RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

TIMOTHY M. RAVICH

CERTIFIED BY THE FLORIDA

BAR IN AVIATION LAW

May 27, 2015

James H. Williams

Manager

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office

AFS-80

800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Mr. Williams:

Enclosed please find an exemption application filed on behalf of Certified Productions, Inc. under

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11 to allow

It to conduct aerial photography for the motion picture and television industry for scripted closed 

set filming consistent with almost identical exemptions already granted by the Federal Aviation 

Adminsitration

Please contact me at travich@ravichlawfirm.com or at 305-213-1223 with any questions.

Best regards,

Timothy M. Ravich

Enclosures
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

TIMOTHY M. RAVICH

CERTIFIED BY THE FLORIDA

BAR IN AVIATION LAW

May 27, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Exemption Request 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, Certified Productions Inc. (“CPI”), the operator of Small Unmanned 

Aircraft Systems (“sUASs”), seeks exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations 

(“FARs”) to allow commercial operation of its sUASs—a DJI S1000, DJI Inspire 1, and DJI 

Phantom 3—to conduct aerial photography for the motion picture and television industry for 

scripted closed set filming, so long as such operations are conducted within and under the 

conditions outlined herein or as established by the FAA in an exemption granted under either 

Section 333 or Section 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f).1

CPI is willing to abide by conditions the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) has required in 

issuing recent Section 333 exemptions, specifically Exemptions Nos. 114440 to Wild Rabbit

Productions LLC (see Docket No. FAA-2015-0168), 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). 

CPI’s stipulations and the fact the FAA has issued grants of exemption for close set motion 

picture and television filming in circumstances and as to aircraft similar in all respects to the 

instant petition should give the FAA a basis for summary consideration and processing of this 

request.

 

1 The conditions proposed here are drawn from Order 8900.1 CHG 0, Volume 3, Chapter 8 

– Issue a Certificate of Waiver for Motion Picture and Television Filming.
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

Operations under the exemption will be subject to strict operating requirements and conditions

to ensure at least an equivalent level of safety to currently authorized operations using manned

aircraft and under conditions as may be modified by the FAA as required by Section 333.

Moreover, the requested exemption would authorize commercial operations of aerial 

photography for the motion picture and television industry for scripted closed set filming using 

sUASs with a maximum take-off weight of approximately 25 pounds. Operation of small 

unmanned UAS will be operated under controlled conditions at low altitude in airspace that is 

limited in scope, as described more fully herein; it will have automated control features, as 

described herein. The sUASs also will be operated by an individual possessing a private pilot 

certificate. Finally, the airspace in which the UAS will operate will be disclosed to the FAA in 

advance.

CPI respectfully submits that because its small, unmanned aerial vehicle will be used in lieu of 

comparatively hazardous operations now conducted with fixed wing and rotary conventional 

aircraft, the FAA can have confidence that the operations will achieve at least an equivalent 

level or greater level of safety. Approval of this exemption would thereby enhance safety and 

fulfill the Secretary of Transportation’s (the FAA Administrator’s) responsibilities under Section 

333(c) of the Reform Act to “establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft 

systems in the national airspace system.”

The name and address of the applicant are:

Certified Productions Inc.

Attn: Frank Arant

2314 Heavenly View

Henderson, Nevada 89014

Ph: 702-610-8675

Email: pilot675@gmail.com

Ravich Law Firm, P.A.

Attn: Timothy Ravich, Esq.

2155 Lake Baldwin Lane, 209

Orlando, Florida 32814

Ph: 305-213-1223

Email: travich@ravichlawfirm.com
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

The regulations from which the exemption is requested are as follows:

14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H

14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b);

14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. § 61.133(a);

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. § 109;

14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c);

14 C.F.R. § 91.121;

14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a);

14 CFR § 91.203 (a) & (b); 

14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a);

14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(1);

14 C.F.R. § 91.409(a)(2); and

14 C.F.R. § 91.417(a) & (b)

Appendix A discusses each rule listed above and explains why exemptions pursuant to the 

proposal set forth in this letter are appropriate, provide an equivalent level of safety, and are in 

the public interest. Appendix B provides the requisite Federal Register summary.

