAS to

improve the inspection process and test new methods and techniques. 

Enclosed in this waiver is the Petitioner’s sUAS Manual (Exhibit “A”). The enclosed

Manual describes, in detail, the policies and procedures for Petitioner’s proposed sUAS operations.

To assist the FAA in its safety assessment of the Petitioner’s proposed sUAS operations, below is

a summary of the operational limitations and conditions which will ensure an equivalent or higher

level of safety to operations conducted under current regulatory guidelines:

1. The sUAS weighs less than 15 pounds including payload.

2. Flights will be operated within line-of-sight of a pilot and/or observer during daylight

hours only.

 

3 FAA LID E51.

View of Bagdad MOA
6

3. Maximum total flight time for each operational flight will be 45 minutes. Flights will be

terminated at 25% battery power reserve should that occur prior to the 45 minute limit.

4. Flights will be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level.

5. Minimum crew for each operation will consist of the sUAS Pilot, observer/spotter and

inspection team leader directing the inspection.

6. The sUAS pilot will be an FAA licensed airman with a private and/or commercial pilot’s

certificate with rotorcraft experience and a class III physical.

7. The sUAS pilot will be Pilot in Command (PIC). If a pilot certificate holder other than

the sUAS Pilot is present and possesses the necessary PIC qualifications, that person can

also be designated as PIC.

8. The UAS will only operate within a confined “Sterile Area” as defined in the manual.

9. A briefing will be conducted in regard to the planned sUAS operations prior to each

day’s activities. It will be mandatory that all personnel who will be performing duties

within the boundaries of the safety perimeter be present for this briefing.

10. Pilot and Observer will have been trained in operation of UAS generally and will have

received up-to-date information on the particular UAS to be operated, as required in the

Manual.

11. Observer and Pilot will at all times be able to communicate by voice and text.

12. Observer and Pilot will have air-to-air radios for communication with low flying air

traffic in the area surrounding UAS operations (programmed to 123.025 common Air-toAir Frequency, and the local frequency for the area of operation).

13. All required permission and permits will be obtained from territorial, state, county or

city jurisdictions, including local law enforcement, fire, or other appropriate governmental

agencies - including the Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Department of

Transportation, and Mohave County.

14. If the sUAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the sUAS is equipped with

advanced safety features that will allow the sUAS to automatically return to a predetermined location.

15. The sUAS will have the capability to abort a flight in case of unpredicted obstacles or

emergencies.

16. The sUAS will only operate in optimal weather conditions for flight.
7

III. RELEVANT AUTHORITY TO PETITIONER’S EXEMPTION REQUEST

This petition for exemption is submitted to advance Congress’ goal of integrating sUAS

safely into the NAS. In the Reform Act, Congress directed the FAA “to safely accelerate the

integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system,” and, under Section

333 of that law, directed the Secretary of Transportation (“FAA Administrator”) to consider

whether certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the National Airspace System

(“NAS’) before completion of the rule making required under Section 332 of the Reform Act.4

In making this determination, the FAA Administrator is required to determine which types

of sUAS do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public or pose a threat to national

security in light of the following:

• The UAS size, weight, speed, and operational capability;

• Operation of the UAS in close proximity to airports and populated areas; and

• Operation of the UAS within visual line-of-sight of the operator.5

If the Secretary determines that such vehicles “may operate safely in the National Airspace

System, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft in the

National Airspace System.”

6

The FAA Administrator has general authority to grant exemptions from FAA safety

regulations and minimum standards when the Administrator decides a requested exemption is in

the public interest.7 A party 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.8 Therefore, the Petitioner will

demonstrate how the proposed sUAS infrastructure inspection will benefit the public and that the

proposed operation will not adversely affect safety of the public and to those operating in the NAS.

 

4

 Reform Act, supra note 1. 

5

 Id. at § 333(b)(1).

6

 Id. § 333(c)(emphasis added).

7

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

prescribed pursuant to section 44701 (a) - (b) and sections 44702-44716).

8

 See 14 C.F.R. § 11.81; FAA, Petition for Exemptions.
8

IV. QUALIFICATION FOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 333 OF THE REFORM ACT

A. The Petitioner’s Proposed Usage Does not Create a Hazard to Users of the NAS or

the Public Because of the Reduced Size, Weight, Speed, and Operational Capability

of the sUAS.

