PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 1

February 9, 2016

Manager, Flight Standards Service Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operat ion West Building Ground Floor Room w

- 12

- 140 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590



## Petition for Exemption

RE: Petition of Flyboy Drone Company for an Exemption under Section 333 of the FAA
Modernization and Reform A ct of 2012 and from certain rules of 14 C.F.R.

Dear Sir or Madam:

The followin g is a Petition for Exemption relating to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. Specifically, this Petition for exemption is filed by DMZ Marketing, LLC

., on behalf of Flyboy Drone Company for exemption from certain rules of 14 C.F.R. Flyboy Drone Company requests Exemption in a n effort to be granted permission to operate small Unmanned Aircra ft Systems (“sUAS”) commercially in the United States of America. These operations would be subject to the current rules and regulations , not stated herein as rules requested for exemption under Section 333, under the jurisdiction of the Department of Tra nsportation and the Federal Aviation Administration

. Additionally, all operations will adhere to str ict safety rules enforced by Flyboy Drone Company within their company

. These safety rules will be modeled after recommend ations made by the FAA and community

- based organizations such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics. Specific conditions relating to the safe operations of sUAS by Flyboy Drone Company will be covered in more detail in the
doc umentation to come, however

, basic flight safety parameters often cited by organizations such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics will be closely followed, such as operations at low altitudes and adequate distances away from airports, heliports, and approa ch areas to name a few.

As was established in Huerta v. Pirker

, an aircraft is, “any” “device” that is “used for flight.” 1 Clearly this broad definition encompasses the types of sUAS the petitioner, Flyboy Drone Company , plans on flying commercially within the United States of America and as such, are governed by the rules of 14 C.F.R. Petitioner Name: Flyboy Drone Company Petitioner Contact: Jason Phipps Petitioner Phone Number: 818

- 519

- 4129 Petitioner Email Address: jasonphippsfx@me.com Petitioner Address: 145 S. Glenoaks Blvd. #459 Burbank, CA 91502

Document Preparer : DMZ Marketing, LLC. Contact Person: Zach Fiene Phone Number: 608

- 370

- 2858 Email Address: dmzaerial@gmail.com Website: www.dmzaerial.com Address : 1501 Parkview Court Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 USAPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 2

Due to this, in the following Petition for Exemption and associated documentation, Flyboy Drone Company will establish clear reasoning as to why their particular commercial sUAS flights should be granted exemption and why their business should be exempt from certain parameters of 14 C.F.R.

A s has been established by the FAA ov er t he last year, sUAS pilots are allowed to petition for exemption from certain aircraft rules that may be inapplicable to sUAS craft or that may place an undue burden on a peti ti oner looking to turn their sUAS hobb y into a commercial business. Flyboy Drone Company would like to request exemption from certain parameters contained in 14 C.F.R. The specific rules for which Flyboy Drone Company requests exemption will be covered in further detail in the documentation to come, but, in summary, Flyboy Drone Company looks to be exempt from the types of rules that may limit or otherwise prevent their intent of operating sUAS commercially within the United States.

Furthermo re, t hese commercial operations would only be conducted after a granted Section 333 Exemption and within the outlined conditions below or that may be otherwise highlighted by the Federal Aviation Administration in their Exemption Approval Letter

.

With th e approval of this exemption, Flyboy Drone Company will be allowed to commercially operate their sUAS within the United States of America. Specifically, Flyboy Drone Company will be allowed to fly commercially with the DJI Phantom 2 Vision +

, DJI Phantom 3 Professional

, DJI Inspire 1

, DJI Matrice
100

, and 3D Robotics X8+

. Furthermore, Flybo y Drone Company will be opera ting their sUAS in furtherance of various applications within the following industries; Agriculture

, Cinematography

, Environmental Protection

, and Real Estate

. Details of these flight crafts; their manuals, safety parameters, operational checklists and more, along with these sUAS flight applications, will be expanded upon in more detail below.

In addition to Flyboy Drone Company ’s Petition for Exemption pertaining to the use of the
aforementioned aircraft and use

- cases, the granting of this Petition will also allow for the commercial operations of sUAS in Clas s G Airspace, below 400 feet Above Ground Level (“AGL”) , nationwide, or as
otherw ise granted in a Certificate of Authorization (“COA”). To start, Flyboy Drone Company will adhere

to the blanket Certificate of Authorization that is granted to each entity receiving an Exemption Number. This COA currently allows for flights nationwide, in Class G Airspace, below 200 feet AGL. 2 Further flight areas sought by Flyboy Drone Company will be applied for through the FAA’s COA Portal. Additionally, with the potential hazards and obstacles associated with low

- altitude flight

, Flyboy Drone Company will adhere to the Visual Flight Rule (“VFR”) minimums which apply to this airspace. Further details on these operational minimums will be discussed in the documentation to come.

The Petitio n for Exemption below provides details relating to the proposed applic ations of commercial sUAS use by Flyboy Drone Company

. Specifically, Flyboy Drone Company seeks exemption in an effort to conduct commercial operations within the following industries; Agriculture

, Cinematography

, Environmental Protection

, and Real Estate

.

In addition t o the v ariety of Industry applications highlighted above, this Petition for Exemption will also cover details on various methods of operation and sensor/imagery types for the various applications. Specifically, Flyboy Drone C ompany will incorporate a variety of sensor payloads on its sUAS in an effort to capture necessary imagery or data types for each specific application or use

- case. Examples of the payload technologies used on the sUAS include, but are not limited to; Vis ible Light Spectrum Imagery, Near Infrared ( “ NIR ” ) Imagery, Thermal Infrared Imagery, LIDAR, Se nsor Technologies , GPS Guidance,PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 3

Photogrammetry, Semi

- Autonomous and Autonomous Flight Controllers (For safety), Object Avoidance Systems, and more. With the da ta collected from these various sensor payloads, Flyboy Drone Company will be able to provide high quality data for representatives from the below

- highlighted industries.

 Agricultu re: High quality, actionable data can be utilized by farmers and their partner agronomists, crop consultants, field techs, and interns alike, to support their drive for higher yields and more efficient and ef fective farming practices.

 Cinematography: High resolution video and imagery can provide a new visual communication medium. With video content being one of the fas test

- growing communication mediums for marketing and entertainment, aerial cinematography via UAVs provides an innovative and cost

- effective strategy for capturing new content.

 Environmental Protection: High resolution video and imagery captured from the sky can provide various Environmental data

- sets which provide more information in many areas of study.

 Real Estate: High quality, high resolution imagery and aerial cinematography can provide a new perspective for property buyers, which allows for a new marketing piece for land developers and real estate agents to move properti es and thus create a stronger market.

The applications highlighted in this petition obviously p rovide high quality data to a variety of int erested parties in vari ous industries. However, sUAS have more to provide than just interesting pictures and efficient operations. There is also the enhanced safety sUAS provide not only for the operators of these systems, but also, the people around the m, communities as a whole, and the National Airspace System (“NAS”).

Within this Petition for Exemption you will find that the applications highlighted above

, along with the aircraft systems utilized by Flyboy Drone Company

, satisfy the conditions highlighted by the Federal Aviation Administration as requirements for a successful Section 333 Exemption Petition

. 3 Sp ecifically, the sUAS operating in furtherance of the industry applications above should;

1. Provide a benefit to the public as a whole, and;
2. Not adversely affect safety.

To answer these requirements this Petition for Exemption will highlight the public benefits provided by the proposed sUAS operations as well as show the positive affe ct these operations will have on safety. Specifically, it will be shown that the commercial sUAS flights proposed in this Petition further the public interest by satisfying what is sometimes referred to as the 3D’s or 4D’s of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (“UAV ”) Intervention

. 4 Basically, the “D” list provides a description of situations in which an unmanned vehicle should be used in place of a manned aircraft, more clearly, those situations in which an aerial operation is going to be; Dull, Dirty, Dangerous, or Deep

. 5 This list is often associated with early mili tary applications utilizing UAV s. The UK Ministry of Defense for example has used t his list in determining the role of Unmanned Aircra ft, highlighting the importance of Unmanned Systems in times where the operation is ; 5

 Dull

- flights require persistence or repetition.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 4  Dangerous

- flights carry a high degree of risk.  Dirty

- flights must be carri ed out i n hazardous environments, or;  Deep

- flights are beyond the range of manned platforms.

In addition to the justification that will be provided in detail in the pages to come relating to the 4 D’s of UAV Intervention and safety attributes of the sUAS Operations proposed in this Petition for Exemption, it is also important to quickly consider the aircraft types utilized by Flyboy Drone Company

.

As mentioned above, Flyboy Drone Company seek s exemption for the utilization of the DJI Phantom 2
Vision +

, DJI Phantom 3 Professional

, DJI Inspire 1

, DJI Matrice 100

, and 3D Robotics X8+

. All of these aircraft ar e small Unm anned Aircraft Systems and are battery

- powered. Operations conducted by Flyboy Drone Company with these sUAS will adhere to the guidelines set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration and Community

- Based Organizations su ch as the Academy of Model Aeronautics (“AMA”). Through the adherence of these guidelines Flyboy Drone Company will commercially ope rate their sUAS w ith an equivalent level of safety, if not superior level of safety, as outl ined by the Federal Aviation Administration’s Section 333 Exemption Guidelines.

Furthermore, the commercial sUAS operations being proposed by Flyboy Drone Company in this Petition for Exemption would produce far safer meth ods of data capture than currently

- used collection methods in which manned aircraft are used. Consider that manned aircraft weigh thousands of pounds, are made of metal, are powered by a combus tion engine, carry flammable fuel, and are carrying people.
P lus, with the type of data

- capture proposed in this Petition, a manned aircraft would have to operate in high

- risk situations, including, in close proximity to the ground where the risk of an accident is highest and the risk to people and property on the g round is the greatest. Contrasting the two aircraft types, it is clear that a plastic, battery

- powered, unmanned vehicle operating at low altitudes, would be muc h safer than a multi

- thousand

- pound metal aircraft, powered by a combustion engine, and carryi ng a person at low altitudes.

This fact is furt her bolstered by the operational and aircraft

- specific parameters giv en by the FAA when deciding whether or not to grant Section 333 Exemptions

. 6 These directives include ;

1. The size of the aircraft
2. The weight of the aircraft
3. The speed of the aircraft
4. The operational capability of the aircraft
5. The aircraft operation’s proximity to airports
6. The aircraft operation’s proximity to populated areas , and;
7. The aircraft operation’s ad herence to Visual Line of Sight Rules

As highlighted above, it is clear that this Petition for Exemption and both the aircraft types and applications state d herein, strictly adhere to the operational and aircraft

- specific parameters highlighted by the FAA for a successful Exemption Petition and thus, support the granting of this Exemption. A summary of the reasoning behind this statement can be found below as;

1. All proposed sUAS are Small
2. All proposed sUAS weigh below 55 lbs.
3. All proposed sUAS travel at l ess than 100 mph (87 Knots)PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 5 4. All proposed sUAS are capable flight systems and have been granted Exemptions previously
5. All proposed operations will take place at least 5 miles from an Airport
6. All proposed operations will take place in unpopulated area s (U nle ss prior approval is given {See Condition #34 [“ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption ”] below}) 7
7. All proposed operations will adhere to the Visual Line of Sight Rules

By adhering to t he parameters published by the FAA and by promoting the public good through the various Industry applications to be highlighted below, this Pe tition for Exemption on behalf of Flyboy Drone Company s trongly supports approval

.

We kindly ask for your consid eration of this Petition for Exemption. Please see the table of contents below for all our documentation and for assistance in reviewing this Petition. Thank you for your efforts in reviewing this document and we look forward to your response. If you ha ve any questions while reviewing this document, please do not hesitate to ask. You can contact the Preparer of this document for all questions relating to this petition and they can be reached by email at dmzaeria l@gmail.com

. Further contact information can be found at th e top of this Petition or on the following website s; www.dronefly.com or www.dmzaerial.com . Once again

, thank you for your efforts in reviewing this Petition for Exemption and we look forward to your reply.