THE APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD UNDER SECTION 333

CPI submits that grant of this exemption application for use of small unmanned rotorcraft for the 

purpose of scripted, closed-set filming for the motion picture and television industry will advance 

the Congressional mandate in Section 333 of the Reform Act to accelerate the introduction of 

UASs into the national airspace system (“NAS”) if it can be accomplished safely. This law 

directs the Secretary of Transportation to consider whether certain UASs may operate safely in 

the NAS before completion of the rulemaking required under Section 332 of the Reform Act. In 

making this determination, the Secretary is required to determine which types of UASs do not 

create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public or pose a threat to national security in light of 

the following:

 The UAS’s size, weight, speed, and operational capability;

 Operation of the UAS in close proximity to airports and populated areas; and

 Operation of the UAS within visual line of sight of the operator.

Reform Act § 333(a)(1).
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

If the Secretary determines that such vehicles “may operate safely in the national airspace 

system, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft in the 

national airspace system.” Id. § 333(c) (emphasis added).2

The Federal Aviation Act expressly grants the FAA the authority to issue exemptions. This

statutory authority, by its terms, includes exempting civil aircraft, as the term is defined under 

§ 40101 of the Act, from the requirement that all civil aircraft must have a current airworthiness 

certificate and those regulations requiring commercial pilots to operate aircraft in commercial 

service:

The Administrator may grant an exemption from a requirement of 

a regulation prescribed under subsection (a) or (b) of this section 

or any of sections 44702- 44716 of this title if the Administrator 

finds the exemption is in the public interest.

49 U.S.C. § 44701(f). See also 49 U.S.C. § 44711(a); 49 U.S.C. § 44704; 14 C.F.R. § 

91.203(a)(1).

The grant of the requested exemption is in the public interest based on the clear direction in

Section 333 of the Reform Act; the additional authority in the Federal Aviation Act, as amended;

the strong equivalent level of safety surrounding the proposed operations; and the significant

public benefit, including enhanced safety and cost savings associated with transitioning to UASs

for the activities detailed.

Indeed, CPI’s sUAVs are rotorcraft weighing substantially less than 55 lbs. including payload. 

They operate, under normal conditions at a speed of no more than 50 knots and they have the 

capability to hover, and move in the vertical and horizontal plane simultaneously. They will 

operate only within VLOS and only within the sterile area described in the Confidential Motion 

Picture and Television Operations Manual and Flight Operations and Procedures Manual 

attached as Exhibit 1 (hereinafter “the Operating Manual”).3 Such operations will insure that the

UA will “not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public.” Accordingly, 

the applicant respectfully requests that the FAA grant the requested exemption without delay.

 

2 Applicant submits that this provision places a duty on the Administrator to not only process 

applications for exemptions under Section 333, but for the Administrator, if he deems the 

conditions proposed herein require modification to allow approval, to supply conditions for the 

safe operation of the UAS. CPI welcomes the opportunity to consult with FAA staff in order to 

address any issues or concerns that this proposal may raise that they believe may require 

modification.

3 FAA Licensed Commercial Pilots, a Certified Flight Instructor, a FAA Designated 

Engineering Representative, and members of the motion picture industry have reviewed this 

manual and have found it acceptable for UAV flight operations in the film and television industry. 

Applicant submits this manual as a confidential document under 14 C.F.R. § 11.35(b) as the 

entire manual contains private and proprietary information that is not available to the public and 

is protected from release to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et 

seq.
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

AIRCRAFT AND EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY

The applicant proposes that the exemption requested herein apply to civil aircraft that have the

characteristics and that operate with the limitations listed herein. These limitations provide for at

least an equivalent or even higher level of safety to operations under the current regulatory

structure because the proposed operations represent a safety enhancement to operations that

would be conducted with conventional aircraft. These conditions are drawn from Exemptions

11062 through 11067, 11080, and 11440. These limitations and conditions to which CPI (or 

“operator”) agrees to be bound when conducting commercial operations under an FAA issued 

exemption include:

1. The unmanned aerial vehicle weighs less than 55 pounds, including batteries 

and camera gimbal. Operations requested in this petition for exemption are limited to the 

following aircraft described in the proprietary operator’s manual: DJI S1000, DJI Inspire 1, and 

DJI Phantom 3 (“UA”). Proposed operations of any other UA will require a new petition or an 

amendment.

2. The UA shall not be flown at a speed exceeding a ground speed of 50 knots.

3. Flights must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground 

level (AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operator’s manual. All altitudes

reported to ATC must be in feet AGL.

4. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all 

times. This requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other than

corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued medical certificate.

5. All operations must 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 PIC 

must be able to communicate verbally at all times. 

