TO:

United States Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

FROM:

Tommy Garrison and Jonathan Clinton

Kestrel Aerial Video

4 Mosers Pl

Candler, NC 28715

DATE:

06 November 2015

Regarding:

An Exemption Request Pursuant To Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of 2012 and 

Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations for commercial use of unmanned aircraft 

systems.
Dear Sir or Madam:

We are writing pursuant to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act 

of 2012 (the "Reform Act") and the procedures contained in 14 CFR 11, to request that Kestrel Aerial 

Video, LLC, d.b.a. as Kestrel Aerial Video, an owner and operator of small unmanned aircraft, be 

exempted from certain Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) listed below so that Kestrel Aerial Video 

may operate its lightweight unmanned aircraft systems (UAS, or UAS) commercially in airspace 

regulated by the FAA; as long as such operations are conducted within and under the conditions 

outlined herein or as may be established by the FAA as required by Section 333.

As identified and described herein, Tommy E. Garrison and Jonathan R. Clinton, and their company 

Kestrel Aerial Video (hereafter Petitioner, "Our", or "We"), is a recognized video production company 

doing business in western North Carolina. Kestrel Aerial Video has been actively involved in the 

technical development of using UAS as a platform for videography and is currently one of the few 

companies in the region. Kestrel Aerial Video has fully equipped each of its small unmanned aircraft 

for aerial photography and videography, as well as for other related operations in industries such as 

agriculture, energy, utilities, mining, construction, real estate, news media, and film production.

Our mailing address is:

Kestrel Aerial Video

4 Mosers Pl.

Candler, NC 28715.

Our business email is tnj@kavwnc.com and the phone number is 828-418-3199.

The Specific Sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Kestrel Aerial 

Video Requests Exemption are: 14 CFR 21 subpart H; 14 CFR 45.23(b); 14 CFR 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(c); 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)(1) & (2); 14 CFR 91.417(a) & (b)

The Extent of Relief Kestrel Aerial Video Seeks and the Reason It Seeks Such Relief:

Kestrel Aerial Video, via this application, seeks relief from applicable FARs that statutorily prevent 

Kestrel Aerial Video from operating its fleet of UAS for commercial purposes. Kestrel Aerial Video in 

general operates its UAS in accordance with the FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 91-57 Model Aircraft 

Operating Standards as the UAS are essentially remotely controlled or piloted model aircraft and we 

are in fact concerned about safety and do exercise good judgment when flying. Not only does this 

protect our own safety and that of other persons and property, but also our investment of time and 

money into the aircraft and associated equipment used in the course of doing business. However to 

satisfy certain business requirements of its clients, Kestrel Aerial Video finds it necessary to operate its 

UAS in a manner contrary to some FAA FARs. Kestrel Aerial Video seeks relief and exemption from 

specific language from said FARs to allow commercial UAS operation while maintaining an equivalent
or greater level of safety as intended by those same FARs. Kestrel Aerial Video specifically seeks 

relief to allow it to safely operate professionally at certain times and situations by the amendment of the

FARs as described below and as allowed by the Reform Act and in accord with the Secretary of 

Transportation's (FAA Administrator's) responsibilities to not only integrate UAS into the national 

airspace system, but to " ... establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems [UAS]

in the national airspace system."

Kestrel Aerial Video also seeks this relief from applicable FARs because UAS differ in fundamental 

aspects from aircraft piloted by an onboard pilot and the language of some FARs makes it impossible to

abide and meet FAA requirements written for traditional aircraft flight operations while operating UAS 

for commercial use in the National Airspace System (NAS). Also because we enjoy both flying UAS 

and other model aircraft for recreation and, from a purely artistic and aesthetic perspective, aerial 

photography and videography. As entrepreneurs, we are excited by the state of UAS technology and 

the commercial opportunities they provide. Finally, we seek statutory relief because we understand the 

need for the integration of UAS into the NAS and, as law abiding, safety conscious UAS enthusiasts, 

operators and businessmen, we wish to help the FAA establish requirements for the safe operation of 

UAS within the NAS in order for us to conduct commercial operations with these UAS.

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 publics interest to do so. The lightweight UAS operated by 

Kestrel Aerial Video meet the definition of "small unmanned aircraft" as defined in Section 331 and 

therefore the integration of Kestrel Aerial Video lightweight UAS are expressly contemplated by the 

Reform Act. Kestrel Aerial Video would like to operate its lightweight UAS prior to the time period by

which the Reform Act requires the FAA to implement rules governing such craft as a matter of business

necessity. Finally, Kestrel Aerial Video will conduct its UAS operations in compliance with the 

protocols described herein or as otherwise established by the FAA so as to maximize the safety of 

manned aircraft, other NAS traffic and nearby flight operations, our clients and customers, flight 

operation participants, and of course the public as spectators or bystanders. Kestrel Aerial Video 

respectfully requests the grant of an exemption allowing it to operate lightweight, remote controlled 

UAS for commercial use.

We would also like to respectively offer the following general statement as tax payer, constituent, small

business owner as well as petitioner. We made the mistake of gambling that the NPRM for small UAS 

would have become the new rules for commercial operation of UAS by the September 2015 deadline. 

The NPRM does not include a pilot license as a requirement. It is prohibitively expensive for us to 

obtain a private pilot license, though we are currently pursuing one, or to hire someone with a pilot's 

license to operate our UAS. It makes financing the effort the single critical threat against our success as

a small business start up. The bad gamble is really poor planning and we accept it as such, however the

reader is, by no doubt, aware of the significance of the FAA missing the September 2015 deadline. For 

these and other reasons apparent in recent web publication we encourage the FAA to quickly release the

updated FARS as suggested by the intent and wording of the proposed rules, requiring only a 

reasonable barrier to entry in the commercial operation of UAS. One that absolutely ensures the safety 
of first, people, and then property, but also that allows more realization of the positive economic impact

forecast by getting it right as quickly as possible. We encourage both the rapid release of the new rules,

and the rapid update of those rules as the technology improves and we learn what works and what 

doesn't. Release now that it's good enough, and update as it gets better.

The relief sought that would allow to us to legally, safely, and successfully operate our UAS for 

commercial purposes hinges on two requirements among those enumerated below. First, is the 

requirement of holding a minimum of a sport pilot license to operate a UAS; and second is the 500 foot

separation distance between the aircraft and nonparticipants and of not flying over people in general. 

The other requests for relief from the other FARs are straight forward and the relief granted to previous 

petitioners for the same class of general videography would be more than adequate and easily complied

with. The two sections noted here are discussed more at length in later parts of this document and 

provide additional rationale for our requests for exemption, but please accept the following summary of

the two issues.