Best Regards,

DMZ Marketing, LLC. (DMZ Aerial)



## Contact Information

Document Preparer:

DMZ Marketing, LLC. 1501 Parkview Court Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 USA
Contact: Zach Fiene Phone: 608

- 370

- 2858 Email: dmzaerial@gmail.com Website: www.dmzaerial.com

Petitioner:

Flyboy Drone Company 145 S. Glenoaks Blvd. #459 Burbank, CA 91502 Jason Phipps
818

- 519

- 4129 jasonphippsfx@me.comPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 6



## Disclosure

The Petitioner for this exemption is Flyboy Drone Company

, a company focused on providing high

quality aerial camerawork to Filmmakers, Real Estate Professionals, Farmers, and Conservation groups. Flyboy Drone Company purchased document prepara tion services through Dronefly, Inc. for the purpose of petitioning the FAA to be allowed to fly their s mall Unmanned Aircraft Systems commercially within the United States. Dronefly Inc., contracts DMZ Marketing, LLC. also known as DMZ Aerial, to help
fo rmulate these documents and work with the customer to help promote safe flying practices and appropriate operations. This is done through questionnaires, phone conversations, document preparation, training module creation, and more. If you have any quest ions relating to the Petitioner, Dronefly, Inc.

, or DMZ Marketing, LLC. (“DMZ Aerial”), please do not hesitate to contact us using the contact information provided above.



## Table of Contents

Petition for Exemption

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 1

Contact Information

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 5

Disclosure

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 6
The Applicant

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9
Commitment to Safety

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 10
Experience and Expertise

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10

Privacy

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 10
Publishable Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 11

Petitioner’s Contact Information

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 12
Proposed sUAS Operations

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 13
Small Unmanned Aircraft Syste ms

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 13

DJI Phantom 2 Vision +

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13

DJI Phantom 3 Professional

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 14

DJI Inspire 1

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 14

DJI Matrice 100

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 15

3D Robotics X8+

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 15

Unm anned Flight Crew

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 16
Unmanned Flight Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 16
Unmanned Flight Operations

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 17
Aircraft and Equivalent Lev el of Safety

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 18PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 7

National Security

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 18
Proposed Conditions of the Exemption

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18
Exemptions Requested & Applicable Conditions/Reasoning

................................ ................................ ... 24
14 C.F.R 21(h): Airworthiness Certificates

................................ ................................ .......................... 24

14 C.F.R. 27: Airworthiness Standards

- Normal Category Rotorcraft

................................ .................. 25
14 C.F.R. 43.7: Authorized Maintenance/Repair/Alteration Personnel

................................ ............... 25
14 C.F.R. 43.11: Dispositions of Records for Inspections

................................ ................................ ..... 25
14 C.F.R. 45.11: Making of Products

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 26
14 C.F.R. 45.23(b ): Display of Marks; General

................................ ................................ ..................... 26
14 C.F.R. 45.27: Marking of the Aircraft

– Rotorcraft

................................ ................................ .......... 26

14 C.F.R. 45.29: Size of Marks

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 27

14 C.F.R. 61.3: Requirement for Certificates, Ratings, and Authorizations

................................ .......... 27
14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) and (c): Medical Certificates

– Requiremen ts and Duration

................................ .... 28
14 CFR 61.101(e) (4) and (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations

................................ ......... 28
14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations

– Pilot In Command

.......................... 29
14 C.F.R. 61.315(a)(c): Privileges and Limits of Sport Pilot’s License

................................ ................... 30
14 C.F.R. 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

................................ ................................ ..................... 34

14 C. F.R. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual

................................ ................................ ................. 34
14 C.F.R. 91.9(c): Civil Aircraft Marking, Placards

................................ ................................ ............... 34
14 C.F.R. 91.103: Preflight Action

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 35
14 C.F.R. 91.105: Flight Crewmembers at Stations

................................ ................................ ............. 35
14 C.F.R. 91.109: Flight Instruction

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 36
14 C.F.R. 91.113( b): Right

- of

- Way Rules

................................ ................................ ............................. 37

14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes

................................ ................................ ......................... 38
14 C.F.R. 91.121: Altimeter Settings

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 39
14 C.F.R. 91.151(a) : Fuel Requirements for VFR Flight Conditions

................................ ...................... 40
14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) and (b): Civil Aircraft

– Certifications Required

................................ ..................... 41
14 C.F.R. 215: ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use

................................ ..... 41

14 C.F.R. 91.403: General

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 43
14 C.F.R. 91.405(a): Maintenance Re quired

................................ ................................ ....................... 44
14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1): Operation after Maintenance or Alteration

................................ .................... 44
14 C.F.R. 409(a)(1) and (2): Inspections

................................ ................................ .............................. 44
14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance Records

................................ ................................ ............. 45PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 8

Privacy

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 46
Public Interest and Safety

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 46
Agriculture

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 47
Cinematography

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 51

Environmental Protection

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 53

Real Estate

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 55

R egulations Requested for Exemption

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 57
Appendix 1: Regulations Requested for Exemption

– List

................................ ................................ ... 57

Exhibit List

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 57

Exhibit 1: Flyboy Drone Company Operations Manual

................................ ................................ ........ 57
Exhibit 2: Flyboy Drone Company Logbook Example

................................ ................................ .......... 57
Exhibit 3: Flyboy Drone Company Visual Observer Training Procedures & Guide

................................ 58
Visual Observer Training Procedures

................................ ................................ .............................. 58
Visual Observer Training Guide

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 58
Exhibit 4: Flyboy Drone Company Pilot In Command Training Guide

................................ .................. 58
Pilot In Command Training Procedures

................................ ................................ .......................... 58
Pilot in Command Training Guide

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 58

Exhibit 5: DJI Phanto m 2 Vision +

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 59

Exhibit 6: DJI Phantom 2 Vision + User Manual

................................ ................................ .................. 59

Exhibit 7: DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Quick Start Guide

................................ ................................ ........... 59

Exhibit 8 : DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Features

................................ ................................ ......................... 59
Exhibit 9: DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Specifications

................................ ................................ ................. 59
Exhibit 10: DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Flight Controller User Manual

................................ ...................... 59
Exhibit 11: DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Smart Battery Manual

................................ ................................ .. 59

Exhibit 12: DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Pilot Traini ng Guide

................................ ................................ ...... 60

Exhibit 13: DJI Phantom 3 Professional

................................ ................................ .............................. 60

Exhibit 14: DJI Phantom 3 Professional User Manual

................................ ................................ .......... 60

Exhibit 15: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Quick Start Guide

................................ ................................ .. 60

Exhibit 16: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Features

................................ ................................ ................ 60
Exhibit 17: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Specifications

................................ ................................ ........ 60
Exhibit 18: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Flight Controller System

................................ ........................ 60
Exhibit 19: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Smart Battery Manual

................................ ........................... 61
Exhibit 20: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Safety/Preflight Checklist and Guidelines Training

................. 61PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 9

Exhibit 21: DJI Inspire 1

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 61
Exhibit 22: DJI Inspire 1 User Manual

................................ ................................ ................................ . 61
Exhibit 23: DJI Inspire 1 Quick Start Guide

................................ ................................ .......................... 61
Exhibit 24: DJI Inspire 1 Features

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 61
Exhibit 25: DJI Inspire 1 Specifications

................................ ................................ ................................ 61
Exhibit 26: DJI Inspire 1 Flight Controller System

................................ ................................ ................ 61
Exhibit 27: DJI Inspire 1 Smart Battery Manual

................................ ................................ ................... 62

Exhibit 28: DJI Matrice 100

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 62

Exhibit 29: DJI Matrice 100 User Manual

................................ ................................ ............................ 62

Exhibit 30: DJI Matrice 100 Features

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 62

Exhibit 31 : DJI Matrice 100 Specifications

................................ ................................ .......................... 62
Exhibit 32: DJI Matrice 100 Smart Battery Manual

................................ ................................ ............. 62

Exhibit 33: 3D Robotics X8+

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 62

Exhibit 34: 3 D Robotics X8+ User Manual

................................ ................................ ........................... 6 3

Exhibit 35: 3D Robotics X8+ Features

................................ ................................ ................................ . 63
Exhibit 36: 3D Robotics X8+ Specifications

................................ ................................ ......................... 63
Exhibit 37: 3D Robotics X8+ Battery Safety Manual

................................ ................................ ............ 63

Ref erences

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 63
Exemption References

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 65



## The Applicant

The Applicant seeking this Exemption is Flyboy Drone Company , headquartered at;

145 S. Glenoaks Blvd. #459 Burbank, CA 91502

The applicant for this Petition for Exemption is Flyboy Drone Comp any. Flyboy Drone Company is focused on providing professional aerial cinematography services for clients in various fields, including; Film, Real Estate, Agriculture, and Environmental Conservation. It is the goal of Flyboy Drone Company to assist clien ts by composing the most professional and unique aerial cinematography possible for their project. Video is one of the fastest growing forms of marketing and data collection and aerial cinematography in particular, is a new way of capturing content in an innovative and visually appealing

way.

By continually innovating and staying up to date with the newest drone technology, Flyboy Drone Company strives to capture the most unique and valuable aerial content. By providing customers withPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 10

stunning aerial dat a, Flyboy Drone Company believes it can provide a viable commercial UAV service while maintaining the safety of the National Airspace System.



### Commitment to Safety

A commitment to safety is key to any succes sful business. Flyboy Drone Company is committed to operating within the National Airspace System safely and legally. It is for this reason that they have filed this Petition for Exemption in an effort to make their actions known and to be sure they are operating within the rules and regulations set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration. Additionally, Flyboy Drone Company will require all pilots to hold the appropriate licenses and certifications to operate their aircraft. Furthermore, the compan y’s intent on utilizing a licensed Pilot In Command shows their commitment to safety. A licensed pilot is not only required by current FAA rules but also provides for a heightened level of safety for the National Airspace as a pilot will have completed si gnificant training in the National Airspace System and have knowledge of all Federal Aviation Rules. Plus, in addition to the Petitioner’s utilization of a licensed Pilot In Command, they will also be following the conditions set forth
within the Conditio ns of the Exemption Section below (including pre

- flight training), which will provide an equivalent, if not superior level of safety as is provided by current rules.

The founder of Flyboy Drone Company has been working in related fields for over 20 years and feels that the surrounding communities could be greatly serv ed by aerial imaging by trained and knowledgeable pilots/cinematographers.



### Experience and Expertise

The founder of Flyboy Drone Company, Mr. Jason Phipps, currently works in production on several television shows, including one about conservation and environmental protection. This has allowed Mr. Phipps to work with conservationists on a daily basis and gain a better understanding of the industry as
a whole.

Furthermore, Mr. Phipps' family runs a farm, which allowed Mr. Phipps to grow up in an agricultural setting, providing him with valuable experience in the industry.

Additionally, Mr. Phipps intends on gaining some form of Pilot Cert ificate prior to operating his UAV commercially. This will expose Mr. Phipps to the Federal Aviation Rules as well as best practices when operating an aircraft in the National Airspace System.



### Privacy

Privacy is important in any b usiness, but especially one in which imagery is captured. For this reason, Flyboy Drone Company will use commonly accepted practices in order to secure imagery. A few of the practices they will put into action include; obtaining proper permissions and co nsent, notifyingPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 11

authorities of any pending flights that may cause call

- ins, keeping data on a secure computer system, notifying adjacent properties of impending flights, and the like. As a final measure, Flyboy Drone Company has the ability to blur/mask faces of non

- participants that may accidently be captured during filming. Lastly, they will also seek what is required by law to remain compliant and secure in terms of data/imagery privacy.



