Secher Site Specific LLC 2299 W Sanilac Rd Sandusky MI 48471

1 

Petition for: 

Rodney G Schmidt 

Secher Site Specific LLC. 

2299 W Sanilac Rd 

Sandusky, MI 48471 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations: 

Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal 

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

91.7 (a); 91.9 (b) (2); 91.109; 91.119; 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a) & (b); 91.405 

(a); 91.407(a) (1); 91.409 (a) (2); 91.417 (a) & (b). 

Part 21 prescribes the procedural requirements for issuing and changing design approvals, 

productions approvals, airworthiness certificates, and airworthiness approvals. 

Section 45.23(b) prescribes that when marks include only the Roman capital letter “N” and the 

registration number is displayed on limited, restricted or light-sport category aircraft or experimental 

or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near each entrance 

to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches high, the 

words “limited,” “restricted,” “light-sport,” “experimental,” or “provisional,” as applicable. 

Section 61.113(a) and (b) prescribes that— 

(a) No person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command of an 

aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, 

for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft. 

(b) a private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in 

connection with any business or employment if: 

 (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and 

 (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. 

Section 91.7(a) prescribes that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy 

condition. 

Section 91.7(b) prescribes that the pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining 

whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight and that the PIC shall discontinue the flight when 

mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur. 
 Secher Site Specific LLC 2299 W Sanilac Rd Sandusky MI 48471

2 

Section 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation of U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless there is available in the 

aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, 

markings, and placards, or any combination thereof. 

Section 91.109(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft (except a

manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning 

dual controls. 

Section 91.119 prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate 

an aircraft below the following altitudes: 

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without 

undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. 

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any 

open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a 

horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. 

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over 

open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer 

than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. 

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is 

conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface— 

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or 

(c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes 

or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and 

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the 

minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. 

Section 91.121 requires, in pertinent part, each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising 

altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set “...to the elevation of the departure airport or an 

appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.” 

Section 91.151(a) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions 

unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point 

of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, (1) during the day, to fly after that for at 

least 30 minutes [emphasis added]. 

Section 91.203(a) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating a civil aircraft unless it has 

within it (1) an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate; and (2) an effective U.S. registration 

certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the second copy of the 

Aircraft registration Application as provided for in § 47.31(c). 
 Secher Site Specific LLC 2299 W Sanilac Rd Sandusky MI 48471

3 

Section 91.203(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless the 

airworthiness certificate or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is displayed at the 

cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew. 

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner shall have that aircraft 

inspected as prescribed in subpart E of the same part and shall, between required inspections, except 

as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43

of the chapter. 

Section 91.407(a)(1) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating an aircraft that has 

undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless it has been 

approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of the same chapter. 

Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an aircraft unless, 

within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness

certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. 

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that— 

(a) Each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section: 

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records 

of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as 

appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, 

rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include— 

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the 

Administrator) of the work performed; and 

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and 

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft 

for return to service. 

(2) Records containing the following information: 

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and 

each rotor. 

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, 

rotor, and appliance. 

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which 

are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis. 
 Secher Site Specific LLC 2299 W Sanilac Rd Sandusky MI 48471

4 

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the 

last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft 

and its appliances are maintained. 

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety 

directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety 

directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves 

recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required. 

(vi)Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major 

alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, 

and appliances. 

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed: 

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the 

work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is 

performed. 

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and 

transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold. 

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under 

§ 43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft 

is approved for return to service. 

The petitioner supports his request with the following information: 

The petitioner has provided the following information – contained in his petition and supporting 

documentation including: 1). AMA Safety Guidelines 2). Phantom 2 Vision Quick Start Guide (EN) 

v1.0; 3). Phantom 2 Vision User Manual (EN) v1.6; 4). Smart Flight Battery Safety Guidelines (EN, 

FR, DE and JP); 5). Phantom 2 Vision Pilot Training Guide v1.0; 6). Local Aeronautical Chart. 

7). 540D “See and Avoid” Guidance

Unmanned Aircraft System 

The petitioner states he plans to operate a UAS, the PHANTOM 2 Vision, which is comprised of an 

unmanned aircraft (UA or PHANTOM 2) and a transportable ground station. The PHANTOM 2 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 and includes a factory installed high 

resolution camera. The UA has a maximum airspeed of 30 knots. Petitioner proposes to abide by to 

ensure this exemption will provide a level of safety at least equal to existing rules from the AMA 

National Model Aircraft Safety Code and 540D “see and avoid” guidance. 

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 certain 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). 
 Secher Site Specific LLC 2299 W Sanilac Rd Sandusky MI 48471

5 

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 states 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 safety precaution he will 

perform a preflight inspection of his UAS before each flight as outlined in his operating documents. 