The first is the consequence of belonging to that large class of citizens that do not currently hold a 

private pilot license. We will ask that we be allowed to operate commercially while we pursue 

obtaining a private pilot license provided that we; 1) successfully pass the ground school test and hold a

student pilot license; and 2) that that we subsequently meet the minimum required hours and obtain the 

private pilot license, and/or obtain the airman license as provided by implementing the rules in the 

small UAS NPRM.

The second is a consequence of the nature of the business of aerial videography, as shaped by the 

current technology in commercially available UAS. In order to produce video of a quality that satisfies

the client in a world of smart phones and Youtube, an operator has to fly close to, and sometimes over 

people. We will ask that the language describing the manner by which safe separation distance 

between aircraft and persons and property is maintained be phrased by or uses a risk-based, 

technology-neutral framework. The hope is to allow to some extent, operations beyond or outside of 

direct VLOS, operations over congested areas, and nighttime operations, specifically the periods just 

before and after sunrise and sunset. We would like to be able to operate over people assuming all 

reasonable precautions are made to ensure the safety of those below, including minimizing the time 

directly overhead people or vehicles, and/or cordoning off the areas directly below, and/or with direct 

or implicit permission of those below the UA, and utilizing only experienced and capable operators, 

and otherwise operating with professionalism and making the safety and trust of people the primary 

value. Specifically, we ask that we be allowed to fly not closer than three (3) meters (~10 feet) from 

any participant if speed is under 0.3 meters (~1 foot) per sec (essentially hovering), and not any closer 

than 15 meters (50 feet) from nonparticipants. Further we ask that nonparticipants be considered 

participants under circumstances where all of the following are true: 1) the nonparticipants are 

spectators, media, volunteers, support staff, security, venue personnel and the like, attending a public 

event inside a well defined area accessed by well defined or marked entrances; 2) that nonparticipants 

are notified of the both the area, time and nature of UAS operations prior to the beginning of those 

UAS operations; 3) that notification be included in all prior promotional material, included in the 
registration material covering the participant and participants sponsorship and support persons, and to 

all essential persons associated with the event or venue, as well as posted at all clearly marked 

entrances to the event or venue; 4) that the area of UAS operations, as well as the PIC/GCS and 

essential persons be clearly identified, and; 5) that takeoff and landing locations are identified with 

barriers in place as warranted, and be preceded by verbal announcement clearly audible to those 

nearby. A public address system will be used if necessary to ensure people affected will hear the 

announcement.

These two requests are somewhat novel, the second more so than the first, compared to the section 333 

exemption requests previously granted by FAA that this petitioner has read. Further rationale for these 

requests can be found below, however we wished to highlight these specifically for your consideration. 

Please note that we will accept and completely defer to any decision made by the FAA regarding the 

public safety and specifics of this exemption request.

Below are listed each section of 14 CFR we seek exemption from, the extent of relief we seek and 

the reasons thereof:

 14 CFR 61.113(A) & (B) – PIC, PRIVATE PILOT PRIVILEGES AND LIMITATIONS: Pursuant to 14 

CFR 61.113 (a) & (b), private pilots are limited to non-commercial operations. Commercial operations 

are permitted per 14 CFR 16 Subpart F or G. The relief sought is twofold.

First is to note that Kestrel Aerial Video can achieve a higher level of safety operating UAS than 

manned aircraft because our UAS do not carry pilots, passengers or cargo; do not carry flammable fuel;

are very small and lightweight, fly at much lower speeds, and are constructed such as to be frangible. 

Thus, the general risks attendant in operating UAS commercially is far less than the risk inherent in the 

commercial and passenger airline industry. Further, Kestrel Aerial Video pilot vetting and training 

programs are aimed at ensuring a commensurate level of piloting skill to strive for a 100% safety rate 

of zero crashes. To help ensure this, the PIC is required to complete an UAS education and training 

program including all applicable regulations and guidance documents including aeronautical 

background information such as charts, NOTAMS and Advisory Circulars; Radio Communications 

Procedures; Human Factors and Crew Resource Management; Basic Small UAS Aerodynamics; 

Weather factors; Airmanship and Decision-making and Safe Operating Procedures; such as to 

demonstrate the PIC's qualification, training, and currency requirements and the ability of the PIC 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 

people, vessels, vehicles and structures. 

Second is to amend the rule to ensure the above and state that the UAS PIC will hold one or more of, 1)

a sport or private pilot license; 2) a FAA UAS airmen certificate as stipulated in the Small UAS NPRM,

and, if required, a state UAS permit or license; 3) a student pilot license obtained by being duly 

enrolled in an FAA certified pilot school, passing the FAA private pilot written exam and actively 
engaged in flight training. The pilot, Tommy Garrison, has purchased the FAA ground school kit from 

WNC Aviation in Asheville NC and will begin formal instruction once this petition is in the mail. The 

intent of the amendment here is to ensure the pilot is knowledgeable of the rules and procedures to 

make the NAS safe. We've added this proposed amendment because we wish to begin safe, 

responsible, and legal commercial operations as soon as practical. It is possible this exemption will be 

approved before we obtain a private pilots license. This proposed amendment to the rule provides a 

level of safety at least equal to the existing rule and is essentially what the proposed rule stipulates.

 14 CFR 21 SUBPART H -- AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATES: For the purpose of this rule, 

Airworthiness approval means a document issued by the FAA for an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, 

or article which certifies that the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or article conforms to its approved 

design and is in a condition for safe operation. 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 from the airworthiness 

certificate requirement. Our UAS are procured from existing, reputable companies such as DJI and 

3D-Robitics which markets and sells robust and reliable UAS platforms such as the popular Phantom, 

the S900, and the Iris+. These companies state the aircraft is airworthy if operated and maintained 

according to its operating instructions, procedures and manuals. Kestrel Aerial Video maintains and 

operates its UAS in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations, operating instructions, 

procedures and manuals, including regular inspection and pre and post flight procedures and checklists.

The intent of the amendment here is to virtually guarantee the UAS being flown is indeed airworthy. 

As such, exemption by the FAA of 14 CFR 21 subpart H with the language above provides a level of 

safety at least equal to the existing rule.

 14 CFR 91.7(A) -- CIVIL AIRCRAFT AIRWORTHINESS: Similar to the relief sought for 14 CFR 

subpart H, relief from 91.7(a) is largely based on the very small size and construction of UAS, which 

do not carry fuel, pilot or passengers; are battery powered and do not have transmissions, full-sized 

rotors and other parts that can be extremely dangerous to people and property on full sized aircraft. 

