Aguilar-Forza Business Strategies, Inc 2017

Page 1

0U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration ~JUN 2 22111· Mr. Gil Aguilar Forza Business Strategies, Inc.

3158 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

RE: Request for Federal Aviation Administration Legal Interpretation

Concerning sUAS Operations Adjacent to Private Heliport

Dear Mr. Aguilar:

This letter responds to your February 1, 2017 letter requesting clarification of 14 C.F.R. § 107.43, "Operation in the vicinity of airports."

You present a scenario in which there are two adjacent properties owned by different persons. One has a state-pe1mitted private-use heliport which is used 40 times per month. The other property is a vacant lot where construction has begun on a permitted building. Both properties are in Class G airspace to 700 feet above ground level (AGL). Under your scenario, on the latter parcel with a building under construction, an FAA-certificated remote pilot operates a small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) in accordance with Part 107 to obtain imagery of the construction process. You state that at all times, the remote pilot operates the sUAS over that parcel at or below 200 feet AGL. Prior to conducting sUAS operations, the remote pilot contacts the heliport owner to advise of the operation, but the owner "denies" the request to operate.

In response to your question about whether the heliport owner has the right to "deny flight operations" conducted under Part 107 at the neighboring parcel, while airport owners or operators have the ability to manage operations on the surface of the airport, airpo1t owners or operators may not regulate the use of airspace above and near the airpo1i. L In your scenario, the private heliport owner would not be able to prohibit sUAS operations above or near the heliport. In your scenario, the sUAS remote pilot would have to comply with Part 107, including§ 107.43, "Operation in the vicinity of airports,'' which states that "[n]o person may operate a small unmanned aircraft in a manner that interferes with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport, or seaplane base." Also, under§ 107.37, the remote pilot would be required to yield the right of way to all aircraft and airborne vehicles, including helicopters using the ptivate heliport. The remote pilot would also have to operate the sUAS so that it is not operated so close to another aircraft as to create a collision hazard.

1 Airport owners or operators having off-airport land use or zoning authority may be able lo regulate ground-based hazards to aviation in the vicinity of the airpo1t.

Page 2

Part 107 operating rules apply at all times and not only when an aircraft operates on or in the vicinity of a specific airport. In an effort to safely integrate sUAS and manned aircraft at an airport, airport operators may recommend certain areas where sUAS operate, in order to avoid conflicts with manned aircraft. Remote pilots should adhere to those operational recommendations and discontinue operations if the potential for interference arises. When operational necessity requires the remote pilot to operate at or near an airport in uncontrolled airspace, the remote pilot must operate the sUAS in such a manner that it does not interfere with operations and traffic patterns at any airport, heliport, or seaplane base. Therefore, the remote pilot should operate the sUAS in such a way that the manned aircraft pilot does not need to alter his or her flight path in operations that include flight in the traffic pattern, on visual approach or departure, or on a published instrument approach or on instrument departure, in order to avoid a potential collision.

This response was prepared by Jonathan Cross, Senior Attorney for Airport Certification, Regulations Division, and coordinated with the FAA's UAS Integration Office and the General Aviation and Commercial Division of the Flight Standards Service. If you need further assistance, please contact our office at (202) 267-8013.

Sincerely,

Lorelei Peter Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200

Page 3

Gi!A&uilor Foru Business Stnitqi6,. Inc. db• Fona RPV 3158 Emerson Street Palo AJto, CA 94306 February l, 2017 M;irt:W. 9ury Deputy Chief Ccunsel FedMll Aw;rtlon Admd1istnlt.<>n 800 lndep•nd•nce AV!<lue SW Waslllngtoo, DC 20S9l

Dear Marlc W. llury:

I woukl like to request further clarification of 14 CFR P•rt 107.43, Operotk>A In Ill.• W:inlty of •lrpotts, ...nlch states: •No person~ operate a ~ll unrnpned aircraft In a: manner that Interferes with ope.radons~ traffic pan..-ns at ony •i<l>Ort. heliport. or seopl•ne base-• The: c.onlut of my quation:s below retaus to the intent of wotdlnc with respect to • ..Jnt&tfvu_• 1 • _ opentaons_ .. 11nd • _ tnfflc patterns-• in rebtion co heliports.

Scenario: In cNs 8.Xl!mpte, asswne th.it there are two.a6;'3Cttlit ptopertieowned bydiffere:nt parties. On PropfftY 1 i.s a stat~ed pri'1at~ use he:io.ad wt.kb is used approximately 40 ti.-nes per Month. On Property 2, is• wcant lot - oonstruroon is becinnjng on• permitted bulldine. Both propetties exist In Class G •lrspM>e to 700 feet AGL Let us assi:me I am proporl)' <2rtifta~ unda 14 CFR Part 107 •• a Remote Pilot in Command with • Small UAS rating. I have been hired -:o ~dua commuclal sUAS opel3tions to provide tmosHY of the construction P<oce» on Property 2 by the owne< ol thot property, once ~rweek. The estimated sUAS lqllt duration It !Ive (S} minutes •nd oil Hight octlVtty wll rem;oln wlthir> the boornd•lies ol Property l or>d wlll not CJ<CCO<I 200 f..t AGL Pri<>r to canducllrii: these sUAS oper•lions, to ensure flight rehted ufecy with the odjocent priY•te 1,.s.e hel~d~ I contKt the owner ol the prtvMe use he.tlf)3d and propose a com.munlc;itlon procedure so that oonfllct with m;oiN'led a·ruaft: u$inc the helipad ls mitigated and avoided; l\owewr-, lhe owMr of the prime use htllpod indicates thot they •re •d•nyln(' my request to <oo<!uct llill:ht operations o""r Property 2 as they .are unabl.e. to •d.ete.rmine when tMy wil need the he.li,~d.. at PrO:pef'ty J, Question 1: Wh.lt i..m does tho ownu of Propen-f l lu"" to d'rt'f ffight OflU'ltlons at Pn>perty 2? QuestJon 2: If thef"e are ag fUcht actMties at or inbound or outbot.lnd to/from Property l's h.elipld. can•" sUAS Ope~tlon within Property 2 be coruidered -interferiQ(' Will! •_,.t1ons" or "lnl!ic potutms" of the ~port on Property 1? If yt'!t, und..- what conditions is -in.te<f~ Qti.ic pbtt? Marl<W. Bury Fttrwry 1, 2017 ...,. 2 Question 3: Since In this SUftario, 14 CR! 107 allows for sUAS OIJ'!ntions wtthltl ~SS G alrspaa wfthcut ATC a..-tutlon, ~t spealialy must a 14 Cf-R Part 107 Remote Pilot prowle to d>e OWTWr of the helipod •t !'rop~r:y l1 Must the 14 CFJI 107 Remote P;!o> """" authoriUltion ffom the aoia~nl ltdJ)Od owner or only provid!' notification or Is no noiification « wthocintion required?

Thank you fol' assisting me in developc.nc a belt« und-erstan<i:ing: In th ts situ..tion. Thts situ~tk>n routlndy comes up for which I currently will derer and AOt conduct ffiiht acavttles.. :Shourd yov need alcif1e1tion of this request.,, pla<1s:e do nol hesitate to contxt me at {909) 762-3S80 <Kem.ail:P@fon.arpv.mm Slncerdy, -~ t;;t Agtlilar Vttt President