Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015

P a g e | 1 of 12

Erick F. Larsen

Consultant to Marc A. Menowitz

262 W. Linden Ave. # C

Burbank, LA, Ca 91502

818-732-0330

ErickLarsen@Outlook.com

July 20, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Marc A. Menowitz ’s Request (Petition) for Exemption from Certain Regulations per Section 333 

of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act) and 14 

C.F.R. Part 11, Marc A. Menowitz (Menowitz, Petitioner, or Operator) hereby applies for an 

exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to allow business use (commercial 

operation) of his Unoccupied (unmanned) Aerial System (UAS), so 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.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, Marc A. Menowitz, is a United States born citizen, with the following contact 

information, operating at:

737 S. Genesee Ave

L.A. Ca 90036

323-904-1940

Mam@22.bz

Petitioner, Marc Menowitz, has been building and operating model aircraft for more than twenty

(20) years. Petitioner currently maintains a duly issued US Passport and a Driver’s License issued by 

the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Moreover, as a sixth generation real estate 

developer, investor, and entrepreneur, petitioner is well suited to incorporate UAS operations into 

his existing businesses.

Small business is the backbone of America. Through years of UAS hobbyist experience, petitioner 

has developed numerous diverse prospective clients in need of safe and lawful commercial UAS 

aerial data collection (ADC) services. A small UAS business operated by petitioner will provide new 
Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015

P a g e | 2 of 12

jobs and an increased level of safety to clients currently in need of UAS ADC commercial services. 

Existing FAA UAS policy bars Petitioner from providing UAS ADC commercial services in the absence 

of the requested exemption. 

Petitioner seeks to operate UAS to conduct aerial data collection (ADC) which includes any remote 

sensing and measuring by an instrument(s) aboard the Unoccupied (Unmanned) Aircraft (UA). 

Examples include imagery (photography, video, infrared, etc.), electronic measurement (precision 

surveying, RF analysis, etc.), chemical measurement (particulate measurement, etc.), or any other 

gathering of data by instruments aboard the UA.

In particular Petitioner seeks authorization to conduct commercial UAS remote ADC, mapping, 

surveying, photography, filming, demonstrations, crew training, surveying, measuring, and 

inspections of (or for):

1.) Construction, architectural, engineering, insurance, risk management, security, real estate, 

resort, golf, cemetery, entertainment, sports, utility, energy (oil, gas, solar, wind, & electric), 

hydro (water), transportation (port, rail, truck, & bus), mining, bridge, 

telecommunications, agriculture (farming, ranching, & growing) flare stack, platform, tower, 

pole, and pipeline infrastructure, structures, sites, systems, features and operations; and,

2.) Environmental, scientific, conservation, climate change, natural 

resource, wildlife, oceanographic, forestry, weather, search & rescue, emergency 

services, humanitarian relief, public & private entity support, assistance and monitoring 

of infrastructure, structures, sites, systems, features, and operations; and,

3.) Research, education, crew training, development, testing, certification, and validation of 

safe and lawful commercial, hobby, and recreational UAS curriculum, education, and safe flight 

training, demonstrations, and events involving UAS design, manufacture, assembly, purchase, 

sale, maintenance, repair, inspection, safe operation, record keeping, and required FAA 

documentation.

Hereinafter, 1, 2, and 3, above, referred to as petitioner’s "proposed operations".

In support of his application, petitioner confidentially submits his proprietary Flight Operations 

Manual (FOM) and a flight manual for his DJI Phantom 3 professional (P3p). Petitioner’s P3p UAS 

has been duly registered with the FAA which has assigned registration number N557XM.

Specific Regulations for which an exemption is sought:

14 CFR 61.113 (a) 

14 CFR 91.7 (a) 

14 CFR 91.119 (b) & (c) 

14 CPR 91. 121

14 CFR 91.151 (a) 

14 CFR 91.405 (a) 

14 CFR 407 (a) (1)

14 CPR 409 (a) (1) & (2)

14 CFR 417 (a) & (b)
Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015

P a g e | 3 of 12

II. PETITIONER’S PROPOSED OPERATIONS DO NOT CREATE SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS

The P3p UAS utilized by Petitioner is an electric multi-rotor craft, weighing less than 55 lbs. 

including ADC payload. It operates at a speed of no more than 100 mph (87 knots) and has the 

capability to hover, and/or move in a vertical and horizontal plane simultaneously. It will only be 

operated as visual line of sight (VLOS), remain under 400 ft. above ground level (AGL), and will 

operate only over private or controlled access property with permission from the owner/controller 

of the property or authorized representative.