The proposed operations in this petition for exemption qualify for expedited approval under

Section 333 of the Reform Act. Each of the statutory criteria and other potential relevant factors

are satisfied.

The proposed operations would permit use of small and relatively inexpensive UAS under

controlled conditions in airspace that is: (1) limited; (2) predetermined; (3) controlled as to access,

and; (4) would pose an increased level of safety beyond what exists when climbers are asked to

inspect infrastructure. 

Petitioner’s sUAS is a rotorcraft aircraft, weighing less than 15 pounds, including payload.

It operates, under normal weather conditions, at a speed of no more than 29 knots and has the

capability to hover, and move in vertical and horizontal planes simultaneously.

Petitioner’s sUAS will operate in line-of-sight and only in a sterile area described in the

Proposed Operations section outline here and in the Petitioner’s Manual.9 Such operations will

insure that the sUAS will “not create a hazard to users of the National Airspace System or the

public.”10

Given the small size of the sUAS involved and the restricted sterile environment within

which it will operate, this petition for exemption falls squarely within that zone of safety in which

Congress envisioned that the FAA must, by exemption, allow commercial operations of UASs to

commence immediately.

B. The Petitioner’s Proposed Usage Does not Create a Hazard to Users of the NAS or

the Public because the Operation of the sUAS will be conducted in a Remote Location

not in Close Proximity to Airports and Populated Areas.

 

9

 See Manual Section 6.1.2.1.

10 Reform Act, supra note 1 at § 333 (b)(1).
9

The Petitioner’s proposed usage does not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public

because of the restricted and remote area in which the sUASs will operate. This project is an

excellent candidate for the first authorized bridge inspection conducted because of the isolated

location of the Burro Creek Bridge.

The Burro Creek Bridge is located in a remote area of Arizona. The bridge sits

approximately 130 miles northwest of Phoenix. The closest airport is the Baghdad Airport.11 Lake

Havasu City Airport is located approximately 100 miles to the west of the Burro Creek Bridge. 

There are no major population centers within 100 miles of the bridge nor are there any large

structures in the area surrounding the bridge. 

The remote location greatly mitigates the hazard to the public and to the NAS. Because

the bridge is so remote, the probability of an accident with the public or with another aircraft in

the NAS is virtually eliminated. Thus, the Petitioner’s proposed usage of the sUAS does not pose

a hazard to the public or to the NAS because of the remote location of the inspection site. 

C. The Petitioner’s Proposed Usage Does not Create a Hazard to Users of the NAS or

the Public because the Operation of the sUAS will be conducted within visual line-ofsight of the operator.

The Petitioner has selected the Burro Creek bridge because the bridge’s physical

characteristics provide excellent lines of sight. First, the bridge support structure is located below

the bridge decking. Next, the bridge structure is constructed in a canyon which will provide natural

boundaries for the sUAS. Finally, the roadway is 370 feet above the bottom of the canyon so the

Petitioner’s flight operations will remain below 400 AGL for the duration of the inspection. 

i. The steel arch bridge support structure is constructed below the roadway.

The initial factor that led Petitioner to propose this bridge for the first inspection is that the

structure of the bridge is situated below the bridge decking. In other words, the structure

 

11

 FAA LID E51.
10

supporting the bridge resides below the roadway rather than having bridge supporting structure

both above the roadway and below the roadway.

The Petitioner will use the sUAS to visually inspect the support structure of the bridge and

the roadway. Because the structure supporting the roadway is below the roadway, in the rare

occurrence that a malfunction occurs to the sUAS, the sUAS would fall to the canyon floor rather

than onto a roadway. Moreover, the structure of the bridge and the space between the members of

the bridge allow the Pilot and observer to maintain line of sight on the sUAS for the duration of

the flight. Thus, the risk to the public is greatly reduced because the Pilot will be able to avoid

any obstacles and other aircrafts in real time.

 

ii. The bridge is situated over a canyon which will provide a natural boundary.

Petitioner has submitted this location as the initial location because of the geophysical

characteristics in the immediate area surrounding the Burro Creek Bridge that creates a natural

boundary for the sUAS forcing the pilot to keep the sUAS within line-of-sight. The walls of the

canyon will provide terrain that naturally encloses the area surround the structure of the bridge.