Thus the design of UAS are inherently safer than full sized aircraft. Along side the fact that UAS do 

not require an airworthiness certificate, initial and continued aircraft airworthiness will be satisfied by 

maintaining and operating the UAS in accordance with all operating documents supplied by the 

manufacture and determining the UAS is in a airworthy condition prior to each flight by using preflight checklists and following all procedures outlined in the manufactures or other manuals as 

attached. The documents referred to are the manufacturers publications for the 3DR Iris+ and the DJI 

Phantom and S900, Preflight checklist and the Kestrel Aerial Video Flight Operations Manual. This 

proposed amendment to the rule provides a level of safety at least equal to the existing rule.

 14 CFR 45.23(B) -- DISPLAY OF MARKS: Aircraft identification normally requires tail, or N numbers
be positioned in specific locations in a specific size incompatible with UAS design due to their small 

size and construction. In addition § 45.23(b) specifies additional text not less than two inches high be 

displayed on the aircraft. The location and text is similarly incompatible with UAS design. We 

propose to follow the guidelines in the FAA Small UAS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

guidelines (https://www.faa.gov/uas/nprm/) and register each aircraft we operate with AC Form 8050-1 

and display the assigned registration number in the largest size practical on each UAS. As UAS do not 

carry people and the fact that the aircraft is a UAS is obvious to any observer, the words provided by § 

45.23(b) make little sense on the UAS. We propose the amendment that a placard with the text "UAS 

Operations" or text specified by the FAA in the reply to this request be displayed in two inch high 

letters near or on the pilot station, which we interpret to be the GCS or RC transmitter used by PIC. 

The intent of this amendment is to 1) clearly and properly identify the aircraft (and thus it's history and 

ownership) and 2) make it apparent to any observer near the PIC and GCS that UAS operations are 

being carried out. The three aircraft registration numbers N529JC, N413TJ, and N215TJ are reserved 

under the Kestrel Aerial Video name for the DJI S900, DJI Phantom2, and 3DR Iris+ and the 

registration requests are pending. This proposed amendment to the rule provides a level of safety at 

least equal to the existing rule.

 14 CFR 91.9(B)(2) -- AIRCRAFT FLIGHT MANUAL ON BOARD; AND 14 CFR 91.203(A) & (B) -- 

 ONBOARD AIRCRAFT CERTIFICATIONS AND REGISTRATIONS: In consideration of the very small size

and construction of UAS, which make it impractical if not impossible to carry more than essential 

payload, we propose that all such materials be maintained and available at the Flight Operations Center

and/or the GCS for the UAS. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that all documents with regard 

to airworthiness of the UAS be available for inspection and confirmation by any authorized 

representative of the FAA, NTSB, or other law enforcement officer. This proposed amendments to the 

rules provides a level of safety at least equal to the existing rule.

 14 CFR 43 -- MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION: 

Similar to § 21 subpart H, 91.203(a) & (b), 91.9(b)(2), 91.7(a), and 45.23(b); 14 CFR 43 refers 

throughout to aspects of full sized aircraft and continued airworthiness and posting or carrying 

documents or certifications on board the aircraft. The relief sought is also similar in that UAS by virtue

of size, construction, lack of pilot, passengers, cargo or fuel make it impossible to adhere to the letter of

the rules. The proposed amendment is to state that all aspects of Maintenance, Preventive 

Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration by made according to manufacturers specifications, 

procedures, instructions and manuals and records of such be maintained and stored at the Flight 

Operations Center and/or GCS. The intent of this amendment is to ensure the history of the aircraft be 

maintained in an effort to demonstrate continued airworthiness of the UAS. This proposed amendment 

to the rule provides a level of safety at least equal to the existing rule.
 14 CFR 91.405(A) – MAINTENANCE REQUIRED;

 14 CFR 91.407(A)(1) – OPERATION AFTER MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, 

 REBUILDING, OR ALTERATION;

 14 CFR 91.409(A)(1)&(2) – INSPECTIONS;

 14 CFR 91.417 – MAINTENANCE RECORDS:

As there is no discussion or rule that designates the person or persons authorized to perform 

maintenance or alteration on UAS, or approve a return to service of a UAS as authorized under §43.7 

of this chapter, we propose the following amendment to this rule. All modifications, replacement, or 

repair made to the UAS, whether for maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or other 

alteration, will be made subject to any recommendation or instruction in the UA manufacturers 

operation instruction or manual, or if not specified, by a vendor approved approved process, 

replacement or repair, followed by a thorough ground inspection and test flight in an open area with 

only the PIC and cameraman present to ensure airworthiness. Records of any and all such maintenance

or alteration will be recorded and kept at the GCS or the flight center. The UA will be made available 

for inspection at any time at the request of the administrator or other authorized representative of the 

FAA or NTSB.

 14 CFR 91.121 -- ALTIMETER SETTINGS: Given the UAS's small size and construction, there is no 

onboard altimeter. Therefore, altimeter settings to establish aircraft altitude are not possible. UAS in 

general and specifically the 3DR Iris+, DJI Phantom 2 and DJI S900 incorporate a GPS receiver as part

of the flight controller. Part of the manufactures preflight operations is the initialization of the flight 

controller. In order to operate in GPS mode (as opposed to attitude mode), six or more GPS satellites 

must be located. The reason for requiring six instead of the 3D minimum of four satellites is in order to

achieve a HDOP (Horizontal Dilution of Precision) less than 2.0. GPS horizontal and vertical accuracy

with conditions similar to standard pressure and temperature, a clear horizon and a HDOP value less 

than 2.0 are published to be +/-5 meters and +/-10 meters respectively. Per our Flight Operation 

Manual (FOM), we do not take off unless UAS flight controller initialization is successful and we have 

the green flashes code presented by flight controller indicating GPS flight mode. We are cognizant that

GPS determined height is generally higher than pressure determined height as temperature rises1. The 

HDOP is displayed as part of the flight controller telemetry on the OSD when using a telemetry 

monitor. The monitor is also commonly referred to as the FPV (First Person View) when a camera is 

connected to the OSD system, but primarily displays aircraft telemetry, including flight mode and 

altitude, that makes it required equipment when we fly. Our FOM dictate that UA flights use GPS 

mode as the flight mode. The proposed amendment is to first note that our UAS will never approach 

the ~18,000 foot transition level where an altimeter would be required. Second is to note that our FOM

specify that if the altitude becomes important to flight planning it is possible with current site maps and

a separate device to establish the current barometric pressure, the UAS GPS altitude corresponding to 

the altitude above which UAS should not fly can then be calculated. This value would then be entered 

in via the UAS software such that the UAS would then be incapable of flying higher by the automatic 

1 http://www.xcmag.com/2011/07/gps-versus-barometric-altitude-the-definitive-answer/
enforcement on the part of the flight controller. The intent of this proposed amendment is to ensure 

that the UAS pilot is aware of, and can achieve and maintain the altitude of the UAS to a precision 

dictated by the approved flight plan and with approval from ATC if appropriate, and otherwise will not 

fly higher than 500 ft AGL as proposed by the Small UAS NPRM. This proposed amendment to the 

rule provides a level of safety at least equal to the existing rule.

