Trenton Van Vickle – Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Page 1 of 7

September 6, 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. 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

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

Act), I, Trenton A. Van Vickle (the applicant), planned operator of Small unmanned 

Aircraft Systems (sUAS) equipped to conduct aerial photography and survey for various 

industries hereby applies for an exemption from Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to 

allow commercial operation of their sUAS, 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. 

Contact information 

Trenton A. Van Vickle 

1454 Hensley Rd 

Mineral, Virginia 23117 

Phone: (703) 608-1862 

Email: Trenton@VanVickle.biz

The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which I seek and exemption: 

Exemption Request Pursuant to Section 333 of the FMRA and Part 11 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations, Seeking Exemption from: 

14 CFR Part 21 Subpart H; 14 CFR § 45.23{b); 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b) 

14 CFR 91.119(c); 14 CFR 91.121; 14 CFR 91.151 

14 CFR 91.405; 14 CFR 91.407(a)(1); 14 CFR 91.409(a)(1) and (2) 

14 CFR 91.417(a) and (b) 

The extent of relief and the reason I seek the relief: 

I, Trenton A. Van Vickle, a private pilot, submit this application in accordance with the 

Reform Act, 112 P.L. 95 §§ 331-334, seeking relief from any currently applicable FARs 

operating to prevent me, Trenton A. Van Vickle, contemplated commercial cinematic, 

academic and other flight operations within the national airspace system. The Reform 

Act in Section 332 provides for such integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into 

our national airspace system as it is in the public's interest to do so. My, Trenton A. Van 

Vickle's, sUAS1 meets the definition of "small unmanned aircraft" as defined in Section 

331 and therefore the integration of my sUAS is expressly contemplated by the Reform 

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

 

1

 Appendix A 
Trenton Van Vickle – Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Page 2 of 7

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

experience and valuable information for formal regulation that can be administered 

uniformly to all related sUAS aerial video and photography. The Reform Act guides the 

Secretary in determining the types of sUAS that may operate safely in our national 

airspace system. Considerations include: The weight, size, speed and overall 

capabilities of the sUAS's; whether the sUAS will be operated near airports or heavily 

populated areas; and, Whether the sUAS will be operated by line of sight. 112 P.L. 95 § 

333 (a). Each of these items reflect in favor of an exemption for me, Trenton A. Van 

Vickle. My sUAS utilizes four (4) counter-rotating propellers for balance, control and 

stability. My sUAS is equipped with GPS and auto return safety technology. Weighing 

less than six (6) pounds (far below the maximum 55 pound limit); including payload.

I, Trenton A. Van Vickle, considers safety as foremost with each flight. Built in safety 

systems include a GPS mode that allows my sUAS to hover in place when radio 

controls are released. When pilot communication is lost sUAS is designed slowly 

descend to point of takeoff. I do not operate my sUAS near Hospitals nor Police 

heliports, and do not operate near areas where general public is within fifty to one 

hundred (50-100) yards depending on location, conditions and weather. I am constantly 

on alert for any manned aircraft (Police/Medical helicopters, etc.) and prepared to 

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

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

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

of sight and my visual observer (VO), as the remote control pilot. Utilizing battery power 

rather than combustible fuels, flights generally last between five (5) to fifteen (15) 

minutes, with an altitude generally under two hundred fifty (250) feet. I, Trenton A. Van 

Vickle, utilize a fresh fully charged battery with each flight as a safety precaution; full 

flight time limit for each battery is (25) minutes as tested. I do not operate my sUAS at 

or below manufacture recommend minimum charge levels for operation2; preferring to 

remain well within a safe operating range to insure adequate communication between 

radio control and sUAS to eliminate potential for crash, loss of control or hazard. 

Reserve batteries are at hand with each exercise to insure replacement for sufficient 

safe level of operation. I do not believe in taking risk that may cause a crash that could 

create hazard to the public, property, or other manned aircraft. I have logged3 numerous 

practice flights in remote areas as a hobbyist simulating flights for future commercial 

use to gain familiarization with the characteristics of this specific sUAS's performance 

under different temperature and weather conditions. I also practice computerized 

simulated flights to maintain adequate skills and response reflex time. All for the sake of 

safety. 

I, Trenton A. Van Vickle, am extremely cautious when operating of my sUAS will not 

"create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public." 112 P.L. 95 § 

333 (b). Given the small size and weight of my sUAS's it falls well within Congress's 

contemplated safety zone when it promulgated the Reform Act and the corresponding 

directive to integrate sUAS's into the national airspace system. Trenton A. Van Vickle's 

 

2

 Appendix B – Phantom Smart Battery Guidelines 

3

 Appendix B – Forms – Pilot Master Log 
Trenton Van Vickle – Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Page 3 of 7

sUAS, used in hobby flight, has a demonstrable safety record and does not pose any 

threat to the general public or national security. 

