HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

___________________________________________________

LIFT TECHNOLOGIES LLC dba LIFT TECH

Petitioner. Docket No. FAA-2015-_____

PETITION OF LIFT TECHNOLOGIES LLC dba LIFT TECH

FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS

TO PERMIT UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UAS) OPERATIONS

Lisa Ellman and Patrick Rizzi

Hogan Lovells US LLP

555 13th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: 202-637-6934 / -5659

Fax: 202-637-5910

lisa.ellman@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

COUNSEL FOR LIFT TECHNOLOGIES LLC dba LIFT TECH

DATE: July 29, 2015
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER .................................................................. - 1 -

2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST ............................................... - 1 -

3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................... - 3 -

3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS............................................ - 3 -

3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations ........................ - 4 -

3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the Pilot in Command and other

crewmember qualifications and training ....................................................................... - 7 -

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding LIFT manuals related to UAS

operations ......................................................................................................................... - 8 -

4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA........................................ - 10 -

5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION

FOR EXEMPTION........................................................................................................................... - 11 -

5.1 Contact information ......................................................................................................... - 11 -

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which LIFT seeks an

exemption ......................................................................................................................... - 11 -

5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought......................................... - 12 -

5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest ........................... - 26 -

5.5 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 exemption is sought.......................... - 28 -

5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule

from which exemption is sought, and a brief description of the nature

of the exemption sought. ................................................................................................ - 29 -

5.7 Additional information that supports request............................................................... - 30 -

5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S........................ - 30 -

5.9 Attachments...................................................................................................................... - 30 -

6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ - 30 -
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: THE PETITIONER

Lift Technologies LLC dba Lift Tech (“LIFT”) is an aerial data collection company focused on

providing better data to enable smarter business decisions through Unmanned Aircraft Systems

(“UAS”) technology, industry expertise, and machine intelligence. It is an affiliate of Clayco, Inc.,

which is an experienced UAS operator and has its own exemption. See Exemption No. 11109

(December 10, 2014; Docket FAA-2014-0507) (“Clayco Exemption”). LIFT has a pending petition for

exemption for aerial data collection operations using various models of DJI UAS. This Petition is

similar in all material respects to that pending petition, except that this Petition seeks an exemption

covering several additional, non-DJI UAS. LIFT plans to conduct small UAS operations to perform

aerial data collection in support of various industries including architecture, engineering and

construction, agriculture, energy, utility and infrastructure, geology and mining, insurance and

financial services, real estate, and entertainment.1

2. PROPOSED UAS OPERATIONS: THE EXEMPTION REQUEST

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (“FMRA”) and 14

C.F.R. (“FAR”) §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81, LIFT requests that the FAA grant LIFT an

exemption from certain sections of the FAR (detailed below in Sections 5.2 and 5.3) so that the

company may operate one or more small UAS to conduct aerial data collection for the purpose of

1

For example, aerial surveys; structural integrity inspections for inaccessible areas; precision

photogrammetry and crop scouting; aerial inspection and surveying of electric grids, solar farms, and

wind power generators, turbine blades, and towers; flare stack inspections; inspections and patrols of

utility-power generation systems and pipelines; inspections of unimproved or vacant properties for the

construction industry, developers, and property owners; aerial photography, virtual tours, and professional

real estate photographic services; telecommunications and utility structure inspection and maintenance

services; videography; and general industrial inspections and analysis.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 2 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

aerial surveying, imaging, monitoring, and inspections in support of various industries. These

proposed operations involve aerial data collection, consistent with grants like Exemption No. 11213

(March 24, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0642) (“Aeryon Labs Exemption”), as well as previously granted

summary grant exemptions. As explained below, LIFT’s proposed UAS operations, as conditioned

and limited herein, will not adversely affect safety, but rather will provide an equivalent or greater

level of safety than that provided by the current rules, large manned aircraft operations, and other

current data collection, surveying, imaging, monitoring, and inspection methods. See FAR § 11.81.

LIFT respectfully requests that the FAA grant the requested exemption on an expedited

basis. To that end, as detailed below, LIFT agrees to comply with the conditions and limitations

imposed in recent summary grant exemptions, including ones involving aerial data collection for

purposes of aerial surveying, imaging, monitoring, and inspections in support of various industries

including architecture, engineering and construction, agriculture, energy, utility and infrastructure,

geology and mining, insurance and financial services, real estate, and entertainment. See, e.g.,

Aeryon Labs Exemption; Exemption No. 11345 (April 16, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-0048)

(“PrecisionHawk Exemption”); Exemption No. 11822 (June 15, 2015; Docket FAA−2015−1093)

(“HYSight Technologies Exemption”).

Given LIFT’s agreement to comply with these conditions and limitations, and given that this

Petition is similar in all material respects to those petitions for which summary grant exemptions

have been granted, and that the proposed UAS use falls within the “aerial data collection” category

of uses permitted by numerous summary grant exemptions, no new precedent would be set by

granting the requested exemption, and any delay in the FAA’s acting on this Petition would be

detrimental to LIFT and delay its implementation of these use cases. Accordingly, as with the

HYSight Technologies Exemption, at 1, and the PrecisionHawk Exemption, at 1, good cause exists

for the FAA to move forward with consideration of this Petition and the grant of this exemption

without publishing a summary of the Petition in the Federal Register.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 3 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

3. PROPOSED CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The small UAS operations proposed in this Petition will be subject to the following conditions

and limitations. As noted above, these conditions and limitations are the same conditions and

limitations as those in previously granted small UAS Section 333 exemptions, including recent

summary grant exemptions. To facilitate the FAA’s review of this Petition, LIFT provides a chart at

the end of this Section 3 cross-referencing the conditions and limitations from the HYSight

Technologies Exemption and the Aeryon Labs Exemption with the corresponding conditions and

limitations outlined below. Collectively, these conditions and limitations ensure that the proposed

small UAS operations will not adversely affect safety and will provide at least an equivalent level of

safety to that provided by the current rules, large manned aircraft operations, and other data

collection, surveying, imaging, monitoring, and inspection methods.

