Harrison Bent, Sky Hive Media, PETITION FOR EXEMPTION, 7/22/2015

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

July 21, 2015 

SKY HIVE MEDIA, LLC’S PETITION FOR EXEMPTION TO 

OPERATE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF 

THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 

Proposed Use: Closed-Set Filming In The Motion Picture And Televisions Industries. In House 

advertisement and educational material. Advertisement and entertainment for use 

on the World Wide Web. Scientific data collection. 

Proposed Aircraft: DJI Phantom 3 Professional 

Petitioner’s Name and Address: 

SKY HIVE MEDIA, LLC 

Attention: HARRISON BENT

9325 SE Morrison, Portland, OR, 97216, USA

Phone: (503) 354-4008 

Email: harrison@skyhivemedia.com

1 of 11
Harrison Bent, Sky Hive Media, PETITION FOR EXEMPTION, 7/22/2015

I. Summary. 

Pursuant to Section 333(a) through (c) (“Section 333”) of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012 ("Reform Act")1 and the Federal Aviation Administrations’ (“FAA”) general 

exemption authority under 49 U.S.C. §44701(f), Sky Hive Media, LLC (“Petitioner”) petitions 

for exemption from 14 Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) sections: 61.113(a) & (b), 

61.133(a), 91.7(a), 91.9 (b)(2), 91.103(b)(1), 91.119 (c), 91.121, 91.151, 91.203(a) & (b), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a) & (b). The proposed exemptions, if granted, 

would allow Petitioner to operate small unmanned aircraft systems ("UAS") weighing 55 pounds 

or less for the purpose of closed-set filming of motion pictures, music videos, web videos, 

corporate videos, documentaries, television programs and commercials, and still photography. 

Additionally the collection of scientific data in FAA approved COE’s. 

Based on the small size of Petitioner’s UAS, and the controlled environments within 

which Petitioner will operate, the requested exemptions fall squarely within the zone of safety 

envisioned by Congress and set forth in Section 333. Additionally, the enhanced safety achieved 

by replacing significantly larger manned aircraft carrying crew and flammable fuel with small 

UAS carrying no passengers or crew and operated under the specific guidelines and procedures 

proposed by Petitioner gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operations enabled by this 

petition are in the public interest. Moreover, the requested exemptions are similar in all material 

aspects to the requests for which exemptions have been previously granted. Thus, the requested 

exemptions should be granted. 

II. Identity of Petitioner. 

Sky Hive Media is an Oregon Limited Liability Company presently managed by Harrison 

Bent, an upstanding member of society, dedicated to ensuring the safe operation of the UAS.

III. Statutory Authority for Exemptions. 

The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) possesses both 

general and specific authority to grant the requested exemption. 

First, the FAA Administrator may exempt an operator from FAA safety regulations and 

minimum standards when the Administrator concludes that the exemption is in the public 

interest. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, 44701(±) (permitting exemptions from§§ 44701(a), (b) 

and§§ 44702-44716, et seq.). A party requesting an exemption must explain why the exemption: 

(1) would benefit the public as a whole, and (2) would not adversely affect safety (or how it 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to the existing rules). See 14 C.F.R. § 11.81 

(petitions for exemption). 

Second, Section 333 of the Reform Act specifically authorizes the FAA Administrator to 

grant exemptions for operation of UAS. Indeed, the Reform Act directs the Administrator to (1) 

undertake formal rule making to speed up the integration of UAS into the national airspace 

(“NAS”) but in the meanwhile, (2) to permit unmanned aircraft systems to operate in the NAS if 

doing is in the public interest, does not pose a threat to national security, and does not create a 

hazard to users of the NAS, taking into consideration the following: 

2 of 11
Harrison Bent, Sky Hive Media, PETITION FOR EXEMPTION, 7/22/2015

 The UAS's size, weight, speed, and operational capability; 

 How close the UAS would operate to airports and populated areas; 

 That the operator would keep the UAS in his direct, visual line of sight. Thus, the FAA 

has full authority to grant the requested exemptions. 

IV. Specific Regulations for Which an Exemption is Sought. 

Petitioner requests exemptions from the following regulations: 

Section 61.113 prescribes that “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,” (see 

Section 61.113(a)), and that “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,” (see Section 61.113(b)). 

Section 61.133(a) sets forth privileges for persons holding commercial pilot certificates, 

including a provision impliedly limiting to persons holding a commercial pilot certificate the 

ability to act as pilot in command of an aircraft “[f]or compensation or hire.” 

Section 91.103(b)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot in command shall, 

before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight, 

to include, “For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended October 1, 2014 use, and the 

following takeoff and landing distance information:... For civil aircraft for which an approved 

Airplane or 5 Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, 

the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein.” 

Section 91.119(c) prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no 

person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: “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.” 

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; or (2) at night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes. 

