Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations from certain parts of the FARs.

James Michael Hourihan

April 20, 2015

Name / Address of Petitioner:

James Michael Hourihan

70 Fern Hollow Rd

Bridgewater, MA 02324

Telephone Number of Petitioner: ​617.838.6453

Email:​mike.hourihan@bostonmedflight.org

Regulations from which the exemption is requested:

14 CFR Part 21 14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (a) 14 CFR § 91.9 (b) (2)

14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b) 14 C.F.R. § 91.103 14 CFR § 61.3

14 C.F.R. § 91.109 14 C.F. R. § 91.119 14 C.F.R. § 91.121

14 CFR § 91.151 (a) 14 CFR § 91.203 (a) & (b) 14 CFR § 91.205(b)

14 CFR § 91.215 14 CFR § 91.405 (a) 14 CFR § 407 (a) (1)

14 CFR § 409 (a) (2) 14 CFR § 417 (a) & (b) 3

Appendix A​describes the FARs from which an exemption is requested and summarizes the

justification for each requested exemption.

This Petition is submitted to fulfill Congress’ goal under Section 333(a) through (c) of the

Reform Act, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to consider whether certain

unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system (NAS) before

completion of the rulemaking required under Section 332 of the Reform Act. In making this

determination, the Administrator must determine which types of UASs 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’s 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.

Reform Act § 333 (a).

If the Administrator 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.” Id. § 333(c).

The Secretary has delegated his aviation authority to the Administrator of the FAA.

1
The Federal Aviation Act expressly grants the FAA the authority to grant exemptions from its

regulatory requirements for civil aircraft, a term defined under §40101 of the Act, which

includes sUASs. The Administrator may grant an exemption from a requirement of a

regulation prescribed under subsection (a) or (b) of this section or any sections 44702­44716

of the Federal Aviation Act if Administrator finds the exemption in the public interest. 49

U.S.C. § 44701(f) See also 49 USC § 44711(a); 49 USC § 44704; 14 CFR §91.203 (a) (1).

Petitioner Background:

The Petitioner has served proudly as a Flight Paramedic for Boston MedFlight for the past six

years to the present day. Boston MedFlight operates several EC­145, Sikorsky S76 C++

helicopters and a Cessna Citation jet. As a Flight Medic, the Petitioner routinely functions as

a clinician and as an aid to the PIC with radio communications, GPS navigation and

see­and­avoid operations. After completing hundreds of emergency rotor and fixed wing

missions in the NAS, his respect for aviation safety and the need for careful, regulated sUAS

integration into the NAS is unmatched.

The Petitioner has also been a model helicopter, fixed wing and multirotor hobbyist for eight

years and has been a member of the American Aeromodellers Association (AMA).

After a thirteen year career in EMS / SAR / Aeromedical operations in New England, the

Petitioner is in a unique position to not only safely utilize sUAS technology in the NAS, but to

serve as a leader to other sUAS operators. If permission is granted, the Petitioner will serve

numerous Local, State and Federal entities. The professional relationships he’s cultivated

with the Massachusetts State Police, USCG and endless Fire and Police departments would

serve as a conduit to safe sUAS implementation into the local airspace. His significant

on­scene emergency aeromedical experience with full scale helicopters will serve as the

backbone for safe, efficient sUAS operations in numerous roles. His business model in place

would include but is not limited to EMS / Fire emergency support, Police operation support

and missing persons support.

At no time will he operate outside the clearly outlined sUAS guidelines published by the FAA.

For example, never >400’AGL, within five miles of an airport or beyond VLOS.

Petitioner also notes and has read the congressional mandate in sections 332 and 333 of the

FAA Revitalization and Reform Act of 2012 that the FAA move quickly to accommodate the

economic and societal benefits that can result from widespread deployment of sUAS

technology. Accordingly, Petitioner applies for authorization under the Federal Aviation Act

and the FARs to undertake the aforementioned activities for commercial purposes. If the

Petition is granted, Petitioner will be at a significant competitive advantage if it, as it prefers,

complies with FAA policy.

2
Vehicle(s):

The Petitioner will fly one or more DJI Phantom 3s, DJI Phantom 2 Visions, DJI S1000s

equipped with a three­axis camera gimbal. OE / IR / Thermal imagers may be fielded for

better data acquisition as needed.