3.1 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS

LIFT intends to operate the following small, lightweight, battery-operated UAS under the

requested exemption: Trimble UX5, SenseFly eBee, Cinestar 8, Skycatch, 3D Robotics Solo, and

Kespry. These types of UAS have been the UAS designated to be used in previously granted

exemptions. See, e.g., Exemption No. 11110 (December 10, 2014; Docket FAA-2014-0367)

(Trimble UX5) (“Trimble Exemption”); Exemption No. 11797 (June 11, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-

1053) (SenseFly eBee); Exemption No. 11488 (May 5, 2015; FAA Docket 2014-0990) (Cinestar 8);

Clayco Exemption (Skycatch UAS); Exemption No. 11954 (June 30, 2015; Docket FAA-2015-1402)

(3DR Solo).

Each UAS operated under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and

limitations:

3.1.1 Operations under the exemption will be limited to the Trimble UX5,

SenseFly eBee, Cinestar 8, Skycatch, 3D Robotics Solo, and Kespry
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 4 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

UAS.2 Each UA will have a gross weight of not more than 55 pounds,

including energy sources, equipment, and payload. Proposed

operations of any other UAS will require a new petition or a petition to

amend this exemption. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 1;

HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 1.]

3.1.2 The UA will not be operated at airspeeds greater than the maximum UA

operating speed recommended by the UA manufacturer, and in no

event will it be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per

hour). LIFT may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to

determine compliance with the maximum speed restriction. [Aeryon

Labs Exemption Limitation No. 3; HYSight Technologies Exemption

Limitation No. 3.]

3.1.3 Each UA will be identified by its serial number and registered with the

FAA in accordance with FAR Part 47. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 22; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 22.]

3.1.4 Each UA will have identification markings in accordance with FAR Part

45, with the markings being as large as practicable. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 22; HYSight Technologies Exemption

Limitation No. 22.]

3.2 Conditions and limitations regarding the proposed UAS operations

All UAS operations under the exemption will be subject to the following conditions and

limitations:

3.2.1 All UAS operations will be covered by an Air Traffic Organization

(“ATO”)-issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”). All UAS

operations will be conducted in accordance with the airspace

requirements in the ATO-issued COA. Should LIFT want to conduct

operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the blanket

COA accompanying this exemption, LIFT will apply for a new or

amended COA. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 21; HYSight

Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 21.]

3.2.2 Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television

filming are not permitted under this exemption. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 2; HYSight Technologies Exemption

Limitation No. 2.]

3.2.3 The UA will not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport’s reference

point (“ARP”) as denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory,

or for airports not denoted with an ARP, the center of the airport symbol

as denoted on the current FAA-published aeronautical chart, unless a

letter agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or such an

2

The UAS for which LIFT seeks an exemption herein are collectively referred to in this Petition as

“these UAS”.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 5 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

operation is otherwise permitted by a COA issued to LIFT. LIFT will

make the letter agreement available to the FAA or any law enforcement

official upon request. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 16;

HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 16.]

3.2.4 The minimum crew for each UAS operation will consist of one Pilot in

Command (“PIC”) and one Visual Observer (“VO”). The PIC will 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 for the VO. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 6; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 6.]

3.2.5 The UA will be operated within the visual line of sight (“VLOS”) of the

PIC and VO at all times. The PIC will maintain VLOS with human

vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses as specified

on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate or U.S. driver’s

license. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitations Nos. 5 and 6; HYSight

Technologies Exemption Limitations Nos. 5 and 6.] The VO may be

used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always

maintains VLOS capability. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 6;

HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 6.]

3.2.6 During each UAS operation, the PIC and the VO must be able to

communicate verbally with each other at all times. Electronic

messaging or texting by the PIC and the VO is not permitted during

UAS flight operations. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 6;

HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 6.]

3.2.7 The PIC is prohibited from beginning a UAS flight unless (considering

wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough available power

for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after that

for at least five minutes or, if greater, with the reserve power

recommended by the UA manufacturer. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 20; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 20.]

3.2.8 Prior to each UA flight, the PIC will conduct a pre-flight inspection and

determine that the UAS (including the Ground Control Station) is in a

condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection will account for all

potential discrepancies, e.g., non-functioning components, items or

equipment. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe

operation of the UAS, the UA is prohibited from operating until the

necessary maintenance has been performed, and the UAS is found to

be in a condition for safe flight. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

10; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 10.]

3.2.9 The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to

ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 9; HYSight Technologies Exemption

Limitation No. 9.]

3.2.10 During each UAS operation, the UA will remain at or below 400 feet

above ground level (“AGL”). [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 4;

HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 4.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 6 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

3.2.11 Altitude reports made to ATC or other persons must be reported in feet

AGL. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 4; HYSight Technologies

Exemption Limitation No. 4.]

3.2.12 All UAS operations will be conducted over private or controlled-access

property with permission from the property owner/controller or

authorized representative. Permission from the property

owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each

flight to be conducted. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 27;

HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 27.]

3.2.13 The UA will operate at least 500 feet from all non-participating persons,

vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

(a) Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the event

of an accident. LIFT must ensure that non-participating

persons remain under such protection; and if a situation

arises where non-participating persons leave such protection

and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must

cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating persons; and/or

(b) The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures

has granted permission for operating closer to those objects

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.

The PIC, VO, operator trainees, and essential persons are not

considered non-participating persons under this exemption.

[Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 26; HYSight Technologies

Exemption Limitation No. 26.]

3.2.14 All UAS operations will take place during visual meteorological

conditions (VMC) only. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 15;

HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 15.]

3.2.15 LIFT will not operate UAS flights under Special Visual Flight Rules

(SVFR). [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 15; HYSight

Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 15.]