## Publishable Summary

DMZ Marke ting, LLC. files this petition for exemption on behalf of Flyboy Drone Company

, a company focused on providing high

- quality aerial camerawork to Filmmakers, Real Estate Professio nals, Farmers, and Conservation groups. Flyboy Drone Company is seeking exemption from certain parameters of 14
C.F.R. in orde r to commercially operate sUAS within the United States in the following industries; Agriculture

, Cinematography

, Environmental Protection

, and Real Estate

. Specifically, Flyboy Drone Company requests exemption from the following Federal Aviation Administration rules;

1. 14 C.F.R 21(h): Airworthiness Certificates

2. 14 C.F.R. 27: Airworthiness Standards

- Normal Category Rotorcraft
3. 14 C.F.R. 43.7: Auth orized Maintenance/Repair/Alteration Personnel

4. 14 C.F.R. 43.11: Dispositions of Records for Inspections

5. 14 C.F.R. 45.11: Making of Products

6. 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b): Display of Marks; General

7. 14 C.F.R. 45.27: Marking of the Aircraft

– Rotorcraft
8. 14 C.F.R. 45.29: Size of Marks
9. 14 CFR 61.3: Requirement for Certificates, Ratings, and Authorizations

10. 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c): Medical Certificates

– Requirements and Duration

11. 14 CFR 61.101(e) (4) and (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations

12. 14 CFR 61.113(a) & (b): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations

– Pilot In Command
13. 14 C.F.R. 61.315(a): Privileges and Limits of Sport Pilot’s License

14. 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

15. 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual
16. 14 C.F.R. 91.9(c): Civ il Aircraft Marking, Placards

17. 14 C.F.R. 91.103: Preflight Action

18. 14 C.F.R. 91.105: Flight Crewmembers at Stations
19. 14 C.F.R. 91.109: Flight Instruction
20. 14 C.F.R. 91.113(b): Right

- of

- Way Rules
21. 14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes

22. 14 C.F.R. 91.121: Alti meter Settings
23. 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for VFR Flight Conditions

24. 14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) and (b): Civil Aircraft

– Certifications Required
25. 14 C.F.R. 215: ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use

26. 14 C.F.R. 91.403: GeneralPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 12

27. 14 C.F. R. 91.405(a): Maintenance Required
28. 14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1): Operation after Maintenance or Alteration

29. 14 C.F.R. 409(a)(1) and (2): Inspections
30. 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance Records

The approval of this Petition for Exemption would allow for the c ommercial operation of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems by Flyboy Drone Company

. These commercial operations would strictly adhere to all Federal Aviation Administration rules and regulations not stated herein as rules reques ted for exemption. The commercial operations flown by Flyboy Drone Company , if this Petition were granted, would be flown utilizing one of the following aircraft platforms; the DJI Ph antom 2 Vision +

, DJI Phantom 3 Professional

, DJI Inspire 1

, DJI Matrice 100 , or 3D Robotics X8+

. Specifically, the commercial operations utilizing t hese unmanned aircraft would center around the following industry appli cations; Agriculture

, Cinematography

, Environmental Protection

, and Real Estate

. Additionally, all the industry applications highlighted above would include one or more of the unmanned
aircraft noted above flying no more than 400 feet Above Ground Level (“AGL”) o r in airspace otherwise

spec ified in a granted Certificate of Authoriz ation (“COA”).

Furthermore, this Petition for Exemption should be granted to Flyboy Drone Company because th e operation of the listed sUAS above will provide for commercial operations while maintaining an equivalent
leve l of safety as would be provided by the above

- listed rules. Additionally, as will be highlighted below, the small Unmanned Aircraft utilized by Flyboy Drone Company will provide methods of aerial data
collection far safer th an the alternative of manned aircr aft collection of the same data

- sets. Low altitude
data

- collection flights, in close proximity to people and property, are far safer when accomplished using a battery

- pow ered sUAS weighing less than 10 lbs., than with a c ombustion

- engine

- powered, multi

thousand

- pound, manned aircraft, with flammable fuel onboard.

Considering the seve n factors highlighted by the FAA as parameters for successful Section 333 Exemption Petitions, including; Size, Weight, Speed, Operational C apability, Proximity to Airports, Proximity to Populated Areas, and Operations within Visual Line of Sight

, 6 this Petition supports the Petitioner’s

re quest for exemption relating to each operational and aircraft

- specific p arameter . Specifically, the aircraft utilized by Flyboy Drone Company are in the sma ll

- size category, they ar e below the 55 lbs. weight
limit , they travel at less than 100 mph, they are proven flight platforms based on previ ously granted petitions, all operations will be conducted at least 5 miles from an airport and over unpopulated areas (unless otherwise granted permis sion by the FAA in a granted Certificate of Authorizatio n), and all flights
will be conducted within Visua l Line of Sight.

In addition, the data collectio n flights provided by the sUAS highlighted in this Petition will promote safer operations for professional service providers in the aforementioned industries.



## Petitioner’s Contact Information

Petitioner:

Flyboy Drone Company Jason PhippsPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 13

145 S. Glenoaks Blvd. #459 Burbank, CA 91502
818

- 519

- 4129 jasonphippsfx@me.com



## Document Preparer:

DMZ Marketing, LLC. 1501 Parkview Court Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 USA
Contact: Zach Fiene Phone: 608

- 370

- 2858 Email: dmzaerial@gmail.com Website: www.dmzaerial.com



## Proposed sUAS Operations

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

This Petition for Exemption under Section 333 will permit the Petitioner to operate the DJI Phantom 2
Vision +

, DJI Phantom 3 Professional

, DJI Inspire 1

, DJI Matrice 100

, and 3D Robotics X8+

. Further operating characteristics, specifications, and other important craft

- specific information on the DJI
Phantom 2 Vision +

, DJI Phantom 3 Professional

, DJI Inspire 1

, DJI Matrice 100

, and 3D Robotics X8+ are covered in detail starting with Exhibit 5 . Each of these documents are publically circulated and have been previousl y vetted by the FAA in previously granted Petitions for Exemption under Sect ion 333. In
the aircraft summaries below , please see the references to previously granted petitions for the use of each specific aircraft type in commercial operations within the United States

.



### DJI Phantom 2 Vision +

The requested exemption will permit the Petitioner the right to use the DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Quadcopter for commercial use within the United States of America and under the strict adherence of
FAA Guidelin es, ATO

- Issued COA’s, and the like. The DJI Phantom 2 Vision + has a weight of 1242 grams including propellers and batteries. Furthermor e , this quadcopter is capable of a max flight speed of 15 meters per second and has the following abilities;

 Vertica l Take

- Off  Vertical Landing  Hover

- Hold Position  Simultaneous Vertical & Horizontal Movement  Maximum Flight Speed Abilities in every lateral directionPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 14

For easy reviewing, please see Phantom 2 Vision +

- Specific Exhibits below for more information on the DJI Phantom 2 Vision + craft, its specifications, abilities, and more. Additionally, please consider the FAA’s previous review of these exhibits and granting of Petitions using these supporting documents for
the commercial use of the DJI Phantom 2 Vis ion + in the following listed Exemptions;

 Douglass Trudeau

– Tierra Antigua Real Estate

– Exemption Number 11138  Anton Ewing

– Video Solutions, LLC.

– Exemption Number 11189  Michael Singer

– Singers Creations

– Exemption Number 11191



### DJI Phantom 3 Professional

The requested exemption will permit the Petitioner the right to use the DJI Phantom 3 Professional Quadcopter for commercial use within the United States of America and under the strict a dherence of FAA Guidelines, ATO

- Issued COA’s, and the like. The DJI Phantom 3 Professional has a weight of 1280 grams including propellers and batteries. Furthermore, this quadcopter is capable of a max flight speed of 16 meters per second and has the fo llowing abilities;

 Vertical Take

- Off  Vertical Landing  Hover

- Hold Position  Simultaneous Vertical & Horizontal Movement  Maximum Flight Speed Abilities in every lateral direction

For easy reviewing, please see the Phantom 3 Professional

- Specific Ex hibits below for more information on the DJI Phantom 3 Professional craft, its specifications, abilities, and more. Additionally, please consider the FAA’s previous review of these exhibits and granting of Petitions using these supporting
documents for th e commercial use of the DJI Phantom 3 Professional in the following listed Exemption;

 Jeffery Greer

– Berkshire Hathaway Home Services

– Exemption Number 11587/11587A



### DJI Inspire 1

The requested exemption will permit the Petitioner the righ t to use the DJI Inspire 1 Quadcopter for commercial use within the United States of America and under the strict adherence of FAA Guidelines,
ATO

- Issued COA’s, and the like. The DJI Inspire 1 has a weight of 2935 grams including the battery payload. Fur thermore, this quadcopter is capable of a max flight speed of 22 meters per second and has the following abilities;

 Vertical Take

- Off  Vertical Landing  Hover

- Hold Position  Simultaneous Vertical & Horizontal Movement  Maximum Flight Speed Abilities in every lateral directionPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 15

For easy reviewing, please see the Inspire

- Specific Exhibits below for more information o n the DJI Inspire 1 craft, its specifications, abilities, and more. Additionally, please consider the FAA’s previous review of these exhibits and granting of Petitions using these supporting documents for the commercial use of the DJI Inspire 1 in the fol lowing listed Exemptions;

 Jeffery Greer

– Berkshire Hathaway Home Services

– Exemption Number 11587/11587A  Phillip Stiles

– GPS Development, LLC dba SkyViewHD

– Exemption Number 11399/11399A



### DJI Matrice 100

The requested exemption will permit the Petitioner the right to use the DJI Matrice 100 Quadcopter for commercial use within the United States of America and under the strict adherence of FAA Guidelines,
ATO

- Issued COA’s, and t he like. The DJI Matrice 100 has a maximum take

- off weight of 3400 grams including technical payloads and batteries. Furthermore, this quadcopter is capable of a max flight speed of 22 meters per second and has the following abilities;

 Vertical Take

- Off  Vertical Landing  Hover

- Hold Position  Simultaneous Vertical & Horizontal Movement  Maximum Flight Speed Abilities in every lateral direction

For easy reviewing, please see Matrice 100

- Specific Exhibits below for more information o n the DJI Matrice 100 craft, its specifications, abilities, and more. Additionally, please consider the FAA’s previous review of these exhibits and granting of Petitions using these supporting documents for the commercial
use of the DJI Matrice 100 in the following listed Exemption;

 Dan Pham

– Alert5 International, LLC.

– Exemption Number 11814



### 3D Robotics X8+

The requested exemption will permit the Petitioner the right to use the 3D Robotics X8+ Quadcopter for commercial use within the United States of America and under the strict adherence of FAA Guidelines,
ATO

- Issued COA’s, and t he like. The 3D Robotics X8+ weighs 7.7 lbs. i ncluding the battery a nd has the following abilities;

 Vertical Take

- Off  Vertical Landing  Hover

- Hold Position  Simultaneous Vertical & Horizontal Movement  Maximum Flight Speed Abilities in every lateral directionPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 16

For easy r eviewing, please see the 3D Robotics X8+

- Specific Exhibits below for more information o n the
3D Robotics X8+ craft, its specifications, abilities, and more. Additionally, please consider the FAA’s previous review of these exhibits and granting of Petitions using these supporting documents for the

comme rcial use of the 3D Robotics X8+ in the following listed Exemption;

 Aerial Precision Survey

– Exemption Number 11617



### U nmanned Flight Crew

The unmanned flight crew o pe rating Flyboy Drone Company flight crafts for purposes of commercial operations within the United States under this proposed Exe mption will consist of a Pilot I n Command (“PIC”) and a Visual Observer (“VO”).

Adhering to c urrent FAA guidelines and precedent established in previously granted Section 333 Exemptions, the PIC will have, at minimum, a Recreational or Sport Pilot’s License and a Third Class
Medical Certificate or a valid U.S. Driver’s License

. 7 Additionally, both the PIC and VO will be trained in the operation of sUAS prior to commercial operations. Furthermore, any new information surrounding the aircraft’s efficient, effective, or safe operations, will be disseminated by Flyboy Drone Company to both the PIC and VO to ensure continued safe flights.

