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 aircraft 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 instances 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 Vehicle

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 believes 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 

rotor/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 evaluated 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 rulemaking2 for sUAS operations (“NPRM”)) appears to be to maintain 

a very tight containment area to 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 notes 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 analysis 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. 

Recognizing 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 structure, 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 that 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 such 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 than 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 uses, 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 principally 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 protection 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 interaction 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 Engineering HQ-40 Hybrid Plane (VTOL Fixed Wing)

Confidential Treatment Requested
Appendix B

SenseFly eXom Rotorcraft

Confidential Treatment Requested