268 Canal Rd

Waterloo, SC 29384

Tel: (864) 980-8881 Fax: (864) 998-3407

birdseyepix@embarqmail.com

June 30th 2015

Christopher Thompson, BirdseyePix & VT. 

Section 333 Exemption Petition

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

RE: Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations from 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a)&(b); 14 CFR 

91.7(a); 14 CFR 91.9(b) (2); 14 CFR 91.103(b); 14 CFR 91.109; 14 CFR 91.119, 14 CFR 

91.121; 14 CFR 91.151(a); 14 CFR 91.203(a)&(b); 14 CFR 91.405(a); 14 CFR 91.407(a) 

(1); 14 CFR 91.409(a) (2); 14 CFR 91.417(a)&(b).

Dear Sir or Madam,

 I, Christopher Thompson, am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 and the procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, to request that I, Christopher Thompson, 

an owner and operator of small unmanned aircraft, be exempted from the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (“FARs”) listed below so that I, Christopher Thompson, may operate my small ultra 

light weight unmanned aircraft system (“UAS”) commercially in airspace regulated by the 

Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”).

 As described herein I, Christopher Thompson, am an owner of the photographic company, 

BirdseyePix & VT, within the State of South Carolina.

 I have owned and flown hobby grade Quadcopter UAS’s for several years. I intend to use my 

DJI Phantom 1 Quadcopter for aerial filming utilizing video and still images of: Real Estate 

Properties for sale, structures for mechanical and structural integrity, filming of commercial 

structures and activities for advertising purposes, as well as natural scenery and layouts for aerial 

mapping and enjoyment.

 I, Christopher Thompson, am committed to safety with each flight. My exemption request 

would permit operation of ultra light weight, unmanned (piloted by remote control) and 

comparatively inexpensive UAS(s) in tightly controlled and limited airspace. Exempted flights 

will be performed in areas away from general public, airports, heliports and vehicular traffic for 

filming videos and still photography, unless permission has been sought and granted from 

Airport authorities or other property owners who have been advised of the risks. Currently, 

similar lightweight, remote controlled UAS's are legally operated by unmonitored amateur 

hobbyists with no safety plan or controls in place to prevent an incident. BirdseyePix & VT will 
utilize safety protocols and controls to avoid and prevent public hazards, as well as manned 

aircraft/UAS interactions. This will act to further safety protocols exclusive to lightweight UAS's 

specific to commercial video and photography, and mapping usage as I, Christopher Thompson, 

record flight data and other information gained through permitted flight operations to share with 

the FAA through any required FAA reports to assist with future protocol and safety regulation.

Granting my request is in compliance with the Secretary of Transportation’s (FAA 

Administrator’s) responsibilities and authority to not only integrate UAS's into the national 

airspace system, but to “...establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems 

[UAS's] in the national airspace system” under Section 333(c) of the Reform Act specific to the 

use of UAS's for real estate/Realtor purposes. Further I, Christopher Thompson, will conduct my

operations in compliance with the protocols described herein or as otherwise established by the 

FAA.

 For the reasons stated below I, Christopher Thompson, respectfully request the granting of an 

exemption allowing me to operate ultra light weight, remote controlled UAS’s for commercial 

purposes which will enhance the video and photographic business offerings of BirdseyePix & 

VT. All of which will promote local economic growth through increased employment and an 

increased tax base. This will all be done with public safety in mind.

I. Contact Information:

Christopher Thompson

BirdseyePix & VT

268 Canal Rd

Waterloo, SC 29384

(864) 980-8881

birseyepix@embarqmail.com

www.birdseyepix.net

II. The Specific Sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations From

Which Christopher Thompson Requests Exemption are:

14 CFR 21, 14 CFR 45.23 (b), 14 CFR 61.113 (a) and (b), 14 CFR 91.7 (a), 14 CFR 91.9 (b) (2), 

14 CFR 91.103, 14 CFR 91.109, 14 CFR 91.119, 14 CFR 91.121, 14 CFR 91.151 (a), 14 CFR 

91.203 (a) and (b), 14 CFR 91.405 (a), 14 CFR 91.407 (a) (1), 14 CFR 91.409 (a) (1) and (2), 14 

CFR 91.417 (a) and (b).