 14 CFR 91.151(A) & (B) -- FUEL REQUIREMENTS FOR FLIGHT IN VFR CONDITIONS. MINIMUM

 FUEL REQUIREMENTS AND 20MIN MINIMUM FLIGHT DURATION: As the UAS is battery powered 

and current battery inventory does not provide a twenty (20) minute minimum flight duration, we 

propose the following amendment. Power at takeoff will be such as to enable the safe landing of the 

aircraft after liftoff, including landing initiated and conducted by the flight controller in the event of a 

failsafe being triggered. Flights will be conducted with a 25% battery reserve. The aircraft will be 

landed in the safest and most expedient manner possible when the battery reaches 25% of the 

maximum nominal voltage range and performance characteristics of the battery used.

 14 CFR 91.103(B) -- PREFLIGHT ACTION: Requires the PIC take certain actions before flight to 

insure flight safety. One is to provide FAA approved rotorcraft flight manuals, which do not exist for 

the 3DR Iris+, DJI Phantom 2 and DJI S900 or other UAS. The amendment proposed is to substitute 

the manufactures flight instruction manuals and that they be available at the GCS. This will provide a 

level of safety at least equal to the existing rule. The PIC will take all other actions specified in § 

91.103, including reviewing weather, flight battery requirements, landing and takeoff distances and 

aircraft performance data before initiation of flight.

 14 CFR 91.109 -- FLIGHT INSTRUCTION: Simulated instrument flight and certain flight tests: States 

that aircraft must have dual controls in certain cases. UAS are very small and cannot have onboard 

flight controls, much less dual controls. We anticipate pilot training may involve dual transmitters 

hooked up with a so called buddy cable. And it may be that the PIC holds other than a private pilot 

certificate once the FAA has implemented the Small UAS NPRM as FARs. We propose modifying the 

language to remove the full size aircraft bias and include UAS specific nomenclature that will permit 

operations where the PIC/GCS is not on board the aircraft such as to allow training via buddy or 

training cable connections or simulated instrument flight such as using pro-programmed way stations 

or flight paths, as long as the PIC can resume direct control of the aircraft if and as safety issues dictate.

The intent of the proposed amendment is to allow pilot training and controlled use of simulated 

instrument flight such as using way points; assuming all other safety issues are adequately addressed, 

such as the instructor, safety pilot, or PIC be fully qualified and certified to fly the UAS in question and

has determined, based on that knowledge and experience, that the proposed flight or training can be 

conducted safely. Given that normal, responsible UAS operations is inherently much safer than that of 

flying full size aircraft simply due to UAS size and lack of pilot, passengers and fuel, we feel this 
proposed amendment to the rule provides a level of safety at least equal to the existing rule.

 14 CFR 91.119(B) & (C) -- MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDES: We accept and will adhere to § 91.119(a) 

and be able to perform an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property if a power 

unit fails. However, § 91.119(b) prohibits flight below 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a 

2,000 feet radius of the aircraft over congested areas. And § 91.119(c) prohibits flight closer than 500 

feet to people, vessels, vehicles or structures when over water or sparsely populated areas, and flight 

below 500 feet otherwise. We interpret § (a) and (b) to refer to fix wing aircraft and that, in regard to § 

91.119(d), UAS can be considered very small lightweight rotorcraft in terms of general flight 

characteristics, and as such, "if [UAS] operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on 

the surface--" § 91.119(d)(1) states, "A helicopter[sic] may be operated at less than the minimums 

prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter[sic] 

complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters[sic] by the FAA". As we 

understand that this and previous exemption requests will help the FAA formulate what is paraphrased 

here as the "routes or altitudes" prescribed for UAS by FAA in the future; we provide the following 

context to illustrate the extent of relief we seek concerning this rule.

Our UAS operations are intended to acquire and provide to others aerial video and stills, similar in 

manner and context to that described in Order 8900.1 CHG 0, Volume 3, Chapter 8-Issue a Certificate 

of Waiver for Motion Picture and Television Filming. However order 8900.1 largely describes full 

sized aircraft operations in support of film and movie production. It does not fully characterize UAS 

flight operations for similar purposes for two reasons. First again, is that UAS operations differ from 

full size helicopter operations largely due to the much smaller size and frangible construction and the 

fact that UAS do not carry persons or fuel. They pose significantly less risk of injury to people and of 

damage to property simply because they are small, lightweight and battery powered. Second is that 

videography for film on closed sets is a small subset of the new market of aerial videography. In this 

sense, UAS as a videography platform are better described as flying or aerial cameras purposed for 

getting close and intimate video that is close to the action or subject in the same manner the general 

public currently uses the smart-phone to capture their lives. The state of the technology exposed by the

3DR Iris+ and the DJI Phantom/S900 are not near the level required for general use by the average 

consumer. However, the general purpose of getting "close and intimate" video of "life," is the same. 

Our goal as videographers is just that, to capture real events in the settings and time they occur in. We 

capture aerial video of normal life in the world outside the closed set of a Hollywood movie or 

professional film.

The salient point is of course that we are *flying* an aircraft with abilities approaching that of full 

sized aircraft in terms of altitude and speed. But also that the technology and design of UAS(s) makes 

them very much safer than full sized aircraft. This provides for the ability to safely fly closer to people 

and property than full sized aircraft. Of course there are risks to flying anything in proximity to people 

and property. Accepting that there is value added by operating UAS for the purpose stated, we assume 

that some risk is acceptable and that the risk is proportional to the characteristics and performance of 
the UAS and it's ability to cause injury or damage. The question is how do we protect the safety of 

people and property both in the confines and restrictions of closed sets as well as outside in the real 

world where we all live and interact. And at the same time allow and encourage the development and 

use of this new technology. We believe the reader is aware of the benefits of UAS operations to the US

economy and to the public at large and we refer the reader to the article titled "The First 1,000 

Commercial UAS Exemptions" published this year by the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems 

International,(1) which summarizes these benefits.

