# D. SCOTT RANKIN

Telephone: (740) 452-5403 Fax: (740) 452-8473

U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 NewJersey Ave. Washington DC 205950 Re: Exemption Request Section 333 

## Attorney atLaw 45 North Fourth Street 

### Zanesville, Ohio 43701

February 2, 2016

Operator's Name: Richard A. Davis /date ofbirth 06/09/1955 Operator's Address: 1305 Ellen Drive, Zanesville, Ohio 43701 

### Make and Model: DJI Phantom 3 Professional
To Whom ItMay Concern:
Pursuantto Section 333 ofthe FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Richard A Davis, hereafter referred to as "Petitioner", would like to apply for an exemption from the following Code ofFederal Regulations (C.F.R.) to be allowed commercial operation oflightweight Unmanned Aircraft Systems (VAS) for aerial imaging and video inthe Central Ohio area. 

### Proposed Operations: The operator is seeking to start a small part-time business ofaerial photography/videography/cinematography for geographical awareness and for real estate marketing and inspections. Videos and photos will be taken within property boundaries for individual homeowner real estate listings. Operations will only be performed atthe request of and with authorization ofclients. The Operatoris a retired sheriffsdeputy with overthirty years experience in law enforcement and is also a retiredjuvenile court administrator. 

### Why Granting Exemptions is in the Public Interest Aerial photography and videography has been around for a long time through manned fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. But for small business owners, its expense has been cost-prohibitive. Granting this exemption would allow the Petitionertoprovide this service at a much lower cost. Further, the small VAS's being utilized inthis application will pose no threat to the public given its small size and lack ofcombustible fuel when compared to larger manned aircraft. The operation ofthe VAS's will minimize ecological damage and promote economic growth by providing information to businesses and individuals in the Central Ohio area.No Adverse Impact to Safety Petitioner will abide by all FAArequirements to ensure this exemption will provide a level ofsafety at least equal to existing rules and will only operate in a safe environmentthat is strictly controlled. My exemptionrequest would permit operation ofultra-light weight, unmanned (Piloted by remote control) inpredetermined areas away from general public, airports, heliports and vehicular traffic, under 400 feet, during daylight hours and after carefully reviewing, inspecting and examiningthe area ofaerial observation. Petitioner will conduct extensive preflight inspections andprotocols, during which safety carriesprimary importance. This would allow for videos and photos within property boundaries for individual homeowner real estate listings. Ifgranted an exemptionthe Petitioner agrees to additional safety procedures including butnot limitedto: • Keeping my UAS within a radius distance of 1000 feet from the controller toboth aid in direct line ofsightvisual observation. • Operate my UAS for ten minutes per flight; land my UAS according to the manufacturer's recommended minimum level ofbattery power. • Operate my UAS only within visual line ofsight (VLOS) withthe assistance ofa spotter.• Use the UAS's global positioning system (GPS) flight safety feature; it hovers andthen slowly lands ifcommunication with the remote control. • Conduct all operations under ourflight safetyprotocols. • We will log each flight and battery use to and actively analyze flight data and other sources ofinformation to constantly update and enhance my safety protocols. • Contact respective airports ifoperations will be within 

### 5 miles to advise them ofthe estimated flight time, flight duration, elevation ofslight and otherpertinent information. • Always obtain all necessary permissions priorto operation. • Have procedures inplace to abort flights inthe event ofsafety breaches orpotential danger. Specific Regulations from which reliefis requested 14 CFRpart 21, Certificationprocedures for products and parts, Subpart H-Airworthiness Certificates, 14 CFR 61.23 (a) and (c), 61.101 (e) (4) and(5), 61.113 (a), 61.315 (a), 91.7 (a), 91.119 (c), 91.121,91.405 (a), 91.407 (a) (1), 91:409 (a) (1)and (2), and 91.417 (a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial photography, videography, and data collection. The petitioner also states that given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associatedwith the aircraft to be utilized byhim, an exemption from 14 CFRpart 21, Subpart H (airworthiness Certificates) and §91.203(a) and 

### (b) (Certifications required), subjectto certain conditions and limitations is warranted and meets the requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 CFR part 11 and Section 333 ofP.L. 112-95 (Section 333). Petitionerrequests and exemption from §45.23 Marking ofthe aircraft because the UA will nothave a cabin, cockpit orpilot station onwhichto mark certain words orphrases. Further he states thattwo-inch lettering is difficult to place on such a small aircraft with dimensions smallerthanthe minimal lettering requirement. Regardless ofthis, petitioner states that he will mark his UAs inthe largestpossible lettering byplacingthe word "Experimental" on itfuselage as required by §45.29(f) so thathe or anyone assisting him as a spotter will see the markings. The petitioner states that an exemption from §91.405(a), 91.407(a)(l), 91.409 (a)(2) and 91.417 (a) and (b) maintenance inspections may be required and should be granted since they only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. However, the petitioner states as a safety precaution he will perform a preflight inspection ofhis UAS before each flight as outlines inhis operating documents. UAS Pilot in Command (PIC) The petitioner asserts that under §61.113(a) and (b) private pilots are limitedto noncommercial operations, howeverhe can achieve an equivalent level ofsafety as achieved bycurrent regulations because his UAs does not carry any pilots orpassengers. Further he states that, while helpful, a pilot license will not ensure remote control piloting skills. He further indicates thatthe risks ofoperating a UAs are far less thanthe risk levels inherent inthe commercial activities outlines in 14 CFRpart 61, et seq., thus he request an exemptionfrom §61.113 Private PilotPrivileges and Limitations: Pilot in Command.

In closing, the petitioner believes that exemption from the above listed Title 14 CFR's is warranted given the nature ofthe type ofUAS flights that will be undertaken, the size and weight to the UAS being deployed, the safety precautions to the general public and the NAS the Petitioner intends to adhere to, the positive environmental impact the flight operations would 

### have compared to manned fuel consuming missions and the economic benefit the Petitioner's business would have inthis new area ofaviation.
Respectfully,

# {)ft~ D. Scott Rankin, Attorney for Richard A. Davis