The canyon walls will provide a natural barrier that mitigates risk to the public. The natural

boundary is an important risk mitigation point because in the event that the sUAS guidance system

malfunctions and the sUAS begins to descend, the walls of the canyon will limit the distance that

the sUAS will travel before impact while allowing the pilot to maintain line-of-sight. Thus, the

sUAS will be operating in highly controlled, very limited airspace reducing the risk to the public

because its lateral travel will be confined to the distance between the canyon walls. 

iii. The sUAS will remain below 400 AGL at all times during the operation.

The Petitioner’s sUAS will not fly above 400 AGL at any time during inspection of the

Burro Creek Bridge. The Burro Creek Bridge roadway rests 370 above the canyon floor and all

supporting structure is situated below the bridge decking. 

The Petitioner will launch, operate, and recover the sUAS from the floor of the canyon

below the bridge. The inspection method that Petitioner will utilize will not require the sUAS to
11

pass above 400 feet AGL to successfully complete the inspection. Therefore, the Petitioner’s

proposed usage will not pose a hazard to the NAS because the sUAS will not operate above 400

AGL at any time during the duration of the flight.

Given the foregoing, the Petitioner’s proposed usage does not pose a hazard to the NAS or

to the public. Considering the clear statutory language in Section 333 of the Reform Act, the

authority contained in the Federal Aviation Act, as amended, the equivalent level of safety to the

public and to the men and women conducting infrastructure inspections, and the reduction in

environmental effects, the grant of the requested exemptions is in the public interest. Accordingly,

Petitioner respectfully requests that the FAA grant the requested exemption without delay.

V. REGULATIONS FROM WHICH EXEMPTION IS REQUESTED

The Federal Aviation Act expressly grants the FAA Administrator the authority to issue

exemptions. By its terms, this statutory authority includes exempting civil aircraft, as the term is

defined under § 40101 of the Act, including sUASs, from its safety regulations and minimum

standards when the Administrator decides a requested exemption is in the public interest.12

Petitioner asks an exemption from several interrelated provisions of 14 C.F.R. Parts 21, 45

and 91 for purposes of conducting aerial surveys and inspections using sUAS. Listed below are:

(1) the specific sections of 14 C.F.R. for which exemption is sought; and (2) the operating

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

to or better than the rules from which exemption is sought.13

A. 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H - Airworthiness Certificates and 14 C.F.R. §

91.203(a)(1).

The Petitioner seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, which establishes

the procedural requirements for the issuance of airworthiness certificates as required by 14 C.F.R

 

12

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

prescribed pursuant to §§ 44710(a) and (b), §§ 44702 – 44716.

13

 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 the exemption would provide a level of safety at

least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek exemption.”
12

§ 91.203(a)(1). Given the size and limited operating area associated with the sUAS to be utilized

by the Petitioner, an exemption from Part 21, Subpart H meets the requirements of an equivalent

level of safety under Part 11 and Section 333 of the Reform Act.

The Federal Aviation Act14 and Section 333 of the Reform Act15 both authorize the FAA

to exempt aircraft from the requirement for an airworthiness certificate, upon consideration of the

size, weight, speed, operational capability, and proximity to airports and populated areas of the

particular UAS. In all cases, an analysis of these criteria demonstrates that the sUAS operated

without an airworthiness certificate, in the restricted environment and under the conditions

proposed will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional rotorcraft operating with an

airworthiness certificate without the restrictions and conditions of the proposed sUAS operations.

Equivalent Level of Safety

The sUAS to be operated hereunder is less than 15 lbs. fully loaded, carries neither a pilot

nor passenger, carries no explosive materials or flammable liquid fuels, and operates exclusively

within a secured area as set out in the Manual. Unlike other civil aircraft, the proposed operations

in this petition for exemption will be controlled and monitored by the operator, pursuant to the

Manual's requirements. Moreover, the FAA will have advance notice of all operations conducted

under this exemption.

These safety enhancements, which already apply to civil aircraft operated in connection

with existing inspection operations, provide a greater degree of safety to the public and property

owners than conventional operations conducted with airworthiness certificates issued under 14

C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. Lastly, application of these same criteria demonstrates that there is no

credible threat to national security posed by the sUAS, due to its size, speed of operation, location

of operation, lack of explosive materials or flammable liquid fuels, and inability to carry a

substantial external load.

B. 14 C.F.R. Part 27: Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft.

 

14

 See 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f).

