February 18, 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 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

from 14 CFR: 61.113 (a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.119 (c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b) 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

I, Thomas Landecker, am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 

the procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, to request that I, Thomas Landecker, an owner and 

operator of small unmanned aircraft, be exempted from the Federal Aviation Regulations (" FARs") 

listed below so that I may operate my small ultra light weight unmanned aircraft system (" UAS") 

commercially in airspace regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (" FAA"). As described 

herein I, Thomas Landecker, am a professional photographer within the State of California and an 

instrument rated private pilot. I own the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) 

with the intent to shoot aerial photography and video footage of homes and properties for real 

estate marketing purposes, as well as other projects including geographical documentation and 

artistic work (following exemption and approval by the FAA). I have personally instilled safety 

protocols and controls to avoid and prevent public hazard, as well as manned aircraft hazards/catastrophe. I will conduct my operations in compliance with the protocols described herein or as 

otherwise established by the FAA. For the reasons stated below I, Thomas Landecker, respectfully 

request the grant of an exemption allowing me to operate my ultra light weight, remote controlled 

UAS commercially in the northern California coastal area (see attachment 1: Work_Area.pdf). I 

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 my contemplated commercial photographic, 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 ultra light weight UAS 

meets the definition of " small unmanned aircraft" as defined in Section 331 and therefore the inte 

gration of my ultra light weight UAS is expressly contemplated by the Reform Act. I would like to 

operate my ultra light weight UAS prior to the time period by which the Reform Act requires the 

FAA to promulgate rules governing such craft. 

I, Thomas Landecker, consider safety as foremost with each flight. My small unmanned aircraft is 

designed to hover in place via GPS and operate in less than a 24 kph (15 mph) wind. For safety I 

will not fly in winds exceeding 16 kph (1 0 mph). Built in safety systems include a GPS mode that 

allows my UAS to hover in place when radio controls are released. When pilot communication is 

lost the UAS is designed to slowly descend to the point of take off. My UAS is capable of vertical 

and horizontal operations, and I fly it within my visual line of sight (as PIC), and with a second 

visual observer with whom I can communicate verbally at all times. Utilizing battery power rather 

1 
than combustible fuels, flights generally last between ten (10) and twenty (20) minutes, with an 

altitude under four hundred (400) feet. I only begin a flight if (considering wind and forecast 

weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the intended landing 

point and land the UA with 30% battery power remaining. 

I. Contact Information: 

Thomas F. Landecker 

POB 363 

The Sea Ranch, CA 95497 

tel: 707.785.9737 

cell: 415.864.8888 

email: tl@tlandecker.com 

Private Pilot Certificate# 3225586 

Owner, Piper Archer #N8444S 

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

Landecker Requests Exemption Are: 

61.113 (a) and (b) 

91.7(a) 

91.119 (c) 

91.121 

91.151 (a) 

91.405(a) 

91.407(a)(1) 

91.409(a)(1) and (2) 

91.417(a) and (b) 

Ill. The Extent of Relief Thomas Landecker Seeks and the Reason He Seeks Such Relief: 

Sections 61.113(a) and (b) prescribe that 

(a) 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. 

(b) 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. 

In Grant of Exemption No. 11138 (Douglas Trudeau) the FAA has found prior to operations the PIC 

must, at a minimum, hold a private pilot certificate, a third-class airman medical certificate, and 

the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR 61.51 (b), a 

minimum of 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot including at least 10 hours logged as a 

UAS pilot with a multi-rotor UAS. Also prior to operations conducted for the purpose of aerial videography/cinematography and augmenting real estate listing videos (or similar operations), the 

PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR 61.51 (b), a minimum 

2 
of 5 hours as UAS pilot operating the make and model of the UAS to be used in operations under 

the exemption; 5 hours make and model time may be included in the 10 hours of multi-rotor time 

prescribed above. The PIC must accomplish 3 take-offs and landings in the preceding 90 days (for 

currency purposes). I ask for the same exemption here. 

Section 91.7(a) prescribes that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy 

condition. 

In Grant of Exemption No. 11138 (Douglas Trudeau) the FAA granted relief from§ 91.7(a), saying 

"the petitioner is still required to ensure that his aircraft is in an airworthy condition- based on 

compliance with the operating documents prior to every flight, and as stated in the conditions and 

limitations" from the FAA. I ask for the same exemption here. 

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. 

In Grant of Exemption No. 11138 (Douglas Trudeau) the FAA found that relief from§ 91.119(c) was 

warranted provided adherence to the procedures in the operating documents and the FAA's additional conditions and limitations (prior to conducting UAS operations, all persons not essential to 

flight operations (nonparticipating persons) must remain at appropriate distances. In open areas, 

this requires the UA to remain 500 feet from all persons other than essential flight personnel (i.e. 

PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons). The FAA has also considered the UA's maximum 

gross weight of approximately 3 pounds. If barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently 

protect nonparticipating persons from the UA or debris in the event of an accident, then the UA 

may operate closer than 500 feet to persons afforded such protection. The operator must also 

ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where 

nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations 

must cease immediately. When considering how to immediately cease operations, the primary 

concern is the safety of those nonparticipating persons. In addition, the FAA finds that operations 

may be conducted closer than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles and structures when the owner/controller of any such vessels, vehicles or structures grants permission for the operation and the PIC 

makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determines that it 

does not present an undue hazard) are followed. I ask for the same exemption here. 

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." 

In Grant of Exemption No. 11138 (Douglas Trudeau) the FAA found that considering the limited 

altitude of the proposed operations, relief from 14 CFR 91.121 was granted to the extent necessary to comply with the applicable conditions and limitations stated subsequently by the FAA. I 

ask for the same exemption here. 

Section 91.151 (a) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR condi3 
tions 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. 

In Grant of Exemption No. 11138 (Douglas Trudeau) the FAA granted relief from 14 CFR 91.151 (a) 

with the condition that the PIC does not begin a flight unless (considering wind and forecast 

weather conditions) there is enough power to fly to the first point of intended landing and, 

assuming normal cruising speed, land the UA with 30% battery power remaining. I ask for the 

same exemption here. 

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner shall have that 

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, preventive 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) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an aircraft unless, 

within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has 

(1) had an annual inspection in accordance with part 43 and been approved for return to service 

by a person authorized under section 43.7, or 

(2) had an inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of 

this chapter. 

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribes, 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, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 

1 00-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. 

(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.S 

(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 revision 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 

4 
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. 

In Grant of Exemption No. 11138 (Douglas Trudeau) the FAA found that adherence to the petitioner's operating documents and the conditions and limitations the FAA set forth, describing the 

requirements for maintenance, inspection, and record keeping, were sufficient to ensure that 

safety is not adversely affected. Accordingly, the FAA found that exemption from 14 CFR 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1 ), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) was warranted. I ask for the same 

exemptions here. 

The FAA has recently released its proposal to change specific rules to allow the operation of UAS 

in the National Airspace System. These proposals would allow UAS flight within G airspace, which 

covers the entire area I am proposing to work within (see attachment 1: Work_Area.pdf). I would 

ask for an exemption that would allow me to work within G airspace as per the FAA's proposals. 

Failing that I suggest the following: Previously the FAA has imposed a blanket ban on commercial 

UAS flight within 5 NM of any airport reference point. Being the pilot of a small plane I understand 

and appreciate this, particularly as it relates to airports surrounded by flat terrain as it is in much 

of the country. However in the area along the northern California coast where I am proposing to 

fly my UAS, much (if not most) of the terrain is forested by trees of sizable height; for any plane 

flying at tree level a UAS is the least of their problems (see attachment: Houses_and_ Trees. pdf). 

Additionally the main airports in this area are situated in deforested areas on the tops of ridges 

where the land falls away to a valley on one side and the ocean on the other (see attachments: 

CA51_Terrain.pdf, CA51 _Trees.pdf, E55_Terrain.pdf, E55_Trees.pdf, Kritz.pdf, DeWilder.pdf). 

Allowing UAS flight by a knowledgable PIC who uses the trees and geology to stay safely below 

airport traffic would have no impact on that traffic. The Sea Ranch, where I live and plan to 

operate much of my commercial services is a small coastal community north of San Francisco, 

with a private airport (CA51) near it's south end, small public airport (E55) and medical helipad 7 

NM up the coast in the neighboring community of Gualala, and a private airport (53Cl) 4 NM 

further west. The airstrips are located in clear cut areas of forest on top of ridges with land 

decreasing in elevation on both sides of the runways. Additionally the air strips are surrounded 

by a forest of 75-100+ foot trees. I ask for the following flight restrictions in lieu of a total UAS ban 

within 5 NM of these airports: 

1. No UAS flight in the immediate airport area as defined by the deforested area immediately surrounding the runway, taxiways and approaches. 

2. Outside of the no fly area described in item 1, up to a distance of 2 nautical miles from the 

airport area: UAS flight allowed to a height no greater than any tree or structure within 200 feet of 

the UAS. This would impose no hazard or concern to air traffic. 

5 
3. Between 2 to 5 nautical miles from the air strip area: UAS flight allowed to a height of 200 ft. 

AGL. This would allow an increased ceiling as the terrain falls away from the airport. As all air 

traffic departing the air strip will be increasing elevation and all incoming traffic would be far 

above this level, this will have no effect to air traffic. 