These vehicles have the built in capability to limit the height they fly above the ground, to limit

the radius of the distance they fly from the operator, and to exclude them from class B, C, and

D airspace as well any TFR’s (Temporary Flight Restricted) areas. The vehicles also have the

built­in capability to return to the launching point if the wireless control link is interrupted or if

the operator attempts to exceed any of the height, radius, or airspace limitations programmed

into them. The vehicle weighs about five pounds and has a maximum gross weight of

approximately twenty pounds. It has a top speed of about 30 knots. It has four fixed­pitch

rotors, thrust from which is varied by changing RPM. It is powered by a lithium polymer smart

battery.

Flight profiles:

The petitioner will program the Phantoms or S1000 so that they will not fly more than 400 feet

above ground level, or more than 1500 feet away from its operator. The PIC (Person in

Control) will carefully preflight the vehicle before each mission to assure that its compass and

GPS system are properly calibrated and that the return­to­home feature, altitude, and radius

limitations work.

They will not operate in controlled airspace. In the unlikely event that a manned aircraft flies

below 400 feet AGL where the Petitioner is operating its Phantom, the operator will keep both

the vehicle and manned aircraft in sight and avoid the manned aircraft.

More particularly, the Petitioner will fly the Phantoms or S1000 only over the hazard areas

that are in control of an on­scene Incident Commander, most likely being a Fire Chief, SAR

rep or Police rep, etc.

The Petitioner will not conduct flight operations of any kind without a minimum of three

dedicated personal. A PIC, SIC and observer will be present and functioning as a cohesive

flight team for each mission.

Public interest Granting the petition would be in the public interest because:

1. The Congress of the United States has determined that early accommodation of sUAS into

the National Airspace System advances the public interest. The Committee Report leading

the House to adopt H.R. 658 said: "The successful integration of unmanned aircraft systems

(UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS) can support more than 23,000 high­paying

jobs in the United States. . . . The absence of a plan to integrate UASs into the NAS is a

barrier to such job creation . . . ."1 Granting the Petition represents a step toward such

3
integration, in the absence of a comprehensive regulatory regime for sUAS, and thus would

serve the Congressional goal and the public interest.

2. Granting the Petition will facilitate a new era in Emergency Response activities, one in

which the responders themselves have a tool to safely, quickly and remotely assess a

situation without placing lives in harm’s way. In comparison, the EOD robots have saved

countless lives since their inception, a feat that will become common place for aerial

assessments.

3. Granting the Petition will enable Petitioner to demonstrate the commercial viability of

creating new safety techniques and tactics with new aeronautical technology, thereby

improving the efficiency of Emergency Responders around the world and making for a safer

society. The rules from which Petitioner seeks exemption artificially and irrationally limit the

effective use of new technologies to expand Emergency Response safety and improve the

efficiency of markets, thereby subverting the public interest.

______________________________________

1. H. R. Rep. 112­29 on H.R. 658, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. at 116. The House­Senate Conference Committee on the

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 recommended amendments to H.R. 658 in lieu of amendments adopted

by the Senate. Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 658, H.R. Rep. 112­381, 112th Cong., 2d Sess., at p. 1 (Feb.

1, 2012).

4. Granting this Petition will enable the Petitioner to help demonstrate that the FAAs sUAS

FARs are indeed a safe and effective means in which to govern the NAS. He will serve as an

advocate for the practice of lawful sUAS operations.

5. Granting the Petition will fulfill the FAA’s own declaration that encouraging new aviation

technologies advances the public interest. The FAA itself has recognized the public interest in

its role of "Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology."2

Granting the Petition will enhance FAA fulfillment of that commitment, thereby serving the

public interest. Air commerce flourishes in the United States because of the rapid pace of

innovation in aeronautical and associated technologies, followed by their commercialization

and their introduction into the marketplace. The drone technology that the Petitioner uses

exemplifies the latest innovative leap forward in aeronautical technology. Preventing it from

using this in air commerce subverts achievement of the goal.