3.2.16 All UAS operations will take place during daylight hours. UAS

operations will not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 C.F.R. §

1.1. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 15; HYSight Technologies

Exemption Limitation No. 15.]

3.2.17 During each UAS operation, the UA will avoid, remain clear of, and

yield right-of-way to all manned aviation operations and activities at all

times. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 24; HYSight

Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 24.]

3.2.18 The UA will 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
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 7 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

statute miles from the PIC. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 17;

HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 17.]

3.2.19 The UAS will not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or

vehicle. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 25; HYSight

Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 25.]

3.2.20 Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the

UAS operation or UA flight characteristics (e.g., replacement of a flight

critical component) must undergo a functional test flight prior to

conducting further operations under this exemption. Functional test

flights will only be conducted by a PIC with a VO, and must remain at

least 500 feet from other people. The functional test flight must be

conducted in such a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to

persons and property. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 8;

HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 8.]

3.2.21 If the UAS loses communications or its GPS signal during any

operation, the UA must return to a pre-determined location within the

private or controlled-access property. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 18; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 18.]

3.2.22 The PIC will abort the UAS operation and UA flight in the event of

unpredicted obstacles or emergencies. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 19; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 19.]

3.2.23 The documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and

flight of the UAS and any documents required under 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9

and 91.203 will be available to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of

the UAS at any time the UA is operating, and will be made available to

the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 23; HYSight Technologies Exemption

Limitation No. 23.]

3.2.24 Any incident, accident or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or

vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable

COA will be reported to the FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80)

within 24 hours. Accidents will be reported to the National

Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) per instructions contained on the

NTSB website: www.ntsb.gov. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

28; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 28.]

3.3 Conditions and limitations regarding the Pilot in Command and other

crewmember qualifications and training

The PIC and other crewmembers for each UAS operation under the requested exemption

will be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

3.3.1 The PIC must hold (i) either an ATP, commercial, private, recreational

or sport pilot certificate; and (ii) a current FAA airman medical

certificate or a valid driver’s license issued by a State, the District of
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 8 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

Columbia, Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory/possession, or the Federal

Government. The PIC must satisfy the flight review requirements of 14

C.F.R. § 61.56 in an aircraft for which the PIC is rated on his or her

pilot certificate. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 13; HYSight

Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 13.]

3.3.2 The operator will not permit any PIC to operate the UAS unless the PIC

demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner

consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption,

including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining

appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures.

PIC qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner

consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of

training LIFT’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experiencebuilding) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely operate the UAS in

a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this

exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. These

training operations, however, may only be conducted during dedicated

training sessions. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 14; HYSight

Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 14.]

3.3.3 During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons

not essential for flight operations are considered non-participants, and

the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. [Aeryon Labs

Exemption Limitation No. 14; HYSight Technologies Exemption

Limitation No. 14.]

3.4 Conditions and limitations regarding LIFT manuals related to UAS operations

LIFT will have manuals and checklists for each of these UAS model types it plans to operate

under the requested exemption (collectively, the “Manuals”). The Manuals will be subject to the

following limitations and conditions:

3.4.1 The Operating Documents3 must be accessible during UAS operations

and made available to the FAA upon request. If a discrepancy exists

between the conditions and limitations in the exemption and the

procedures outlined in the other Operating Documents, the conditions

and limitations in the exemption take precedence and must be

followed. Otherwise, LIFT must follow the procedures as outlined in

the Operating Documents. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 7;

HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 7.]

3

The “Operating Documents” means this exemption, the Manuals, and all other documents

needed by LIFT to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in accordance with the conditions and

limitations stated in this grant of exemption. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 7; HYSight

Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 7.]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 9 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

3.4.2 LIFT may update or revise its Operating Documents, and it is LIFT’s

responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised

documents to the FAA or any law enforcement official upon request.

LIFT must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions

for an extension or amendment of the exemption. If LIFT determines

that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA

granted the requested exemption, then LIFT must petition for an

amendment to the exemption. LIFT will contact the FAA’s UAS

Integration Office (AFS-80) if questions arise regarding updates or

revisions to the Operating Documents. [Aeryon Labs Exemption

Limitation No. 7; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 7.]

3.4.3 Each UAS operated under the exemption will comply with all

manufacturer safety bulletins. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

12; HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 12.]

3.4.4 LIFT will follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul,

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the UAS and

UAS components. [Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 11; HYSight

Technologies Exemption Limitation No. 11.]

In sum, LIFT’s operations under this exemption will be subject to the same conditions and

limitations imposed in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the HYSight Technologies Exemption.

CROSS-REFERENCES

Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No.

HYSight Technologies Exemption Limitation No.

Petition Limitation No.

1 3.1.1

2 3.2.2

3 3.1.2

4 3.2.10, 3.2.11

5 3.2.5

6 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6

7 3.4.1, 3.4.2

8 3.2.20

9 3.2.9
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 10 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

10 3.2.8

11 3.4.4

12 3.4.3

13 3.3.1

14 3.3.2, 3.3.3

15 3.2.14, 3.2.15, 3.2.16

16 3.2.3

17 3.2.18

18 3.2.21

19 3.2.22

20 3.2.7

21 3.2.1

22 3.1.3, 3.1.4

23 3.2.23

24 3.2.17

25 3.2.19

26 3.2.13

27 3.2.12

28 3.2.24

4. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION UNDER SECTION 333 OF FMRA

In accordance with FMRA Section 333, LIFT requests that the Secretary of Transportation

determine that LIFT’s proposed small UAS operations (i) do not create a hazard to users of the

National Airspace System or the public, and (ii) do not pose a threat to national security.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 11 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

LIFT further requests that, based on the Secretary’s determination, the FAA determine – as it

did in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the HYSight Technologies Exemption – that relief from FAR

Part 21 and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of FAR Part 36 is not

necessary for the UAS operations proposed in this Petition.4

5. INFORMATION REQUIRED BY 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 TO SUPPORT A PETITION FOR

EXEMPTION

As required by FAR § 11.81, LIFT provides the following information in support of this

Petition:

5.1 Contact information:

Name: Lift Technologies LLC dba Lift Tech submits this Petition for Exemption,

through counsel, Lisa Ellman and Patrick Rizzi.