Similar to full size aircraft, crashes pose the single largest risk. The severity of the crash in terms of the

physics of impact is directly proportional to the speed and mass of the aircraft. If it is accepted that 

mass of UAS range from one to 55 pounds and helicopters from 1000lb to >10,000lb, then we can say 

that the difference in mass is from two to three orders of magnitude. The most likely cause of a UAS 

crash is loss of control, battery exhaustion and mid-air collisions. Battery exhaustion and mid-air 

collisions both result in the craft dropping straight down or nearly so. We estimate 95% of flights 

conducted are at speeds and altitudes at the low end of the ranges; 2 to 5 meters/second, and generally 

lower than 200 feet AGL. We do need the ability to fly faster and higher but less than the 100mph and 

the 500 feet AGL proposed in the small UAS NPRM. The point is we generally fly slow and relatively 

low so that the craft is most likely not to fall very far from the failure point. Loss of control resulting in

catastrophic consequence is impacting a structure assuming altitude is higher than the average human. 

This also generally results in the craft falling from altitude. Similarly, loss of control from system 

failure or malfunction resulting in a fly away generally results in battery exhaustion or airborne impact,

and subsequently falling. Our flight operation manual and safety procedures specify actions taken in 

the event of loss of orientation and/or control. First, that flights are conducted in GPS mode except in 

unique circumstance. This means that removing all input from the controls results in the aircraft 

halting and hovering in place. Similarly, toggling the failsafe mode manually, or as a result of loss of 

control link, results in the craft either hovering in position, or ascending straight up to a predetermined 

altitude set in firmware and returning to the launch point. If an accident were to occur in these two 

scenarios, the most likely consequence is the aircraft falling as a result of battery exhaustion or in air 

impact during the return to the launch point. Again, the largest risk of injury to persons or damage to 

property is people or property directly below the aircraft and the immediate area around the point 

directly below the aircraft. We propose to rigorously monitor and control the area below the aircraft 

while in flight. We can achieve this in several ways. First, to the maximum extent possible, the craft 

will hover or move slowly, in a carefully controlled manner, while over congested areas. To the extent 

possible, the area below the hovering aircraft will be marked and cordoned off if warranted, possibly 

with an essential person stationed at the location to keep people out from under the craft. Movement 

over people during the transition from launch or previous station to the hover or planned path will be 

kept to an absolute minimum. In general the time and location of the craft over people will be 

minimized and or tightly controlled. Accepting these procedural restrictions and that both mass and 

momentum are both two to three orders of magnitude less than traditional aircraft, and that accepting 

that the magnitude of injury or damage will be similarly less, we propose a fifty (50) foot vertical 

separation distance from nonparticipants, instead of the current nominal 500 feet.
Separation distance between the UAS and participants may be closer than fifty feet with the 

participants agreement and acceptance of the potential risk. As separation distances decrease, speed 

will also decrease, but separation distance will never be closer than three (3) meters (10 feet) from a 

participant, structure, vessel, or vehicle, and at that distance the UA will be hovering stationary or be 

traveling less than 0.3m/s (~1 foot/s). In general speed in m/s will be equal to or less than one third 

(1/3) the separation distance in meters, and shall be considered critically important if the direction of 

travel is toward the subject or participant. The intent is to provide a three second reaction time buffer 

both for the subject(s) and the pilot. Avoidance of mid-air collisions between the UAS and other 

aircraft are the responsibility of the pilot as per current FARs, with preference to manned aircraft 

assumed on the part of the pilot. People and structures and vehicles are more important than the UAS 

and we willingly assume the responsibility to fly such that the craft will be lost rather than cause injury 

to persons or damage to property. We also assume responsibility for injury or damage should, despite 

all precautions, an accident occur, and agree to maintain a general liability insurance policy for that 

unfortunate case.

Should the FAA determine that this proposal is not at least as safe as the current rule, we accept the 

current rule or any rule the FAA may determine is appropriate in any reply to this exemption request.

We realize and accept that this proposal presumes competency on the part of the pilot in terms of the 

knowledge and skills required to safely pilot a UAS. We believe we do have the knowledge and posses

the skills to do this with the craft described in this exemption request and other UAS with the same 

flight characteristics, features and performance. In support of our claim, we include the certificate of 

participation and completion of a three day advanced flight orientation training class from the company

we bought the DJI Phantom and S900 from. This class included information about FAA regulations at 

the time, the physical and software configuration of the aircraft, flight safety, checklists and overview 

of the manufactures operating manual, basic physics of flight and one day of actual flying the S900 and

Phantom that demonstrated and taught the preflight and other flight safety procedures, aircraft features 

and flight modes, and in-flight fail-safe behavior. Multiple take-offs and landings were ultimately 

accomplished. We also submit our flight log since we acquired and began to fly the S900, Phantom 

and Iris+ that documents our over two hundred flights with these aircraft. Tommy Garrison has 

previous experience flying RC hobby craft and in began flight school to obtain a private pilot license 

during his Air Force enlistment in the period 1978 to 1982 that is undocumented. We also attach our 

FOM and our Flight Log with this exemption request. For your convenience, below we summarize 

portions of that document to highlight aspects in further support of this exemption request and that we 

follow all applicable regulations and precautions in order to fly safely.

Full sized aircraft operations are inherently dangerous to people and property and prior to the advent of 

small, lightweight UAS utilizing GPS and advanced electronics and flight controllers, were, and are, 

either prohibitively expensive or prohibitively unsafe to use in operations that are now common place 

for UAS, such as event promotions, real estate photography and videography, and industrial and 

construction applications. UAS operations conducted for clients herein will be referred to as 

production(s) and the definitions, procedures and other information that provide professional guidance 
for our services will be found in the Kestrel Aerial Video Flight Operation Manual. Similar to Flight 

Standards Information Management System (FSIMS), Volume 3, Chapter 8, we anticipate the FAA will

later publish a chapter companion titled something similar to "Issue a Certificate of Waiver for UAS 

based Videography and Data Acquisition."

We expect to conduct two distinct classes of UAS operations; productions involving aerial video 

primarily of people, and aerial video primarily of things other than people, such as structures, crops, 

fields, or large open spaces. The later typically do not involve people along or below the flight path 

and as such typically pose little risk of personal injury or damage and are largely flown under the 

existing restraints. However, to the extent operations impact safety, such as the case of actors or 

owners in the vicinity of a real estate sale, operations would comply with the safety and other 

operational procedures as that for productions involving people. Common to both operations from the 

business standpoint, are a requirement for a formalization of operations geared to satisfy a client's 

expectations of safety, fair value, suitability, effectiveness and quality of services provided. Our focus 

is concentrated on the proposed flight path and other parameters and how to minimize risk to people 

and property in proximity to the flight path. Our goal is to video capture events such as a 5K race, 

kayaking event, triathlon, beer-fest, or other outdoor event such as a zip-line experience, climbing a 

rock or tower, a grand opening, a gala at a home, park or resort, or a summer camp, zip line or other 

outdoor experience; and adequately address the direct safety of not only ourselves, but those we are 

directly getting video of as well as those also in the scene, whether they are participants or 

nonparticipants.

