UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

____________________________________ ) In the matter of the petition of ) )

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY ) Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0704 ) Exemption No. 11206 For an exemption from §§ 61.113(a), ) 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1) ) 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and ) (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) )

__ __________________________________)

PETITION TO AMEND

BNSF Railway Company(“BNSF”) hereby petitions the Federal Aviation Administration for an amendment to Exemption No. 11206, permitting BNSF to conduct certain operations using a small unmanned aircraf t system (“sUAS”) over BNSF owned or controlled railroad infrastructure and operations.

Specifically, BNSF seeks to amend paragraphs 1, 29 and 31 of the exemption. BNSF believes the suggested amendments, discussed in detail below, 1 will in many instance s improve, and in no instance degrade, the safety of individuals on the ground and in the air over what is achievable under the existing exemption.

BNSF believes the amendments are in the public interest because it allows BNSF to better address safety and security risks to track and other infrastructure using sUAS in conjunction with or in lieu of more traditional forms of transportation and on

- sight inspections. BNSF further believes that, for the reasons provided below, the amendments will provide an equivalent level of safety to what is currently allowed under the Federal Aviation Administration’s Regulations.

Request for amendment to Condition and Limitation 1 :

Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the following aircraft described in the operating documents which include:

a. the AR180C

1 The highlighted text in each discussed condition and limitation is implicated by the proposed

amendments.b. the AR200 c. the 3D Robotics Spektre Industrial Multi

- Rotor Aerial Vehi cle

BNSF requests that Exemption No. 11206 be amended to allow it to use the following

aircraft in addition to the aircraft listed above.

Latitude Engineering HQ

- 40 Hybrid Plane (VTOL Fixed Wing) SenseFly eXom Rotorcraft

BNSF believ es the FAA may have already evaluated the Latitude Engineering HQ

- 40 under Section 333, in which case the FAA has already determined that it meets the conditions of Section 333. In case the FAA has not conducted such an evaluation, the HQ

- 40 is a hybrid

r otor/fixed wing aircraft designed to allow for vertical takeoff and landing along with longer duration fixed wing flight. A fuller description of the aircraft is attached as Appendix A of this

Petition to Amend.

BNSF believes that the FAA may not have ev aluated the SenseFly eXom, a 3.9 pound rotorcraft just released by SenseFly (a Parrot company). Although the aircraft is similar in size, weight and command/control capability as other aircraft that meet the conditions of Section 333, a document describing the aircraft is attached as Appendix B of this Petition to Amend.

Request for amendment to Condition and Limitation 29 :

The UAS may not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle

.

BNSF requests relief from the prohibition in condition and limitation 29 on operating a sUAS from a moving vehicle. The rationale for this restriction (as articulated in the February 23, 2015 notice of proposed rulemaking 2 for sUAS operations (“NPRM”)) appears to be to maintain a very tight containment area t o minimize the risk of a potential loss of positive control. However, the FAA acknowledged in the NPRM that sUAS could likely be safely operated from moving vessels because there would be fewer people and structures exposed to an adverse

incident. BNSF n otes that rail

- lines offer the same type of buffer as a waterway since the lines are fixed and under the control of the railroad and the railroad has the ability to keep unauthorized personnel off of the tracks and the property adjacent to the tracks. In addition, permitting sUAS operations from low speed vehicles will greatly expand BNSF’s use of sUAS to enhance rail safety. This is because the sUAS will be able to efficiently cover more area along the tracks, providing more track and right

- of

- way analys is in a shorter time.

BNSF has control over many access roads that parallel its track. Traveling alongside the UA as it surveys the track actually allows for closer and more direct observation of the unmanned aircraft than fixed operations. Likewise, BNSF can operate the unmanned aircraft

from an on

- track vehicle that allows the PIC to manipulate it from a very close distance and

2 80 Fed. Reg. 9544 (February 23, 2015).assure that both the on

- track vehicle and any train following it can stop before encountering an

on

- track hazard.

Recog nizing the FAA’s general concern with allowing a sUAS to be operated from a moving vehicle, BNSF would be amenable to restrictions that further assure the safety of the operation. Operations would only take place along the railroad’s right of way, in areas remote from significant population centers, and only to address abnormal operating conditions such as operations associated with a derailment, flooding or other natural disaster. Altitude could be restricted to no higher than 100 feet above the highest s tructure, in no event to exceed 400 feet. The length of time that the sUAS could be operated would already be limited by the sUAS’s battery power. In addition, the visual observer (or multiple observers if appropriate) would scan

the horizon to assure th at no aircraft are placed at risk.

Request for amendment to Condition and Limitation 31 :

All flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless: a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the [unmanned aircraft (UA)] and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, Flight operations must cease immediately and/or; b. The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the owner/controller of suc h vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard, and; c. Operations nearer to the PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons do not present an undue hazard to those persons per §91.119(a).

BNSF requests condition and limitation 31 be amended to delete the references to nonparticipating vehicles. While many of BNSF’s assets are located more th an 500 feet from public roadways, that is not always the case. It is simply impractical to seek the permission of people driving on public roads within 500 feet of the track or other infrastructure being inspected. BNSF notes that the UA it currently use s, and all but one of the UA that it intends to use in the future (i.e., the Latitude HQ

- 40), qualify as helicopters under the definition in 14 C.F.R. §1.1. That section defines a helicopter as “a rotorcraft that, for its horizontal motion, depends princi pally on its engine

- driven rotors.” Section 91.119(d) specifies that helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraphs (b) or (c) of that section. 3 It

is those minimums that establish the minimum distance between the aircraft and nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles or structures. Thus, in the case of traditional (and much larger) helicopters, the FAA imposes no minimum altitude or stand

- off distances at all.

3 Paragraph (d) does require the operator to comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA (e.g., 14 C.F.R. part 93, sub

- parts H and W), but those restrictions would not otherwise apply to BNSF’s UAS operations.BNSF appreciates that the FAA wants to assure the protec tion of nonparticipating individuals. In many instances BNSF may be able to avoid flight over roads that it does not have direct control over. However, BNSF believes that it can take steps to significantly reduce the already remote chance of a direct int eraction between a UA and a moving vehicle in those rare instances in which it needs the UA to traverse a public roadway. BNSF would not operate the UA directly above the public roadway other than as needed to cross the road. In addition to not traveling directly above the road, the UA would not hover at any particular point above the road. BNSF would also utilize a visual observer whose sole duty was devoted to monitor the roadway to assure compliance with these conditions.Appendix A Latitude Engi neering HQ

- 40 Hybrid Plane (VTOL Fixed Wing) Confidential Treatment RequestedAppendix B SenseFly eXom Rotorcraft Confidential Treatment Requested