6. Granting the Petition will fulfill the Congressional determination that integrating sUAS

technology into the NAS serves the public interest. Section 330 of the FAA Modernization and

Reform Act of 2012, specifically recognizes the advantages to air commerce obtainable from

the deployment of sUAS technologies. It mandated several steps by the FAA to accelerate the

availability of these technologies in the National Airspace System, thereby representing a

congressional determination that the public interest is served by making these technologies

more widely available at the earliest practicable date. The Petition represents a way for the

4
FAA to move incrementally, while still satisfying its congressional mandate and meeting its

obligation to enhance the public interest by making new technologies available by allowing the

use of sUAS technologies in a manner that protects the public and the rest of the aviation

community from significant risk.

The commercial activities by Petitioner proposed in the Petition represent contributions to new

forms of air commerce, thereby fulfilling the FAA’s statutory mandate under the 2012 Act.

7. Granting the Petition will enhance aviation safety, thereby advancing the public interest.

The Petitioner has committed itself in the Petition to safety practices that reduce or eliminate

hazards to aircraft in the National Airspace System and to persons and property on the

ground. Many others are flying sUAS without regard to these hazards. Granting the Petition

will offer the Petitioner up as an example of how the FAA is willing to accommodate the new

technology when it is constrained by appropriate limitations to enhance safety. It will also

allow the Petitioner to be a role model for safe commercial sUAS operations.

Users of the National Airspace System are confronted by mushrooming threats from sUAS

flown in defiance of the FAA’s ban. Unless the FAA shows some flexibility to accommodate

lawful and safe operation of sUAS for legitimate commercial purposes, the level of defiance

will increase, intensifying the hazards to manned aircraft and to persons and property on the

ground.

Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations from certain parts of the FARs.

Thank you very kindly for exemption consideration.

Sincerely

James Michael Hourihan

5
APPENDIX A

FAR SUBJECT JUSTIFICATION

14 CFR § 45.23(b) Requirement to display

registration number on

vehicle

Insufficient space on vehicle

14 CFR Part 21 Aircraft certification

requirements and

procedures

Designed for manned

aircraft; not suitable for

off­the­shelf sUAS

14 CFR § 61.3 Requirement for pilot

certificate

Part 61 requirements

designed for manned

aircraft, not sUAS; petition

describes training for sUAS

operator

14 CFR § 91.7 (a) Airworthiness requirement Designed for manned

aircraft; not suitable for

off­the­shelf sUAS

14 CFR § 91.9 (b) (2) Requirement for manual to

be available in the cockpit

No one aboard to read

manual

14 CFR § 91.103(b) Requirement for crew

members to be onboard

Unmanned vehicle

6
14 CFR § 91.109 Requirement for dual

controls during flight

instruction

No one aboard to operate

controls

14 CFR § 91.119 Minimum altitudes for safe

flight

Safety requires operation

below these altitudes

14 CFR § 91.121 Altimeter settings No one aboard to read

altimeter

14 CFR § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements Vehicle does not use fuel

14 CFR § 91.203 (a) & (b) Requirement for registration

and airworthiness

certificates to be onboard

No one aboard to read

certificates

14 CFR § 91.205(b) aboard Cockpit instruments No one to read

FAR SUBJECT JUSTIFICATION

14 CFR § 45.23(b) Requirement to display

registration number on

vehicle

Insufficient space on vehicle

14 CFR Part 21 Aircraft certification

requirements and

procedures

Designed for manned

aircraft; not suitable for

off­the­shelf sUAS

14 CFR § 61.3 Requirement for pilot

certificate

Part 61 requirements

designed for manned

aircraft, not sUAS; petition

describes training for sUAS

operator

14 CFR § 91.7 (a) Airworthiness requirement Designed for manned

aircraft; not suitable for

off­the­shelf sUAS

14 CFR § 91.9 (b) (2) Requirement for manual to

be available in the cockpit

No one aboard to read

manual

14 CFR § 91.103(b) Requirement for crew

members to be onboard

Unmanned vehicle

7
14 CFR § 91.109 Requirement for dual

controls during flight

instruction

No one aboard to operate

controls

14 CFR § 91.119 Minimum altitudes for safe

flight

Safety requires operation

below these altitudes

14 CFR § 91.121 Altimeter settings No one aboard to read

altimeter

14 CFR § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements Vehicle does not use fuel

14 CFR § 91.203 (a) & (b) Requirement for registration

and airworthiness

certificates to be onboard

No one aboard to read

certificates

8