4. Beyond 5 nautical miles from the air strip UAS flight allowed to 400 ft. AGL as per the FAA's previously determined restrictions 

(see attachment: Locai_Detail.pfd) 

IV. How Thomas Landecker's Request Will Benefit the Public As A Whole: 

I am a professional photographer and an IFR rated private pilot living at The Sea Ranch CA, a 

coastal community internationally renowned for it's distinctive architecture (see attachment: Utopia_By_The_Sea.pdf). Recently I was approached by local real estate agents who expressed a 

need for aerial photographs and video to aid in their marketing of houses and properties on The 

Sea Ranch and surrounding communities. As word spread that I was considering entering this 

field I was also approached by board members of the historic Point Arena Lighthouse (www.pointarenalighthouse.com) for both promotional aerial footage of the lighthouse itself and video 

inspection of potential erosion from the ocean in areas only accessible by UAS. The Sea Ranch is 

also a prime location for destination weddings (http://searanchlodge.com/celebrate/weddings) 

and other events where safe and legal aerial photos and video would greatly enhance the experience. As has been previously been discussed by other exemption applicants to the FAA (e.g., 

Douglas Trudeau, Exemption 11138), the cost, safety and ecological advantages of a small battery 

powered UAS over a small plane are self evident. The primary benefit I would bring to the public is 

the safety my knowledge and working practices will bring to the area while allowing them to 

benefit from the great tool that the UAS is. 

V. Reasons Why Thomas Landecker's Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect Safety Or How The 

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

I am an instrument rated private pilot with a Piper Archer (N8444S) currently hangared at Sea 

Ranch (CA51 ), and for several years prior to that hangared at Ocean Ridge in Gualala (E55). As 

past president of The Sea Ranch Flying Society I am very familiar with local air traffic and safety 

issues and am extremely concerned with how the proliferation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in 

the hands of non-pilots who are unfamiliar with local airspace could quickly lead to unintentional 

disaster. There is increasing pressure among the real estate community to utilize UAS photography, I have heard that several local agents are already flying unauthorized UA aircraft to photograph their listings and this is of great concern to me. My primary goal in going through this 

process is to offer the community a safe and legal means for obtaining the images they need. My 

proposal for limited, lower level airspace within 5 NM of airports has been well thought out from 

the perspective of an arriving or departing pilot and local air traffic: what I would not want to see 

and what would in fact be of no consequence. With my local knowledge and hand held aviation 

radio I am able to announce and monitor local traffic and avoid potential conflicts. I'm fearful that 

without access to this limited capability there would be "fly by night" operations by unqualified 

people putting others at great risk. The UA I use is the DJI Phantom 2 Vision Plus, already 

6 
approved by the FAA (Exemption 11138 to Douglas Trudeau, among others) as having appropriate 

safety features and safeguards. I will fly commercially no higher than 400ft. AGL though the vast 

majority of flights will be 100 ft. AGL and less. 

I only operate the UAS in VFR conditions (visibility greater than 3 statute miles), not less than 500 

feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from any cloud. On the ground I will post warning 

signs and only operate 500 feet from nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles and structures 

(unless barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from 

the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident). I will determine prior to, and continuously during 

flight that there is no undue hazard to essential persons, and cooperating vessels, vehicles or 

structures. All operations will be conducted over private or controlled-access property with permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from land owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted. Finally 

I bring to my UAS flying the same devotion to safety that I've learned and practice in my airplane 

flying: Complete familiarization with all aspects of any proposed flight and strict adherence to 

safety protocols, inspections, maintenance, rules and regulations. 

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

Thomas Landecker is seeking exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F. R. Sections 61.113 (a) 

and (b), 91.7(a), 91.119 (c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) 

and (b). This exemption will permit Thomas Landecker to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System 

(UAS) for the purpose of commercial photography and video imaging in an area along the 

northern California coast. 

In closing I, Thomas Landecker, believe that exemption from the above listed Title 14 CFRs is warranted and my requested working space near local airports should be allowed given my background as an instrument rated private pilot and my devotion to safety in the air and on the 

ground. Doing so would provide benefit to the local public both economically and educationally. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Respectfully submitted, 

cr-~ ~1/?_ L IL___ Thomas~- L~---;:;, 

7 
Attachments: 

CA51_No_Fiy.pdf 

CA51_ Terrain.pdf 

CA51_Trees.pdf 

DeWilder.pdf 

ESS_No_Fiy.pdf 

ESS_Terrain.PDF 

ESS_ Trees. pdf 

Houses_and_ Trees. pdf 

Kritz.pdf 

Locai_Detai I. pdf 

Phantom_2_ Vision_Pius_Disclaimer.pdf 

Phantom_2_ Vision_Pius_Pilot_ Training_ Guide_ v1.1 _en.pdf 

Phantom_2_Vision_Pius_Quick_Start_Guide_en.pdf 

Phantom_2_ Vision_Pius_User _Manual_ v1.8_en.pdf 

Phantom_Checklist.pdf 

Utopia_By _ The_Sea.pdf 

Work_Area.pdf 

8