15

 See Reform Act, supra note 1.
13

14 C.F.R. Part 27 sets forth the procedural requirements for airworthiness certification of

normal category rotorcraft. To the extent the Petitioner's sUASs would otherwise require

certification under Part 27, as a rotorcraft, Petitioner requests an exemption from Part 27’s

airworthiness standards for the same reasons identified in the exemption request from 14 C.F.R.

Part 21, Subpart H.

C. Aircraft Marking and Identification Requirements: 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9(c),

45.23(b), and 45.27(a).

This petition seeks an exemption from the aircraft marking and identification requirements

of 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 requirements,

provides that:

No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless that

aircraft is identified in accordance with part 45 of this chapter.16

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 provisionally certificated

aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near each

entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than

2 inches nor more than 6 inches high, the words “limited,"

"restricted," "light-sport," "experimental," or "provisional," as

applicable.17

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

Each operator of a rotorcraft must display on that rotorcraft

horizontally on both surfaces of the cabin, fuselage, boom, or tail

the marks required by §45.23.18

 

16 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(c).

17

 14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b).

18

 14 C.F.R. § 45.27(a).
14

Exemption from § 45.23(b) is warranted because the sUAS has no entrance to the cabin,

cockpit, or pilot station on which the registration number can be placed. Moreover, given the size

of the sUAS, two-inch lettering would be impossible. The aircraft registration, or “N Number’”

will be placed on the fuselage in compliance with § 45.29(f).

Given the nature of the specific relief sought by this exemption request, Petitioner requires

relief from the associated marking and identification requirements of § 45.27(a) and § 91.9(c),

which would require compliance with § 45.23(b).

Equivalent Level of Safety

An equivalent level of safety for exemptions to the aircraft marking and identification

requirements of §§ 91.9(c), 45.23(b), and 45.27(a), will be provided by having the sUAS marked

on its fuselage as required by § 45.29(f) where the pilot, observer, and others working with the

sUAS willsee the identification of the UAS as "Experimental." Additionally, Petitioner will ensure

compliance with any requests of sUAS marking by the FAA.

The FAA has issued the following exemptions to the aircraft marking requirements of §

45.23(b): Exemptions Nos. 10700, 8738, 10167 and 10167A.

D. 14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a) and (b): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: Pilot in

Command.

This petition seeks an exemption from the private pilot privileges and limitations of §§

61.113 (a) and (b), which states:

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section,

no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in

command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for

compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire,

act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in

command of an aircraft in connection with any business or

employment if:
15

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for

compensation or hire.

19

14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a) limits private pilots to being in command of non-commercial flights.

14 C.F.R. § 61.113(b)(1) provides an exception that allows a private pilot to command an aircraft

without passengers or property, in connection with business or employment if "[t]the flight is only

incidental to that business or employment."20 The stated exception likely does not apply to the

proposed operations under this petition for exemption, as the flights are not incidental to the

proposed aerial surveys and inspections but rather essential to it. Accordingly, the Petitioner seeks

an exemption to 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a)'s commercial limitation and/or 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(b)(1)'s

requirement that the flight be incidental to the business to benefit from the exception.

Equivalent Level of Safety

As required by the Manual, Petitioner's sUAS operators acting as PIC will hold a

commercial and/or private pilot certification and have rotorcraft experience. Because the sUAS

will not carry a pilot or passengers, the proposed operations can achieve the equivalent level of

safety to 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) and (b).

Unlike a conventional aircraft that carries the pilot and passengers, the sUAS is remotely

controlled with no passengers on board. Moreover, the area of operation is controlled and

restricted, and all flights are planned, coordinated, and briefed to the appropriate official in advance

as set forth in the Manual.

AT can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by current Regulations because

the sUASs do not carry any pilots or passengers. Further, while helpful, a pilot license will not

ensure remote control piloting skills, though AT’s pilot vetting and training programs will ensure

the PIC has substantial experience on the airframe. Further, private pilot licensees will operate

AT’s sUASs with the same skill. The risks attendant to the operation of AT’s sUASs are far less

 

19

 14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a) and (b).

20

 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(b)(1).
16

than the risk levels inherent in the commercial activities outlined in 14 C.F.R. § 61, et seq. Thus,

allowing AT to operate its UASs with a private pilot as the PIC will exceed current safety levels

in relation to 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) and (b).

