Section 333 Exemption Petition

February 21, 2016

Aaron Cantleberry

812 Jefferson Court

San Mateo CA 94401 Apt. E

cantleberry.aaron@gmail.com

To whom it may concern,

Aaron Cantleberry hereby petitions the Secretary of Transportation and Federal Aviation

Administration for exemption to the above referenced and below more fully described Federal

Aviation Regulations (“FARs”), that currently may or may not apply to the recreational/business

operations of model aircraft including small unmanned aerial systems (“UASs).

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and the procedures

contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, Petition that I, Aaron Cantleberry, an owner and operator of small

unmanned aircraft, be exempted from the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed below so

that I, Aaron Cantleberry, may operate my registered unmanned aircraft system (“UAS”)

commercially in airspace regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”).

As described herein I, Aaron Cantleberry, am experienced in building and flying hobby

quadcopters for recreational purposes. I have added a hobby grade DJI Inspire 1 quadcopter

1

UAS to my inventory with intent to conduct aerial photography/videography/inspection included

but not limited to the following; Business Operations over land, waterways, and oceans;

operation over/in nonrestricted National Parks, National Forests, flight in nonnavigable airspace,

using nonintrusive recording devices, operation in otherwise unrestricted U.S. States/Territories

for aerial videography/cinematography for commercial operation and to enhance academic

community awareness for those individuals and companies unfamiliar with the geographical

layout of such areas.

As described more fully below, the requested exemption would permit the operation of UAS

under controlled conditions in airspace that is limited and predetermined in areas away from

general public, airports, heliports and vehicular traffic for community videos, and within property

1 Serial Number: SS3­WM6101410
Aaron Cantleberry, San Mateo CA ​Section 333 Exemption Petition

boundaries for individual homeowner real estate listing videos/photos. The exemption would

also provide safety enhancements to the already safe operations within the aerial photography,

film and television industry presently using conventional aircraft and small, unmanned and

relatively inexpensive UASs.

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

hobbyists with no safety plan or controls in place to prevent catastrophe. I operate my UAS

within all safety protocols and controls to avoid and prevent public hazard, as well as manned

2

aircraft hazards. This will act to further safety protocols exclusive to lightweight UAS's specific to

aerial video and photography usage as I record flight data and other information gained through

permitted flight operations to share with the FAA through any required FAA reports to assist with

future protocol and safety regulation.

Granting my request comports with the Secretary of Transportation’s (FAA Administrator’s)

responsibilities and authority to not only integrate UAS's into the national airspace system, but

to “...establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems [UAS's] in the

national airspace system” under Section 333 to the use of UAS's for commercial purposes.

Furthermore, I will conduct operations in compliance with the protocols described herein or as

otherwise established by the FAA.

For the reasons stated below I respectfully request the grant of an exemption allowing me to

operate remote controlled UAS’s for academic community awareness, benefit/stimulate tourism

within California, commercial aerial photography/videography, and to enhance real estate

photo/video listings. By implementing smaller UAS’s in roles stated above, heavier manned

aircrafts operating on combustible fuel would impose less of a threat to the public safety.

I. Contact Information:

Aaron Cantleberry

812 Jefferson Court

San Mateo, CA 94401

Mobile: (920) 698­6970

Email: cantleberry.aaron@gmail.com

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

Cantleberry Requests Exemption are:

2Safety Guidlines for UAS’s ­ http://knowbeforeyoufly.org/for­recreational­users/

2
Aaron Cantleberry, San Mateo CA ​Section 333 Exemption Petition

14 CFR 21;

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b);

14 CFR 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;

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) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 91.405 (a);

14 CFR 407 (a) (1);

14 CFR 409 (a) (2);

and, 14 CFR 417 (a) & (b).