Mailing address: Lisa Ellman and Patrick Rizzi

Counsel for Lift Technologies LLC dba Lift Tech

Hogan Lovells US LLP

555 13th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone/Facsimile number:

(T) 202-637-6934 (Ellman) / 202-637-5659 (Rizzi)

(F) 202-637-5910

E-mail addresses:

lisa.ellman@hoganlovells.com

patrick.rizzi@hoganlovells.com

5.2 The specific section or sections of the FAR from which LIFT seeks an

exemption:

FAR § 61.23(a) and (c) – Medical certificates: Requirement and Duration.

FAR § 61.101(e)(4) and (5) – Recreational pilot privileges and limitations.

FAR § 61.113(a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

FAR § 61.315(a), (c)(2), and (c)(3) – What are the privileges and limitations of my

sport pilot certificate?

FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness.

4 Aeryon Labs Exemption, at 7; HYSight Technologies Exemption, at 2. If the FAA concludes that

the UAS operations proposed in this Petition require an exemption from FAR Parts 21 and/or 36, then

LIFT requests that the FAA include that relief in the exemption.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 12 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

FAR § 91.119(c) and (d)(1) – Minimum safe altitudes: General.

FAR § 91.121 – Altimeter settings.

FAR § 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required.

FAR § 91.407(a)(1) – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance,

rebuilding, and inspections.

FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) – Inspections.

FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) – Maintenance records.

5.3 The extent of relief sought and the reason relief is sought:

LIFT proposes to conduct small UAS operations, as described herein, for aerial data

collection for the purpose of aerial surveying, imaging, monitoring, and inspections in support of

various industries. In order to be able to conduct these UAS operations, LIFT petitions the FAA,

pursuant to FAR §§ 11.61(b), 11.63(a), and 11.81(b), for an exemption from the following sections of

the FAR for the reasons noted:

FAR § 61.23(a) and (c) -– Medical certificates: Requirement and Duration.

FAR § 61.101(e)(4) and (5) – Recreational pilot privileges and limitations.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(e) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (i) of this section, a

recreational pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft— . . .

(4) For compensation or hire;

(5) In furtherance of a business; . . . .

FAR § 61.113(a) and (b) – Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(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:

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

employment; and
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 13 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

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

compensation or hire.

(c) ****.

FAR § 61.315(a) and (c)(2), (c)(3) – What are the privileges and limitations of my sport

pilot certificate?

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in

command of a light-sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c)

of this section. . . .

. . . .

(c) You may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft: . . .

(2) For compensation or hire.

(3) In furtherance of a business. . . .

LIFT requests an exemption from these regulations to the extent necessary to permit LIFT to

conduct UAS operations using PICs who hold (i) an FAA private pilot, recreational pilot, or a sport

pilot certificate, and (ii) an FAA airman medical certificate or a state driver’s license. While LIFT

recognizes that the FAA normally requires a PIC to hold a commercial pilot certificate where there is

compensation either to the pilot or for the operation, LIFT requests that the FAA exempt LIFT and its

PICs from this requirement since the use of at least a sport pilot as the PIC for the UAS operations

under this exemption will be more safe than the use of a commercial pilot for manned aircraft

operations. Unlike conventional aircraft, these UAS [see Limitation No. 3.1.1] are lightweight,

remotely controlled, and battery-powered (not fuel/gas), and they have no crew or passengers. The

fulfillment of the additional requirements for a sport, recreational or private pilot to become qualified

as a commercial pilot would not lead to any additional safety benefits when UAS operations are

involved.

The differences between the aeronautical knowledge and aeronautical experience

requirements for sport pilots and for commercial pilots are significant in the traditional world of

manned aircraft. However, no aspect of this incremental additional knowledge or aeronautical

experience is significant for the daytime, VMC, low-altitude, visual-line-of-sight, small UAS
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 14 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

operations over private or controlled-access properties with property owner/controller permission as

proposed in this Petition. Put another way, there are stark and fundamental differences between the

type of experience and aeronautical knowledge that the PIC of a commercial manned aircraft with

passengers and property should have, versus the type of experience and aeronautical knowledge

that the PIC of a small UAS should have, in order to avoid imperiling passengers or property. In the

case of LIFT, the small amount of property carried aboard the UA will be LIFT’s property. While the

PIC will be compensated, all risk of damage to the property (in fact to the UAS itself) will be borne by

LIFT. There is no expectation or need for the PIC of the small UA to have the type of experience or

aeronautical knowledge that a commercial pilot for a manned aircraft would have. Similarly, the

differences between the flight proficiency requirements for sport pilots and commercial pilots are not

substantively significant here where the operations will be conducted strictly during daylight VMC

conditions, within VLOS, at altitudes no higher than 400 feet AGL. In addition, LIFT will implement a

training program to ensure that the experience, knowledge, and flight proficiency needed to operate

its small UAS safely are achieved for its PICs. Accordingly, there is no reason to require the UAS

PIC to have more aeronautical knowledge, experience, and flight proficiency than that required for a

sport pilot certificate.

Given that LIFT plans to operate these small UAS over private or controlled-access property

and at low altitudes during daytime in VMC, the parallel nature of sport pilot aeronautical knowledge

requirements to those of commercial pilot requirements, the limited airmanship skills necessary to

operate these small UAS, and the lack of additional safety benefits for the proposed UAS operations

here resulting from commercial pilot experience, the PIC under this exemption should only be

required to hold, at most, a sport pilot certificate. Such a condition would be consistent with the

certificate requirements imposed on the PIC in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the HYSight

Technologies Exemption.