Section 91.203 prohibits, in subpart (a), 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 

3 of 11
Harrison Bent, Sky Hive Media, PETITION FOR EXEMPTION, 7/22/2015

copy of the Aircraft Registration Application as provided for in October 1, § 47.31(c). Section 

91.203 prescribes, in subpart (b), 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 

the 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, preventative 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. 

Sections 91.417(a) and (b) prescribe, 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, preventative 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. 

4 of 11
Harrison Bent, Sky Hive Media, PETITION FOR EXEMPTION, 7/22/2015

(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 

revisions 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. 

V. Petitioner’s Proposed Operations Satisfy Section 333. 

A. Unmanned Aircraft System 

The UAS to be operated under this request are less than 55 lbs. fully loaded, will be 

operated at a speed of no more than 87 knots (See, e.g., Exemption No. 11289 (Bird’s Eye 

Solutions ), p. 3, Condition (“C.”) 3), carry neither a pilot nor passenger, carry no explosive 

materials or flammable liquids, and operate exclusively within a secured area. Petitioner’s UAS 

use a radio frequency spectrum for operation and control that complies with Federal 

Communications Commission (“FCC”) requirements.

Petitioner’s UAS are equipped with redundant safety mechanisms allowing them to 

operate safely after experiencing certain in-flight failures. If a lost-link event occurs, including 

the loss of ground communications and/or the loss of a GPS signal, Petitioner’s UAS have the 

ability to perform a pre-coordinated, predictable, automated flight maneuver and return to a 

predetermined location within a designated security perimeter for landing. The UAS further have 

the ability to abort a flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies. All flights will 

be terminated after a maximum of 30 minutes or with 25% remaining battery power, whichever 

5 of 11
Harrison Bent, Sky Hive Media, PETITION FOR EXEMPTION, 7/22/2015

occurs first. Thus, good cause exists for granting Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 

91.151(a) (setting forth fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions). 

Petitioner’s UAS will be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 

C.F.R. Part 47, and have identification (P77DCF26016805) markings in accordance with 14 

C.F.R. Part 45, Subpart C. Markings will be as large as practicable. 

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 (Altimeter Settings), 

Petitioner seeks such relief because Petitioner will not have a typical barometric altimeter 

onboard the UAS. Instead, altitude information will be provided to the UAS PIC via a digitally 

encoded telemetric data feed, which downlinks from the aircraft to a ground-based on-screen 

display. The altitude information will be generated by equipment installed onboard the UAS, 

using GPS triangulation, digitally encoded barometric altimeter, radio altimeter, or any 

combination thereof. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point will be established and 

confirmed for accuracy by the UAS PIC. Thus, good cause exists for granting the requested relief 

from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121. 

Given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft to be 

utilized by the applicant, an exemption from 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H (Airworthiness 

Certificates), subject to certain conditions and limitations, is warranted (if necessary) and meets 

the requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 C.F.R. Part 11 and Section 333. The 

UAS operated without an airworthiness certificate in the restricted environment and under the 

conditions and limitations proposed by Petitioner will be at least as safe, or safer, than a 

conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate issued 

under 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, and not subject to the proposed limitations and conditions. 

Petitioner will strictly comply with safety and maintenance procedures included in all 

applicable UAS manufacturer’s instructions and operating manuals. To the extent such 

information is not included in the guidelines developed by the manufacturers, Petitioners will 

develop and document maintenance, overhaul, replacement, and inspection requirements, 

procedures to document and maintain maintenance records with regard to Petitioner’s UAS, and 

UAS technician qualification criteria. Petitioner’s operations manuals will include maintenance 

requirements for Petitioner’s UAS, including “on- condition” maintenance and modifications. In 

light of these mitigating factors, exemptions from 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) are warranted. 

6 of 11
Harrison Bent, Sky Hive Media, PETITION FOR EXEMPTION, 7/22/2015

B. UAS Pilot in Command 

Petitioner’s UAS pilot in command (PIC) shall hold a valid driver’s license to satisfy the 

medical requirement. According to the FAA, “the FAA considers the overriding safety factor for 

the limited operations proposed by the petitioner to be the airmanship skills acquired through 

UAS-specific flight cycles, flight time, and specific make and model experience, culminating in 

verification through testing.” See Exemption No. 11062, Regulatory Docket No. 

FAA-2014-0352, at p. 18. With those factors in mind, Petitioner’s UAS PIC shall be required to 

meet several conditions and limitations, including the following: 

 The UAS PIC will have accumulated and minimum of 100 flight cycles and 25 hours of 

total time as a UA rotorcraft pilot and at least ten hours logged as a UA pilot with a 

similar UA type (single blade or multirotor). 

 The UAS PIC will have accumulated and logged a minimum of five hours of flight time 

with the specific make and model of the UAS to be utilized for operations under the 

exemption and three take-offs and landings in the preceding 90 days. 