On top of the general sUAS training, the PIC will also have completed, at a minimum, 25 hours of sUAS flight training with the specific sUAS craft they a re using for their commercial operation and will be required to receive annual continued educatio n and training moving forward. A specific PIC Training Presentation is contained in the exhibits below and will accompany this Petition for Exemption.

The Vis ual Observer will also have completed specific trai ning relating to their duties during an unmanned flight. The training procedures that will be used to educate VO’s are contained in Exhibits 1
& 3 below.



### Unmanned Flight Conditions

As has been describ ed above, the sUAS use proposed by the Petitioner in this Petition for Exemption
under Section 333 revolves around the following industries; Agriculture

, Cinematography

, Environmental Protection

, and Real Estate

. Each of these industry applications will be described in
further detail below under the “ Unmanned Flight Operations ” Title.

Moving on from the specific use cases, it should also be noted that all commercial sUAS flights proposed in this Petition for Exemption will be conducted below 400 feet AGL or as otherwise permitted in a granted Certificate of Authorization. Furthermore, all flights will be conducted within Visual Line of Sight, as is currently advised by the Federal Aviation Administration and Academy of Model
Aeronautics

. 6 Additionally, the PIC will only operate the Petitioner’s sUAS if weather conditions permit safe operations. The judgement of “Safe Weather Conditions” will be determined based on severalPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 17

standing classifications developed by the Federal Aviation Admini stration. These include operations being conducted under the Visual Meteorological Conditions (“VMC”) rules.

As stated previously in this Petition, Flyboy Drone Company will strictly adhere to the FAA’s V isual F light

R ule s , an d obviously, to be following Vis ual Flight Rules, Flyboy Drone Company will have to first satisfy the Visual Meteorological Conditions associated with VFR flights. In particular, the Petitioner will be cognizant of the b oundary between Visual Meteorological Conditions, which allow for Visual Flight Rules, and Instrument Meteorological Conditions, which require Instrument use. Specifically, Flyboy Drone Company will be considering the VMC Mi nima pertaining to Visibility, Cloud Ceilings, and Cloud Clearances associated with airspace below 400 feet AGL, where the Petitioner’s sUAS will be flying. Thus, the Petitioner will only operate when visibility is at least 3 statute miles from the PIC an d at a minimum of 500 feet below and 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud

. 8

In addition to the particular flight conditions stated above, it should also be noted that the flight crew will always make an assessment of the cu rrent situation for each, specific flight. This assessment will conclude with a determination of the relative safety of the flight and any risks or hazards that may be present. If this assessment finds that the flight will be too dangerous or that there are too many hazards or risks associated with the flight, the flight crew will not take off. Furthermore, in order to maintain the safety of the general public, flight operations utilizing the Petitioner’s sUAS will only take place after permission is gra nted to the Petitioner by the landowner, property owner, or other controlling representative. All current FAA regulations not covered within this petition will be followed as well as all local and state rules surrounding flights near or around people. Ad ditional information on the parameters dictating flights near people can be found below in the “ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption .”



### Unmanned Flight Operations

When conducting commercial flight operations unde r the pro posed applications in this Petition for Exemption , a commitment to safety will always be paramount. Additionally, with the goal of each flight to accurately collect valuable aerial data in an efficient manner, it will be vital for all flights to be safe for several reasons, including;

 The safety of the Flyboy Drone Company Flight Crew will be necessary for continued flights.  The safety of the general public will be necessary for continued operations.  The safety of th e aircraft will be necessary for continued commercial endeavors.

Furthermore, in an effort to supply the Agriculture

, Cinematography

, Env ironmental Protection

, and
Real Estate industries with valuable data, it will be imperative for all Flyboy Drone Company flights to be
conducted in a s afe and professional manner so as to not risk the safety of the flight crew, general public, or aircraft as well as to avoid damaging people or property operating in the National Airspace System or on the ground below.

To ensure the safe and professional execution of each sUAS flight, all flights will be conducted utilizing at
least a two

- person flight crew. This flight crew will consist of an adequately

- trained (“ Unmanned Flight
Crew ” ) PIC and VO. For specifics pertaining to the standard operating procedures utilized by thePETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 18

Petitioner under the proposed Petition for Exemption and for more details on training, please see
Exhibits 1

- 4

. 

## Aircraft and Equivalent Level of Safety

As is stated in the FAA’s Section 333 Exemption Guidelines, Petitioners for Exemption must show that their proposed commercial, sUAS operations provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which the Petitioner seeks an exemption

. 6 As will be highlighted below, the request for this Exemption by the Petitioner is fortified by its commitment to safety. Furthermore, the operation of sUAS by the Petitioner, using the previously stated flight crafts an d operating within the above

- stated

use

- cases under the rules, regulations, and limitations stated herein, should be permitted under the proposed exemption. Reasoning for this can be derived from the strict adherence to existing regulations
from the Feder al Aviation Administration as well as the adoption of the following conditions ; each providing at least an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the existing rule.


## National Security

In addition to the arguments supporting the Petitioner’s exemp tion from certain rules contained in 14
C.F.R. , it is also important to note that the granting of this petition and in turn, permission for the
Petitioner to conduct commercia l sUAS flights, will not present a national security threat. As has been stated in this Petition

, and

, as is precedent from the F ederal Aviation Administration , the PIC of a sUAS must hold, at minimum, a Recreational or Sport Pilot’s Certificate, meaning he or she has already been subject to a security screening by the Department of Homeland Security. 9

This provision, relating to the acquisition of a Recreational or Sport Pilot’s Certificate, points to checks already provided by the FAA and Department of Homeland Security in ensuring secure aircraft operations. As is stated by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) must assess information in order to identify individuals that may pose a threat to transportation security and coordinate countermeasures with other Federal Agencies such as the FAA. Therefore, due to the fact it is a requirement for all PICs to be at least Recreational or Sport Pilot Certified, it can be assumed that adequate security checks by the TSA and FAA have taken place prior to a sUAS Pilot conducting commercial operations.


## Proposed Conditions of the Exemption

As is noted by the Federal Aviation Administration in their, “Section 333 Petition Guidance & Checklist” 3 form, Section 333 Exemption Petitioners are strongly advised to, “Carefully review the Conditions and
Limitations Section in the most recently granted exemptions.” 3 Due to this, the following Condit ions of the proposed Exemption closely follow this guidance and mirror many of the same conditions previously noted by other exemption petitioners. The following list will highlight these conditions and establish a framework from which the petitioner, Flyboy Drone Company , will conduct their commercial sUAS operations under a granted petition for exemption.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 19

1. Proposed operations using s mall Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the United States under the granted form of this Petiti on for Exemption will be limited to the following aircraft, which all weigh less than 55 pounds including batteries and operational/technical payloads; DJI Phantom
2 Vision +

, DJI Phantom 3 Professional

, DJI Inspire 1

, DJI Matrice 100

, and 3D Robotics X 8+

. Furthermore, any aircraft outside of this comprehensive list for this Petition for Exemption will have to be added to an amended version of this petition or a new Petition for Exemption must
b e filed with the new flight platform (s)

.

2. The proposed use

- cases/applications contained within this Petition for Exemption under Section 333 are as follows; Agriculture

, Cinemato graphy

, Environmental Protection

, and Real Estate

. All of these flights will take place below 400 feet AGL nationwide unless otherwise advised in an
ATO

- issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization.

3. All flights conducted by Flyboy Drone Company will be below 400 feet AGL, operated within Visual Line of Sight, and have a live, GPS

- based, read

- out of altitude durin g the flight. Furthermore, each flight will begin with a “Zero Altitude” start point, thus creating an accurate
AGL calculation.

4. All flights conducted by the Petitioner will be controlled by a trained flight crew consisting of a licensed (at minimum Recreational or Sport Pilot’s Certificate) PIC with a Medical Certificate or equivalent valid U.S.A. Driver’s license and a trained Visual Observer.

5. All flights conducted by the Petitioner will include aircraft that are flying below the 87 knot (100 mph) airspeed maximum, highlighted by the FAA in their guidelines.

6. All flights conducted by Flyboy Drone Company will be conducted within Visual Line of Sight, during daytime flying hours, and adhere to Visual Flight Rules unde r the Visual Meteorological Conditions associated with 400 foot AGL airspace.

7. The Petitioner will not allow any PIC to operate a sUAS unless the PIC meets the qualification standards set by the Federal Aviation Administration (i.e. Minimum

- Sport Pilot’ s Certificate and Medical or U.S.A. Driver’s License) and by the safety guidelines and operational capabilities relating to safe sUAS operations, such as;

a. Evasive Maneuvers
b. Emergency Actions

c. Fail

- Safe Knowledge
d. Flight Skills
i. Maintaining adequate distances from;

1. People
2. Property
3. Structures
4. Etc.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 20

8. PIC qualification flight hours will be logged in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. 61.51(b). Additionally, a record of the PIC training will be documented and made available upon request by the Administrator.

9. Trai ning operations will only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, all persons not essential for flight operations will be deemed nonparticipants, and thus, the PIC will operate the aircraft with appropriate distance from nonpartic ipants in accordance with 14
C.F.R. 91.119.

10. As highlighted by the FAA, the Visual Observer’s duty is to visually observe the relevant airspace for aircraft, hazards, obstacles, structures, or the like. For this reason, the VO will not be allowed to oper ate the camera or other instruments on the sUAS during flight operations. Instead, a third person will have to serve as a camera operator if the flight crew seeks a dedicated pilot and dedicated camera operator.

11. The PIC, for the duration of an unmanne d flight, will be named prior to the flight. Due to this, once the PIC is named and a flight is begun, the PIC will not be able to transfer his/her designation as the PIC through the duration of the flight. Furthermore, the PIC is the Captain of the flig ht crew and will ensure that the Visual Observer is qualified to hold the VO position for the duration of the flight.

12. Each commercial sUAS flight performed by Flyboy Drone Company will be planned for ahead of the flight da te. This will be to ensure adequate time for all participants to prepare and to obtain all the necessary permissions (landowners, homeowners, property owners, etc.) if any are needed. All flights will be preceded by a meeting at least one day before the flight at which all participants of the flight will be present. This is to ensure adequate knowledge and preparedness prior to the sUAS flight.

13. Aircraft maintenance is obviously vital for any commercial sUAS operation. It ensures safety and
is necessa ry prior to each flight to maintain safe, efficient, and effective flight operations. Once again, the PIC, as the captain of the flight crew, will take a leading role in inspecting the aircraft prior to flight. The PIC will likely have the most experienc e of anyone on the flight crew and will be in tune with the specific maintenance needs of each specific flight craft. If the PIC were to find an error in the flight craft or any of the associated systems, including the Ground Control System for example, h e/she would ground the flight until adequate maintenance is completed and the aircraft is once again safe to fly. All maintenance on flight crafts utilized by the Petitioner will be noted and logged to ensure the safety of all aircraft and the people oper ating them.

14. Relating to the above Condition, anytime a flight

- critical component is replaced or anytime there is mission

- critical maintenance on the craft, the PIC will conduct a flight test of the system before completing the intended, commercial missi on. Once again this flight test will be logged by the PIC.

15. Routine maintena nce and inspections of the sUAS will be logged by the PIC in accordance with the requirements and suggestions laid out by the aircraft manufacturer in terms of aircraft

componen t maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limits, which are part ofPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 21

the supporting documents for each aircraft below in the aircraft

- specific exhibits . The logging of these maintenance/inspection checks will be included in the aircraft re cords and include the total time of service and description of work.

16. All sUAS flights will be conducted within Visual Line of Sight (“VLOS”) of both the PIC and VO at all times. Furthermore, VLOS means visual observance unaided by any device other than corrective lenses such as eye glasses or contacts. The use of telescopes, FPV systems (for purposes of VLOS flights), binoculars, and the like will not be permitted. Also, both the PIC and VO should be in constant, verbal communication range. The use o f other devices to communicate out of verbal range are not permitted. These devices would include, cell phones, text messaging, walky

- talkies, and the like.