E. 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(B)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual in the Aircraft.

The Petitioner seeks an exemption from the flight manual requirements of 14 C.F.R. §

91.9(b)(2), which states:

(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft

(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not

required by § 21.5 of this chapter, 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.21

Given its size, configuration, and load capacity, the sUAS has no ability to carry such a

manual on the aircraft, not only because there is no pilot on board, but because there is simply no

room or capacity to carry such an item on the aircraft.

Equivalent Level of Safety

The safety related purpose of this manual requirement can be equally satisfied by

maintaining the sUAS flight manual at the ground control point where the pilot flying the sUAS

will have immediate access to it. Accordingly, Petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.9(b)(2)'s

flight manual requirements, on the condition that the sUAS flight manual be available at the control

point during each operation.

The FAA has issued the following exemptions to this regulation: Exemption Nos. 8607,

8737, 8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167, 10167A, 10602, 32827, and 10700.

F. 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness.

 

21

 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(B)(2).
17

This petition seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), which requires that a civil

aircraft be in an airworthy condition to be operated. Inasmuch there will be no airworthiness

certificate issued for the sUAS, should this exemption be granted, no FAA regulatory standard will

exist for determining airworthiness.

Equivalent Level of Safety

The Petitioner’s PIC has over 12,000 flight hours and a stellar safety record. Given the size

of the sUAS and the requirements contained in the Manual for maintenance and use of safety

checklists prior to each flight, an equivalent level of safety will be provided.

The FAA has issued the following exemptions to this regulation: Exemption Nos. 8607,

8737, 8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167, 10167A, 10602, 32827, and 10700.

G. 14 C.F.R. § 91.103: Preflight Action.

This petition seeks an exemption from § 91.103, which requires a PIC to become familiar

with specific information before each flight, including information contained in the FAA approved

Flight Manual on board the aircraft.22 Inasmuch as an FAA approved flight manual will not be

provided for the sUAS, an exemption is requested.

Equivalent Level of Safety

An equivalent level of safety will be provided by following the Aircraft Operations

Manual comprehensive preflight checklist. The PIC will take all actions, including reviewing

weather, flight battery requirements, landing and takeoff distances, and aircraft performance data,

before initiation of flight.

H. 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a): Flight Instruction.

 

22

 14 C.F.R. § 91.103.
18

The Petitioner seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a), which provides that “no

person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight

instruction unless that aircraft has fully functional dual controls.”23 sUASs and remotely piloted

aircraft, by their design do not have fully functional dual controls. Instead, flight control is

accomplished through the use of a control box communicating with the sUAS via radio

communications.

Equivalent Level of Safety

Given the size and speed of the sUAS, an equivalent level of safe training can still be

performed without dual controls because no pilot or passengers are aboard the sUAS, and all

persons will be a safe distance away should the sUAS experience any difficulties during flight

instruction.

The FAA has approved exemptions for flight training without fully functional dual controls

for a number of aircraft and for flight instruction in experimental aircraft.24

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

This petition seeks an exemption from the minimum safe altitude requirements of 14 C.F.R.

§ 91.119. This Section 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.25 Section § 91.119(d)(1) allows for a helicopter to operate at less than those

minimum altitudes when it can be operated “without hazard to persons or property on the surface,”

provided that “each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes

specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA.

To provide the intended inspections, the sUAS will normally need to be operated within a

range of approximately 50 feet from the infrastructure being inspected. Accordingly, due to the

 

23

 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a).

24

 See Exemption Nos. 5778K and 9862A.

25

 See 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c).
19

nature of the proposed operations, the PIC and the designated observer may at times be less than

500 feet away from structures during the operation, and an exemption is therefore required.

Equivalent Level of Safety

Compared to flight operations with rotorcraft weighting far more than the maximum 15

pounds proposed herein, and the lack of flammable fuel, any risk associated with these operations

is far less than those presently presented with conventional aircraft. An equivalent level of safety

will be achieved given the size, weight, speed of the UAS as well as the location where it is

operated. Asset forth in the Manual, the sUAS will be operated in a restricted area, where buildings

and people will not be exposed to operations. Because of the advance notice, all affected

individuals will be aware of the planned flight operations as set forth in the Manual. Furthermore,

by operating at such lower altitudes, the sUAS will not interfere with other aircraft that are subject

to the minimum safe altitude regulations.