 The UAS PIC will have read and have a firm understanding of the operations manuals, 

and obey local and national laws which govern flying a UAS.

 The UAS PIC will follow Sky Hive Media’s Flight Manual (Appendix A) which headings 

read: Flight Restrictions, Pre-Flight Processes, Pre-Flight Checklist, and Pre-Takeoff 

Checklist. 

 Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), it is Petitioner’s 

understanding that Petitioner’s UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance 

with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, and that exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a) is therefore 

unnecessary. To the extent such an exemption is deemed necessary, Petitioner asserts that it 

should be granted in light of the safety procedures proposed herein. In accordance with the 

pertinent part of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(b), the operator in command of Petitioner’s UAS shall be 

responsible for determining whether the aircraft is in a safe condition for flight. Petitioner’s 

manuals for maintenance and operations shall include safety checklists to be used by the operator 

in command prior to each flight. 

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2) (Civil aircraft flight 

manual, marking, and placard requirements and § 91.203(a) and (b), (Civil aircraft: certifications 

required), it is Petitioner’s understanding that relief from these regulations is no longer necessary 

in light of the FAA Memorandum “Interpretation regarding whether certain required documents 

may be kept at an unmanned aircraft’s control station,” dated August 8, 2014. To the extent the 

FAA deems an exemption from this section necessary for Petitioner’s proposed operations, such 

exemption should be granted in light of the mitigating fact that Petitioner will maintain the 

documents required under 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9 and 91.203 at the UAS ground control station 

during flights. Additionally, 100% of Petitioner’s operations will utilize a visual observer 

(“VO”). The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always 

maintains VLOS capability. The VO and the PIC will be able to communicate verbally at all 

times during operational flights. 

7 of 11
Harrison Bent, Sky Hive Media, PETITION FOR EXEMPTION, 7/22/2015

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103(b)(1), Petitioner will 

comply with the other applicable procedures and requirements stated in § 91.103(a) and (b). 

Specifically, the PIC will take all actions including reviewing weather, flight battery 

requirements, aircraft performance data, and landing and takeoff distances before initiation of a 

flight. The PIC will also account for all relevant site-specific conditions in their preflight 

procedures. Risks presented by sun glare will be mitigated by the PIC’s and VO’s ability to see 

other air traffic and initiate a return-to-home sequence if needed. 

C. Operating Parameters of Petitioner’s UAS 

Petitioner’s UAS operations will be conducted within a sterile environment of closed- set 

filming. In this controlled environment, Petitioner’s operations will remain within VLOS of the 

PIC and VO, below 400 feet AGL, and at speeds below 87 knots. See Exemption No. 11289, p. 

3, C. 3, 4) Only participating persons will be permitted within the operating area. Consistent with 

the relief typically provided to manned operations under FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 

8, Section 1, Petitioner requests relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c) with respect to those 

participating persons, vehicles, and structures directly involved in the performance of the actual 

filming. Regarding distance from participating persons, the operations manuals set forth safety 

factors for authorized and consenting production personnel. Because those procedures are 

specific to participating persons, no further FSDO or aviation safety inspector approval is 

necessary for reductions to the distances specified in Petitioner’s manuals. 

Regarding the distance from nonparticipating persons, Petitioner will ensure that no 

persons are allowed within 500 feet of the operating area except those consenting to be involved 

and necessary for the filming production, with the possibility of reducing this distance to no less 

than 200 feet if it would not adversely affect safety and the Administrator has approved it. This is 

consistent with FAA Order 8900.1, V3, C8, S1. 

Petitioner will not conduct UAS operations within 5 nautical miles of the geographic 

center of a non-towered airport unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is 

obtained and the operation is conducted in accordance with a Notice to Airmen (“NOTAM”). 

Additionally, Petitioner will not operate in Class B, C, or D 13 airspace without written approval 

from the FAA. Nor will Petitioner operate the 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. 

Petitioner’s UAS will remain clear and yield the right of way to all manned operations 

and activities at all times (including, but not limited to, ultralight vehicles, parachute activities, 

parasailing activities, and hangliders). 

Although Petitioner seeks to comply with the waiver process as described in FAA Order 

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1 (Issue a Certificate of Waiver for Motion Picture and 

Television Filming), the current section of Order 8900.1 has specific processes that preclude a 

jurisdictional FAA FSDO from issuing the required Certificate of Waiver, because the section did 

not originally provide for UAS operations. Thus, Petitioner seeks exemption from the applicable 

regulations normally waived during that process. Petitioner proposes that the FAA include the 

required notifications and coordination with jurisdictional FSDOs through the conditions and 

limitations accompanying the requested exemption, and that the exemption sought herein will 

8 of 11
Harrison Bent, Sky Hive Media, PETITION FOR EXEMPTION, 7/22/2015

take the place of the Certificate of Waiver normally issued by a jurisdictional FSDO under 

8900.1. Under this rubric, Petitioner will notify every FSDO with jurisdiction over the area that 

Petitioner plans to operate, just as with manned filming operations, and those FSDOs will have 

the ability to coordinate further conditions and limitations with the UAS Integration Office to 

address any local concerns. 