During petitioner’s proposed operations the site will be secured and non-participants will be kept 

at least 500 feet away from the operation unless barriers or structures are present that sufficiently 

protect non-participants in the event of an accident or loss of control.

Petitioner has drafted, and submits confidentially, his Flight Operations Manual (FOM) which 

discusses safety considerations, training, general operating procedures, specifications, inspection, 

maintenance, setup of the UAS, and other proprietary procedures for the proposed UAS 

operations. 

III. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED OPERATIONS ARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The FAA has issued a Grant of Exemption to FalconSkyCam for operations that are substantially 

similar to those proposed herein. Docket No. FAA-2014-0884 (March 6, 2015). In issuing the Grant, 

the FAA noted that "[t]he enhanced safety and reduced environmental impact achieved using a 

UAS with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or crew, rather 

than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to flammable

fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the 

public interest."

Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the FAA grant the requested exemption 

summarily and without delay.

IV. EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY

Petitioner proposes that his P3p UAS requested exemption with the characteristics and as operated 

with the limitations listed below, provide for at least an equivalent or even higher level of safety to 

operations under the current regulatory framework.

These limitations and conditions to which Petitioner agrees to be bound when conducting 

commercial operations under an FAA issued exemption include:

1.) The P3p UAS utilized by Petitioner will weigh Less than 55 lbs, operate at a speed of no 

more than 100 mph (87 knots), and will remain under 400 ft. (AGL).

2.) Flights will be operated only during daylight hours, only in visual meteorological conditions, 

and only within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command (PIC) of the UAS.
Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015

P a g e | 4 of 12

3.) All operations will utilize a visual observer (VO) in addition to the pilot in command (PIC).

4.) Maximum total flight time for each operational flight will be approximately 30 minutes, or 

when the Low Battery warning activates.

V. EXEMPTIONS REQUESTED

14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a) and (b): Private, Recreational, or Sport vs. Commercial Pilot Certificates

Sections 61.113 (a) and (b) prohibit private, recreational, or sport certified pilots from operating a 

traditional aircraft for compensation or hire. Petitioner proposes that his PIC will have at least a 

private, recreational, or sport pilot’s certificate, and a current FAA medical certificate or a valid U.S. 

driver’s license issued by a state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or 

the Federal government. Petitioner’s PIC will also meet the flight review requirements specified in 

14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate. 

Petitioner will not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstratesthe ability to safely 

operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under petitioner’s 

exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances 

from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and currency will be 

logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the 

petitioner’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience-building) and determining the PIC’s 

ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under 

petitioner’s exemption are requested by petitioner to be allowed under the terms of this 

exemption. 

Petitioner further proposes that such PIC and VO training operations will only be conducted during 

dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all 

persons not essential for flight operations will be considered nonparticipants, and the PIC will 

operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR §

91.119.

Based upon the above and for the reasons set forth in the FAA's grant of an exemption to Astraeus 

Aerial, Petitioner does not believe a commercial pilot certificate is necessary for the operations it 

intends to conduct. See, e.g., In the matter of the petition of Astraeus Aerial, Exemption No. 11062 

(issued Sept. 25, 2014). For those reasons, Petitioner requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 

61.113 (a) and (b).

14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

Section 91.7 prohibits operation of an unairworthy aircraft, and places responsibility for 

airworthiness determinations on the PIC. The UAS will not have an airworthiness certificate, and 

there is no FAA regulatory standard for determining airworthiness of the UAS. Additionally, 

Petitioner's operating documents, including FOM, set forth inspection and maintenance procedures 

to ensure airworthiness. For these reasons, and in accordance with the FAA's grant of an 
Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015

P a g e | 5 of 12

exemption from section 91.7 to Total Safety U.S., Inc., Petitioner requests an exemption from 14 

CFR. § 91.7(a). See, e.g., In the matter of the petition of Total Safety U.S., Inc., Exemption No. 

11156 (issued Jan. 29, 2015).