UAS Pilot in Command (PIC) 

Regarding PIC private pilot privileges and limitations and commercial pilot privileges and 

limitations, the petitioner states its proposed operations meet the requirements of N 8900.227 

paragraph 16.c.(2)(c), operations without a pilot certificate, in which the PIC is required to complete 

FAA private pilot ground instruction and pass the FAA private pilot written examination. According 

to the petitioner, because there are currently no means available for the pilot of a UAS to gain the 

experience in an equivalent category and class in order to apply for a commercial pilot certificate, it 

would generate an equivalent level of safety by requiring its pilots to complete, at a minimum, the 

FAA commercial pilot ground instruction and pass the FAA commercial pilot written examination. 

The petitioner states that since pilot training is night and day different between RC/UAS flight 

training he requests to be exempt from private pilot flight instruction and be required to take a FAA 

approved UAS flight training course when available. The petitioner asserts because the UAS cannot 

carry passengers or property, its UAS pilots would meet the intent of § 61.113(b) even though its 

request for exemption is to conduct a business. 

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. He 

further states that he practices computerized simulated flights to maintain adequate skills and 

response reflex time. 

UAS Operating Parameters 

The petitioner states that he will abide by the following additional operating conditions under this 

exemption: 

a) operate his UAS below 300 feet and within a radius distance of 900 feet from the controller 

to both aid in direct line of sight visual observation;

b) operate the UAS for 15-20 minutes per flight; 

c) begin safe landing procedures when UAS reaches a 25% level of battery power; 

d) operate his UAS only within visual line of sight (VLOS); 
 Secher Site Specific LLC 2299 W Sanilac Rd Sandusky MI 48471

6 

e) 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; 

f) conduct all operations under flight safety protocols and will actively analyze flight data and 

other sources of information to constantly update and enhance his safety protocols; 

g) 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; 

h) always obtain all necessary permissions prior to operation; and 

i) have procedures in place to abort flights in the event of safety breaches or potential danger. 

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 pilots 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. 

Similarly, the petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.109 Flight instruction; simulated 

instrument flight and certain flight test, and provides no information indicating how safety will be 

maintained if an exemption to this section is granted. 

With respect to operating altitudes, the petitioner requests an exemption from the minimum safe 

altitude requirements in § 91.119. The petitioner notes the regulation provides that over sparsely 

populated areas the aircraft cannot be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or 

structure. The petitioner maintains because the aircraft will be operating at a maximum of 400 feet 

AGL, it cannot comply with this requirement. The petitioner proposes to provide an equivalent level 

of safety by only flying over private property with the permission of the landowner. The petitioner 

states the landowner will be briefed on the expected route of flight and the associated risks to persons 

and property on the ground. The petitioner asserts that because of the small size of the Phantom 2, 

the hazard to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures is not comparable to manned aircraft and 

should be considered in granting the exemption. The petitioner further states the aircraft will not be

operated over congested areas nor over any open air assembly of persons. In addition, the petitioner 

explains the aircraft will be operated at an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency 

landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. 

The petitioner requests an exemption regarding the altimeter settings in § 91.121 because the 

Phantom 2 will fly below 300 feet AGL and will not need to maintain hemispherical cruising 

altitudes to de-conflict with other aircraft. The petitioner states AGL should be an appropriate 

altimeter measurement presented to the pilot, and it should be based on the barometric pressure at the

point of launch. The petitioner asserts that because the aircraft will fly no more than 20 minutes, even 

rapid changes in barometric pressure will have limited effect on the safety of the flight. 
 Secher Site Specific LLC 2299 W Sanilac Rd Sandusky MI 48471

7 

Regarding the fuel requirements in § 91.151, the petitioner states the Phantom 2 is battery-operated 

and the maximum duration of flight from a single battery charge is 20 minutes. The petitioner 

explains the aircraft will never fly more than 900 feet mile from the point of intended landing and 

that a full battery charge at launch will ensure it meets the reserve energy requirements. The 

petitioner requests an exemption to the word “fuel” and asks for an equivalent interpretation with the

word “energy.” 

Public Interest 

The petitioner states the Phantom 2 carries an onboard camera that provides high-resolution data to 

quickly determine any damage due to wind, rain, chemical spray drift including planter and 

emergence issues. Thus accurately assessing the damage for replant or crop insurance claims and 

determine possible equipment problems affecting yield. According to the petitioner, this data helps 

farmers maximize yields while reducing costs and impacts to the environment. The petitioner 

concludes that by granting an exemption, the FAA will create benefits to both agriculture and the 

environment, which are ultimately in the public interest.