6. The operator’s manual shall be maintained and made available to the 

Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in this 

exemption and the procedures outlined in the operator’s manual, the conditions and limitations

herein take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the

procedures as outlined in its operator’s manual. The operator may update or revise its

operator’s manual. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated 

and revised documents to the Administrator upon request. The operator must also present 

updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension or amendment. If the operator 

determines that any update or revision would affect the basis of this exemption, then the 

operator must petition for amendment to their exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office 

(AFS-80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operator’s 

manual.

7. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for 

safe flight. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the 

aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and 
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground Control Station shall be 

included in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and alterations shall be properly 

documented in the aircraft records.

8. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS 

operation or flight characteristics, e.g., replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo 

a functional test flight in accordance with the operator’s manual. The PIC who conducts the

functional test flight must make an entry in the UAS aircraft records of the flight. The

requirements and procedures for a functional test flight and aircraft record entry are included in 

the operator’s manual.

9. The operator shall follow the manufacturer’s UAS aircraft/component, 

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

maintenance manual with maintenance/component/overhaul, replacement, and 

inspection/maintenance requirements has been established and included in the operator’s 

manual.

10. The Pilot-In-Command (PIC) shall possess at least a private pilot certificate and 

at least a current third-class medical certificate. The PIC must also meet the flight review

requirements specified in 14 C.F.R. § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his/her 

pilot certificate.

11. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of motion picture filming (or similar

operations), the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. 

§ 61.51 (b), a minimum of 200 flight cycles and 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot 

and at least ten hours logged as a UAS pilot with a similar UAS type (single blade or multirotor). 

Prior documented flight experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable regulations 

may satisfy this requirement. Training, proficiency, and experience-building flights can also be 

conducted under this grant of exemption to accomplish the required flight cycles and flight time. 

During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for flight 

operations are considered non-participants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate

distance from non-participants in accordance with 14 C.P.R.§ 91.119.

12. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of motion picture filming, the PIC 

must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 C.P.R. § 61.51 (b), a

minimum of five hours as UAS pilot operating the make and model of UAS to be utilized for 

operations under the exemption and three take-offs and three landings in the preceding 90 

days. During training, proficiency, experience-building, and take-off and landing currency flights 

all persons not essential for flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must 

operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 C.P.R.§ 

91.119.

13. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of motion picture filming, the PIC 

and visual observer (VO) must have successfully completed a qualification process, as outlined 

in the operator’s manual. The test has been developed by the operator and shall be 

implemented by a qualified person designated at the sole discretion of the operator. A record of 

completion of this qualification process must be documented and made available to the 

Administrator upon request.
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

14. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of motion picture filming, a flight

demonstration, administered by an operator-approved and qualified pilot must be successfully 

completed and documented. This documentation must be available for review upon request by 

the Administrator. Because the knowledge and airmanship test qualifications have been 

developed by the operator, the petitioner will conduct these tests in accordance with the 

operator’s manual.

15. The UA may not be operated directly over any person, except authorized and 

consenting production personnel, below an altitude that is hazardous to persons or property on 

the surface in the event of a UAS failure or emergency.

16. Regarding the distance from participating persons, the operator’s manual has 

safety mitigations for authorized and consenting production personnel. At all times, those

persons must be essential to the closed-set film operations. Because these procedures are

specific to participating persons, no further FSDO or Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) approval is 

necessary for reductions to the distances specified in the petitioner’s manuals. This is consistent 

with the manned aircraft procedures described in FAA Order 8900.1, V3, C8, S1 Issue a 

Certificate of Waiver for Motion Picture and Television Filming.

17. Regarding distance from non-participating persons, the operator must ensure 

that no persons are allowed within 500 feet of the area except those consenting to be involved

and necessary for the filming production. This provision may be reduced to no less than 200 

feet if it would not adversely affect safety and the Administrator has approved it. For example, 

an equivalent level of safety may be determined by an aviation safety inspector’s evaluation of 

the filming production area to note terrain features, obstructions, buildings, safety barriers, etc. 

Such barriers may protect non-participating persons (observers, the public, news media, etc.) 

from debris in the event of an accident. This is also consistent with the same FAA Order 8900.1, 

V3, C8, Sl.

18. If the UA loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a 

predetermined location within the security perimeter and land or be recovered in accordance

with the operator’s manual.

19. The UA must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or 

emergencies in accordance with the operator’s manual.

20. Each UA operation must be completed within 30 minutes flight time or with 25% 

battery power remaining, whichever occurs first.

21. The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of 

Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of exemption.

This COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) not more than 

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

22. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be registered in 

accordance with 14 C.P.R. part 47.
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

23. The operator has developed procedures to document and maintain a record of 

the UA maintenance, preventative maintenance, alterations, status of replacement/overhaul

component parts, and the total time in service of the UA.

24. Each UA must comply with all manufacturer Safety Bulletins and firmware 

updates.

25. The operator has developed UA technician qualification criteria and they are 

included in the operator’s manual.

26. The preflight inspection accounts for all discrepancies, i.e. inoperable 

components, items, or equipment, not covered in the relevant preflight inspection sections of the 

operator’s manual.

27. The radio frequency spectrum used for operation and control of the UA complies 

with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government 

oversight agency requirements.

28. At least three days before scheduled filming, the operator of the UAS affected by 

this exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local FSDO with jurisdiction over 

the area of proposed filming. The 3-day notification may be waived with the concurrence of the 

FSDO. The requirements for a plan of activities and a sample form are in the operator’s manual.

29. The documents required under 14 C.F.R. § 91.9 and § 91.203 must be available 

to the PIC at the ground control station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. These

documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon 

request.

30. The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all other manned 

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

activities, parasailing activities, hang gliders, etc.).

31. UA operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 C.F.R. § 1.1. 

All operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights under 

special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized

32. The UA cannot be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle.

33. The UA may not be operated 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.

34. The UA may not operate in Class B, C, or D airspace without written approval 

from the FAA. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of the geographic center of a 

nontowered airport as denoted on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart unless a letter of 

agreement with that airport’s management is obtained, and the operation is conducted in 

accordance with a NOTAM as required by the operator’s COA. The letter of agreement with the 

airport management must be made available to the Administrator upon request.
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

35. Any 1) incident, 2) accident, or 3) flight operation that transgresses the lateral or 

vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported 

to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. 

Accidents must be reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions 

contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov. Further flight operations may not be conducted 

until the incident, accident, or transgression is reviewed by AFS-80 and authorization to resume 

operations is provided.

Unless otherwise specified by the Administrator, the PIC, and operator must comply with all 

applicable parts of 14 C.F.R. including, but not limited to, parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.

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

prior consent and knowledge. Inspection will be in areas where the owners will have consented 

to the inspections or otherwise have agreed to allow the UAS and the operator to be in the area 

where inspection will take place.

National Security. No national security issue is raised by the grant of this exemption. Given the 

size, load carrying capacity, speed at which it operates, and the fact that it carries no explosives 

or other dangerous materials, the sUAS poses no threat to national security.

In summary, CPI seeks an exemption from the FARs set forth in Appendix A to operate 

commercially a small unmanned vehicle (55 lbs. or less) in aerial photography for the motion 

picture and television industry for scripted closed set filming. Approval of this exemption for 

commercial aerial survey operations will enhance safety by reducing risk. Conventional 

operations, using jet or piston powered aircraft, operate at extremely low altitudes just feet from 

the subject being inspected and in extreme proximity to people and structures. Such manned 

operations present the risks associated with vehicles that weigh in excess of 6,000 lbs., carrying 

large amounts of jet A or other fuel. Such aircraft must fly to and from the project location. In 

contrast, a sUAS weighing fewer than six lbs. and powered by batteries eliminates virtually all of 

that risk given the reduced mass and lack of combustible fuel carried on board. The sUAS is 

carried to the target area and not flown. The sUAS will carry no passengers or crew and, 

therefore, will not expose them to the risks associated with manned aircraft flights.

The operation of small UASs, weighing less than 55 lbs., conducted in the strict conditions

outlined above, will provide an equivalent level of safety supporting the grant of the exemptions

requested herein. These lightweight aircraft operate at slow speeds, close to the ground, and in

areas that are under the control of the customer. As a result, they are far safer than

conventional operations conducted with manned aircraft operating in close proximity to the

ground and people. 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 

operation within visual line of sight and national security – provide more than adequate 

justification for the grant of the requested exemptions allowing commercial operation of 

applicant’s UAS for the Purposes outlined herein and are consistent with exemptions already 

granted, including Exemptions 11062 through 11067, 11080, 11109 through 11112, and 11114.
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

Sincerely,

Timothy M. Ravich, Esq.

Counsel for Certified Productions, Inc.

Cc: Frank Arant, Certified Productions, Inc.
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

APPENDIX A

14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H: Airworthiness Certificates 14 C.F.R. §91.203 (a) (1)

Subpart H, entitled Airworthiness Certificates, establishes the procedural requirements for the 

issuance of airworthiness certificates as required by 14 C.F.R. § 91.203(a)(1).