17. No commercial flight missions will be executed unless it can be determined that the flight crew can complete their mission from take

- off through landing, with a reserve of 25% battery life. The Petitioner’s newest flight crafts have adaptive battery monitors and

, for this reason

, this condition will be an automated process as the Petitioner can set the default Advisory and Critical Battery warnings to 35% and 30% respectively, which will warn the PIC of the depleted battery and engage him/her to fly home and land with 25% remaining power. For all Flyboy Drone Company systems without this automated feature, a watch will be used to monitor flight times to ensure a safe return home with adequate battery power. However, due to the revolving adoption of the newest flight platforms and the current stock of new generation fl ight crafts, the overwhelming majority of sUAS flights after the granting of this exemption will utilize a Smart Battery System.

18. In the case of an unexpected obstacle or in

- flight issue, each sUAS the Petitioner operates will have the ability to abort a mission and take corrective actions.

19. The sUAS utilized by Flyboy Drone Company will be programmed so that if the sUAS loses signal with the PIC or Ground Control Station during flight, the system will return to a preprog rammed GPS location located within the operating area containing the flight crew. Furthermore, this failsafe can also be used in controlled situations, meaning the failsafe will be able to be engaged should something happen on the ground that disallows th e PIC from bringing the sUAS back in a normal fashion. Additionally, in both situations described above, where the failsafe is either a controlled action from the pilot or an uncontrolled situation, like radio

- link signal loss, the unit will not only fly back to its preprogrammed home point, it also has the ability to land itself. This allows safe operations of the aircraft even in troublesome situations, such as signal loss, and prevents the unit from flying off uncontrollably or landing in an unknown lo cation.

20. The operating documents required under 14 C.F.R. 91.9 and 91.203 will be maintained and available to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the aircraft anytime the sUAS is operating. Furthermore, these documents will be available for review b y the Administrator or other law enforcement officials upon request and are additionally contained in Exhibit 1, with appropriate links to the specific flight manuals of each flight craft requested in this Petition for Exemption.

21. It is always important to specify precedent when determining operating practices. For this reason, if a discrepancy exists between the conditions laid out in this Petition for Exemption and the actual Granted Exemption, the conditions laid out in the finalized Granted Exemptio n willPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 22

take precedent over the conditions laid out in this Petition. Furthermore, if there are no discrepancies between the Petition and Grant of Exemption, the Petitioner will follow the procedures outlined in the Operating Documentation below. Addition ally, if any changes are made to the Operating Procedures and Documentation contained in this Petition for Exemption, the Petitioner will present the updated documents upon request from the Administrator. Also, should the Petitioner determine that an upda te or change to the procedures or documentation would affect the basis of the approved version of this Petition for Exemption, the Petitioner will either file for an amendment to the existing Exemption or create a new Petition with the
revisions.

22. As ha s been noted, the Petitioner will obtain written and/or oral permission from the landowners, farmers, property owners, or otherwise authorized agents for flights above their property.

23. The Petitioner will also obtain all required permissions and permits f rom territorial, state, county or city jurisdictions, including;

a. Law Enforcement b. Fire Departments

c. Municipal Agencies, or; d. Other Appropriate Governmental Bodies

24. The Petitioner will not conduct operations at night. Furthermore, all operations will be cond ucted under Visual Meteorological Conditions (“VMC”).

25. The Petitioner is aware of the need to obtain an Air Traffic Organization (“ATO”) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”) prior to conducting operations under the grant of exemption. The Petitioner intends to fly under the Blanket COA provided by the FAA in March of 2015 for flights below 200 feet to all Section 333 Exemption holders or under a future ATO

issued COA that will be applied for by the Petitioner after receiving their Section 333 Exemption.

26. All sUAS flights conducted by the Petitioner will be done so in accordance with airspace requirements established by the FAA and/or an ATO

- issued COA, including;

a. Class of Airspace b. Altitude Level, and potential;

c. Transponder Requirements

27. As has been stated, the sUAS will not be operated within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point as noted on a current FAA

- published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s Air Traffic Control is obtained, and the operati on is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by the Operator’s COA.

28. As stated previously, the Petitioner will follow VMC guidelines for VFR flights and as such, will fly only when there is visibility equal to, or in excess of, 3 statute miles from the PIC, while maintaining an adequate distance of no less than 500 feet below, or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 23

29. All operations by the Petitioner will be conducted below 400 feet AGL, nationwide or as otherwise advised in an ATO

- iss ued COA.

30. All sUAS craft flown by the Petitioner will be marked and identifiable by a serial number which will be as large as practicable given the relatively small size of the aircraft. The FAA has previously stated that so long as the markings are as large as practicable given the size of a sUAS, an equivalent level of safety can be achieved.

31. All aircraft utilized by the Petitioner operate via radio frequency, which is governed by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). For this reason, pr ior to commercial operations under a granted Section 333 Exemption, the Petitioner will ensure the radio frequency spectrum used to operate and control its sUAS complies with FCC or other appropriate government oversight agency rules and regulations.

32. As is stated in the FAA guidelines, a sUAS is required to yield the right of way to all manned aircraft and aviation operations at all times. This rule will be strictly followed by the Petitioner.

33. The concentration of a PIC is necessary for safe operation s. It is for this reason that the Petitioner will not allow any sUAS operations while a PIC is in a moving device or vehicle. These vehicles would include things like;

a. Cars/Trucks/SUVs
b. Boats

c. Tractors d. ATVs

34. All sUAS operations by the Petitioner will be c onducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating people, vessels, vehicles, and structures, unless the following conditions apply;

a. Protective barriers are present that adequately protect nonparticipants from flying shrapnel or debris should there be a n accident. Furthermore, should a nonparticipant leave this safe

- zone, the PIC will end the flight.

b. The Petitioner has been granted permission to operate near a vessel, vehicle, or structure by the owner/controller of these properties. In addition to permission, the PIC will also have to perform a risk assessment of the situation and potential obstacles/flight hazards and determine the safety of the flight. If it is determined that the hazards present no risk, the PIC can start the mission.

35. The Pet itioner will log and report to the UAS Integration Office within 24 hours of any incident, accident, or flight operation that occurred outside the horizontal and vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the COA under which the flight was o perating. Furthermore, the Petitioner will report accidents to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 24

36. The Petitioner will provide additional flight training to PICs that may be towing objects in the event of an exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.315 ( c) (18). In the event that the Petitioner is exempt, each PIC that is designated as being a potential candidate for flying a sUAS while towing an object will be required to undergo additional training, on top of their required training and certifications, that will consist of 10 hours of training flights while towing objects. These objects will be dummy banners that weigh no more than the max weight allowable to satisfy the max takeoff weight specifications as highlighted by the manufacturer for each flig ht craft. Furthermore, the 10 hours of training will be required for each aircraft type, thus giving the PIC adequate training time and experience while towing objects with specific flight crafts. This will be necessary to familiarize each PIC with each s pecific flight craft in order to learn how specific flight craft respond to towing objects, particularly with regard to downwash and wind. Additionally, of the 10 total flight hours required for training on towing objects, 5 of these hours must be in the max wind tolerances as specified by the manufacturer for each flight craft. Training in these conditions will hone the skills of each PIC and allow them to operate in the worst case scenario for towing objects, which is high wind. When conducting actual commercial flights while towing objects, the Petitioner will not conduct flights in conditions where sustained winds are more than 75% of the maximum wind tolerance of the aircraft or when there are wind gusts in excess of 75% of the maximum wind tolerance as specified by the manufacturer for each aircraft.



## Exemptions Requested & Applicable Conditions/Reasoning

14 C.F.R 21(h) : Airworthiness Certificates

Subpart (h) of Part 21 from the Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, Chapter 1, prescribes pr ocedural requirements for the issuance of Airworthiness Certificates. Proposed Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 24, 27, 28, and 33 are all applicable to this particular Regulation and the FAA has found in favor of exempting previous Petitions #11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, and 11067 for this portion of 14 C.F.R. Furthermore, it is the belief of the Petitioner that a sUAS operating without an Airworthiness Certificate but within the conditions stated above would provide an equivalent level of safety to a n aircraft operating with an airworthiness certificate not subject to the above conditions or limitations.

Additionally, all the sUAS proposed within this Petition for Exemptio n are small, weigh less than 10 lbs

. , have a flight speed of less than 100 mph, carry no pilots or passengers, carry no flammable fuel, are
electric

- powered, are operated below 400 feet, are operated at least 5 miles from an airport, and are flown within unaided, visual line of sight of a trained and licensed Pilot In Command. Plus, with built

- in
fail

- safes that include GPS Guidance technologies, Return to Home Features for lost signal and low battery emergencies, and for the ability to regain radio connection with the craft after a fail

- safe is engaged, it is clear the proposed aircr aft have safety features equivalent to and superior to conventional aircraft that hold airworthiness certificates. For these reasons it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 21(h).PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 25



### 14 C.F.R. 27 : Airworthiness Standards

- Nor mal Category Rotorcraft

Title 14, Part 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations creates the procedural requirements for airworthiness certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft. Due to the fact that the proposed aircraft
contained within this Petition for Exemption are multi

- rotor aircraft, the Petitioner seeks exemption from 14 C.F.R 27 for the same reasons stated in the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 21(h).



### 14 C.F.R. 43.7 : Authorized Maintenance/Repair/Alteration Personnel

Title 14, Part 43, Secti on 43.7 of the Code of Federal Regulations regulates personnel authorized to approve aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts for return to service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteratio n. Proposed conditions 13 and 14 are applicable to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemption #11208 pertaining to this rule. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Petitioner that the stated rule would
create a burden as the Petitioner would have to find a regularly authorized conventional mechanic or otherwise licensed personnel to sign off on an unconventional flight craft’s maintenance. More clearly, it would be difficult to find a mechanic that specializes in Cess na Repair that is also an expert in small
radio

- controlled multi

- rotors.

Additionally, it is likely that the operator of the sUAS (the PIC) would be more kn owledgeable on the interworking’s of their sUAS than a regular mechanic as they likely have past R C flying experience. Particularly, the PICs working for the Petitioner will always have at least 25 hours of RC craft experience, in which time they will likely have to repair a prop for example. Due to the relative ease of replacing props on a multiroto r (screw the broken one off and replace with a new one) it is not necessary for a certified or authorized individual to sign off on the repair. Instead, the repair can easily be done by authorized personnel working for the Petitioner so long as the condit ions and procedures stated above, are followed. For these reasons it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 43.7.



### 14 C.F.R. 43.11 : Dispositions of Records for Inspections

Title 14, Part 43, Section 43.11 of the Code of Fe deral Regulations pertains to the disposition of Records for Inspections. Proposed condition number 13 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemption #11208 which contained this rule. For the reasons stated in Condition 13 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 43.11.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 26



### 14 C.F.R. 45.11 : Making of Products

Title 14, Part 45, Section 45.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations pertains to the manufacturing of aircraft and major aircraft components, including, but not limited, aircraft bodies, aircraft engines, and aircraft propellers. This particular rule requires various procedures for marking each component with fireproof markings and, in a manner acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration, for purposes of
identification. Proposed Condition for Exemption #30 above, pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has ruled on it in previous Exemption #11208. For the reasons s tated in Condition #30 (“ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption ”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt
from 14 C.F.R. 45.11.



### 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b) : Display of Marks; General

Title 14, Part 45, Section 45.23(b) of the Code of Federal Regulations states that;

 “ When marks include only the Roman capital letter “N” and the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted or light

- sport category aircraft or experimental or provisionally cer tificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches high, the words “limited,” “restricted,” “light

- sport,” “experimental,” or “provisional,” as applicable.”