J. 14 C.F.R. § 91.121: Altimeter Settings.

The Petitioner seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121, which requires a person

operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude or flight level by reference to an altimeter that is

set to the elevation of the departure airport or barometric pressure.

26 An exemption is required

because the sUAS does not have a barometric altimeter, but rather a GPS altitude read out.

Equivalent Level of Safety

An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by following the procedures set forth in the

Manual. As prescribed in the Manual, the operator will confirm the altitude of the launch site

shown on the GPS altitude indicator before flight. Prior to each flight, the PIC will reset the

altimeter to zero and will fly the sUAS below 400 feet AGL. Moreover, the PIC will use the GPS

altitude indicator to constantly monitor the sUASs height, thus ensuring operation at safe altitudes. 

K. 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions.

 

26 See 14 C.F.R. § 91.121.
20

The Petitioner seeks an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a)'s fuel requirements for flight

in VFR conditions. Section 91.151(a) states:

(a) 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.27

The battery powering the sUAS provides approximately 25 minutes of powered flight. An

exemption from the 30 minute reserve requirement in 14 CFR § 91.151 is therefore required.

Equivalent Level of Safety

An equivalent level of safety can be achieved by limiting flights to 45 minutes or 25% of

battery power, whichever happens first. This restriction would be more than adequate to return the

sUAS to its planned landing zone from anywhere within its limited operating area. Operation of

the sUAS with less than 30 minutes of reserve fuel does not engender the type of risks that Section

91.151(a) was intended to alleviate given the size and speed of the small UAS. Moreover,

operations will be limited to controlled areas where only inspectors or official representatives who

have signed waivers will be allowed.

This request for exemption falls within the scope of prior exemptions.28

L. 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.203(a) and (b): Carrying Civilian Aircraft Certification and

Registration.

This petition seeks an exemption from civil aircraft certification and registration

requirements of 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.203 (a) and (b). The regulations provide in pertinent part:

 

27 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a).

28

 See e.g. Exemption 10673 (allowing Lockheed Martin Corporation to operate without compliance with

§ 91.151 (a)); see also FAA Exemptions 2689F, 5745, 10673, and 10808.
21

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

aircraft unless it has within it the following:

(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness

certificate required 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.29

In addition to the fact that Petitioner is seeking an exemption from the airworthiness

certificate requirements, an exemption to this regulation is necessary because: (1) the sUAS’s load

capacity and size does not allow it to carry certification and registration documents; (2) the sUAS

does not have a cabin or cockpit entrance at which the documents could be displayed; and (3) there

are no passengers or crew for whom the certificates need be displayed.

Equivalent Level of Safety

To the extent these regulations are applicable to the proposed sUAS operations, an

equivalent level of safety will be achieved by keeping these documents at the ground control point

where the pilot flying the sUAS will have immediate access to them.

The FAA has issued numerous exemptions to this regulation. A representative sample of

other exceptions includes Exemption Nos. 9565, 9665, 9789, 9789A, 9797, 9797A, 9816A, and

10700.

M. 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a)(1); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1); 91.417(a) and (b):

Maintenance Inspections

The Petitioner seeks an exemption from the maintenance inspection requirements of 14

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

maintenance and inspection standards in reference to 14 C.F.R. Part 43.30 An exemption to these

 

29 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.203 (a) and (b).

30

 See e.g. 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a) (stating that each owner or operator of an 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”).
22

regulations is needed because Part 43 and the stated sections apply only to aircraft with an

airworthiness certificate, which the sUAS will not have.

Equivalent Level of Safety

An equivalent level of safety will be achieved because maintenance and inspections will

be performed in accordance with the Aircraft Operations Manual.31 As provided in the Manual,

the PIC will ensure that the UAS is in working order prior to initiating flight, oversee and assist in

performance of required maintenance, and keep a log of any maintenance performed. The PIC is

the person most familiar with the aircraft and best suited to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy

condition to provide the equivalent level of safety.

If mechanical issues arise, the sUAS can land immediately and will be operating from no

higher than 400 feet AGL. Moreover, the sUAS's small size, carrying capacity, and the fact that

flight operations will only take place in restricted areas for limited periods of time, create less risk

than the same factors associated with conventional fixed-wing aircraft and rotorcraft performing

the same operation.