For these reasons, and consistent with recent summary grant exemptions, LIFT requests

that the FAA grant an exemption to permit LIFT to use as PIC of its proposed UAS operations pilots

who hold at least a sport pilot certificate and either an FAA third-class airman medical certificate or a
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 15 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

state driver’s license, so long as they satisfy the conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition,

including the PIC qualification and training requirements.

FAR § 91.7(a) – Civil aircraft airworthiness.

The regulation states in relevant part:

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy

condition. . . .

LIFT requests an exemption from this provision to the extent necessary to permit LIFT to

conduct the small UAS operations proposed in this Petition. These small UAS will not require an

airworthiness certificate under FAR Part 21, Subpart H, and thus LIFT requests relief from this

regulation. See Exemption No. 11110 (December 10, 2014; Docket FAA-2014-0367) (“Trimble

Exemption”), at 16. An exemption is warranted because LIFT understands that, notwithstanding the

lack of an airworthiness certificate, the FAA will consider its “compliance with [LIFT’s Manuals] to be

sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition” and that LIFT must still determine the UA’s

airworthiness prior to each flight based on compliance with such Manuals. Trimble Exemption, at

16.5

FAR § 91.119(c) and (d)(1) – Minimum safe altitudes: General.

The regulation states:

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate

an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency

landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town,

or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude

of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of

2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above

the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In

5

LIFT requests exemption from FAR § 91.7(a) based on the relief granted in the Trimble

Exemption, at 16, 21. However, LIFT notes that the FAA determined that no such exemption was needed

in Exemption No. 11062 (September 25, 2014; Docket FAA-2014-0352) (“Astraeus Exemption”) at 19, 22.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 16 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to

any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft.

If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on

the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums

prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided

each person operating the helicopter complies with any

routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by

the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may

be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in

paragraph (c) of this section.

LIFT requests an exemption from this regulation to the extent necessary to permit LIFT to

conduct its UAS operations at altitudes lower than those permitted by FAR § 91.119, since the ability

to operate at such altitudes is one of the key benefits of using small UAS for these flights. Even at

these low altitudes, LIFT’s UAS operations will be conducted at a level of safety at least equal to that

which would be achieved if larger manned aircraft were to be used at the altitudes required by FAR §

91.119.

With respect to paragraph (a), LIFT intends to comply with this requirement to the same

extent as would a manned aircraft operation, meaning that the UA must operate at an altitude such

that the loss of a single power unit aboard the UA or used by the UAS would still permit an

emergency landing “without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.” LIFT agrees with

the FAA’s reasoning on this issue in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, and therefore does not believe

that relief is required from paragraph (a).

With respect to paragraph (b), LIFT plans to operate these small UAS over private or

controlled-access properties (with owner/controller permission) in areas that are not congested or

densely populated. Accordingly, LIFT does not believe that an exemption is necessary from this

paragraph (b) covering “congested areas.”

With respect to paragraph (c), LIFT requests an exemption to allow UAS operations down to

the surface, both in sparsely populated areas and in “other than congested” areas. LIFT’s UAS
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 17 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

operations require lower-level flying, but have a number of self-imposed restrictions to ensure at

least an equivalent level of safety. For example,

 All operations will be conducted over private or controlled-access property.

 Permission from the property owner/controller will be obtained prior to the beginning

of each UA flight.

 The UA will operate at least 500 feet from all non-participating persons, vessels,

vehicles, and structures unless:

o Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect non-participating

persons from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. LIFT will

ensure that non-participating persons remain under such protection; and if a

situation arises where non-participating persons leave such protection and

are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations will cease immediately in a

manner ensuring the safety of the non-participating persons; and/or

o The UA is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the property

owner/controller 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.

Even with a grant of this exemption, the UAS operations will be at least as safe as operations

by manned aircraft that comply with this paragraph. Flying a manned aircraft, given its weight, size,

speed, and fuel load, would pose a significant risk compared to the use of a small UA, with a much

smaller size and lighter weight, operating at much slower speeds, with batteries rather than a

significant fuel load, at all times within VLOS of the PIC on the ground who has a wide view.

Accordingly, as the FAA determined in the Trimble Exemption, at 17-18, relief is warranted here

provided that LIFT adheres to its Manuals and the additional conditions and limitations outlined

above and in the exemption. For these reasons, LIFT requests relief from the entirety of paragraph

(c), as was recently granted in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the HYSight Technologies

Exemption.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 18 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

To the extent necessary, LIFT also requests relief from paragraph (d)(1), which applies only

to helicopters and allows operation at lower altitudes only if on a prescribed helicopter route. Flying

a manned helicopter would pose a significantly greater risk than using a small, helicopter-type UA for

the proposed operations, even if the helicopter is on a specific route or at a specific low height

prescribed by the FAA. A manned helicopter is much heavier, larger, and faster than a small UA.

Moreover, unlike an unmanned, battery-powered small UA, the helicopter has people on-board and

a fuel load. The operation of a small UA at all times within the VLOS of the PIC on the ground would

be at least as safe as a manned helicopter operation operating in conformity with the requirements

of paragraph (d)(1), and therefore an exemption from Section 91.119(d)(1) is warranted.

FAR § 91.121 – Altimeter settings.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising

altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference

to an altimeter that is set, when operating—

(1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to—

(i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along

the route and within 100 nautical miles of the aircraft;

(ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in

paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the current reported

altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or

(iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio,

the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate

altimeter setting available before departure; or

(2) At or above 18,000 feet MSL, to 29.92′′ Hg.

(b)  .