III. The Extent of relief Aaron Cantleberry seeks and the Reason He Seeks Such Relief:

I, Aaron Cantleberry, submit this application in accordance with the Reform Act, 112 P.L. 95 §§

331334, seeking relief from any currently applicable FARs operating to prevent me, Aaron

Cantleberry, contemplated commercial cinematic, academic and other flight operations within

the national airspace system. The Reform Act in Section 332 provides for such integration of

civil unmanned aircraft systems into our national airspace system as it is in the public’s interest

to do so. My light­weight UAS meets the definition of “small unmanned aircraft” as defined in

Section 331 (6) and therefore the integration of my light­weight UAS is expressly contemplated

by the Reform Act. I would like to operate my lightweight UAS prior to the time period by which

the Reform Act requires the FAA to promulgate rules governing such craft. Thereby, providing

direct experience and valuable information for formal regulation that can be administered

uniformly to all UAS aerial video and photography. The Reform Act guides the Secretary in

determining the types of UASs that may operate safely in our national airspace system.

Considerations include: The weight, size, speed and overall capabilities of the UAS's; Whether

the UAS will be operated near airports or heavily populated areas; and, Whether the UAS will be

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

exemption for me, Aaron Cantleberry. My UAS utilizes four (4) counter­rotating propellers for

balance, control and stability. My UAS is equipped with GPS and auto return safety technology.

Weighing less than seven (7) pounds (far below the maximum 55 pound limit); including camera

with gimbal.

3
Aaron Cantleberry, San Mateo CA ​Section 333 Exemption Petition

I consider safety as foremost with each flight. My small unmanned aircraft is designed to hover

in place via GPS technology and hold it’s place in less than a 10 m/s wind knot (approx 22 mph)

wind. Built in safety systems include a GPS mode that allows my UAS to hover in place when

radio controls are lost. With three modes to choose from, I utilize the Positioning Mode for

3

aerial videography/photography. This is the safest, most reliable and stable mode to prevent

accident and hazard. When pilot communication is lost UAS is designed slowly descend to point

of takeoff , or near the control transmitter when utilizing Dynamic Mode. I do not operate my

UAS near airports, Hospitals nor Police heliports, and do not operate near areas where general

public is within fifty to one hundred (50­100) yards depending on location, conditions and

weather. I am constantly on alert for any manned aircraft (Police/Medical helicopters, etc.) and

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

aircraft approach my location or I suspect manned aircraft may approach near my location. My

UAS is capable of vertical and horizontal operations, and are flown only within my line of sight,

as the remote control pilot. Utilizing lithium ion battery power rather than combustible fuels,

flights generally last between eight (8) to twelve (12) minutes, with an altitude under two

hundred fifty (250) feet.

I utilize a fresh fully charged battery with each flight as a safety precaution; full flight time limit for

each battery is eighteen (18) to twentytwo (22) minutes as tested. I do not operate my UAS at or

below manufacture recommend minimum charge levels for operation; preferring to remain well

within a safe operating range to insure adequate communication between radio control and UAS

to eliminate potential for crash, loss of control or hazard. Reserve batteries are at hand with

each exercise to insure replacement for sufficient safe level of operation. I do not believe in

taking risk that may cause a crash, that could create hazard to the public/property/manned

aircraft, and have no desire to lose an investment. I have clocked numerous practice flights in

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

with the characteristics of this specific UAS's performance under different temperature and

weather conditions. I also practice computerized simulated flights to maintain adequate skills

and response reflex time. All for the sake of safety.

3 Positioning Mode includes GPS, Vision Positioning Sensors, and Barometer for position hold, self­leveling, altitude

command, GPS, return home and dynamic return to home feature, and safety control to return home or land in the

event of communication interruption between RC transmitter and UAS. See “Flight Mode” in Inspire 1 User Manual

4
Aaron Cantleberry, San Mateo CA ​Section 333 Exemption Petition

I am extremely cautious when operating of my UAS/ lightweight unmanned aircraft and will not

“create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public.” 112 P.L. 95 § 333 (b).

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

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

into the national airspace system. My UAS, the DJI Inspire 1, used in hobby flight, has a

demonstrable safety record and does not pose any threat to the general public or national

security.

