## 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 equivalentor 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 safetyof 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 theregistration 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, P RIVATE 

### P ILOT 

### P RIVILEGES AND 

### L IMITATIONS 

### : 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 activelyengaged 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 -- A IRWORTHINESS 

### C ERTIFICATES 

### : 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 

### ) -- C IVIL 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 themanufacture 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 

### ) -- D ISPLAY OF MARKS 

### : Aircraft identification normally requires tail, or N numbersbe 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) -- A IRCRAFT 

### F LIGHT 

### M ANUAL 

### O N 

### B OARD 

### ; AND 

### 14 CFR 91.203( A 

### ) & ( B 

### ) --

O NBOARD 

### A IRCRAFT 

### C ERTIFICATIONS AND 

### R EGISTRATIONS 

### : 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 -- M AINTENANCE 

### , P REVENTIVE 

### M AINTENANCE 

### , R EBUILDING 

### , AND 

### A LTERATION 

### : 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 

### ) – M AINTENANCE REQUIRED 

### ;

14 CFR 91.407( A 

### )(1) – O PERATION AFTER MAINTENANCE 

### , PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 

### , REBUILDING 

### , OR ALTERATION 

### ; 14 CFR 91.409( A 

### )(1)&(2) – I NSPECTIONS 

### ; 14 CFR 91.417 – M AINTENANCE 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 -- A LTIMETER 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 rises 1 . 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 

### ) -- F UEL REQUIREMENTS FOR FLIGHT IN 

### VFR CONDITIONS 

### . M INIMUM


### F UEL 

### R EQUIREMENTS AND 

### 20 MIN 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 

### ) -- P REFLIGHT 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 -- F LIGHT 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 thisproposed amendment to the rule provides a level of safety at least equal to the existing rule.



### 14 CFR 91.119( B 

### ) & ( C 

### ) -- M INIMUM 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 ofthe 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 guidancefor 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 andduring 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 theannouncement.

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, topvendors, 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 onthe 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 writingis 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