14 C.F.R. §91.119 (b) and (c): Minimum Safe Altitudes

Section 91.119 establishes safe altitudes for operation of civil aircraft. Section 91.119 (b) prohibits 

aircraft in congested areas from flying less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a 

horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. To the extent that Petitioner’s proposed operations 

would be considered to be in "congested areas," Petitioner's operational procedures, including 

FOM, and the size, weight and speed of the P3p UAS, provide an equivalent level of safety such that 

the proposed operations at lower altitudes should be allowed.

As described in his Flight Operations Manual (FOM), Petitioner will establish a 500' buffer/sterile 

area for its operations that will exclude personnel not associated with the operations. Petitioner 

will also exercise additional control over the sterile area as needed, as set forth in the FOM. 

Consequently, Petitioner believes these procedures will reduce or eliminate any potential adverse 

impacts to safety for operations in congested areas. Petitioner therefore requests an exemption 

from 14 CFR § 91.119(b).

Section 91.119 (c) prohibits operations in other than congested areas below 500 feet above the 

surface, or closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure. Since this exemption is 

for a UAS that flies similarly to a helicopter and requests authority to operate at altitudes up to 400 

AGL, an exemption may be needed to allow such proposed operations.

The equivalent level of safety will be achieved given the size, weight, speed of the UAS as well as 

the location where it is operated. As discussed above, Petitioner’s FOM provides for establishment 

of a sterile area, including safety buffers of 500 feet for personnel not associated with the 

operation. Petitioner therefore requests an exemption from Section 91.119(c) for all authorized 

personnel associated with the proposed operations.

14 C.F.R. §91.121 Altimeter Settings

This regulation requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain a 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." As the UAS may not have a barometric altimeter, but 

instead a constant GPS altitude read out, an exemption is requested.

14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

Section 91.151 (a) prohibits an individual from beginning "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."
Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015

P a g e | 6 of 12

Maximum total flight time for each of the proposed operations will be no more than 30 minutes. 

Flights will be safely landed when the battery falls below its nominal voltage, should that occur 

prior to completion of the operation. The petitioner’s P3p UAS has a constant battery voltage 

display and a Low Voltage LED Warning which alerts when the battery reaches pre-determined 

levels. This battery level would be more than adequate to return the UAS to its planned landing 

zone from anywhere in its limited operating area when the Low Voltage Warning alerts.

For these reasons, Petitioner requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151 (a). Similar 

exemptions have been granted to other operations, including Exemptions 2689F, 5745, 10673, and 

10808.

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

These regulations require that an aircraft operator or owner "shall have that 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 

...," and others shall inspect or maintain the aircraft in compliance with Part 43.

As provided in petitioner’s FOM, the operator and the PIC will ensure that the UAS is in working 

order prior to initiating each flight, and the operator will perform required maintenance and 

inspections, and keep a log of any maintenance performed.

VI.REGULATIONS FOR WHICH EXEMPTIONS ARE UNNECESSARY

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued numerous prior exemptions for many 

different types of UAS operations. In those exemptions, the agency noted that exemptions from 

certain regulations were not necessary, due to "the size, weight, speed and limited operating area 

associated with [the UAS] and its operation."

Based upon the FAA's guidance and the fact that petitioner’s UAS is even smaller and slower than 

many of those UAS in previously issued exemptions, Petitioner believes exemptions from the 

following regulations are not necessary:

14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H: Airworthiness Certificates. 

14 C.F.R. § 45.23 (b): Marking of the Aircraft.

14 C.F.R. §91.7(b): Civil aircraft airworthiness. 

14 C.F.R. §91.109: Flight instruction.

Petitioner also believes that an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103: Preflight Action is not 

necessary. This regulation requires each pilot in command to take certain actions before flight to 

insure the safety of flight. An FAA approved rotorcraft flight manual will not be provided for the 

aircraft. An equivalent level of safety will be provided as set forth in the FOM and operating 

documents submitted as part of this request.
Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015

P a g e | 7 of 12

The FAA has previously found that adherence to procedures contained in an applicant's operating 

documents demonstrate compliance with § 91.103, and therefore an exemption from the 

regulation was not necessary. See, e.g., In the matter of the petition of Total Safety U.S., Inc., 

Exemption No. 11156 (issued Jan. 29, 2015).