III. The Extent of relief Christopher Thompson seeks and the Reason He Seeks Such 

Relief:

 I, Christopher Thompson, submit this application in accordance with the Reform Act, 112 

P.L. 95 §§ 331-334, seeking relief from any currently applicable FARs operating to prevent me, 

Christopher Thompson, from pursuing contemplated commercial cinematic, academic and other 

flight operations within the national airspace system. The Reform Act in Section 332 provides 

for such integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into our national airspace system as it is 

in the public’s interest to do so. My ultra light weight UAS’s meet the definition of “small 

unmanned aircraft” as defined in Section 331 and therefore the integration of my ultra light 

weight UAS’s is expressly contemplated by the Reform Act. I would like to operate my ultra 

light weight UAS’s prior to the time period by which the Reform Act requires the FAA to 

promulgate rules governing such craft. Thereby, providing direct experience and valuable 

information for formal regulation that can be administered uniformly to related UAS aerial 

video, photography, and topographical mapping. The Reform Act guides the Secretary in 

determining the types of UAS's that may operate safely in our national airspace system. 

Considerations include: The weight, size, speed and overall capabilities of the UAS's; Whether 
the UAS will be operated near airports or heavily populated areas; and, whether the UAS will be 

operated by line of sight. 112 P.L. 95 § 333 (a). Each of these items reflect in favor of an 

exemption for me, Christopher Thompson. My UAS’s utilize four (4) counter-rotating propellers 

for balance, control and stability. My UAS’s are equipped with GPS and auto return safety 

technology. My UAS’s weigh less than 4 pounds (DJI Phantom 1) far below the maximum 55 

pound limit; including camera with gimbal.

 I, Christopher Thompson, consider safety foremost with each flight. My small unmanned 

aircraft is designed to hover in place via GPS. Built in safety systems include a GPS mode that 

allows my UAS’s to hover in place when radio controls are released. Further, the software within 

my UAS’s will not allow it to fly within airspace that is near a major airport and this restricted 

airspace is constantly being updated via firmware from the manufacturer, DJI. To further prevent 

flying in restricted airspace or crowded airspace I consult a current sectional before each flight. 

When pilot communication is lost, this and future UAS’s are designed to slowly return to home 

and descend to the ground, then automatically shut down operation. I do not operate my UAS 

near airports without permission, and do not operate near areas where general public safety is a 

concern. I am constantly on alert for any manned aircraft in my vicinity, and I am prepared to 

land/abort immediately to the nearest and safest ground point should a manned aircraft approach 

my location or I suspect manned aircraft may approach near my location. My UAS’s are capable 

of vertical and horizontal operations, and are flown only within my line of sight. Utilizing battery

power rather than combustible fuels, flights generally last between five (5) to ten (10) minutes, 

with an altitude under one hundred fifty (400) feet AGL. I utilize a fresh fully charged battery

with each flight as a safety precaution; full flight time limit for each battery is fifteen (15) 

minutes as tested. I do not operate my UAS at or below manufacturer recommend minimum 

charge levels for operation; preferring to remain well within a safe operating range to insure 

adequate communication between radio control and UAS to reduce potential for problems. 

Reserve batteries are at hand with each exercise to insure replacement for sufficient safe level of 

operation. I do not take risks that may cause a crash, that could create a hazard to the public, 

property, or manned aircraft, and have no desire to lose my investment. I have clocked numerous 

practice flights in remote areas as a hobbyist simulating flights for future commercial use to gain 

familiarization with the characteristics of these specific UAS's performance under different 

temperature and weather conditions. All of these practices are performed to ensure safety.

 I take extreme caution when operating my UAS/ultra light weight unmanned aircraft and will 

not “create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public.” 112 P.L. 95 § 333 (b). 

Given the small size and weight of my UAS it falls well within Congress’s contemplated safety 

zone when it promulgated the Reform Act and the corresponding directive to integrate UAS's 

into the national airspace system. Christopher Thompson’s UAS’s, used in hobby flight, have 

demonstrated a perfect safety record and have not posed any threat to the general public or 

national security.

IV. How Christopher Thompson’s Request Will Benefit the Public As A Whole:

Aerial photography and videography for geographical awareness and for real estate marketing 

has been around for a long time through manned fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. For small 

budget real estate companies and average homeowners the expense of such aerial videography is 

cost prohibitive. Only large companies and high end Realtors or luxury homeowners can afford 

to absorb such expenses. Depriving non- luxury homeowners and lower budget Realtors from a 

valuable marketing tool. Manned aircraft pose a threat to the public through catastrophic crashes 

during flight at low levels and low speeds. Many manned aircraft both fixed wing and helicopters 

have made emergency and hard landings within our city limits. These craft carry combustible 

fuel that can start life threatening fires. My, Christopher Thompson’s, UAS’s pose no such threat 

since size and lack of combustible fuel alleviates any potential threat to the public. Additionally, 
the low operational altitude minimizes the potential for a mid air collision.

