U.S. Department of Transportation 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington DC 20591

Federal Aviation administration 

September 29, 2015

Exemption request 

By,

Mr. Jacob Cole Haddan

AirVideo Inc 

PO Box 370746

Denver CO 80237

Re: Summary Processing letter September 17th, 2015: Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA 

Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations from certain parts of the FARs

Dear Administrator: 

AirVideo inc. (applicant) herewith submits an amended request for exemption under section 333 

of the FAA modernization and reform act of 2012 (“reform act”) in response to the September 17th, 

2015 letter from Brittany Newton Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division, FAA. That letter, 

which requests additional information from applicant prior to processing its June 7th 2015 request for 

exemption is enclosed for FAA staffs convenience as attachment X. This filing makes no substantive 

change in the content of the June 7th 2015 filing; this letter simply adds the requested information. As 

before, Applicant seeks grants of an exemption request based upon Exemption in FAA docket FAA-2015-

2057 Margot Studios granted exemption as well as other referenced approved petitions. 

The requested exemption would allow Applicant to operate the Phantom 3 aircraft 

manufactured by DJI or other DJI Aircraft approved for commercial operations under prior exemptions. 

Applicant aircraft will be used to conduct aerial Video & Photography. Over open water and 

rivers. Over lines of railroad and other commercial locations, Expressways nonresidential and noncommercial large scale industrial areas. Over private property when commissioned and live news events. 

Applicant hereby applies for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs") to allow 

commercial operation of its small unmanned aerial vehicles ("sUAVs"), so long as such operations are 

conducted within and under the conditions outlined herein or as may be established by the FAA in an 

exemption granted under either Section 333 or Section 49 U.S. C. §44701 (f).
Public Interest & Benefit to the public as a whole;

As this exemption request is identical to the already issued precedent. This request should 

qualify for summary processing as the FAA has already provided public notice of and granted similar 

exemptions. The FAA has issued exemptions in circumstances similar in all material respects to those 

presented in this petition. In numerous exemptions, the FAA has found that the enhanced safety 

achieved using an unmanned aircraft ("UA") with the specifications described by the petitioners and 

carrying no passengers or crew, when compared to flights of much larger manned aircraft that carry 

crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the sUAV operation enabled by 

the exemptions serves the public interest & Benefits the public as a whole. In those cases, use of the 

proposed sUAV not only enhanced safety but also fulfilled the Secretary of Transportation's (the FAA 

Administrator's) responsibility to" ... establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft 

systems in the national airspace system."

Section 333(c) of the Reform Act.

References 

1) FAA Exemption No. 11138, Regulatory Docket No. FAA20140481 in the matter of the petition 

of DOUGLAS TRUDEAU

2) FAA Exemption No. 11136, Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2014–0508 in the matter of the petition of 

ADVANCED AVIATION SOLUTIONS LLC

3) FAA Exemption No. 11080 Regulatory Docket No. FAA20140355 in the matter of the petition of 

FLYING CAM INC

4) FAA Exemption No. 12252 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–2057 in the matter of the petition of 

Marcott Studios

Respectfully submitted, 

Jacob Cole Haddan
1

EXIBIT X 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington DC 20591

Federal Aviation administration 

June 7th, 2015

Exemption request 

By,

Mr. Jacob Cole Haddan

AirVideo Inc 

PO Box 370746

Denver CO 80237

Re: Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations from certain parts of the FARs. 

Dear Administrator: Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(the Reform Act) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Jacob Cole Haddan, a professional photographer, hereby applies 

for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) to allow him to operate a small 

Unmanned Aircraft System (“sUAS”) under the conditions and limitations set forth in this Petition. The 

requested exemption would permit the operation of small, unmanned and relatively inexpensive sUAS 

under controlled conditions in airspace that is (1) limited, (2) predetermined, and (3) would provide 

safety enhancements to the already safe news gathering operations presently using manned helicopters 

and airplanes in Colorado. Approval of this exemption would thereby enhance safety and fulfill the FAA 

Administrator’s responsibilities to “...establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft 

systems in the national airspace system.” 