As detailed in his operating documents, petitioner's PIC will take all actions including reviewing 

weather, flight battery requirements, landing and takeoff clearance distances and aircraft 

performance data before initiation of flight to ensure the safety of the flight. Consequently, in light 

of this agency's prior finding in Total Safety U.S., Inc., Petitioner does not believe an exemption 

from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103 is necessary. 

If it is determined that the petitioner does require exemptions from any of the above provisions 

from which he has herein stated that he believes no exemption is required: Petitioner requests that 

such exemptions be granted upon the basis of all that he has stated in this petition and in his 

operating documents.

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the Federal 

Register, should it be determined that publication is needed:

Petitioner seeks an exemption from the following rules:

14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a) and (b); 91.7 (a); 91.119 (b) and (c); 91.121; 91.151 (a); 91.405 (a); 

91.407 (a) (1); 91.409 (a) (1) & (2) and 91.417 (a) & (b) to conduct aerial data collection 

(ADC) which includes any remote sensing and measuring by an instrument(s) aboard the 

Unoccupied (Unmanned) Aircraft (UA). Examples include imagery (photography, video, 

infrared, etc.), electronic measurement (precision surveying, RF analysis, etc.), chemical 

measurement (particulate measurement, etc.), or any other gathering of data by 

instruments aboard the UA.

Approval of exemptions allowing commercial operations of UAS for these purposes will 

enhance safety by reducing risk. Conventional means for performing these assessments 

require either physically climbing or scaling structures, poles or towers, using ropes to 

scale or rappel up or down poles, towers or structures, using high-reach man lifts to 

access the towers, poles, sites, or structures (limited reach), or by using conventional 

helicopters or traditional aircraft operating at extremely low altitudes over the subject 

structure, pole, site, or tower being examined. These conventional means all pose high 

risks to persons and property, including many actual human deaths each year.

In contrast, a UAS weighing less than 55 lbs. and powered by batteries, eliminates 

virtually all of that risk given the reduced mass and lack of combustible fuel carried on 

board. The UAS is carried by hand to the proposed operations site and not flown. The 

UAS carries no passengers or crew and, therefore, will not expose them to the risks 
Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015

P a g e | 8 of 12

associated with traditional manned aircraft flights; ground based aerial lift (bucket 

truck) operations, or manual climbing, scaling, and inspection operations.

The proposed operations of this small P3p UAS, weighing less than 55 lbs., conducted in 

the strict conditions outlined in this petition, will provide an equivalent level of safety 

supporting the grant of the exemptions requested, including exempting Petitioner from 

the requirements of Part 21 and allowing commercial UAS operations. These lightweight 

aircraft operate at slow speeds, and close to the ground, and, as a result, are far safer 

than the conventional alternatives.

Privacy

All of the proposed operations, UAS flights, will occur only over private or controlled 

access property with permission from the owner/controller of the property or 

authorized representative. Petitioner’s proposed operations will be conducted in

accordance with all applicable laws and regulations governing privacy at the venue of 

the flight operation.

VII. CONCLUSION

Petitioner has requested to use a P3p UAS for aerial data collection (ADC). The FAA has issued 

grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in this 

petition. In Grants of Exemption Nos. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0352), 

11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC (see Docket No. 

FAA−2014−0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0642), the FAA found 

that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned aircraft (UA) with the specifications 

described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of 

significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good 

cause to find that the UAS operation enabled by granting an exemption to petitioner is in the public

interest.

Upon review of petitioner’s reasons for requesting this exemption, It reasonably should be 

determined that:

1.)They are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in Grant of 

Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213;

2.)The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 

11213 also apply to the situation petitioner presents; and

3.)A grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, Petitioner 

should be granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 

61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 

and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow the petitioner’s proposed operations. 
Menowitz 333 Petition

July 20, 2015

P a g e | 9 of 12

Satisfaction of the criteria provided in Section 333 of the Reform Act of 2012 - size, weight, speed, 

operating capabilities, proximity to airports and populated areas and daylight UAS operations to 

within visual line of sight (VLOS) and national security - provide more than adequate justification to 

grant the requested exemptions allowing the proposed operations in the NAS by petitioner Marc 

Menowitz.

Respectfully,

/Signed/

Erick F. Larsen

Consultant to Marc A. Menowitz

262 W. Linden Ave. # C

Burbank, LA, Ca 91502

818-732-0330

ErickLarsen@Outlook.com