In a previous grant of exemption (Exemption #11062) it was determined by the FAA that the exemption of sUAS operators from this provision was warranted so long as the aircraft, “have identification (N

Number) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R. 45 (c) if the markings are as large as practicable.” As is stated in Proposed Condition #30 above, the Petitioner will mark their aircraft with markings as large as practicable and therefore should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 45.23( b).



### 14 C.F.R. 45.27 : Marking of the Aircraft

– Rotorcraft

According to Title 14, Part 45, Section 45.27, of the Code of Federal Regulations, the operator of a rotorcraft;

 Must display on that rotorcraft horizontally on both surfaces of the cabin, fusel age, boom, or tail, the marks required by 14 C.F.R. 45.23.

For the same reasons stated in the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 45.23, the Petitioner believes it should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 45.27. More clearly, due to Condition #30 above, which sta tes that the Petitioner will mark their aircraft with markings as large as practicable, the Petitioner respectfully asks for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 45.27.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 27



### 14 C.F.R. 45.29 : Size of Marks

According to Title 14, Part 45, Section 45.29, of the Code of F ederal Regulations, the operator of an aircraft;

 Must display on markings on the aircraft meeting the size requirements of this section  2

- 12 inches high depending on the aircraft type  Width 2/3s wide as the characters are high  1/6 th as thick as the charact ers are high  Not less than 1/4 th the character width  Uniform

For the same reasons stated in the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 45.23, the Petitioner believes it should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 45.29. More clearly, due to Condition #30 above, which s tates that the Petitioner will mark their aircraft with markings as large as practicable, the Petitioner respectfully asks for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 45.29.



### 14 C

. F

. R

. 61.3 : Requirement for Certificates, Ratings, and Authorizations

Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.3, of the Code of Federal Regulations pertains to the need for a Private Pilot’s license to operate an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. The Petitioner seeks exemption from this rule to the extent that this rule requires a sUAS operator to hold a Privat e Pilot’s License. Clearly, the goal of this particular rule is to ensure the skill of any Pilot In Command matches the operating area in which they are flying. However, it is the Petitioner’s belief that the measure of a Private Pilot’s License and
the training that went into it is not necessarily connected to that Pilot’s ability to operate a small unmanned aircraft at low altitudes. Particularly, the requirement of a Private License yields potential
PICs that have been trained in multi

- thousand pound , manned aircraft, flying at hig h altitudes in comparison to 10 lbs. or less, battery

- powered craft, operated at 400 feet AGL or below. For this reason, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from this rule as the requirement of a
Private Pilot’s license is unnecessary. Furthermore, it is sta ted as such on the FAA website. 7

“ The FAA also made two other changes to the Section 333 exemption process last week:

 The agency now allows operations under these exem ptions by people who hold a recreational or sport pilot certificate. Previously, Section 333 operators were required to have at least a private pilot certificate. The newly added certificates are easier to obtain, and therefore less costly, than a private pilot certificate. ”

The authorization of Recreational and Sport Pilot Certificates as an alternative to a Private License points to a Private License as being a non

- requirement according to the FAA’s integration office. This further
evidence shows that th e Petitioner should be exempt from the aforementioned regulation. Clearly, the Petitioner’s requirement of all PICs (Proposed Condition #4) to hold at least a Recreational or SportPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 28

Pilot’s Certificate yields an authorized level of training according to th e FAA’s own website and in turn, shows that such a requirement by the Petitioner offers an equivalent level of safety as is provided by existing rules.

Furthermore, Proposed Conditions #4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, among others, show the Petitioner’s commitment

to safety and arguments for exemption from this rule.



### 14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) and (c) : Medical Certificates

– Requirements and Duration

According to Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.23 (a) & (c), of the Code of Federal Regulations, the operator of an aircraft is required to hold a Medical Certificate in various Pilot In Command Situations. As is stated in Proposed Condition #4 above, the Pilot in Command will have at least a Sport’s Pilot’s License and at least a valid U.S. Driver’s license, which has been ruled by the FAA in previously granted exemptions as a suitable alternative to a valid medical certificate for the authorized flights of unmanned systems. Furthermore, the FAA has posted on its website this new policy. 7 Due to Condition #4 above and the current FAA Policy displayed below, the Petitioner believes it should be granted exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) and (c).

“ The FAA also made two other changes to the Section 333 exemption process last week:

 The agency now a llows operations under these exemptions by people who hold a recreational or sport pilot certificate. Previously, Section 333 operators were required to have at least a private pilot certificate. The newly added certificates are easier to obtain, and there fore less costly, than a private pilot certificate.

 A third class medical certificate is no longer required. Now, a Section 333 operator only needs a valid driver’s license to satisfy the medical requirement. This change is consistent with the agency’s a pproach for sport pilot certificate holders, who may fly light sport aircraft with a driver’s license and no FAA medical certificate. ”



### 14 CFR 61.101(e) (4) and (5) : Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations

In Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.101(e) (4 ) & (5), of the Code of Federal Regulations, the FAA states that;

Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (i) of this section, a recreational pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft

— for compensation or hire or in furtherance of a business.

As can be seen on the FAA’s website (https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=82485);

“ The FAA also made two other changes to the Section 333 exemption process last week:

 The agency now allows operations under these exemptions by people who hold a recreat ional or sport pilot certificate. Previously, Section 333 operators were required to have at least aPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 29

private pilot certificate. The newly added certificates are easier to obtain, and therefore less costly, than a private pilot certificate.”

With the intent ion of Section 333 Exemptions being the integration of commercial unmanned systems into the National Airspace System, it is clear that the allowed pilot certificates now authorized by the FAA do not adhere to 14 C.F.R. 61.101 (e) (4) and (5) and thus, it i s the belief of the Petitioner that they should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 61.101 (e) (4) and (5) because this Petition for Exemption is for the expressed purpose of conductin g commercial operations of sUAS in an effort to earn compensation and/or further th e business of the Petitioner. As is stated in Proposed Condition #4 above, it is the intention of the Petitioner to provide commercial sUAS flights to customers through the use of a flight crew, consisting of a Pilot In Command that holds at least a Recre ational or Sport Pilot Certificate. Therefore, in all likelihood, many PICs employed by the Petitioner will have these specific Certificates and as such, will need to be able to fly for compensation.

Furthermore, as is stated on the FAA’s own website an d as is highlighted below ;

“ The FAA also made two other changes to the Section 333 exemption process last week:

 The agency now allows operations under these exemptions by people who hold a recreational or sport pilot certificate. Previously, Section 333 op erators were required to have at least a private pilot certificate. The newly added certificates are easier to obtain, and therefore less costly, than a private pilot certificate. ”

Therefore, it is highly likely that many potential PICs will have these Cer tificates as they are less costly and easier to obtain than a commercial Pilot’s License as an example. For these reasons, it is clear that the Petitioner should be granted an exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.101 (e) (4) and (5).



### 14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b) : Pr ivate Pilot Privileges and Limitations

– Pilot In Command

Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.113 of the Code of Federal Regulations states that;

Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot
certificate may act as 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.

Clearly this specific regulation conflicts with the Petiti oner’s desire to provide commercial sUAS flights in the United States. Furthermore, some of the Petitioner’s PICs will have Private Pilot Licenses and as such they will be operating an aircraft (the sUAS) for compensation or hire under the proposed Petiti on for Exemption.

With the intention of Section 333 Exemptions being the integration of commercial unmanned systems into the National Airspace System, it is clear that the allowed pilot certificates now authorized by the FAA, including a private pilot’s l icense

, do not adhere to 14 C.F.R. 61.113 and thus, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 61.113 because this Petition for Exemption is forPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 30

the expressed purpose of conducting commercial operations of s UAS in an effor t to earn compensation and/or further the business of the Petitioner. As is stated in Proposed Condition #4 above, it is the intention of the Petitioner to provide commercial s UAS flights to customers through the use of a flight crew, consisting of a Pilo t In Command that holds at least a Recreational or Sport Pilot Certificate (but who may also hold a Private License). In addi tion, the FAA has granted over 30 00 Section 333 Exemptions to businesses and individuals looking to provide commercial/compensation

- based sUAS flights.

Furthermore, looking at 61.113 (b), which states; A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

 The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and  The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

The Petitioner seeks exemption from these rules as it is the Petitioner ’ s goal to fly s UAS missions for compensation or hire. Additionally, the specific pro vision pertaining to not flying aircraft that carry property for compensation or hire is something the Petitioner would like to be exempt from as well

. Various forms of property may be carried on a s UAS, including; Camera Systems, Digital Imagery,
Sensors , and the like.

For all these reasons

, the Petition er seeks exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.113 (a) and (b).



### 14 C

. F

. R . 61.315(a)(c): Privileges and Limits of Sport Pilot’s License

In Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.315(a), of the Code of Federal Regulation s, the FAA states that;

If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a light

- sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Paragraph (c) reads the following;

You may not act as pilot in command of a ligh t

- sport aircraft:

(1) That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire.

(2) For compensation or hire.

(3) In furtherance of a business.

(4) While carrying more than one passenger.

(5) At night.

(6) In Class A airspace.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 31

(7) In Class B, C, a nd D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, and to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational control tower unless you have met the requirements specified in §61.325.

(8) Outside the United States, unless you have prior a uthorization from the country in which you seek to operate. Your sport pilot certificate carries the limit “Holder does not meet ICAO requirements.”

(9) To demonstrate the aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer if you are an aircraft salesperson.

(10) I n a passenger

- carrying airlift sponsored by a charitable organization.

(11) At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher.

(12) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles.

(13) Without visual ref erence to the surface.

(14) If the aircraft:

(i) Has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS, unless you have met the requirements of §61.327(b).

(ii) Has a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS, unless you have met the requirements of §61.327(a) or have logged fli ght time as pilot in command of an airplane with a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS before April 2, 2010.

(15) Contrary to any operating limitation placed on the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft being flown.

(16) Contrary to any limit on your pilot certificate or airman medical certificate, or any other limit or endorsement from an authorized instructor.

(17) Contrary to any restriction or limitation on your U.S. driver's license or any restriction or limitation imposed by judicial or administ rative order when using your driver's license to satisfy a requirement of this part.

(18) While towing any object.

(19) As a pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more than one pilot is required by the type certificate of the aircraft or the re gulations under which the flight is conducted.

The Petitioner requests exemption from numerous provisions contained in 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c). Particularly, the Petitioner requests exemption from the following subparts of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c); 1, 2, 3, 9, and 18. Furthermore, the Petitioner believes that the remaining subparts (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19) will be adhered to via proposed conditions conta ined in “ Proposed Conditions of t he Exemption ” above. Specifically, subparts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19 are covered by Proposed Conditions 1, 6 & 24, 6, 6, 1, 1, 3, 6 & 28, 6 & 28, 5, 25, 25, and 4 respectively.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 32

Additionally, pertaining to subparts 1, 2, 3, 9 , 18, and 19, the Petitioner seeks exemption due to both unnecessary burdens on the Petitioner as well as an equivalent level of safety as is provided by these existing subparts of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c). Arguments for each subpart are contained below.

S ubpart (1) of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c) states that a Sport

- Certified Pilot may not operate an aircraft if that aircraft is carrying passengers or property for hire/compensation. This is an unnecessary burden on the Petitioner as;

1. They will not be carrying any pass e ngers as they are flying Unmanned Systems, and;
2. There will be situations in which the Petitioner carries property for compensation.

The most likely of these situations will happen when a Petitioner is carrying a device or measurement tool owned by an other person for compensation. This may includ e an imaging sensor owned by a third party for example. If a third party company owns the actual sensor but wants the Petitioner to utilize the tool on the Petitioner’s aircraft, the Petitioner will be flying with property for compensation. This compensation is related to the risk of loss while the camera is operating on the Unmanned System as well as the aerial perspecti ve achieved by the sensor on a s UAS that would otherwise be impossible to obtain if th e p artner company only had the sensor. This example is common in many industries in which ground tools (such as cameras) are utilized on unmanned systems. Without exemption from this rule the Petitioner would have to either purchase the 3rd par ty sensor for use on their own s UAS or forego the compensation opportunity because they cannot carry the client’s tool and thus, not get the information the client desires. For this reason, it would be a significant burden to utilize a s UAS commercially without the ab ility to carry multiple sensors that may not be personally owned by the
Petitioner.

