May 12, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Petition from : Seth Gentile of Keystone Aerial Video, LLC for an exemption from Part 21; and §§ 45.23(b); 61.113(a) & (b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b)(2); 91.103(b); 91.109; 91.119; 91.121, 91.151(a); 91.203(a) & (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(2); and 91.417(a) & (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

Description of Relief Sought: The petitione r is seeking an exemption to commercially operate his small ultra light weight UAS for construction and development documentation , real estate operations, enhancement of real estate listing videos for homeowners that cannot afford expensive manned aircraft for the same purpose, and for general marketing initiatives where low altitude aerial video is beneficial to the end user

.

The petitioner supports his request with the following information: The petitioner states they plan to operate a UAS, the DJI PHANTOM 2 Vision, which is comprised of an unmanned aircraft ( PHANTOM). The PHANTOM is referred to as a quad

-copter with a maximum gross weight of about 3 pounds. It is equipped with four rotors that are driven by electric motors powered by batteries. The UA h as a maximum airspeed of 30 knots. Petitioner plans to operate the UA over various areas in the Philadelphia, PA area to document construction and development projects, augment real estate listing videos, and capture marketing footage for educational institutions

. Petitioner makes the following representations of operational enhancements which he propose s to abide by to ensure this exemption will provide a level of safety at least equal to existing rules:

• He will only operate in reasonably safe environmen ts that are strictly controlled, are away from power lines, elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas; and • He will conduct extensive preflight inspections and protocols, during which safety carries primary importance.The petitioner states that given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the

aircraft to be utilized by him, an exemption from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H (Airworthiness Certificates) and § 91.203 (a) and (b) (Certifications required), subject to certa in conditions and limitations, is warranted and meets the requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 CFR part 11 and Section 333 of P.L. 112

-95 (Section 333). Petitioner requests an exemption from § 45.23 Marking of the aircraft because his UA will not have a cabin, cockpit or pilot station on which to mark certain words or phrases. Further, he states that two

inch lettering is difficult to place on such a small aircraft with dimensions smaller than the minimal lettering requirement. Regardless of this, petitioner states that he will mark his UAS in the largest possible lettering by placing the word “Experimental” on its fuselage as required by § 45.29(f) so that he or anyone assisting him as a spotter will see the markings. The petitioner state s that an exemption from §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2) and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance inspections may be required and should be granted since they only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. However, the petitioner states as a s afety precaution he will perform a preflight inspection of his UAS before each flight as outlined in his operating documents. UAS Pilot in Command (PIC) The petitioner asserts that under § 61.113 (a) and (b) private pilots are limited to noncommercial operations, however he can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by current regulations because his UAS does not carry any pilots or passengers. Further, he states that, while helpful, a pilot license will not ensure remote control piloting skills. He further indicates that the risks of operating a UAS are far less than the risk levels inherent in the commercial activities outlined in 14 CFR part 61, et seq., thus he requests an exemption from § 61.113 Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: Pilot in command. Regarding UAS operational training, the petitioner states he has flown numerous practice flights in remote areas as a hobbyist simulating flights for future commercial use to gain familiarization with the characteristics of his UAS’ performance under different temperature and weather conditions. In a supplemental request to the FAA, the petitioner requests consideration of a 120 day temporary airman certificate in accordance with § 63.13, to allow him time to obtain a private pilot certificate or to allow the FAA time to establish minimum UAS airman certification standards. UAS Operating Parameters The petitioner states that he will abide by the following additional operating conditions under this exemption: • operate his UAS below 3 00 feet and within a radius distance of 1000 feet from the controller to both aid in direct line of sight visual observation;
• opera te the UAS for 3

- 10 minutes per flight; • land his UAS prior to the manufacturer’s recommended minimum level of battery powe r; • operate his UAS only within visual line of sight (VLOS);• use the UAS’ global positioning system (GPS) flight safety feature whereby it hovers and then slowly

lands if communication with the remote control pilot is lost; • conduct all operations unde r his own personal and flight safety protocols (including posting a warning sign reading: “Attention Aerial Photography in Progress

– Remain Back 150 feet”) contained in the operating documents and will actively analyze flight data and other sources of information to constantly update and enhance his safety protocols; • contact respective airports if operations will be within 5 miles to advise them of his estimated flight time, flight duration, elevation of flight and other pertinent information; • always o btain all necessary permissions prior to operation; and • have procedures in place to abort flights in the event of safety breaches or potential danger.

Petitioner states that § 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an airworthiness certificate. The petitioner asserts that since there is currently no certificate applicable to his operation, this regulation is inapplicable. Petitioner states that § 91.9(b)(2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft, however since there are no pil ots or passengers on board his aircraft and given its size, this regulation is inapplicable. He further indicates an equivalent level of safety will be achieved by maintaining a safety/flight manual with the UAS ground station. Although petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.103(b) Preflight action, he provides no information supporting his request. Similarly, the petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.109 Flight instruction; simulated instrument flight and certain flight test, and provides no infor mation indicating how safety will be maintained if an exemption to this section is granted. Petitioner states that § 91.119 prescribes safe altitudes for the operation of civil aircraft, but that it allows helicopters to be operated at lower altitudes in c ertain conditions. Petitioner states he will not operate his UAS above the altitude of 3 00 feet above ground level (AGL) and will also only operate in safe areas away from the public and traffic, thus “providing a level of safety at least equivalent to or below those in relation to minimum safe altitudes.” The petitioner asserts that given the size, weight, maneuverability, and speed of his UAS, an equivalent or higher level of safety will be achieved. Petitioner indicates that § 91.121 Altimeter settings i s inapplicable since he UAS utilizes electronic GPS with a barometric sensor. While petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, he provides no information supporting his request for this exemption. Publ ic InterestThe petitioner states that aerial videography for construction and development documentation and for

real estate marketing has been around for a long time through manned fixed wing aircraft andhelicopters, but for small business owners, its expense has been cost

- prohibitive. Granting this exemption to the petitioner would allow him to provide this service at a much lower cost. Further, the petitioner indicates his small UAS will pose no threat to the public given its small size and lack of
combustible fuel when compared to larger manned aircraft. The petitioner also states that the operation of his UAS will minimize ecological damage and promote environmental stewardship by providing detailed video and still photograph documentation of site d evelopment, drainage, and erosion and sedimentation controls required by local, state, and federal regulations.