Given the size and limited operating area associated with the aircraft to be utilized by the 

Applicant, an exemption from Part 21 Subpart H meets the requirements of an equivalent level 

of safety under Part 11 and Section 333 of the Reform Act. The Federal Aviation Act (49 

U.S.C.§44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act both authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft 

from the requirement for an airworthiness certificate, upon consideration of the size, weight, 

speed, operational capability, and proximity to airports and populated areas of the particular 

UAS. In all cases, an analysis of these criteria demonstrates that the UAS operated without an 

airworthiness certificate in the restricted environment and under the conditions proposed will be 

at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an 

airworthiness certificate without the restrictions and conditions proposed.

The UAS to be operated hereunder is less than 55 lbs. fully loaded, carries neither a pilot nor 

passenger, carries no explosive materials or flammable liquid fuels, and operates exclusively 

within a secured and designated area. Unlike other civil aircraft, operations under this 

exemption will be tightly controlled and monitored by both the operator and under the 

requirements and in compliance with local public safety requirements. These safety 

enhancements provide a greater degree of safety to the public and property owners than 

conventional operations conducted with airworthiness certificates issued under 14 C.F.R. Part 

21, Subpart H.

Lastly, application of these same criteria demonstrates that there is no credible threat to national 

security posed by the UAS, due to its size, speed of operation, location of operation, lack of 

explosive materials or flammable liquid fuels, and inability to carry a substantial external load.

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

The regulation requires: 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.

Even though the UAS will have no airworthiness certificate, an exemption may be needed as 

the UAS will have no entrance to the cabin, cockpit or pilot station on which a registration mark 

can be placed. Given the size of the UAS, two-inch lettering will be impossible. In case, 

applicant will place markings on the UAS as large as practicable under 14 C.F.R. §45.29 (f).
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a) and (b): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: Pilot in Command.

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 61.113 (a) & (b), 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.

The proposed UAS operations may achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by current 

Regulations because the applicant’s UAS do not carry any pilots or passengers nor property. 

The risks attendant to the operation of UAS is far less than the risk levels inherent in the 

commercial activities outlined in 14 CFR 61. The PIC of the UAS will be, or be under the direct 

supervision of, a FAA Certificated Private Pilot with current Third Class or higher medical 

certificate. It is believed that the operation and limitations set forth in the operations manuals will 

equate to the safe operation of the UAS.

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

The regulation requires that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in airworthy 

condition.

As there will be no airworthiness certificate issued for the aircraft, should this exemption be 

granted, no FAA regulatory standard will exist for determining airworthiness. Given the size of 

the aircraft for maintenance and use of safety checklists prior to each flight, an equivalent level 

of safety will be provided.

14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual in the Aircraft.

Section 91.9 (b) (2) provides: No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft ... (2) For 

which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by § 21.5 of this chapter, 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.

The UAS, given its size and configuration has no ability or place to carry such a flight manual on 

the aircraft, not only because there is no pilot on board, but because there is no room or 

capacity to carry such an item on the aircraft. The equivalent level of safety will be maintained 

by keeping the flight manual at the ground control point where the pilot flying the UAS will have 

immediate access to it.

14 C.F.R. § 91.103: Preflight Action.

This regulation requires each pilot in command to take certain actions before flight to insure the 

safety of flight.

As FAA approved rotorcraft flight manuals will not be provided for the aircraft an exemption will 

be needed. The PIC will take all actions as stated in the operations manual for normal 

procedures including but not limited to reviewing weather, flight battery requirements, landing 

and takeoff distances and aircraft performance data before initiation of flight.
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

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

Section 91.103 provides 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.

UAS and remotely piloted aircraft, by their design do not have fully functional dual controls. 

Flight control is accomplished through the use of a control box that communicates with the 

aircraft via radio communications. The FAA has approved exemptions for flight training without 

fully functional dual controls for a number of aircraft and for flight instruction in experimental 

aircraft. The equivalent level of safety is provided by the fact that neither a pilot nor passengers 

will be carried in the aircraft and by the size and speed of the aircraft.

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

Section 91.119 establishes safe altitudes for operation of civil aircraft. Section 91.119 (d) allows 

helicopters to be operated at less than the minimums prescribed, provided the person operating 

the helicopter complies with any route or altitudes prescribed for helicopters by the FAA.