Furthermore, it is the belief of the Petitioner that an equivalent level of safety would be provided if exempt from this rule because of the extensive trai ning the PIC woul d have on the s UAS prior to flying commercially. This training will be in excess of the existing requirement to have at least a Sport Pilot’s or Recreational Certificate . Thus, the PIC will have sufficient manned aircraft and unmanned aircraft
traini ng t o successfully operate the s UAS without endangering the public. The training procedures and training materials for the PIC can b e found in Exhibits 1 and 4 below.

In addition to subpart (1) of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c), the Petitioner also requests exempt ion from subpart (2) which states that an operator with a Sport Pilot’s License may not operate an aircraft for compensation. As has been highlighted previously, the directive from Congress passed to the FAA via the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 201 2 was to integrate commercial UAV operations into the National Airspace System. Furthermore, in numerous previously filed and granted Petitions for Exemption under Section 333, it has been stated by the FAA that;

 The agency now allows operations under the se exemptions by people who hold a recreational or sport pilot certificate.

This statement, combined with the initiative behind Section 333 exemptions (the commercial integration of UAV operations in the National Airspace System) shows that the FAA has fo und in favor of the idea that commercial UAV operations can be conducted by people who hold a recreational or sport pilot certificate. Additionally, this same argument can be made in regard to subpart (3) of 14 C.F.R.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 33

61.315 (a)(c), which states that a Sp ort

- Certified Pilot may not operate an aircraft in furtherance of a business. The FAA defines “Furtherance of a Business” as;

 A flight, even if incidental to your employment or the business you intend to conduct, and not required by your business or emplo yment, would be considered “in furtherance of a business.” 10

Clearly, based on this description, an aerial operation that is “in furtherance of a business” would be considered a lesser form of commercialization than flights for hire or compensation as these types of flights are incidental to a business as opposed to directly related to the business, which is what a flight for compensation would likely be. Therefore, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt fro m this rule for the same justification as is proposed regarding 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c) (1) and (2).

On top of subparts (1), (2), & (3) of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c), the Petitioner also seeks relief from subpart (9) which states that a Sport

- Certified Pilo t may not operate an aircraft to demonstrate that aircraft for sale. The Petitioner seeks exemption from this rule as they will be carrying an inventory/stock/fleet of UAV aircraft in an effort to operate a commercial service business. Furthermore, this
i nventory/stock/fleet will turnover from time to time as new aircraft are added and old aircraft are released by the company. In this event it will be important for the Petitioner to have the capability of showing off the aircraft to prospective buyers so that they can get the best price for their used systems. Plus, with PICs already being heavily trained and experienced with commercial flights, there is no added risk to allowing a qualified PIC to demonstrate the aircraft for sale to prospective buyers. The demonstration after all would be equivalent or less dangerous than a commercial flight that the PIC already performs on a frequent basis as part of their job as a commercial s UAS Pilot.

The Petitioner also seeks exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c) ( 18) which states that a Sport

- Certified Pilot may not operate an aircraft while towing an object. It is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from this rule as the maximum takeoff weight of their aircraft will never exceed the max takeoff weigh t specifications highlighted by the manufacturer. These max takeoff weights are the maximum weight these aircraft can carry (including themselves) and still fly effectively. Thus, any object being towed by the aircraft will have to weigh equal to or less than the maximum allowable weight in order to maintain or come under the max takeoff weight specifications highlighted by the manufacturer. Additionally, Proposed Condition 36 f rom the “ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption ” above, highlights reasoning as to why the Petiti oner believes their commercial s UAS flights in which objects are towed, would provide an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the existing rule. Particularly, the required and additional training necessary for a PIC to become an Object Towing PIC shows the skills that would be required to tow objects.

Furthermore, with the continued innovation in the world of sensors, it will be necessary for the Petitioner to be able to tow objects, suc h as tow

- behind sensors, in order to remain competitive with their competition. Tow

- behind sensors might measure air quality , capture imagery, or perform various other data collection methods. Competing vehicles for these tow

- behind sensors would include ATVs, Motorcycles, Manned Aircraft, and the like. All of these potential alternatives are more expensive to operate, more dangerous to operate, and dirtier to operate. Each alternative would cost multiple thousands of dollars to purchase, are larger, po wered by combustion engines, and carry flammable fuel. Additionally, they produce negative effects on the environment. For the reasons stated above, the Petitioner believe s they should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c) (18).PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 34



### 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) : Civil A ircraft Airworthiness

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.7 (a) of the Code of Federal Regulations states; no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. Proposed Condition #13 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemption #11062, 11063, and 11064, which contained this rule. For the reasons stated in Condition 13 (“ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption ”) above, it is the belief of the Petitio ner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.7 (a) and the proposed condition offers an equivalent level of safety as is currently provided by the existing rule.



### 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2) : Civil Aircraft Flight Manual

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.9 (b) (2) of t he Code of Federal Regulations states;

No person may operate a U.S.

- registered civil aircraft for which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by Part 21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available, in the aircraft, a current approved
Ai rplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any
combination thereof

. Proposed Condition #20 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemption s #11062, 11063, and 11064 , which contained a request for exemption from this rule. For the reasons stated in Condition 20 (“ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption ”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F. R. 91.9 (b) (2). Furthermore, the proposed condition offers an equivalent level of safety as is currently provided by the existing rule as the Operating manuals about which this rule pertains are available to the operator at all times on the ground, just as they would be if the aircraft was carrying the operator. Thus, any information the operator desires about the aircraft or its operating guidelines, can be found within documents within arm’s reach of the operator or on a digital device, such as a Smart Phone or tablet , easily accessible to the operator.



### 14 C.F.R. 91.9(c) : Civil Aircraft Marking, Placards

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.9 (c) of the Code of Federal Regulations states; No person may operate a
U.S.

- registered civil aircraft unless that aircraft is identified in accordance with part 45 of this chapter

. Proposed Condition #30 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule. For the reasons stated in Condition 30 (“ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption ”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt
fro m 14 C.F.R. 91.9 (c). Furthermore, the proposed condition offers an equivalent level of safety as is currently provided by the existing rule as the FAA has previously determined that exemption from these requirements is warranted provided that the aircraf t “have identification (N

- Number) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Subpart c, if the markings are as large as practicable.” 11PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 35



### 14 C.F.R. 91.103 : Preflight Action

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.103 of the Cod e of Federal Regulations states;

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. This information must include

—

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be completed, and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has been advised by ATC;

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airport s of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing distance information:

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance dat a contained therein; and

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway s lope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.

Proposed Conditions # 3, 6, 12, 1 6, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 28 pertain to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule, including Exemptions #11062, 11063, and 11064. For the reasons stated in Conditions 3, 6, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 28 (“ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption ”) above, it is the belief of the Pet itioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.103. Furthermore, the proposed conditions offer an equivalent level of safety as is currently provided by the existing rule as Preflight Planning is integral to the Petitioner’s sUAS flights and each mission w ill be carefully planned, taking into consideration weather, power requirements, aircraft operating guidelines, and more, as seen in the proposed conditions above.



### 14 C.F.R. 91.105 : Flight Crewmembers at Stations

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.105 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) During ta keoff and landing, and while en route, each required flight crewmember shall

—
(1) Be at the crewmember station unless the absence is necessary to perform duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs; and

(2) Keep the safety belt fastened while at the crewmember station.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 36

(b) Each required flight crewmember of a U.S.

- registered civil aircraft shall, during takeoff and landing, keep his or her should er harness fastened while at his or her assigned duty station. This paragraph does not apply if

—

(1) The seat at the crewmember's station is not equipped with a shoulder harness; or

(2) The crewmember would be unable to perform required duties with the shoulder harness fastened.

Proposed Condition #4 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule, including Exemption #11185. For
the reason stated in C ondition #4 (“ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption ”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.105. Furthermore, 14 C.F.R. 91.105 doesn’t really apply to the Petitioner ’s air craft as all the aircraft requested b y the Petitioner weigh below 10 lbs. and do not carry a physical crew. As such, there is no cockpit or other operating area within the vehicle where a prospective crewmember would harness themselves in. Instead, all o perations of the sUAS are executed from the ground from a designated operating area, in which, each crewmember has an assigned position at which they will stand during the operation. Generally, this standing area would be near the ground station for the P IC and in a pre

- designated area (which is determined by the PIC) for the VO. Utilizing pre

- determined standing areas for both the PIC and VO will ensure safe operating procedures of the Unmanned Vehicle.



### 14 C.F.R. 91.109 : Flight Instruction

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.109 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls. However, inst rument flight instruction may be given in an airplane that is equipped with a single, functioning throwover control wheel that controls the elevator and ailerons, in place of fixed, dual controls, when

—
(1) The instructor has determined that the flight ca n be conducted safely; and

(2) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.

(b) An airplane equipped with a single, functioning throwover control wheel that controls the elevat or and ailerons, in place of fixed, dual controls may be used for flight instruction to conduct a flight review required by§ 61.56 of this chapter, or to obtain recent flight experien ce or an instrument proficiency check required by § 61.57 when

—
(1) The airplane is equipped with operable rudder pedals at both pilot stations;

(2) The pilot manipulating the contr ols is qualified to serve and serves as pilot in command during the entire flight;PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 37

(3) The instructor is current and qualified to serve as pilot in command of the airplane, meets the requirements of§ 61.195(b) , and has logged at least 25 hours of pilot

- in

- command flight time in the make and model of airplane; and

(4) The pilot in command and the instructor have determined the flight can be conducted safely.

(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless

—
(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and

(3) Except in the case of lighter

- than

- air aircraft, that aircraft is equippe d with fully functioning dual controls. However, simulated instrument flight may be conducted in a single

- engine airplane, equipped with a single, functioning, throwover control wheel, in place of fixed, dual controls of the elevator and ailerons, when

—
( i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and

(ii) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate category and class ratings.

(d) No person may operate a civil aircraft tha t is being used for a flight test for an airline transport pilot certificate or a class or type rating on that certificate, or for apart 121 proficiency flight test, unless the pilot seat ed at the controls, other than the pilot being checked, is fully qualified to act as pilot in
command of the aircraft.

Proposed Conditions #4, 7, 8, and 9 pertain to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemptions which con tained a request for exemption from this rule, including Exemptions #11062, 11063, and 11064. For the reasons stated in Conditions #4, 7, 8, and 9 (“ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption ”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.109.



### 14 C.F.R. 91.113(b) : Right

- of

- Way Rules

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.113(b) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right

of

- way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well
clear.

Proposed Conditions #6 and 32 pertain to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemptions which contained a request for e xemption from this rule, including Exemption #11238. For the reasons stated in Conditions #6 and 32 (“ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption ”)PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 38

above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C .F.R. 91.113(b). Due to the fact that all the Petitioner’s sUAS operations will take place under the guidance of a PIC and VO within Line of Sight of the aircraft, it is the belief of the Petitioner that their proposed operations offer an equivalent
level of safety as is provided by the existing rule.



### 14 C.F.R. 91.119 : Minimum Safe Altitudes

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.119 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft be low the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) 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.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight

- shift

- control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface

—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight

- shift

- control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

Proposed Conditions #3, 6, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34 pertain to thi s particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule. For the reasons stated in Conditions #3, 6, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34 (“ Proposed C onditions of the Exemption ”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.119.

Each of the Proposed Conditions above create sUAS operations with equivalent safety to what the typical manned mission under 14 C.F.R. 91. 119 would provide. Remember, when comparing to manned operations with manned flight craft, a sUAS is much smaller and light

- weight. Consider the fact that a manned aircraft weighs thousands of pounds, carries flammable fuel, and is powered by a combustio nPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 39

engine. Clearly, carrying out a mission utilizing a sUAS would provide for a safer operation than would a
conventional aircraft under 14 C.F.R. 91.119.