Section 333(c) of the Reform Act. The name and address of the applicant is: Mr. Jacob Cole 

Haddan AirVideo Inc PO Box 370746 Denver CO 80237 720-210-7898 Email: jacob@jacobdenver.com

Address: 370746 Denver CO 80237 Regulations from which the exemption is requested: 14 CFR Part 21 

14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b) 14 CFR § 61.3 14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (a) 14 CFR § 91.9 (b) (2) 14 C.F.R. § 91.103 14 C.F.R. § 

91.109 14 C.F. R. § 91.119 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 14 CFR § 91.151 (a) 14 CFR § 91.203 (a) & (b) 14 CFR § 

91.205(b) 14 CFR § 91.215 14 CFR § 91.405 (a) 14 CFR § 407 (a) (1) 14 CFR § 409 (a) (2) 14 CFR § 417 (a) 

& (b) 3 The Appendix describes the FARs from which an exemption is requested and summarizes the 

justification for each requested exemption. The Petition is submitted to fulfill Congress’ goal under 

Section 333(a) through (c) of the Reform Act, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to consider 

whether certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system (NAS) 

before completion of the rulemaking required under Section 332 of the Reform Act.
2

In making this determination, the Administrator must 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). If the Administrator 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). The Secretary has delegated his 

aviation authority to the Administrator of the FAA. The Federal Aviation Act expressly grants the FAA the 

authority to grant exemptions from its regulatory requirements for civil aircraft, a term defined under 

§40101 of the Act, which includes sUASs. The Administrator may grant an exemption from a 

requirement of a regulation prescribed under subsection (a) or (b) of this section or any sections 44702-

44716 of the Federal Aviation Act if Administrator finds the exemption in the public interest. 49 U.S.C. § 

44701(f) See also 49 USC § 44711(a); 49 USC § 44704; 14 CFR §91.203 (a) (1). The petitioner is a 

professional contract photographer, who earns his living as a contract photographer for clients in 

Colorado. He has thus become familiar with both ground-based and aerial news photography over the 

course of several years. The wide availability of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, also known as 

“microdrones,” capable of carrying high-quality video cameras and priced at affordable levels intrigued 

the petitioner. His entire professional career has involved exploring new technologies and adapting 

them to capture good imagery to inform the public. In December 2013, I bought a Blade 350QX and a 

GoPro camera and has flown it for total of 100 hours over remote areas of the Rocky Mountains for 

recreational purposes, exploring the potential and the limitations of its video subsystem. He is pleased 

with the quality of the imagery captured and has edited it into a number of photographic vignettes that 

meet his high standards for technical quality and artistic merit. Now, a number of people, some 

professional colleagues and some strangers, have heard about Petitioner’s activities and have seen the 

results and are pressing Petitioner to undertake additional microdrone photography for compensation. 

He has been advised by counsel that this is not now permissible unless he obtains special permission 

from the FAA. Many competitors of Petitioner are actively flying sUAS to conduct aerial photography for 

commercial purposes, notwithstanding the FAA’s stated prohibition. He also notes and has read the 

congressional mandate in sections 332 and 333 of the FAA Revitalization and Reform Act of 2012 that 

the FAA move quickly to accommodate the economic and societal benefits that can result from 

widespread deployment of sUAS technology. Accordingly, Petitioner applies for authorization under the 

Federal Aviation Act, and the FARs rules to undertake the following activities for commercial purposes. 

Unless the Petition is granted, Petitioner will be at a significant competitive advantage if he, as he 

prefers, complies with FAA policy. 

Vehicle The Petitioner will fly a DJI Phantom 3 equipped with a three-axis gimbal and manufacture 

installed camera. This vehicle has built in capability to limit the height it flies above the ground, to limit 

the radius of this distance it flies from the operator, and to exclude it from class B, C, 5 and D airspace. 