My ultra light weight UAS’s are battery powered and create no emissions that can harm the 

environment. The consequence of my ultra light weight UAS crashing is far less than a full size 

helicopter or fixed wing aircraft; which are heavy, contain combustible fuel and can cause 

catastrophic devastation to the public.

 Permitting me, Christopher Thompson, to immediately fly within national air space furthers 

economic growth. Granting my exemption request substantially furthers the positive economic 

impact for the community and for companies looking to relocate or build in the Anchorage metro 

area or other areas as well as individuals looking to relocate for career advancement through 

academic and geographical awareness. Both of which serve as a stimulus to the community.

V. Reasons Why Christopher Thompson’s Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect Safety Or 

How The Exemption Will Provide a Level of Safety At Least Equal To Existing Rules:

My, Christopher Thompson’s, exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the contrary, not 

only for the reasons stated in section III and IV but also by permitting me, Christopher 

Thompson, to log more flight time in FAA controlled airspace, with communication with the 

FAA, will allow me to contribute to the innovation and implementation of new and novel, as of 

yet undiscovered safety protocols for UAS operators that can be embraced by the FAA. In 

addition I, Christopher Thompson, submit the following representations of enhancements to 

current aerial videography and photography for real estate:

My UAS’s weigh less than 7 pounds, complete with a small ultra light weight high definition 

onboard camera on a gyro stabilized gimbal; I only operate my UAS below 400 feet AGL and 

normally below 100 feet AGL (well within the 400 foot AGL permissible ceiling set by the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012);

My current UAS’s operate for less than 15 minutes per flight; I land my UAS’s prior to the 

manufacturer recommended minimum level of battery power; I pilot my UAS’s by line of sight; 

My UAS’s have GPS a flight safety feature whereby it hovers and then slowly lands if 

communication with the remote control pilot is lost; I actively analyze flight data and other 

sources of information to constantly update and enhance safety protocols; I only operate in 

reasonably safe environments that are strictly controlled, are away from power lines, elevated 

lights, airports and densely populated areas; I conduct extensive pre-flight and post-flight 

inspections, during which safety carries primary importance. I always obtain all necessary

permissions prior to operation; and, I have procedures in place to abort flights in the event of 

safety breaches or potential danger.

My safety protocols provide a level of safety equal to or exceeding existing rules. It is important 

to note that absent the integration of commercial UAS into our national airspace system, 

helicopters are the primary means of aerial video and photography. While the safety record of 

such helicopters is notable, there have been local incidents involving loss of life as well as 

extensive property damage; it is far safer to operate a battery powered ultra light weight UAS. 

First, the potential loss of life is diminished because UAS's carry no people on board and I only 

operate my UAS in specific areas away from mass populations. Second, there is no fuel on board 

a UAS and thus the potential for fire or explosions is greatly diminished. Third, the small size 

and extreme maneuverability of my UAS allow me to remotely pilot away from and avoid 

hazards quickly and safely. Accordingly, my UAS has been experimentally operated for 

familiarization/competency and will continue to operate at or above current safety levels.

VI. A Summary The FAA May Publish in the Federal Register:

A. 14 C.F.R. 21 and 14 C.F.R. 91: Airworthiness Certificates, Manuals and 

The Like.
14 C.F.R. 21, Subpart H, entitled Airworthiness Certificates, sets forth requirements 

for procurement of necessary airworthiness certificates in relation to FAR § 

91.203(a)(1). The size, weight and enclosed operational area of my UAS’s permits 

exemption from Part 21 because my UAS’s meet (and exceed) an equivalent level of 

safety pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act. The FAA is authorized to exempt 

aircraft from the airworthiness certificate requirement under both the Act (49 U.S.C. 

§ 44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit the 

FAA to exempt UAS's from the airworthiness certificate requirement in 

consideration of the weight, size, speed, maneuverability and proximity to areas such 

as airports and dense populations. My current and projected UAS's meet or exceed 

each of the elements.

14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an airworthiness 

certificate. As no such certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated by the 

FARs, this Regulation is inapplicable.

14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. As there are 

no on board pilots or passengers, and given the size of the UAS's, this Regulation is 

inapplicable. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by maintaining a 

safety/flight manual delineating areas where safety can be defined. The FAA has 

previously issued exemptions to this regulation in many previous exemptions 

including, but not limited to Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 8738, 9299, 9565, 10167, 

10602, 10700 and 32827.

14 C.F.R. § 91.121 regarding altimeter settings is inapplicable in so far as my UAS’s 

utilize electronic global positioning systems in combination with a barometric 

sensor.

14 C.F.R. § 91.203 (a) and (b) provides for the carrying of civil aircraft certifications 

and registrations. They are inapplicable for the same reasons described above. The 

equivalent level of safety will be achieved by maintaining any such required 

certifications and registrations by me, Christopher Thompson.