IV. How Aaron Cantleberry’s Request Will Benefit the Public As A Whole:

Aerial videography for geographical awareness and for real estate marketing has been around

for a long time through manned fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. For small budget real estate

companies and average homeowners the expense of such aerial videography is cost

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

absorb such expense, depriving non­luxury homeowners and lower budget Realtors from a

valuable marketing tool.

The public’s interest is additionally furthered by allowing small businesses in the tourism

industry to afford the currently cost prohibitive aerial photography used by large international

corporations.

Congress has already proclaimed that it is in the public’s interest to integrate commercially flown

UAS's into the national airspace system, hence the passing of the Reform Act. Granting my

exemption request furthers the public interest through academic/visual awareness of the

geographical benefits in and around the State of California. My lightweight UAS is battery

powered and creates no emissions that can harm the environment. The consequence of my

light weight UAS crashing is far less than a full size helicopter or fixed wing aircraft; which are

heavy, contain combustible fuel, and can cause catastrophic results in property damage.

My UAS poses no such threat since size and lack of combustible fuel alleviates any potential

threat to the public. Additionally, this matter furthers the public’s interest by making it safer for

businesses to conduct aerial photography and videography without such risks.

5
Aaron Cantleberry, San Mateo CA ​Section 333 Exemption Petition

The public’s interest is furthered by minimizing ecological and crash threat by permitting aerial

video/photo capture through my battery operated lightweight UAS's. Permitting me to

immediately fly within national air space furthers economic growth. Granting my exemption

request substantially furthers the economic impact within the State of California for companies

looking to relocate or build in California as well as individuals looking to relocate for career

advancement through academic and geographical awareness. Both of which serve as a

stimulus to the community in the Silicon Valley.

V. Reasons Why Aaron Cantleberry’s Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect Safety Or How

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

My exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the contrary, for the reasons stated

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

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

yet undiscovered safety protocols for development in cooperation with the FAA. In addition I

submit the following representations of enhancements to current aerial videography and

photography:

A. My UAS weighs less than 7 pounds complete with a small camera;

B. I only operate my UAS within the 400 foot permissible ceiling set by the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012);

C. My UAS only operates for 18­22 minutes per flight;

D. I land my UAS prior to 20% Battery Remaining;

E. I pilot my UAS through remote control only by line of sight;

F. I pilot my UAS only with a visual observer;

G. My UAS has Failsafe RTH , a flight safety feature whereby it hovers and then

4

slowly lands if communication with the remote control pilot is lost for 3 seconds;

H. My UAS has GPS and a Vision Positioning System utilizing two sonar sensors

and one monocular camera for positioning and to identify the current aircraft’s

position;

I. My UAS has a sucessful flight recorder and I actively analyze flight data and

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

J. I only operate in reasonably safe environments that are strictly controlled, away

from power lines, elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas;

K. I conduct extensive preflight inspections and protocol per the Inspire 1 User

Manual;

L. I always obtains all necessary permissions prior to operation;

M. I immediately abort flights in the event of potential danger;

4 Return to Home Feature ­ Page 15 Inspire 1 User Manual

6
Aaron Cantleberry, San Mateo CA ​Section 333 Exemption Petition

N. I will not operate my UAS less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet

horizontally from a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the

PIC.

O. I follow the UAS manufacturer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul,

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements.

P. The operating documents/manual will be accessible during UAS operations and

made available upon request.

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

5

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

helicopters are the primary means of aerial video and photography for community awareness,

real estate, and commercial marketing purposes. While the safety record of such helicopters is

remarkably astounding, there have been incidents involving loss of life as well as extensive

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

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

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

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

procurement of necessary airworthiness certificates in relation to FAR § 91.203(a)(1).

