February 18, 2015 U. S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 NewJerseyAve, SE Washington, DC 20590
Re: Exemption Request Section 333 ofthe FAA Reform Act ofthe 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 requestthat I, Thomas Landecker, an owner and operator of small unmanned aircraft, beexempted from the Federal Aviation Regulations (" FARs") listed below so that I may operate my small ultra lightweight 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+ UnmannedAircraft System (UAS) with the intentto shoot aerial photographyandvideo 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 bythe 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. Forthe reasons stated below I, Thomas Landecker, respectfully requestthe grant of an exemption allowing meto operate my ultra lightweight, remote controlled UAS commercially in the northern California coastal area (see attachment 1 : Work

_Area.pdf). I submitthis 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 interestto do so. My ultra lightweight UAS meetsthe definition of " small unmanned aircraft" as defined in Section 331 and therefore the inte gration of my ultra lightweight UAS is expressly contemplated by the Reform Act. I would liketo operate my ultra lightweight UAS prior to the time period by which the Reform Act requires the FAAto promulgate rules governing such craft. I, Thomas Landecker, consider safety as foremostwith each flight. My small unmanned aircraft is designedto hover in place via GPS and operate in less than a 24 kph (15 mph) wind. For safety I will notfly in winds exceeding 16 kph (1 0 mph). Built in safety systems include a GPS modethat allows my UAS to hover in place when radio controls are released. When pilot communication is lostthe UAS is designedto slowly descend to the point oftake off. My UAS is capable ofvertical and horizontal operations, and I fly itwithin myvisual line of sight (as PIC), and with a second visual observer with whom I can communicate verbally at all times. Utilizing battery power rather


### 1than combustible fuels, flights generally last between ten (10) and twenty (20) minutes, with an altitude underfour 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 landthe UAwith 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 ofTitle 14 ofthe 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 ReliefThomas 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 ofan aircraftthat is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor maythat person, for compensation or hire, actas 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 propertyfor 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 oftotal time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot including at least 10 hours logged as a UAS pilot with a multi-rotor UAS. Also priorto operations conducted for the purpose ofaerial 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



### 2of 5 hours as UAS pilot operating the make and model ofthe UASto be used in operations under the exemption; 5 hours make and model time may be included in the 10 hours of multi-rotortime 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 relieffrom§ 91.7(a), saying
"the petitioner is still required to ensure that his aircraft is in an airworthy condition- based on compliancewith 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, exceptwhen necessaryfor takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes over other than congested areas: An altitude of 500 feet abovethe surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feetto 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 (priorto 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 presentthat 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 ofthe UA, flight operations must cease immediately. When considering howto immediately cease operations, the primary concern isthe safety ofthose nonparticipating persons. In addition, the FAAfinds 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 ofthe risk of operating closer to those objects and determinesthat 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 aircraftto maintain cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set "
...to the elevation ofthe departure airport oran appropriate altimeter setting available before departure." In Grant of Exemption No. 11138 (Douglas Trudeau) the FAAfound that considering the limited altitude ofthe proposed operations, relief from 14 CFR 91.121 was grantedto 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 condi
### 3tions 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 relieffrom 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 ofthe same part and shall, between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) ofthe same section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 ofthe 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 ofthe 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) ofthis section: (1) Records ofthe maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records ofthe 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft
. The records must include- (i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) ofthe work performed; and (ii) The date of completion ofthe work performed ; and (iii) The signature, and certificate number ofthe person approving the aircraft for return to service
. (2) Records containing the following information: (i) The total time in service ofthe airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each rotor. (ii) The current status of life-limited parts ofeach 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 ofthe aircraft, including the time sincethe last inspection required by the inspection program underwhich the aircraft and its appliances are maintained
.S (v) The current status ofapplicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, theAD or safety directive number and revision date. Ifthe AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and datewhen the next action is required
. (vi) Copies ofthe forms prescribed by§ 43.9(d) ofthis chapter for each major alteration to the


### 4airframe 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) ofthis 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) ofthis 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 ofthis 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 limitationsthe FAA set forth, describing the requirements for maintenance, inspection, and record keeping, were sufficientto ensure that safety is not adversely affected. Accordingly, the FAAfound that exemption from 14CFR 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 UASflight 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 thatwould allow meto 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 UASflight 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 ofthe country. However in the area along the northern California coast where I am proposing to fly my UAS, much (if not most) ofthe terrain isforested bytrees of sizable height; for any plane flying attree level a UAS isthe least oftheir 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 usesthetrees and geologyto stay safely below airporttraffic 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 ofthe 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 ofthese 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 ofthe nofly area described in item 1, upto a distance of 2 nautical milesfrom the airport area: UASflight allowed to a height no greaterthan any tree or structure within 200 feet of the UAS. This would impose no hazard or concern to air traffic.

53. 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. HowThomas 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 ofthe 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 selfevident. 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 HowThe 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 howthe 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 isto offerthe 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
6approved by the FAA (Exemption 11138 to Douglas Trudeau, among others) as having appropriate safety features and safeguards. I will fly commercially no higherthan 400ft. AGL though the vast majority offlights will be 100 ft. AGL and less. I only operate the UAS in VFR conditions (visibility greaterthan 3 statute miles), not lessthan 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontallyfrom 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 UAand/or debris in the event of an accident). I will determine priorto, 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 permissionfrom the land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from land owner/controller or authorized representativewill 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 flightand strict adherence to safety protocols, inspections, maintenance, rules and regulations.

VI. A SummaryThe 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 permitThomas Landecker to operate an UnmannedAircraft System (UAS) for the purpose of commercial photography andvideo imaging in an area along the northern California coast. In closing I, Thomas Landecker, believe that exemption from the above listedTitle 14 CFRs iswarranted 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 benefitto the local public both economically and educationally. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted,

# cr-~**~1/?_** 

# LIL___**Thomas~- L~---;:;,** 

7Attachments: 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

_DetaiI.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