B. 14 C.F.R. § 45.23: Marking of The Aircraft

Applicable Codes of Federal Regulation require aircraft to be marked according to 

certain specifications. My UAS’s are, by definition, unmanned. They therefore do 

not have a cabin, cockpit or pilot station on which to mark certain words or phrases. 

Further, two-inch lettering is difficult to place on such small aircraft with dimensions 

smaller that minimal lettering requirement. The FAA has previously issued 

exemptions to this regulation through Exemptions Nos. 8738, 10167, 10167A and 

10700, among others.

C. 14 C.F.R. § 61.113: Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: PIC.

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) & (b), private pilots are limited to 

non-commercial operations. I, Christopher Thompson, can achieve an equivalent 

level of safety as achieved by current Regulations because my UAS does not carry

any pilots or passengers. The risks attended to the operation of my UAS’s are far less 

than the risk levels inherent in the commercial activities outlined in 14 C.F.R. § 61, 

et seq. Thus, allowing me to operate my UAS’s meets and exceeds current safety 

levels in relation to 14 C.F.R. §61.113 (a) & (b). In addition, Grant of Exemption 
No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus), the FAA determined that a PIC with a 

private pilot certificate operating the Astraeus UAS would not adversely affect 

operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the ground.

D. 14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes.

14 C.F.R. § 91.119 prescribes safe altitudes for the operation of civil aircraft. It 

allows helicopters to be operated at lower altitudes in certain conditions. My UAS 

will never operate at an altitude greater than 400 AGL. I will however operate my 

UAS in safe areas away from public and traffic, providing a level of safety at least 

equivalent to or greater than those in relation to minimum safe altitudes. Given the 

size, weight, maneuverability and speed of my UAS, an equivalent or higher level of 

safety will be achieved.

E. 14 C.F.R. 91.405 (a); 407 (a) (1); 409 (a) (2); 417(a) & (b): Maintenance Inspections.

The above-cited Regulations require, amongst other things, aircraft owners and 

operators to “have [the] 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. . . .”

These Regulations only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate.

They will not, therefore, apply to my UAS. However, as a safety precaution I inspect 

my UAS before and after each flight and maintained per the manufacturer’s 

aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit 

requirements.

In summary, Christopher Thompson seeks an exemption from the following Regulations:

14 C.F.R. 21, subpart H; 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (a); 

14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b)(2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.103(b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.109; 14 C.F.R. § 91.119; 14 

C.F.R. § 91.121; 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a); 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.203(a) and (b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.405 (a); 

14 C.F.R. § 91.407 (a)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 91.409 (a)(2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.409 (a ) (2); and, 14 C.F.R. 

§§ 91.417 (a) & (b) to commercially operate my lightweight unmanned aircraft system for aerial 

photography/Inspection/ included but not limited to the following; Business Operations: over 

land, water-ways, and oceans; operation over/in non-restricted National Parks, National Forests, 

flight in non-navigable airspace, using non-intrusive recording devices, operation in otherwise 

unrestricted U.S. States/Territories for aerial videography/cinematography for commercial 

operation and to enhance academic community awareness for those individuals and companies 

unfamiliar with the geographical layout of such areas. Currently, area awareness and real estate 

aerial videography/photography relies primarily on the use of larger aircraft running on 

combustible fuel, posing potential risk to the public. Granting my request for exemption will 

reduce current risk levels and thereby enhance safety. My UAS does not contain potentially

explosive fuel, is smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than conventional photographic 

aircraft with much less flight time. Further, I operate at lower altitudes and in controlled airspace 

eliminating potential public risk flying to and from established airfields. I have been analyzing 

flight information and will compile safety protocols and the implementation of a flight 
operations manual that exceeds currently accepted means and methods for safe flight. Formal 

collection of information shared with the FAA will enhance the FAA's internal efforts to 

establish protocols for complying with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. There 

are no personnel on board my UAS’s and therefore the likelihood of death or serious bodily

injury is significantly diminished. The operation of my UAS’s, weighing less than 7 pounds and 

travelling at lower speeds within limited areas, will provide an equivalent level of safety as that 

achieved under current FARs. Accordingly I respectfully request that the FAA grant my 

exemption request and am willing to cooperate in sharing information to benefit the FAA, safety 

of manned aircraft, and the general public at large.

Respectfully Submitted,

Christopher Thompson

BirdseyePix & VT

268 Canal Rd

Waterloo, SC 29384

(864) 980-8881

birseyepix@embarqmail.com

www.birdseyepix.net