The first formal operation is the determination and agreement of the flight plan supporting the 

production. The flight plan specifies one or more UAS flight paths and other ancillary information 

about the weather, site, location of PIC and GCS, as well as other essential crew. A site survey is 

performed before every production job to identify hazards to flight, any no-fly zones (such as airports, 

State Parks, etc), determine if notification to nearby persons or property might be required, what time 

of day is best for the shoot, and what flight paths would be optimum for safety, best line of sight 

positions, sky view, and time. Then the actual flight paths of the number of flights we feel will satisfy 

the client's requirements are planned and recorded in the flight plan document. Site surveys are 

typically conducted a day or two before the shoot, but may be conducted on-site shortly before the 

flight(s) if flight operations are simple, short and the area is either very open with few or no flight 

hazards, and/or the area is clearly and well defined using maps or in Google Earth, such as to allow a 

virtual site survey before arriving on site. The intent is to have the flight path or paths well defined 

with all flight hazards and other flight parameters established prior to lifting off. We understand at the 

time of this writing that a FAA granted exemption request includes a blanket COA to conduct UAS 

operations in the general geographic region for flights at or below 200 feet AGL and outside any 

restricted or no-fly zones such as within five nautical miles of an airport. On-line tools will be used 

prior to operations to identify any such restricted airspace within the scope of the operations. If the 

proposed flight plan area intersects any restricted airspace or the proposed altitude is greater than 200 

feet AGL, we will follow the normal procedures, including filing a request for an individual COA, and 

contacting and communicating with ATC using established protocols and procedures prior to and 
during the flight.

All participants and other authorized persons directly associated with the production, hereafter 

"essential persons," will made aware of the flight plan and the potential risk of the proposed flight 

operation(s). We'd like to note here that the definition of participants and nonparticipants becomes less 

precise when spectators, media and even the public are allowed in close proximity to actual 

participants. Many of the venues, sites, events and places that typically would be recorded by aerial 

video do not have areas or physical barriers that separate participants and nonparticipants and/or 

otherwise provide strict access control to the area of operations. In that case, to the extent reasonably 

possible, a fifty foot corridor will be established that delineates and separates participants and 

nonparticipants along the proposed flight paths and cordoned off in some manner. In cases where this 

becomes impractical, posting will be made stating that the areas is subject to UAS operations at 

intervals not less than fifty feet along the perimeter of the flight operations area, and/or personnel will 

used to keep nonparticipants fifty feet away from flight operations. 

We believe that if nonparticipants willingly approach and station themselves in close proximity to 

participants, they subject themselves to greater and greater risk of being affected or impacted by the 

actions of the participants themselves or by the circumstances, happenstances and environmental 

factors in the immediate vicinity of the participants, and they should be made aware of this fact, and 

acknowledge that associated risk and be expected to assume some responsibility for their own safety . 

This includes any person who normally or must display a pass, badge or other credential that permits 

access closer to participants than the general public, such as media representatives. For example, a 

media photographer on the sidelines of a NFL game who is injured and has his camera damaged by a 

collision with a player. We feel this also includes spectators positioned at dangerous locations on any 

open access event or venue. An example would be people attending a baseball game sitting in the first 

few rows between home plate While we are not lawyers and do not expect the FAA to provide legal 

advice we do feel that if we clearly identify the area of UAS operations and good faith effort is made to

appraise and/or notify all persons of this fact that we are meeting the requirement to make UAS 

operations at least as safe as the situations where full sized aircraft are used for similar purposes. 

In the case where there are legitimate reasons where maintaining a fifty (50) foot separation distance 

from nonparticipants is impracticable or impossible, those nonparticipants will be consider participants 

under the following circumstances. 1) The area, time and nature of UAS operations are well described 

and known prior to the beginning of those operations and available as a notification flyer or other 

publication that can be physically posted. 2) That the notification is included in any prior promotional 

material and included in the registration material covering the participant and participant's sponsorship 

and/or support persons. 3) That there are a limited number of controlled access points or entrances to 

the event or venue, and notification is clearly posted at those access points or entrances. 5) The 

PIC/GCS and essential flight operation personnel are clearly identifiable. 4) The areas of UAS 

operations are clearly identified and/or marked. 6) That takeoff and landing locations are identified 

with barriers in place as warranted and be preceded by verbal announcement clearly audible to those 

nearby. A public address system will be used if necessary to ensure people affected will hear the 
announcement.

We rely on the cooperation and support of the client(s), event organizer(s), or the legally responsible 

party, entity or individual deemed to represent the production, as witnessed by the production contract 

or agreement, to acknowledge and assist in identifying participants and nonparticipants, their locations, 

and the logistics of notification regarding the UAS operations. In the event that other requirements 

exist on the part of the client, such as the case with Hollywood movies and other film production, we 

agree to abide by the terms and conditions of the client where stricter or more restrictive safety 

requirements are in place. Generally speaking, our flights will be between a couple of minutes and 

roughly ten to twelve minutes in duration, speeds will be low to moderate with most flights typically 

occurring at a walking to jogging/running speeds of 1m/s to about 3-4m/s.

Granting This Request By Kestrel Aerial Video Benefits The Public In The Following Ways:

First, Congress has already pronounced that it is in the publics interest to integrate commercially flown 

UAS into the national airspace system, hence the passing of the Reform Act. 

Second, the UAS operated by Kestrel Aerial Video are small, lightweight, slow speed aircraft. 

Compared to full sized manned aircraft whether fixed wing or rotorcraft, notwithstanding the 

statistically noteworthy safety record of full size aircraft used in videography and film making, UAS 

pose significantly less risk to persons and property in the extreme event of catastrophic failure and 

crash impact. Before the advent of UAS, full sized airplanes and helicopters were the only vehicles 

able to obtain aerial photography and videography. Any incident involving contact between aircraft 

and people or property will be much less severe where the aircraft involved is a small, lightweight UAS

instead of full sized aircraft. In addition, the public benefits from the order of magnitude reduction in 

the ecological carbon footprint of UAS and the associated danger from exploding fuel as UAS are 

battery powered.