How the request would benefit the public as a whole: 

Aerial videography for geographical awareness has been around for a long time through 

manned fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. For small budget companies the expense of 

such aerial videography is cost prohibitive. Only large companies can afford to absorb 

such expense. Depriving lower budget business from a valuable marketing tool. 

Manned aircraft pose a threat to the public through potential catastrophic crash that this 

area has experienced in the past with military aircraft and medical helicopter crashes. 

Each resulting in loss of life. Each with combustible fuel that exploded and burned on 

impact. My, Trenton A. Van Vickle, sUAS pose no such threat since size and lack of 

combustible fuel alleviates any potential threat to the public. Congress has already 

proclaimed that it is in the public's interest to integrate commercially flown sUAS's into 

the national airspace system, hence the passing of the Reform Act. Granting my, 

Trenton A. Van Vickle, exemption request furthers the public interest through 

academic/visual awareness of the geographical benefits. My sUAS is battery powered 

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

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

heavy, contain combustible fuel and can cause catastrophic devastation to the public. 

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

aerial video/photo capture through my battery operated sUAS. Permitting me, Trenton 

A. Van Vickle, to immediately fly within national air space furthers economic growth. 

Granting my exemption request substantially furthers the economic impact for the 

companies looking to relocate or build as well as individuals looking to relocate for 

career advancement through academic and geographical awareness. Both of which 

serve as a stimulus to the community. 

Reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the 

exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to the existing rule: 

My, Trenton A. Van Vickle's, exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the 

contrary, for the reasons stated permitting me, Trenton A. Van Vickle, to log more flight 

time in FAA controlled airspace, with communication with the FAA, will allow me to 

contribute to the innovation and implementation of new and novel, as of yet 

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

Trenton A. Van Vickle, submit the following representations of enhancements to current 

aerial videography and photography: 

 My sUAS weighs 5.7 pounds including payload. 

 My sUAS will not exceed 16 m/s (31 Knots).

 My sUAS will only be operated by a person that is at a minimum a licensed 

private pilot, with at least a third class medical. 

 I only operate my sUAS well within the 400 foot permissible ceiling set by the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

 My sUAS will only operate for 5 -15 minutes per flight. 
Trenton Van Vickle – Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Page 4 of 7

 My sUAS meets or exceeds all FCC requirements4. 

 I land my UAS prior to manufacturer recommended minimum level of battery 

power. 

 I pilot my UAS through remote control only by line of sight of the PIC and the 

visual observer. 

 My UAS has GPS a flight safety feature whereby it hovers and then slowly lands 

if communication with the remote control pilot is lost. 

 I actively analyze flight data and other sources of information to constantly 

update and enhance safety protocols. 

 I only operate in reasonably safe environment that are strictly controlled, are 

away from power lines, elevated lights and actively populated areas. 

 I conduct pre-flight inspections5 and protocol6, during which safety carries 

primary importance. 

 I always obtains all necessary permissions prior to operation7.

My, Trenton A. Van Vickle's, safety protocols provide a level of safety equal to or 

exceeding existing rules. It is important to note that absent the integration of commercial 

UAS into our national airspace system, helicopters are the primary means of aerial 

video and photography for community awareness and real estate. While the safety 

record of such helicopters is remarkably astounding, there has been a local incident 

involving loss of life; it is far safer to operate a battery powered sUAS. 

First, the potential loss of life is diminished because UAS's carry no people on board 

and I only operates my UAS in specific areas away from mass populations. 

Second, there is no fuel on board a UAS and thus the potential for fire or explosions is 

greatly diminished. 

Third, the small size and extreme maneuverability of my UAS allow me to remotely pilot 

away from and avoid hazards quickly and safely. 

Lastly, given its small size and weight, even when close enough to capture amazing 

images, my UAS need not be so close to the objects they are focused on through the 

technology and use of post editing software allowing pan and zoom. 

Accordingly, my UAS has been experimentally operated for familiarization/competency 

and will continue to operate at and above current safety levels. 

A summary that can be published in the Federal Register 

14 C.F.R. 21 and 14 C.F.R. 91: Airworthiness Certificates, Manuals and the like. 

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

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

The size, weight and enclosed operational area of my, Trenton A. Van Vickle's, sUAS 

permits exemption from Part 21 because my UAS meets (and exceeds) an equivalent 

 

4

 Appendix B Forms – Pilot Master Log 

5

 Appendix B Forms – Flight Safety 

6

 Appendix B Forms – Preflight Check List 

7

 Appendix B Forms – Flight Request/Release 
Trenton Van Vickle – Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Page 5 of 7

level of safety pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act. The FAA Is authorized to 

exempt aircraft: from the airworthiness certificate requirement under both the Act (49 

U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit 

the FAA to exempt UAS's from the airworthiness certificate requirement in consideration 

of the weight, size, speed, maneuverability and proximity to areas such as airports and 

dense populations. My, Trenton A. Van Vickle's, current and projected UAS's meet or 

exceed each of the elements. 

