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, 5, 6, 16, 18 and 20 of the exemption. BNSF believes the suggested amendments, discussed in detail below, 1 will in man y 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 it be allowed to operate any UAS that has previously been approved for operations under an exemption to Section 333 of P. L. 112

- 95 (“Section 333”). BNSF believes that there is no practical value in requiring an exemption holder to s eek to amend its exemption (and the FAA to evaluate that request) every time it wants to operate a UAS that the FAA has already found merits a waiver from the statutory requirement that the aircraft have an

airworthiness certificate under Section 333. Sho uld the FAA determine that each aircraft must be listed in the exemption, BNSF requests that Exemption No. 11206 be amended to allow it to use the following aircraft in addition to the aircraft listed above. 2

AeroVironment Puma

AeroVironment Shrike Ro torcraft

AerialTronics Altura Zenith Rotorcraft DJI Inspire Rotorcraft

The AeroVironment Puma, AeroVironment Shrike, AerialTronics Altura Zenith and DJI Inspire UAS have already been approved for use under other exemptions issued by the FAA. According ly, the FAA has already determined that they meet the conditions of Section 333.

Request for amendment to Condition and Limitation 5 and 6:

The [unmanned aircraft (UA)] must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times . This requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, as specified on the

PIC’s FAA

- issued airman medical certificate.

All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated

within the v isual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and the VO at all times. The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirements as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times, electronic messaging or texting is not permitted during flight operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functions prescribed in the ope rating documents.

BNSF requests conditions and limitations 5 and 6 be amended to allow for operations within either the PIC’s visual line of sight or a VO’s visual line of sight. BNSF could utilize more than one VO, maintaining radio contact with all VO s. 3 BNSF understands that the FAA has already issued experimental airworthiness certificates that allow for either the PIC or the VO

to maintain visual contact with the UA.

2 BNSF anticipates that additional requests for amendment may be required in the future to add additional

UAS.

3 The PIC may not be able to see all VOs, which is not currently required under the existing exemption.The UAs currently on the market can fly well beyond the line of sight of a singl e observer. In the February 23, 2015 notice of proposed rulemaking for sUAS operations (“NPRM”), 4 the FAA proposed that a small unmanned aircraft remain within the PIC’s visual line of sight at all times, even when using a visual observer, for two reasons . First, someone on the ground could monitor both the UA and its operating environment and identify and avoid any other aircraft. Second, by limiting aircraft operations to the operator’s visual line of sight, the FAA would effectively limit operations t o a small geographical area, containing risk in the event of a loss of positive control.

BNSF appreciates that a rule of general applicability needs to contemplate all reasonably foreseeable operating conditions. However, the FAA grants exemptions based on the circumstances and capabilities of the petitioner. One of the greatest benefits of sUAS technology for large infrastructure companies like railroads is that the UA can be utilized in remote and potentially dangerous areas in a manner that is much safer and more precise than traditional means of transportation. The requirement that the P IC maintain VLOS of the UA acts as an arbitrary constraint that is not needed when a sufficient number of VOs can assure that someone on the ground can monitor both the UA and its operating environment and identify and avoid any other aircraft and when, as is the case of BNSF, the area to be covered by the UA is under the operator’s sole control.

Condition and limitation 6 does not require that the PIC actually maintain VLOS, merely that he be able to do so. In such a circumstance, the PIC is already r elying on the VO to provide the requisite situational awareness. However the de facto geographical constraints imposed by the requirement limit the ability of BNSF to access remote areas if the PIC and all VOs are required to maintain VLOS. For example, w ide areas of heavy flooding may require the different VOs to be situated at strategic locations so that there is adequate coverage of the entire flood plain. However, the PIC may not be able to see the UA at all times. As long as at least one

VO has the UA within VLOS, the risk to other aircraft or structures is negligible.

Request for amendment to Condition and Limitation 16:

The PIC must possess at least a private pilot certificate and a third

- class airman medical certificate . The PIC must al so meet the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

Shortly after granting Exemption No 11206, the FAA changed its policy on requiring that the PIC hold at least a p rivate pilot license and third class medical certificate, allowing the PIC to possess no more than a recreational or sport pilot certificate. Based on the FAA’s revised policy, BNSF requests that condition and limitation 16 be amended to permit the PIC to possess an airline transport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate, as well as a current

FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license. BNSF understands that the FAA

4 80 Fed. Reg. 9544 (February 23, 2015).intends that the PIC hold the level of medica l certification required to support the type of pilot certificate that the PIC is relying upon to operate the UAS.

Request for amendment to Condition and Limitation 18:

UAS operation may not be conducted during night , as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1.

All operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

BNSF requests that condition and limitation 18 be amended to permit night

- time operations under night

- time VM C when the UA is equipped with position lights and aviation red

or aviation white anti

- collision lights/strobe lights as required for night

- time VMC operations in § 91.205(c). 5 In order to assure that the UA does not encounter any obstacles, BNSF will use multiple forms of “night” sensors such as multi

- wave infrared technology.

Allowing night

- time operations under these conditions will enhance rail safety as in many instances, the need to conduct track surveillance and start repairs due to a train dera ilment, heavy snows or flooding cannot wait until daylight. For example, after a derailment, it is critical to support the BNSF recovery staff and the NTSB quickly. There have been instances where after a nighttime derailment critical hours passed while awaiting daylight to investigate. When it is possible to access the scene in the dark, track maintenance employees and train crews are currently exposed to a risk of injury because they have to traverse potentially unsafe areas that

could have first been a ssessed by a UA using “night” sensors.

Request for amendment to Condition and Limitation 20:

The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from t he

PIC.

One of the most critical times BNSF needs to conduct aerial inspections, and when there may be possible roadway, ballast or track damage that can cause a derailment, is during inclement weather and operations complying with the current limitation are not allowed. Accordingly, BNSF offers two options for the FAA’s consideration:

1) BNSF requests that the limitation be revised to state that operations are permissible when the weather requires traditional aircraft operate under instrument flight rules (IFR). As long as the sUAS is visible, operations can proceed regardless of weather conditions and without the current limitations. BNSF believes this approach does not introduce a risk to other aircraft because BNSF’s UA will be flying below 200 ft AGL and traditional flying under visual

5 The provision in that paragraph for an electric landing light would not be required since the UA is not operated for hire. BNSF believes that the sUAS already meets the requirements for adequate electrical energy.flight rules (VFR) will be prohibited. Accordingly, there will be no risk from the UA and other aircraft sharing the same airspace.

2) Alternatively, BNSF suggests the FAA apply the VFR limits in 14 C.F.R. §91. 155 for class G airspace. Condition and limitation 4 already effectively limits UAS operations to class G airspace. Given the exceptionally low altitudes at which the UA are operated, there is simply no need to impose visibility conditions

that are more stringent than what is required for traditional aircraft in class G airspace. Indeed, rotorcraft UAs are arguably entitled to the exception in §91.115(b)(1) that requires helicopters only remain clear of clouds. This is because the UA BNSF currently uses , and all the UA included in this petition, 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 91.11 9(d) specifies that helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraphs (b) or (c) of that

section. 6

6 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 th ose restrictions would not otherwise apply to BNSF’s UAS operations.