Third, commensurate with previous comparison to full sized aircraft, UAS are much less expensive to 

maintain and operate and the cost of using UAS for many of the purposes previously only full size 

aircraft could accomplish, is now within the economic reach of, if not the general public itself, small 

business and non-profits. In fact, industry segments that were very small, if not non-existent, because 

of the cost of using full sized aircraft, will open up providing products and services to the public at a 

fraction of the cost that before you could not provide at all with full sized aircraft and/or could only 

provide at extravagant cost. For example, a homeowner can have a high quality aerial video of the 

home that showcases the home and facilitate both rapid sell as well as at a better price. In short UAS 

and the services they provide to the public have not existed before and these new services and lower 

cost will directly benefit the public as a whole. I refer the reader to numerous reports and analysis 

estimating the large positive effect in terms of jobs created and revenue created similar to the article 

from the Business Insider "THE DRONES REPORT: Market forecasts, regulatory barriers, top 

vendors, and leading commercial applications." URL: (http://www.businessinsider.com/uav-orcommercial-drone-market-forecast-2015-2).
Fourth, this exemption request is testament to our intent and effort to be a responsible, conscientious, 

safe operator of UAS within the Nation Airspace System. We wish no harm to anyone and intend to 

implement policies and procedures that will ensure we are safe, accident free, and abide by all FAA 

FARs and advisories. This directly benefits the public as we will be a professional role model for 

future small businesses using UAS commercially which cannot but increase public safety.

Reasons This Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect Safety Or How The Exemption Will Provide 

A Level Of Safety At Least Equal To Existing Rules:

Previously we listed the individual FARs from which we seek relief with extensive narrative describing

both the relief sought as well as the rationale explaining how the amended rule would provide a level of

safety at least equal to the existing rule. In combination the overall level of safety proposed by this 

exemption request will provide that level of safety. In summary, simply due to the very small size, 

weight and frangible construction, UAS provide a level of safety at least as safe, and in most cases, 

greater safety, than the existing rule where the operation would otherwise be conducted by full sized 

aircraft. In cases where the use of UAS is completely novel, a small, frangible, battery powered craft 

with sophisticated GPS and advanced flight controllers which, relative to full sized aircraft, are much 

simpler to operate, flown by a skilled and certified pilot in accordance with a formal set of safety 

procedures vetted by the FAA, will provide a level of safety as safe as the existing rules. Additional 

reasons why this exemption will not adversely affect safety are provided below that summarize the 

general operation of our UAS and further illustrate that operations will not adversely affect safety.

1. Each UA operated will be registered with the FAA and have assigned identification (tail) 

numbers affixed to the UA in the largest size practical. We have reserved the following tail 

numbers for the three UAS specifically mentioned in this petition: N529JC, N413TJ, and 

N215TJ 

2. The UA will be operated during daylight hours in Visual Flight Rules Meteorological 

Conditions (VMC) and within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC or the VO at all times. In 

no case will the UA be operated further than the maximum range, minus a safety factor, of the 

GCS or transmitter, regardless whether a VO is used or not.

3. The UA will be operated by a fully trained, certified operator who can demonstrate knowledge 

of all procedures necessary to fly safely in the NAS, all pertinent and appropriate FARs, and 

adhere to all manufacturers recommendations, procedures and manuals. The operator will 

ensure the UA is airworthy prior to all operations, provide maintenance records or other 

documentation upon request, and obtain all authorizations necessary to conduct safe operations 

4. The UA will be operated no closer than 5 miles from an airport with a control tower, no closer 

than 3 miles to an airport without an operational tower, and 2 miles from any other airport; 

unless proper notification and clearance is obtained from ATC.
5. The UA will be operated at altitudes less than 200 feet AGL per the FAA granted automatic 

COA, unless prior notification and clearance from ATC per current FARs is filed and obtained, 

including a separate COA if required.

6. The UA will be operated at appropriate airspeeds less than 100mph, and never in a reckless or 

careless manner.

7. The UA will be regularly inspected for any issue that may negatively impact airworthiness. All 

manufacturers recommendations, procedures and manuals will be followed to maintain 

airworthiness. All maintenance, repairs or alterations will be made per those same 

recommendations, procedures and manuals. The PIC is responsible for safe operations and 

Preflight checklists will be used to ensure airworthiness prior to every flight as specified in the 

FOM. Successful initialization and GPS mode will be a precondition for normal operations. 

Manual flight mode is permitted if extra precautions are taken to ensure that the PIC can safely 

fly the operation and there are no persons involved in the operation. The PIC must abort the 

flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in accordance with the operating 

documents. All documentation normally required to be onboard the UA, will be kept available 

at the flight operations center and/or the GCS with the PIC. All credentials and authorizations 

will also be available at the GCS or on the person of the PIC.

8. The UA will be operated with a OSD that enables the PIC to constantly monitor the battery 

status, altitude, speed, direction, flight mode, and other OSD symbols or indicators that provide 

or facilitate control and awareness of aircraft position and orientation, including the FPV from 

the aircraft pilot camera. Battery voltage must be sufficient to takeoff as well as perform an 

immediate emergency landing in a manner safe to all persons and property. A 25% battery 

reserve will be maintained during flight operations, after which the UA will be landed in the 

most expedient and safe manner, or when any unsafe condition or circumstance arises. The UA 

will be configured to halt and hover or ascend to a predetermined altitude and return to the 

launch point in the event of loss of control link occurs, as appropriate for the flight operation 

intended.

9. A VO will be used to maintain VLOS if the flight plan involves any potential loss of direct 

VLOS on the part of the PIC, and/or if the FPV is used for aircraft positional or orientation 

awareness and control for any significant period of time. If a VO is used, constant verbal 

communication by mouth or radio will be maintained between PIC and VO. There may be 

more than one VO, however all VO(s) must not perform any other duties beyond assisting the 

PIC with seeing and avoiding other air traffic and other obstacles, obstructions or hazards to 

flight operations and are not permitted to operate the camera or other instruments. 

10. The UA will be operated in the GPS flight mode to enable automated emergency response to 

loss of control link or failsafe condition to either hover in place until control is regained or to 

return to home (RTH). If RTH is used, the ascend to altitude must be higher than any obstacle 

in the flight area and battery reserve must be allowed for the RTH flight. Manual control in 

Attitude mode is allowed, but in such case, strict VLOS rules must be followed at all times on 
the part of the pilot and distance to aircraft must be such that aircraft orientation must be clearly

discernible. 

11. All flight paths are predetermined and will be flown at a predetermined speed and altitude, 

unless prior agreement with all parties are obtained that characterize the manner and extent of 

ad hoc or other possible in-flight changes to the flight path that might be conducted. The area 

defined by a 50 foot buffer along the flight path with be assessed for all hazards and safety 

issues. All reasonable effort will be made to control access to this buffer to all nonparticipants, 

including prior notification of location, time and manner of UAS operations, signs indicating 

UAS operations posted along the flight path and at entrances to the area or venue if possible, 

cordoning off critical areas with stanchions and plastic tape, and utilizing persons to keep 

nonparticipants out of the area directly below the UAS operations. To the extent possible the 

UA will be operated as far away from nonparticipants as possible but never closer than fifty 

(50) feet. Temporary barriers or safety personnel will be used to ensure at least a fifty foot 

separation distance. If operations are conducted over private or controlled access property, 

permission will be obtained from the responsible parties. 