The size, weight and enclosed operational area of my UAS permits exemption from Part

21 because my UAS meets the level of safety pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform

Act. The FAA is authorized to exempt aircraft from the airworthiness certificate

requirement under both the Act (49 U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform

Act. Both pieces of legislation permit the FAA to exempt UAS's from the airworthiness

certificate requirement in consideration of the weight, size, speed, maneuverability and

proximity to areas such as airports and dense populations. My current and projected

UAS's meet or exceed each of the elements.

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

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

FARs, this Regulation is inapplicable.

5 Operating within Flight Limitations & Procedures outlined in User Manual, visual meteorological

conditions (or VMC), & any Applicable FARs

7
Aaron Cantleberry, San Mateo CA ​Section 333 Exemption Petition

14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. As there are no

on board pilots or passengers, and given the size of the UAS's, this Regulation is

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

manual delineating areas of where safety can be defined. 10 The FAA has previously

issued exemptions to this regulation in Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 8738, 9299, 9299A,

9565, 9565B, 10167, 10167A, 10602, 10700 and 32827. 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 regarding

altimeter settings is inapplicable in so far as my UAS utilizes electronic global positioning

systems with a barometric sensor.

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

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

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

and registrations by me, Aaron Cantleberry.

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

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

certain specifications. My UAS are, by definition, unmanned. They therefore do not have

a cabin, cockpit or pilot station on which to mark certain words or phrases. Further, two

inch lettering is difficult to place on such small aircraft with dimensions smaller that

minimal lettering requirement. The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this

regulation through Exemptions Nos. 8738, 10167, 10167A and 10700.

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

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

operations. I, Aaron Cantleberry, can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved

by current Regulations because my UAS does not carry any pilots or passengers. The

risks attended to the operation of my UAS is far less than the risk levels inherent in the

commercial activities outlined in 14 C.F.R. § 61, et seq. Thus, allowing me to operate my

UAS meet and exceed current safety levels in relation to 14 C.F.R. §61.113 (a) & (b). In

addition, Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus), the FAA

determined that a PIC with a private pilot certificate operating the Astraeus UAS would

8
Aaron Cantleberry, San Mateo CA ​Section 333 Exemption Petition

not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on

the ground.

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

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

helicopters to be operated at lower altitudes in certain conditions. My UAS will never

operate at an altitude greater than 400 AGL. I will however operate my UAS in safe

areas away from public and traffic, providing a level of safety at least equivalent to or

below those in relation to minimum safe altitudes. Given the size, weight,

maneuverability and speed of my UAS, an equivalent or higher level of safety will be

achieved.

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

The above cited Regulations require, amongst other things, aircraft owners and operators to “have

[the] aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except

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

chapter. . . .”

These Regulations only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. They will not,

therefore, apply to my UAS. However, as a safety precaution I inspect my UAS before

and after each flight and maintained per the manufacturer’s aircraft/component,

maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements.

In summary, Aaron Cantleberry seeks an exemption from the following Regulations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

land, waterways, and oceans; operation over/in nonrestricted National Parks, National Forests,

9
Aaron Cantleberry, San Mateo CA ​Section 333 Exemption Petition

flight in nonnavigable airspace, using nonintrusive recording devices, operation in otherwise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aircraft with much less flight time.

Further, I operate controlled airspace eliminating potential public risk flying to and from

established airfields. I have been analyzing flight information and will compile safety protocols

and the implementation of a flight operations manual that exceeds currently accepted means

and methods for safe flight. Formal collection of information shared with the FAA will enhance

the FAA's internal efforts to establish protocols for complying with the FAA Modernization and

Reform Act of 2012. There are no personnel on board my UAS and therefore the likelihood of

death or serious bodily injury is significantly diminished. The operation of my UAS, weighing

less than 7 pounds and travelling at lower speeds within limited areas will provide an equivalent

level of safety as that achieved under current FARs. Accordingly I respectfully request that the

FAA grant my exemption request and am willing to cooperate based on regulations stated

above and keep public safety as my foremost concern.

Respectfully Submitted,

Aaron Cantleberry

812 Jefferson Court

San Mateo, CA 94401

10