As this exemption is for a UAS that is a helicopter and the exemption requests authority to 

operate at altitudes up to 400 AGL, or not more than 200 above an elevated platform from which 

filming is planned, an exemption may be needed to allow such operations. As set forth herein, 

the UAS will never operate at higher than 400 AGL with the exception that in circumstances 

where the UAS is used to survey or photograph a structure whose height exceeds 400 feet 

AGL, the UAS will not be operated more than 200 feet above the highest point on the structure. 

It will however be operated in a restricted area with security perimeter, where buildings and 

people will not be exposed to operations without their pre-obtained consent.

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

well as the location where it is operated. No flight will be taken without the permission of the 

property owner or local officials. Because of the advance notice to the property owner and 

participants in the filming activity, all affected individuals will be aware of the planned flight 

operations. Compared to flight operations with aircraft or rotorcraft weighting far more than the 

maximum 55lbs. proposed herein and the lack of flammable fuel, any risk associated with these 

operations is far less than those presently presented with conventional aircraft operating at or 

below 500 AGL. In addition, the low-altitude operations of the UAS will ensure separation 

between these UAS operations and the operations of conventional aircraft that must comply 

with Section 91.119.

14 C.F.R. § 91.121 Altimeter Settings.

This regulation requires 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.”

As the UAS may not have a barometric altimeter, but instead a GPS altitude read out, an U.S. 

exemption may be needed. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the operator, 
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

pursuant to the safety check list and live flight data monitoring, confirming the altitude of the 

launch site shown on the GPS altitude indicator before flight.

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.”

The applicant believes that an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) falls within the scope of 

prior exemptions. Operating the UAS in a tightly controlled area where only people and property 

owners or official representatives who have signed waivers will be allowed does not engender 

the type of risks that Section 91.151(a) was intended to alleviate given the size and speed of the 

small UAS. The applicant believes that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by limiting 

flights to 30 minutes or 25% of battery power — whichever happens first. This restriction would 

be more than adequate to return the UAS to its planned landing zone from anywhere in its 

limited operating area.

14 C.F.R. § 91.203 (a) and (b): Carrying Civil Aircraft Certification and Registration

The regulation provides in pertinent part:

Except as provided in § 91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has within it the 

following:

An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate.

No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph 

(a) of this section 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.

The UAS fully loaded weighs well under the proposed 55-lb limit and is operated without an 

onboard pilot. As such, there is no ability or place to carry certification and registration 

documents or to display them on the UAS. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by 

keeping these documents at the ground control point where the pilot flying the UAS will have 

immediate access to them, to the extent they are applicable to the UAS.

14 C.F.R. § 91.405 (a); 407 (a) (1); 409 (a) (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.

Given that these sections and Part 43 apply only to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate, 

these sections will not apply to the applicant. Maintenance will be accomplished by the operator 
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

pursuant to the flight manual and operating handbook. An equivalent level of safety will be 

achieved because the UAS is very limited in size and will carry a small payload and operate 

only in restricted areas for a limited period of time.

If mechanical issues arise the UAS can land immediately and will be operating from no higher 

than 400 feet AGL. The operator will ensure that the UAS is in working order prior to initiating 

flight, perform required maintenance, and keep a log of any maintenance performed. Moreover, 

the operator is the person most familiar with the aircraft and best suited to maintain the aircraft 

in an airworthy condition to provide the equivalent level of safety.
RAVICH LAW FIRM, P.A.

www.ravichlawfirm.com  2155 Lake Baldwin Park, Ste. 209, Orlando, Florida 32814  travich@ravichlawfirm.com 

APPENDIX B

SUMMARY OF CPI SECTION 333 EXEMPTION REQUEST

For publication in the Federal Register, CPI hereby provides pursuant to Part 11 a summary of 

its exemption application to allow commercial operation of the DJI S1000, DJI Inspire 1, and 

DJI Phantom 3 unmanned aircraft in to conduct aerial photography for the motion picture and 

television industry for scripted closed set filming. An exemption is requested from the following

regulations:

The regulations from which the exemption is requested are as follows:

14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H

14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b);

14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. § 61.133(a);

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. § 109;

14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c);

14 C.F.R. § 91.121;

14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a);

14 CFR § 91.203 (a) & (b); 

14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a);

14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(1);

14 C.F.R. § 91.409(a)(2); and

14 C.F.R. § 91.417(a) & (b)

Please contact me at travich@ravichlawfirm.com or at 305-213-1223 with any questions.

Best regards,

Timothy M. Ravich