Petitioner will obtain an Air Traffic Organization (“ATO”) issued Certificate of Waiver or 

Authorization (“COA”) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of exemption. In 

fulfilling its requirements under the COA, Petitioner will be required to request a NOTAM not 

more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior to the operation. 

D. The Requested Exemption Promotes the Public Interest 

The enhanced safety achieved by replacing significantly larger manned aircraft carrying 

crew and flammable fuel with small UAS carrying no passengers or crew and operated under the 

specific guidelines and procedures proposed by Petitioner gives the FAA good cause to find that 

the UAS operations enabled by the instant Petition are in the public interest. Moreover, as the 

FAA has already recognized, “UAS provide an additional tool for the filmmaking industry, and 

the scientific community by adding a greater degree of flexibility, which supplements the current 

capabilities offered by manned aircraft.” See Exemption No. 11062, Regulatory Docket No. 

FAA-2014-0352, at p. 22. 

VI. Privacy 

All flights will occur over private or controlled access property with the property owner’s 

prior consent and knowledge. Filming will be of people who have also consented to being filmed 

or otherwise have agreed to be in the area where filming will take place. 

VII. Conclusion 

For the reasons explained above, the regulatory exemptions requests should be granted, 

and Petitioner should be permitted to conduct small UAS operations for the purpose of closed-set 

filming using the DJI Phantom 3 Professional UAS. 

Respectfully submitted, SKY HIVE MEDIA, LLC 

/s/ Harrison Bent

Harrison Bent

9 of 11
Harrison Bent, Sky Hive Media, PETITION FOR EXEMPTION, 7/22/2015

Appendix A – Flight Manual 

Sky Hive Media Flight Manual 

Flight Restrictions 

(1) No flight will be made with a UA Gross weight exceeding 55 pounds; 

(2) All operations must occur in FAA approved airspace at no more than 400' AGL, at 

an airspeed of 

no more than 87 knots and no further than 3/4 NM from the PIC; 

(3) All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The VO and PIC must be able to 

communicate 

verbally at all times during a flight operation; 

(4) Operations will be restricted to flights over private property with the permission of 

the property 

owner; 

(5) The PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 

61.51 (b), a 

minimum of 100 flight cycles and 25 hours of total time as a UA rotorcraft pilot and at 

least ten 

hours logged as a UA pilot with a similar UA type; 

(6) All required permits will be obtained from state and local government prior to 

operation; 

7) The UA will not be operated over densely populated areas; 

8) The UA will not be operated at air shows; 

9) The UA will not be operated over any open-air assembly of people; 

(10) The UA will not be operated over heavily trafficked roads; 

(11) The UA will not be operated within 5 NM of an airport or heliport without written 

permission 

Airport Manager. 

(12) Operations will be restricted to day only and weather conditions equivalent to 

VFR; 

(13) The PIC will brief the VO and property owner about the operation and risk before 

the first flight at 

each new location; 

(14) No flight may be made without a successful Pre-Flight Inspection by the PIC 

before each operation 

to ascertain that the UA is in a condition safe for flight. 

10 of 11
Harrison Bent, Sky Hive Media, PETITION FOR EXEMPTION, 7/22/2015

Pic Should Verify The Following Items Before Starting The PreFlight Process 

(1) Verify COA Approved

(2) Verify NOTAM Filed (if applicable)

(3) Verify FSDO coordination completed

(4) Verify closest Unicom/Tower Frequency for Monitoring. 

Pre-Flight Checklist 

(1) Check UA battery health (press self check button) verify 4 green bars illuminate

(2) Check all wiring connections are tight;

(3) Check all propellers are undamaged and no cracks exist in any structural members of 

the UA; (5) Turn on radio controller, move all control switches to forward or UP position 

and throttle control stick neutral position;

(6) Turn On UA power

(7) Await Aft Lights to flash green

(8) Turn on transmitter and camera. 

Pre-Takeoff Checklist 

(1) Confirm Green Lights on aircraft

(2) Confirm Observer is ready

(3) Confirm area cleared of all non-essential personnel. 

_________________________

PHANTOM 3 User Manual

Accompanying with this document you may find the Phantom 3 user manual. It has been 

decided into three parts to ensure a small file size. 

 Appendix A – PHANTOM 3 User Manual p1.pdf

 Appendix A – PHANTOM 3 User Manual p2.pdf

 Appendix A – PHANTOM 3 User Manual p3.pdf

11 of 11