It is not clear to LIFT that an exemption from this section is required, because, although the

regulation expressly applies only to aircraft maintaining a “cruising altitude” and dictates the altimeter

setting that must be used while at that cruising altitude, cruising altitudes for VFR flights do not begin
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 19 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

– according to FAR § 91.159 – until “more than 3,000 feet above the surface.”6 Nonetheless, LIFT

requests an exemption from FAR § 91.121 to the extent necessary to permit LIFT to conduct the

UAS operations proposed in this Petition. See, e.g., Aeryon Labs Exemption, at 12; HYSight

Technologies Exemption, at 2; Astraeus Exemption, at 21-22.

LIFT recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that any UAS operated by LIFT maintains

altitude to an accurate reference such that other aircraft and the FAA may rely on LIFT’s UAS to be

operating as proposed. The PIC will check the UA altitude reading prior to each takeoff, and will

effectively zero the UA’s altitude at the point of takeoff, to ensure that measurements of the UA’s

altitude are as accurate as possible relative to the local elevation. To the extent that this

methodology does not satisfy FAR § 91.121 or any other regulation, LIFT requests an exemption to

permit UAS operations using this methodology.

FAR § 91.151 – Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

The regulation 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.

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft 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, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes.

LIFT requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit LIFT to plan its UAS operations as

described above. The proposed small UAS operations in this Petition will (i) involve operations in

which one or more UAS is transported by means other than its own power to the operational

location, and (ii) begin and end at the operational site, with the takeoff, entire flight, and landing all

6 FAR § 91.159; see also Aeronautical Information Manual, at Chpt. 3, Sec. 1, Tbl. 3-1-1, para. 3-1-

2. (July 24, 2014).
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 20 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

taking place within the immediate proximity of each other while remaining at all times within the

VLOS of the PIC.

The goal of FAR § 91.151 is to ensure that pilots plan for an extra 20 or 30 minutes of fuel at

their first intended point of landing in order to account for unexpected possible delays en route and

at the first planned destination. Many of these delays that plague manned aircraft are simply not an

issue with the proposed small UAS operations over private or controlled-access property, because

there is virtually no “en route” portion of the flight, and any problems at the point of landing are

extremely unlikely to cause delays, since a UA can always land just a few feet away if the intended

point of landing becomes unusable.

Given the relatively short operating time of these small UAS, requiring a full 30 minutes of

reserve “fuel” (battery power) could take up much, if not all, of the time available for these small UAS

operations. LIFT believes that using a smaller reserve for UAS flight planning purposes will be at

least as safe as using the reserves required by FAR § 91.151 for manned aircraft. To that end, and

consistent with Aeryon Labs Exemption Limitation No. 20 and HYSight Technologies Exemption

Limitation No. 20, the PIC under the requested exemption will be prohibited from beginning a UAS

flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough power available for

the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or, if

greater, with the reserve power recommended by the UA manufacturer. See Proposed Limitation

3.2.7. Such a battery reserve is more than sufficient, particularly in light of the FAA’s acceptance of

a 5-minute reserve in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the HYSight Technologies Exemption. LIFT

believes that these limitations will further ensure that the proposed reserve planning and operational

requirements that LIFT is requesting to use under this exemption will provide at least an equivalent

level of safety.

For these reasons, LIFT requests an exemption from FAR § 91.151 to permit it to plan and

conduct UAS operations subject to the reserve power limitation explained above.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 21 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

FAR § 91.405(a) – Maintenance required.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

Each owner or operator of an aircraft—

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this

part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in

paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as

prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

(b) ** **.

LIFT requests an exemption from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit LIFT to conduct the UAS

operations proposed in this Petition without having to perform the inspections and discrepancy

repairs required by FAR § 91.405(a). In the Astraeus Exemption and the Trimble Exemption, the

FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.405(a), and

that the achievement of an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and limitations. LIFT

has proposed in Section 3 of this Petition several conditions and limitations related to maintenance

and inspections which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR

§ 91.405(a). For this reason, and consistent with the exemptions granted from this section in the

Aeryon Labs Exemption and the HYSight Technologies Exemption, LIFT requests an exemption

from FAR § 91.405(a) to permit LIFT to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject

to the conditions and limitations proposed above, without having to perform the inspections and

discrepancy repairs required by FAR § 91.405(a).

LIFT does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.405 is

required, since LIFT will make appropriate logbook entries in aircraft maintenance records in

accordance with paragraph (b), appropriately mark any inoperative instrument or item of equipment

for which maintenance has been properly deferred in compliance with paragraph (c), and

appropriately placard listed discrepancies that include inoperative instruments or equipment in

compliance with paragraph (d).
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 22 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

FAR § 91.407(a)(1) – Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding

or alteration.

The regulation states:

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone

maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration

unless—

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person

authorized under §43.7 of this chapter; and

(2) The maintenance record entry required by §43.9 or §43.11, as

applicable, of this chapter has been made.

. . . .

LIFT requests an exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1) to permit LIFT to conduct UAS

operations as proposed in this Petition without having to have the UAS approved for return to service

by a person authorized under FAR § 43.7. In the Astraeus Exemption, the FAA determined that the

proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR § 91.407(a)(1), subject to certain conditions

and limitations. LIFT has proposed in this Petition maintenance-related conditions and limitations

which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.407(a)(1).

For this reason, and consistent with the exemptions granted from this section in the Aeryon Labs

Exemption and the HYSight Technologies Exemption, LIFT requests an exemption from FAR §

91.407(a)(1) to permit LIFT to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the

proposed conditions and limitations, without having to have the UAS approved for return to service

by a person authorized under FAR § 43.7.

LIFT does not believe that an exemption from the remaining paragraphs of FAR § 91.407 is

required, since LIFT will require that maintenance record entries are made as required, in

compliance with paragraph (a)(2), and since no persons will be carried following maintenance

performed on the UAS, making paragraphs (b) and (c) moot.

FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) – Inspections.