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

certificate. 

As no such certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated by the FARs, this 

Regulation is Inapplicable. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. 

As there are no on board pilots or passengers, and given the size of the UAS's, this 

Regulation is inapplicable. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by maintaining 

a safety/flight manual delineating areas of where safety can be defined. The FAA has 

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

9299, 9299A, 9565, 95658, 10167, 10167A, 10602, 10700 and 32827. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.121 regarding altimeter settings. 

This is inapplicable insofar as my UAS utilizes electronic global positioning systems with 

a barometric sensor. 

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

and registrations. 

They are inapplicable for the same reasons described above. The equivalent level of 

safety will be achieved by maintaining any such required certifications and registrations 

by me, Trenton A. Van Vickle. 

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

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

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

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

two-inch lettering is impossible to place on such small aircraft with dimensions smaller 

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

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

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

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

helicopters to be operated at lower altitudes in certain conditions. 
Trenton Van Vickle – Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Page 6 of 7

My sUAS will never operate at an altitude greater than the standard of 400 AGL. I, 

Trenton A. Van Vickle, will however operate my sUAS in safe areas away from public 

and traffic, providing a level of safety at least equivalent to or below those in relation to 

minimum safe altitudes. Given the size, weight, maneuverability and speed of my sUAS, 

an equivalent or higher level of safety will be achieved. The UA may not operate within 

5 nautical miles of an airport reference point 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 NOT AM as required by 

the operator's COA. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be 

made available to the Administrator upon request. The FAA has previously issued 

exemptions to this regulation in exemptions No. 11067, 11158, 11161, 11166, 11167, 

11170 and 11172. 

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

The above-cited Regulations require, amongst other things, aircraft owners and 

operators to "have [the] aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and 

shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, 

have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter. . . . " 

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

therefore, apply to my, Trenton A. Van Vickle's, UAS. However, as a safety precaution I 

inspect my UAS before and after each flight. Log any discrepancies and repairs in the 

maintenance log8. 

A Summary The FAA May Publish in the Federal Register: 

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

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

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

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

21 because my, Trenton A. Van Vickle's, sUAS meets an equivalent level of safety 

pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act. The FAA is authorized to exempt aircraft 

from the airworthiness certificate requirement under both the Act (49 U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) 

and Section 333 of the Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit the FAA to exempt 

sUAS's from the airworthiness certificate requirement in consideration of the weight, 

size, speed, maneuverability and proximity to areas such as airports and dense 

populations. My UAS's meets or exceeds each of the elements. 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) 

prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an airworthiness certificate. As no such 

certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated by the FARs, this Regulation is 

inapplicable. 14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. As 

there are no pilots or passengers, and given the size of the UAS's, this Regulation is 

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

The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this regulation in Exemption Nos. 8607, 

 

8

 Appendix B Forms – Maintenance Log 
Trenton Van Vickle – Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Page 7 of 7

8737, 8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 95658, 10167, maintenance program that involves 

regular software updates and curative measures for any damaged hardware. Therefore, 

an equivalent level of safety will be achieved. 

Any additional Information, views or argument available to support your request. 

Currently, area awareness and aerial videography/photography relies primarily on the 

use of larger aircraft running on combustible fuel. Posing potential risk to the public. 

Granting my, Trenton A. Van Vickle's, request for exemption will reduce current risk 

levels and thereby enhance safety. My sUAS craft does not contain potentially explosive 

fuel, is smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than conventional video and 

photographic aircraft with much less flight time. Further, I operate at lower altitudes and 

in controlled airspace eliminating potential public risk flying to and from established air 

fields. I, Trenton A. Van Vickle, have been informally analyzing flight information and will 

compile safety protocols and the implementation of a flight operations manual for usage 

that exceeds currently accepted means and methods for safe flight. Formal collection of 

information shared with the FAA will enhance the FAA's internal efforts to establish 

protocols for complying with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. There are 

no personnel on board my, Trenton A. Van Vickle's, sUAS and therefore the likelihood 

of death or serious bodily injury is significantly diminished. My, Trenton A. Van Vickle's, 

operation of my sUAS, weighing less than 20 pounds and travelling at lower speeds 

within limited areas will provide an equivalent level of safety as that achieved under 

current FARs. Accordingly I, Trenton A. Van Vickle, respectfully request that the FAA 

grant my exemption request and am willing to cooperate in sharing information to 

benefit the FAA, safety of manned aircraft, and the general public at large. 

I do not wish to exercise the privileges of my exemption outside the U.S. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Trenton A. Van Vickle 

1454 Hensley Rd 

Mineral, Virginia 23117 

Phone: (703) 608-1862 

Email: Trenton@VanVickle.Biz