VI. PUBLIC INTEREST

Consistent with the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 11.81(d), Petitioner offers the following

reasons why granting this petition for exemption isin the public interest, i.e., how granting it would

benefit the public as a whole. Approval of exemptions allowing commercial operations of small

and lightweight sUAS in the infrastructure inspection industry benefits the public as a whole in

several ways.

First, granting the Petitioner’s exemption helps fulfill Congress' goal in passing Section

333(a) through (c) of the Reform Act, namely, the FAA Administrator's assessment of whether

certain UAS may operate safely in the National Airspace System before completion of the rule

making required under Section 332 of the Reform Act.

 

31

 See Manual section 4. 
23

Next, the Petitioner’s proposed operation significantly improves safety and reduces risk

concerning infrastructure inspection by alleviating human exposure to dangers associated with

current aerial survey and inspection methods. Manned helicopters performing utility-power

generation inspections and patrols have experienced an exceedingly high number of accidents and

fatalities. 

Other bridge inspection methods include utilizing a mobile inspection platform to lower

inspectors over the side of the bridge. To employ this method, inspectors coordinate with the state

department of transportation to close a lane of traffic for the length of the bridge. Placing a static

vehicle in a lane next to moving traffic is particularly hazardous to motorists and the inspectors

alike and has caused serious traffic incidents in the past.

Petitioner's sUASs are battery powered and create no emissions. If Petitioner's sUAS

crashes, there is no fuel to ignite and explode. Any impact of Petitioner's lightweight sUASs is far

less than a full size helicopter. The public's interest is furthered by minimizing ecological impact

of an accident and by reducing human exposure to potentially harmful emissions associated with

manned aircraft.

Finally, aerial surveys are valuable tools for utility-power generation inspections.

However, problems with safety, cost, statistical integrity, and logistics continue to impede aerial

surveys and inspections from conventional manned aircraft. The use of sUAS addresses these

problems and is a powerful tool for performing a wide-range of utility-power generation inspection

and patrol applications. The public as a whole will benefit from the safer and more cost-effective

utility aerial services that sUAS operations provide.

VII. PRIVACY

All flights will occur over Operations to be conducted over public or controlled access

property. Additionally, all flight operations will be conducted in a “Sterile Area” as described by

the Manual, in which all permissions will be gained by all official personnel and organizations

present in the Sterile Area.
24

Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that “‘[a] person traveling in an automobile

on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy . . . .’”32 Therefore, Petitioners

use of sUAS does not pose a privacy threat to motorists traveling on the roadway inadvertently

captured on video because they have no reasonable expectation of privacy. However, to further

protect individuals who have had their image captured during an inspection, the Petitioner will

sanitize the likenesses of individuals from the final product provided to the customer.

VIII. FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

A. 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H - Airworthiness Certificates and 14 C.F.R. § 91.203(a)(1).

B. 14 C.F.R. Part 27: Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft.

C. Aircraft Marking and Identification Requirements: 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9(c), 45.23(b) and

45.27(a).

D. 14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a) and (b): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: Pilot in

Command.

E. 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(B)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual in the Aircraft.

F. 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness.

G. 14 C.F.R. § 91.103: Preflight Action.

H. 14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a): Flight Instruction.

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

J. 14 C.F.R. § 91.121: Altimeter Settings.

K. 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

` L. 14 C.F.R. § 91.203(a) and (b): Carrying Civilian Aircraft Certification and Registration.

M. 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a)(1); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1); 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance

Inspections

 

32

 U.S. v. Jones, 132 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012) quoting U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 281 (1983).
25

IX. CONCLUSION

The Petitioner moves the FAA Administrator to grant this exemption. Given the foregoing,

the Petitioner’s proposed usage does not pose a hazard to the NAS or to the public. Considering

the clear statutory language in Section 333 of the Reform Act, the authority contained in the

Federal Aviation Act, as amended, the equivalent level of safety to the public and to the men and

women conducting infrastructure inspections, and the reduction in environmental effects, the grant

of the requested exemptions is in the public interest. Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests

that the FAA grant the requested exemption without delay.

Submitted on October 3, 2014 by:

/s/ Stuart C. Sparker

_______________________________

STUART C. SPARKER, ESQ.

Asymmetric Technologies, LLC

1395 Grandview Avenue

Suite #3

Columbus, OH 43212

General Counsel for Petitioner