The regulation states, in relevant part:
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 23 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person

may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar

months, it has had—

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter

and has been approved for return to service by a person authorized

by §43.7 of this chapter; or

(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in

accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

No inspection performed under paragraph (b) of this section may be

substituted for any inspection required by this paragraph unless it is

performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections and

is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance

records.

(b)  .

LIFT requests an exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit LIFT to conduct UAS

operations as proposed in this Petition without having to obtain the annual inspection and

airworthiness certificate inspection required by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2). In the Astraeus

Exemption, the FAA determined that the proposed UAS operations required exemption from FAR §

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and that achieving an adequate level of safety required certain conditions and

limitations. LIFT has proposed in this Petition maintenance and inspection-related conditions and

limitations which it believes provide a level of safety at least equivalent to that provided by FAR §

91.409(a)(1) and (2). For this reason, and consistent with the exemptions granted from this section

in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the HYSight Technologies Exemption, LIFT requests an

exemption from FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2) to permit LIFT to conduct UAS operations as proposed

in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and limitations, without having to obtain the

annual inspection and airworthiness certificate inspection required by FAR § 91.409(a)(1) and (2).

FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) – Maintenance records.

The regulation states, in relevant part:

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and

91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following

records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 24 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and

alteration and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive,

and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate,

for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine,

propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records

must include—

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the

Administrator) of the work performed; and

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person

approving the aircraft for return to service.

(2) Records containing the following information:

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine,

each propeller, and each rotor.

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe,

engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on

the aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a

specified time basis.

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including

the time since the last inspection required by the

inspection program under which the aircraft and its

appliances are maintained.

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness

directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each,

the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive

number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive

involves recurring action, the time and date when the next

action is required.

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by §43.9(d) of this

chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and

currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and

appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the

periods prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section

shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by

other work or for 1 year after the work is performed.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 25 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section

shall be retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time

the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or

operator under §43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until

the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return

to service.

(c) ** **.

LIFT requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit LIFT to conduct UAS

operations as proposed in this Petition without having to keep the records described in FAR §

91.417(a) and (b). The FAA determined in the Astraeus Exemption that the proposed UAS

operations required exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b), and that an adequate level of safety

required certain conditions and limitations. LIFT has proposed in this Petition maintenance,

inspection, and records-related conditions and limitations which it believes provide a level of safety

at least equivalent to that provided by FAR § 91.417(a) and (b). For this reason, and consistent with

the exemptions granted from this section in the Aeryon Labs Exemption and the HYSight

Technologies Exemption, LIFT requests an exemption from FAR § 91.417(a) and (b) to permit LIFT

to conduct UAS operations as proposed in this Petition, subject to the proposed conditions and

limitations, without having to keep the records described in FAR § 91.417(a) and (b).

Additional FAR Provisions.

The Petition does not seek exemption from certain regulations based on the reasoning and

FAA precedent outlined below in the footnote.7 However, LIFT also requests that, to the extent that

7 This Petition does not seek exemption from:

> FAR Part 21 or 36, based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 14.

> FAR § 91.7(b), based on the reasoning in the Trimble Exemption, at 17.

> FAR §§ 91.9(b)(2) and 91.203(a) and (b), based on the reasoning in the FAA’s August 8, 2014

Memorandum titled “Interpretation regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at an

unmanned aircraft’s control station” (“FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum”), the Astraeus Exemption, at

19-20, 22, and the Trimble Exemption, at 17, 20.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 26 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

the FAA concludes that an exemption from one or more other provisions of the FAR would be

required to permit the UAS operations described in this Petition, the FAA grant an exemption from

those FAR provisions as necessary to permit the UAS operations described in this Petition.8

5.4 Reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest:

A grant of the requested exemption to allow LIFT to operate these small UAS for aerial data

collection for the purpose of aerial surveying, imaging, monitoring, and inspections in support of

various industries would be in the public interest for several reasons.

First, the use of these small UAS by LIFT for these aerial data collection purposes will assist

these industries by increasing efficiencies and lowering the costs of these activities compared to the

current methods being used.

Second, LIFT’s use of these small UAS for surveying, imaging, monitoring and inspection of

facilities, properties, and structures would substantially mitigate, if not eliminate, any risks to

personnel or manned aircraft currently used to perform these same activities. For example, in the

case of infrastructure inspections, insurance assessments, monitoring of facilities or real estate

surveying/photography, LIFT’s small UAS operations would be safer than the manned aircraft

> FAR §§ 45.23(b) and 91.9(c), based on the reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 14, and the

Trimble Exemption, at 14, related to FAR § 45.23(b), and assuming that the markings on the UA used to

comply with FAR Part 45, Subpart C requirements are as large as practicable.

> FAR §§ 47.3(b)(2) and 47.31(c), based on the reasoning in the FAA’s August 8, 2014 Memorandum,

and assuming that all UA are registered in accordance with FAR Part 47.

> FAR § 91.103(b)(2), based on the FAA’s reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, which concluded

that an exemption from the preflight action requirements is not necessary when the grant of an exemption

for UAS operations includes conditions that satisfy preflight action requirements. LIFT proposes such

conditions in this Petition.

> FAR § 91.109, based on the FAA’s reasoning in the Astraeus Exemption, at 20, which concluded that

an exemption from the requirement for dual flight controls for flight or simulator training or for flight testing

is not necessary when there is no indication that dual flight controls will be used during any flight or

simulator training or flight testing.

8

LIFT would be happy to provide follow-on documentation providing the rationale underlying any

such additional exemptions.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 27 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

operations or the use of personnel currently performing those activities. As the FAA acknowledged

in the Total Safety Exemption9:

“The [LIFT] pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The limited

weight and restricted sterile area significantly reduces the potential for harm to

participating and nonparticipating individuals or property in the event of an incident or

accident. The risk to an onboard pilot and crew during an incident or accident is

eliminated with the use of a UA for the inspection operation. In addition, utilizing

UAS to conduct flare stack inspections will reduce the need for inspection personnel

to perform this hazardous [inspection] activity.

Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an incident or

accident. [The UA] carries no fuel [it is battery-powered], and therefore the risk of fire

following an incident or accident due to fuel spillage is eliminated.”

The FAA has reached similar conclusions in the context of tower/structure inspections.

“Tower and structure inspections are hazardous and present unique difficulties for

persons conducting inspections and maintenance of this infrastructure. The

inspections are normally conducted utilizing personnel to physically inspect the tower

and structure. Manned helicopters may also be used to transport inspection

personnel to the top of the tower so that a physical inspection may be conducted.

The petitioner plans to utilize a UAS to . . . minimize the need for inspectors to

personally climb such structures. Manned helicopters assisting in tower and

structure inspections can weigh 6,000 pounds or more and are operated by an

onboard pilot, in addition to other onboard crewmembers, as necessary. . . .

[U]tilizing UAS to conduct tower inspections will reduce the need for inspection

personnel to perform this hazardous activity. . . .”

LowCountryRC Exemption,10 at 2-3. In sum, the aerial data collection operations proposed in this

Petition would be far less risky, and more efficient, than if conducted with larger, faster, heavier,

combustible fuel-powered manned aircraft.

Third, use of small UAS under this exemption would assist, facilitate, and indeed enhance

LIFT’s ability to provide businesses with better data as a result of its important UAS surveying,

imaging, monitoring, and inspection efforts. LIFT’s customers will be able to make more informed

decisions with the availability of these data.

Fourth, LIFT’s aerial data collection with battery-powered UAS would likely have a net

positive impact on the environment by replacing inspections conducted by larger, fuel-powered, and

noisier manned aircraft.

9

Exemption No. 11156 (January 29, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0610), at 11-12.

10 Exemption No. 11184 (February 23, 2015; Docket FAA-2014-0803).
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 28 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

Fifth, the reduced cost of these surveying, imaging, monitoring, and inspection services

resulting from the use of these small UAS would likely result in more surveying and inspections

taking place, which, in turn, would lead to the earlier identification of issues for LIFT’s customers.

5.5 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 exemption is sought:

Throughout this Petition, LIFT has discussed many reasons why granting an exemption from

each section of the FAR from which relief is sought would result in UAS operations that provide a

level of safety equal to, or greater than, that provided by the rule from which exemption is sought.

Moreover, the many conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition, coupled with the operational

protocols for these small UAS, also would ensure at least an equivalent level of safety, as the FAA

concluded in the Aeryon Labs Exemption, the HYSight Technologies Exemption, the Astraeus

Exemption, and the Trimble Exemption, among others.

In general, the risks of any small UAS operation proposed in this Petition interfering with a

manned aircraft would be minimized by numerous factors, including but not limited to:

 the low altitude at which the UAS would operate;

 the locations at which the UAS would operate (e.g., remote areas; private or controlledaccess property; away from airports);

 the small size, light weight, and relatively slow speed of these small UAS;

 the restriction on UAS operations to VMC and daytime conditions; and

 the requirement for the UA to be operated within the VLOS of the PIC and VO at all

times.

Importantly, these small UAS have several other safety-related protocols. For example,

depending on the specific model, these UAS have return-to-home or go-home features, autolanding/auto-take-off, low-battery warning, position and altitude hold, and/or geo-fencing features.

LIFT believes that the FAA is very familiar with these UAS given that these types of UAS have been

the UAS designated for operations in a large number of Section 333 exemptions granted to date.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 29 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

The risks to persons or property on the ground would be substantially mitigated – if not

eliminated – by these same factors, as well as the 500-foot set-off from non-participating persons,

vehicles, and structures absent additional safeguards. Per the conditions and limitations proposed

in this Petition, (i) the PIC will suspend/abort the UAS operation and UA flight in the event of

unpredicted obstacles or emergencies; and (ii) LIFT will coordinate extensively, as warranted, with

the FAA, with local airports, and with property owners to ensure that all of its UAS operations under

the exemption are at least as safe as would be manned aircraft operations used for similar purposes.

The conditions and limitations proposed in this Petition (which have been found by the FAA

to be acceptable for other summary grant exemptions) and the operational safety features of these

small, well-known UAS provide substantial protection against interference with manned aircraft

operations or with the safety of persons or property on the ground. For these reasons, granting an

exemption from each section of the FAR from which relief is sought would not adversely affect

safety, and would provide a level of safety at least equal to, or greater than, that provided by the rule

from which exemption is sought.

5.6 Summary that can be published in Federal Register, including the rule from

which exemption is sought, and a brief description of the nature of the

exemption sought:

As explained above in Section 2, LIFT believes that good cause exists for not publishing this

Petition in the Federal Register. Nonetheless, if such publication is deemed necessary, LIFT

proposes that the FAA use the following as the summary:

Docket No.: FAA-2015-______

Petitioner: Lift Technologies LLC dba Lift Tech

Sections of 14 CFR: 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a) and (b),

61.315(a), (c)(2), and (c)(3), 91.7(a), 91.119(c) and (d)(1), 91.121, 91.151, 91.405(a),

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b).

Description of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks an exemption to operate small UAS

for aerial data collection for the purpose of aerial surveying, imaging, monitoring, and

inspection.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

- 30 -

\\DC - 703277/000300 - 6877176 v1

5.7 Additional information that supports request:

LIFT is prepared to provide additional information that the FAA might find helpful, or to

answer questions in response to any FAA requests.

5.8 Request to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the U.S.:

LIFT does not request to exercise the privileges of this exemption outside the United States.

5.9 Attachments:

There are no attachments accompanying this Petition.

6. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, LIFT respectfully requests that the FAA grant this Petition for

Exemption.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa Ellman / Patrick Rizzi

Hogan Lovells US LLP

Counsel for

Lift Technologies LLC dba Lift Tech