12. Operations involving people as participants will be the most tightly controlled. All participants 

must be appraised of the details of the flight plan and proposed flight paths and all safety 

measures will be used to protect people and property. As separation distance decreases between

the UA and people or property, the UA must be operated at slower and slower speeds, in general

the speed of the UA must be less than one third the separation distance in units of meters or feet 

per second. The UA must never be closer than three (3) meters (10 feet) from a participant and 

must be hovering. All participants, or an agreed upon representative, are required to sign a 

waiver that states they understand the flight plan and accept the risks from the flight operations.

13. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries of 

the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to the FAA’s UAS 

Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: 

www.ntsb.gov.

A Summary The FAA May Publish in the Federal Register:

A.

The requested relief for the majority of FARs, e.g., sections in 14 CFR 21 and 91 and regarding 

onboard equipment, postings or storage of material are very similar if not identical to previous 

exemptions granted by the FAA and already reflected in the Federal Register and or determined to not 

be required or applicable. We encourage the FAA to reuse any summary they feel is appropriate.

B. 

Regarding, 14 CFR § 61.113, the PIC, Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: The time of this writing
is fall 2015 with the projected release of the new rules in summer 2016. While we accept a FAA 

decision to require the PIC to hold a sport or private pilot license, we do ask that in six month interim 

period we be allowed to operate commercially with the ground school portion successfully taken and 

flight instruction ongoing until either a pilot license or the proposed airman certificate is obtained. If 

granted this may provide a subject germane to publication in the Federal Register. In which case the 

following may be used.

14 CFR § 61.113, the PIC, Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: The UAS PIC will hold one or 

more of, 1) a sport or private pilots license, or; 2) a FAA UAS airmen certificate as stipulated in the 

Small UAS NPRM, and, if required, a state UAS permit or license , or; 3) passing the FAA private pilot

written exam and holding a student pilot license while completing flight training. The intent of the 

amendment here is to ensure the pilot is knowledgeable of the rules and procedures to make the NAS 

safe. The third option above in the proposed amendment is added because we wish to begin safe, 

responsible, and legal commercial operations as soon as practical to be a successful small business in 

this new industry, and it is possible this exemption will be approved and returned to us before we 

obtain a private pilots license. This proposed amendment to the rule provides a level of safety at least 

equal to the existing rule.

C.

Regarding 14 CFR 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes. This section not only limits the altitude permitted

during normal UAS operations, but stipulates separation distance between rotorcraft such as UAS and 

participants and nonparticipants in similar circumstance to film and movie making operations. The 

nature of this class of operations using UAS is fundamentally different from that of full sized aircraft 

previously used for this type of operations. We have proposed the following. 

14 CFR 91.119(b) & (c) -- Minimum safe altitudes: We accept and will adhere to § 91.119(a) and be 

able to perform an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property if a power unit fails.

However, § 91.119(b) prohibits flight below 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a 2,000 feet 

radius of the aircraft over congested areas. And, § 91.119(c) prohibits flight closer than 500 feet to 

people, vessels, vehicles or structures when over water or sparsely populated areas, and flight below 

500 feet otherwise. We interpret § (a) and (b) to refer to fix wing aircraft and that, in regard to § 

91.119(d), UAS can be considered very small lightweight rotorcraft in terms of general flight 

characteristics, and as such, "if [UAS] operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on 

the surface--" § 91.119(d)(1) states, "A helicopter[sic] may be operated at less than the minimums 

prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter[sic] 

complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters[sic] by the FAA". As we 

understand that this and previous exemption requests will help the FAA formulate what is paraphrased 

here as the "routes or altitudes" prescribed for UAS by FAA in the future; we provide the following 

context to illustrate the extent of relief we seek concerning this rule.

Accepting these procedural restrictions and that both mass and momentum are both two to three orders 

of magnitude less than traditional aircraft, and that accepting that the magnitude of injury or damage 

will be similarly less, we propose a fifty (50) foot vertical separation distance from nonparticipants, 
instead of the current nominal 500 feet. 

Separation distance between the UA and participants may be closer than fifty feet with the participants 

agreement and acceptance of the potential risk. As separation distances decrease, speed will also 

decrease, but separation distance will never be closer than three meters or 10 feet from a participant, 

structure, vessel, or vehicle, and at that distance the UA will be hovering stationary or be traveling less 

than 0.3m/s (1 foot/s). In general speed in m/s will be equal to or less than one third (1/3) the 

separation distance in meters, and shall be considered critically important if the direction of travel is 

toward the subject or participant. The intent is to provide a three second reaction time buffer both for 

the subject(s) and the pilot. Avoidance of mid-air collisions between the UAS and other aircraft are the 

responsibility of the pilot as per current FARs, with preference to manned aircraft assumed on the part 

of the pilot. People and structures and vehicles are more important than the UAS and we willingly 

assume the responsibility to fly such that the craft will be lost rather than cause injury to persons or 

damage to property. We also assume the responsibility of injury or damage should, despite all 

precautions, an accident occur, and agree to maintain a general liability insurance policy for that 

unfortunate case.

Summary

Kestrel Aerial Video seeks an exemption from the following Regulations: 14 C.F.R. 21, subpart H; 14 

C.P.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.P.R. § 91.409 (a)

(2); 14 C.P.R. § 91.409 (a)(2); and, 14 C.P.R. §§ 91.417 (a) & (b) to commercially operate its fleet of 

small unmanned vehicles and lightweight unmanned aircraft vehicles in motion picture or television 

operations, to conduct its own research and to develop economic platforms for law enforcement I first 

responders, search and rescue. Granting Kestrel Aerial Video request for exemption will reduce current

risk levels and thereby enhance safety. Currently, motion picture image capture relies primarily on the 

use of larger aircraft running on combustible fuel. Kestrel Aerial Video craft do not contain potentially 

explosive fuel, are smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than conventional motion picture aircraft.

Kestrel Aerial Video respectfully requests that the FAA grant its exemption request without delay. The 

FAA has the authority to issue the exemption sought by Kestrel Aerial Video pursuant to the Federal 

Aviation Act, 85 P.L. 726 (1958), as amended.

Sincerely,

Tommy E. Garrison and Jonathan R. Clinton

Kestrel Aerial Video, LLC. 

4 Mosers Pl.

Candler, NC 28715