The vehicle also has the built-in capability to return to the launching point if the wireless control link is 
3

interrupted or if the operator attempts to exceed any of the height, radius, or airspace limitations 

programmed into it. The vehicle weighs about five pounds empty and has a maximum gross weight of 

approximately twenty pounds. It has a top speed of about 30 knots. It has four fixed pitch rotors, thrust 

from which is varied by changing RPM. It is powered by a lithium polymer battery. Flight profiles The 

petitioner will program the Phantom 3 so that it will not fly above 400 feet above ground level, or more 

than 1500 feet away from him. He will carefully preflight the vehicle before each mission to assure that 

its compass and GPS system are properly calibrated and that the return-to-home feature, altitude, and 

radius limitations work. He will operate it on aerial photography missions only in the early morning 

hours and other times when few people are out and about. He will operate it only over largely 

unpopulated areas where the potential of uncontrolled descent to cause injury or damage is low He will 

not operate it in controlled airspace. In the unlikely event that a manned aircraft flies below 400 feet 

AGL where the petitioners operating his Phantom 3, he will keep both the vehicle and manned aircraft in 

sight and avoid the manned aircraft. More particularly, the Petitioner will fly the Phantom 3 only over 

the following types of areas in Metropolitan Colorado: 

 Over Rocky Mountains, outward to the east

 Over open water in marinas and rivers

 Over lines of railroad and rail classification yards 

 Over expressways 

 Over nonresidential and noncommercial large-scale industrial areas 

 Over private property when he has been commissioned by the person in legal possession of 

the property to do so 

 Over breaking news events subject to the following special limitations: He will retain a 

professional news helicopter pilot as a special consultant and undertake a period of ground training with 

that special consultant to understand the rules of thumb that ENG helicopter pilots follow to coexist 

safely with, and to provide occasional help to, law-enforcement and other public safety agencies. He will 

undertake a period of at least six hours flight training with the ENG pilot consultant to ensure that the 

Petitioner is proficient in anticipating and responding to situations over breaking news events that might 

interfere with the safe flight of police and other public safety helicopters, with ground operations, or 

with manned aircraft. The Petitioner's proposed operations satisfy the criteria provided in Section 333 of 

the Reform Act relating to size, weight, speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports and 

populated areas and operation within visual line of sight and national security. The Petition justifies 

grant of the requested exemptions allow the Petitioner to obtain aerial photography with his 

microdrone.

Respectfully submitted, 
4

Jacob Cole Haddan

Appendix 

FAR section Subject Justification 

14 CFR § 45.23(b) Requirement to display 

registration number on 

vehicle 

Insufficient space on 

vehicle 

14 CFR Part 21 Aircraft certification 

requirements and 

procedures 

Designed for manned 

aircraft; not suitable for 

off-the-shelf sUAS 

14 CFR § 61.3 Requirement for pilot 

certificate 

Part 61 requirements 

designed for manned 

aircraft, not sUAS; petition 

describes training for 

sUAS operator 

14 CFR § 91.7 (a) Airworthiness requirement Designed for manned 

aircraft; not suitable for 

off-the-shelf sUAS 

14 CFR § 91.9 (b) (2) Requirement for manual to 

be available in the cockpit 

No one aboard to read 

manual 

14 CFR § 91.103(b) Requirement for crew 

members to be onboard 

Unmanned vehicle 

14 CFR § 91.109 Requirement for dual 

controls during flight 

instruction 

No one aboard to operate 

controls 

14 CFR § 91.119 Minimum altitudes for safe 

flight 

Safety requires operation 

below these altitudes 

14 CFR § 91.121 Altimeter settings No one aboard to read 

altimeter 

14 CFR § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements Vehicle does not use fuel 
5

14 CFR § 91.203 (a) & (b) Requirement for 

registration and 

airworthiness 

certificates to be onboard 

No one aboard to read 

certificates 

14 CFR § 91.205(b) Cockpit instruments No one aboard to read 

requirement instruments 

14 CFR § 91.215 Transponder requirement Vehicle has insufficient 

useful load; will be 

operated below ATC radar 

coverage 

14 CFR § 91.405 (a) Inspection requirements Designed for manned 

aircraft; not suitable for 

off-the-shelf sUAS 

14 CFR § 91.407(a) (1) Inspection approval 

requirements 

Designed for manned 

aircraft; not suitable for 

off-the-shelf sUAS 

14 CFR § 91.409 (a) (2) Airworthiness inspection Designed for manned 

aircraft; not suitable for 

off-the-shelf sUAS 

14 CFR § 91.417 (a) & (b) Maintenance records 

requirements 

Designed for manned 

aircraft; not suitable for 

off-the-shelf sUAS