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 17 th , 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 e xemption under section 333 of the FAA modernization and reform act of 2012 (“reform act”) in response to the September 17 th

, 2015 letter from Brittany Newton Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division, FAA. That letter, which requests additional i nformation from applicant prior to processing its June 7 th 2015 request for exemption is enclosed for FAA staffs co nvenience as attachment X . This filing makes no substantive change in the content of the June 7 t h 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. Ove r open water and rivers. Over lines of railroad and other commercial locations, Expressways nonresidential and non

commercial large scale industrial areas. Over private property when commissioned and live news events. Applicant hereby applies for an exempt ion 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 th e 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 p rocessing 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 t he 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, gi ves 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 Transportati on'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 Haddan1

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 t he 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 op eration 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
Addre ss: 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 justifi cation 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 saf ely 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 t he 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 l ine 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 ci vil 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 Aviati on 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 pe titioner is a professional contract photographer , who earns his living as a contract photogra pher for clients in
Colorado . He has thus become familiar with both ground

- based and aerial news photography ove r 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 R ocky 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 ha s 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 activ ely 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 ac tivities 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 a nd manufacture
installed camera. This vehicle has built in capability to limit the height it flies above the grou nd, to limit
the radius of this d istance 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 is3

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 p rogram 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 wher e 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 t he 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 posse ssion 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 pilo t 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 n ational 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 fuel5

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