### 14 C.F.R. 91.121 : Altimeter Settings

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.121 of the Code of Federal Regul ations states;

(a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, when operating

—
(1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to

—
(i) The current repo rted altimeter setting of a station along the route and within 100 nautical miles of the aircraft;

(ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the current reported altimeter setting of an appropriate avai lable station; or

(iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio, the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure; or

(2) At or above 18,000 feet MSL, to 29.92′′ Hg.

(b) The lowest usable flight level is determined by the atmospheric pressure in the area of operation as shown in the following table:

Current altimeter setting Lowest usable flight level

29.92 (or higher) 180

29.91 through 29.42 185

29.41 through 28.92 190

28.91 through 2 8.42 195

28.41 through 27.92 200

27.91 through 27.42 205

27.41 through 26.92 210

(c) To convert minimum altitude prescribed under§§ 91.119 and 91.177 to the minimum flight level, the pilot shall take the flight level equivalent of the minimum altitude in feet and add the appropriate number of feet specified below, according to the current reported altimete r setting:PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 40

Current altimeter setting Adjustment factor

29.92 (or higher) None

29.91 through 29.42 500

29.41 through 28.92 1,000

28.91 through 28.42 1,500

28.41 through 27.92 2,000

27.91 through 27.42 2,500

27.41 through 26.92 3,000

Proposed Condit ion #3 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemptions, particularly Astraeus Aerial, which contained a request for exemption from this rule based on the idea that an equivalent level of safety could be provided so long as the Unmanned Aircraft was operated below 400 feet AGL, within Visual Line of Sight, and operated with a live, GPS

- based, Altitude
read

- out. For the reasons stated in Condition #3 (“ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption ”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.121 because they are receiving a live,
GPS

- Altitude, read

- out on each flight, they are operating below 400 feet AGL, and they are operating
within Visual Li ne of Sight. Furthermore, as can be seen in Proposed Condition #3, each flight conducted by the Petitioner will begin with a zero

- altitude start point.



### 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a) : Fuel Requirements for VFR Flight Conditions

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.151( a) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming n ormal cruising speed

—

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes.

Proposed Condition #17 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemptions, particularly Astraeus Aerial, which contained a request for exemption from this rule based on an equivalent level of safety being provided by a sUAS when ending a flight with at least 25% battery life remaining. Clearly, a percent battery life remaining is a better measure for safety when using a sUAS because the current battery capacities achieved by these types of ve hicles (including all the sUAS proposed in this Petition for Exemption) often do not allow for flight times of over 25 minutes, which isPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 41

far less than even the reserve time limits mandated by 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a). For the reasons stated in Condition #17 (“ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption ”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner tha t they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a) because they can achieve an equivalent level of safety by terminating their flights with 25% battery life remaining.



### 14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) and (b) : Civil Aircraft

– Certifications Required

Title 14, Part 91, Sec tion 91.203(a) and (b) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) Except as provided in§ 91.715 , no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has within it the following:

(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. Each U.S. airwort hiness certificate used to comply with this subparagraph (except a special flight permit, a copy of the applicable operations specifications issued under§ 21.197(c) of this chapter, appropriate sections of the air carrier manual required by parts 121 and 1 35 of this chapter containing that portion of the operations specifications issued under § 21.197(c) , or an authorization under § 91.611 ) must have on it the registration number assigned to the aircraft under part 47 of this chapter

. However, the airworthi ness certificate need not have on it an assigned special identification number before 10 days after that number is first affixed to the aircraft. A revised airworthiness certificate having on it an assigned special identification number that has been affix ed to an aircraft may only be obtained upon application to an FAA Flight Standards district office.

(2) An effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the United States, the second copy of the Aircraft registration Application as provided for in§ 47.31(c) , or a registration certification issued under the laws of a foreign country.

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special f light authorization issued under§ 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.

Proposed Condition #20 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemptions, partic ularly Exemptions #11062, 11063, and 11064, which contained a request for exemption from this rule. Additionally, all required paperwork will be available to the PIC and VO on the ground as these are Unmanned Systems as opposed to manned aircraft. This p aperwork may be in
hard

- copy form or available through a link on the internet, such as a Google Drive account for example.



### 14 C.F.R. 215 : ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.215 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) All airspace: U.S.

- registered civil aircraft. For operations not conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter , ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and environmentalPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 42

requirements of any class of TSO

- C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO

- C74c (Mode A with altitude reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO

- C112 (Mode S).

(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped
wit h an operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096 code capability, replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC, or a Mode S capability, replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC and int ermode and Mode S interrogations in accordance with the applicable provisions specified in TSO C

- 112, and that aircraft is equipped with automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability that automatically replies
to Mode C interro gations by transmitting pressure altitude information in 100

- foot increments. This requirement applies

—
(1) All aircraft. In Class A, Class B, and Class C airspace areas;

(2) All aircraft. In all airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part from the surface upward to 10,000 feet MSL;

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine

- driven electrical system or which has not subsequently b een certified with such a system installed, balloon or glider may conduct operations in the airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part provided such operations are conducted

—
(i) Outside any Class A, Class B, or Class C airspace area; and

(ii) Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower; and

(4) All aircraft in all airspace above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for an airport upward to 10,000 feet MSL; and

(5) All aircraft except any aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine

- driven electrical system or which has not subsequently bee n certified with such a system installed, balloon, or glider

—
(i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface; and

(ii) In the air space from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL within a 10

- nautical

- mile radius of any airport listed in appendix D, section 2 of this part, excluding the airspace below 1,200 feet outside of the lateral boundaries of the surface area of the airspace designated for that airport.

(c) Transponder

- on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with § 91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 43

(d) ATC authorized devia tions. Requests for ATC authorized deviations must be made to the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace within the time periods specified as follows:

(1) For operation of an aircraft with an operating transponder but without operati ng automatic pressure altitude repo rting equipment having a Mode C apability, the request may be made at any time.

(2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made or both, the request may be made at any time.

(3) For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a transponder, the request must be made at least one hour before the proposed operation.

Pr oposed Conditions #3, 25, 26, and 27 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the aforementioned Proposed Conditions, and particularly all the reporting requirements contained in an
ATO

- Issued COA, the Petitioner can provide an equival ent level of safety as is provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with reporting standards as set forth in the rule.



### 14 C.F.R. 91.403 : General

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.403 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter

. (b) No person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on an aircr aft other than as prescribed in this subpart and other applicable regulations, including part 43 of this chapter

. (c) No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions
for continued airworthiness has been issu ed that contains an airworthiness limitations section unless the mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified in that section or alternative inspection intervals and related procedures set forth in an operations speci fication approved by the Administrator underpart 121 or 135 of this chapter or in accordance with an inspection program approved under § 91.409(e) have been complied with.

(d) A person must not alter an aircraft based on a supplemental type certificate un less the owner or operator of the aircraft is the holder of the supplemental type certificate, or has written permission
from the holder.

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the
aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth
in the rule.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 44



### 14 C.F.R. 91.405(a) : Maintenance Required

Title 14, P art 91, Section 91.405(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

Each owner or operator of an aircraft

—
(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragr aph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter ;

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can prov ide an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth
in the rule.



### 14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1) : Operation after Maintenance or Alteration

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91. 407(a)(1) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless

—
(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized un der§ 43.7 of this chapter.

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the existing rul e and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth
in the rule.



### 14 C.F.R. 409(a)(1) and (2) : Inspections

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.409(a)(1) and (2) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) Except as provided in parag raph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had

—
(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for return to service by a person authorized by § 43.7 of this chapter; or

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

.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 45

No inspection performed under paragraph (b) of this section may be substituted for any inspection required by th is paragraph unless it is performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections and is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance records.

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by f ollowing the aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth
in the rule.



### 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) and ( b) : Maintenance Records

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.417(a) and (b) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with§§ 91.411 and 91.413 , each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for t he periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 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) 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 eac h 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.

(i v) 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.

(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.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 46 (vi) Copies of the for ms prescribed by§ 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration to the 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 reco rds 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 trans ferred
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.

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compl iance with maintenance standards as set forth
in the rule.



## Privacy

When discussing the use of s mall Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

, the question of privacy frequently comes up. The reason for this is clear as small unmanned aircraft, despite their incredibl e uses as a tool, also have the potential to be used for nefarious activities, such as spying for example. This presents a risk to the personal privacy of individuals. Furthermore, in less extreme cases of invasion of privacy, a small unmanned craft migh t accidently capture imagery that would comprise someone’s privacy. Due to these potential privacy risks it is imperative for operators of small unmanned craft to use their aircraft responsibly and focus on mitigating any of the potential privacy risks th eir aircraft creates. The Petitioner is particularly aware of the privacy concerns of individuals and due to this is extremely focused on providing privacy not only for individuals, but also for customers.


## Public Interest and Safety

According to the Fe deral Aviation Administration Guidelines for Section 333 Exemptions there are three main criteria a successful Petition for Exemption under Section 333 should have;

1. The Petitioner must submit a request for exemption from a rule or set of rules contained in 14
C

. F

. R

. that the Petitioner believe s will be a burden for their operations.

2. The Petitioner must provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which the Petitioner is seeking a n exemption, and;

3. The Petitioner’s request must be in the Public Interest.

To satisfy these main guidelines, the following information will cover the justification of the proposed commercial operations under Section 333 requested by this Petition. More clearly, the followingPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 47

arguments will show how ea ch of the proposed applications/use

- cases are in the public interest and promote safety.

Specifically, the sUAS flights proposed in this petition will increase safety for the following applications; Agriculture, Cinema tography, Environmental Protection, and Real Estate

. Furthermore, it wi ll be seen
that the use of sUAS by the Petitioner will also promote safety and reduce negative environmental impacts. This will be achieved because of the lower risks associated with a small, plastic, battery

powered sUAS, as compa red to a manned, multi

- thousand

- pound, combustion

- engine

- powered,
flammable

- fuel

- carrying

, aircraft. Plus, with most sUAS data capture happening at low altitudes,
because of the enhanced da ta resolution possible at low altitudes, customers of sUAS services are getting better, more accurate data, while at the same time the public is avoiding the potentially hazardous practice of ultra

- low

- flying manned aircraft. Clearly, the combination of bett er, more accurate data, coupled with the enhanced safety of a sUAS over manned aircraft, produces a viable commercial operation that promotes the public interest. Evidence of this can be found in the industry

specific examples below

.

In addition to the aforementioned safety benefits and promotion of public interest s, it should also be noted that all the sUAS aircraft utilized by the Petitioner satisfy the directives passed to the Federal Aviation Administration by Congress in t he Reform Act of 2012 . Spe cifically, all of the Petitioner’s aircraft satisfy the size, weight, speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports, proximity to populated areas, and visual line of sight rules and requirements laid out by Congress. Furthermore, due to the FAA pre cedent of requiring, at minimum, a Sport Pilot’s Certificate, the FAA can be assured that all commercial flights proposed in this Petition do not pose a threat to National Security as all PIC’s will have already been vetted by the Department of Homeland Se curity. For these reasons and for the numerous arguments contained herein, this Petition for Exemption provides strong justification for approval of commercial operations for the above

- stated sUAS in the above

- stated applications and use

cases under Secti on 333, pursuant to the operating procedures and requirements described herein.

Furthermore, contained in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 was Congress’ clear initiative to integrate commercial sUAS flights into the National Airspace System. With this initiative it is definitive that Congress believ es that the integration of commercial sUAS into the National Airspace System is within the Public Interest as they are, obviously, elected representatives of the public assigned with the duty of dr iving policy that promotes the Public Interest. Thus, in addition to the industry

specific examples below, it should also be considered t hat the integration of all sUAS , pursuant to their safe integration to the NAS and providing of at least an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the current FAA rules, is inherently within the public interest.

Please look below to find more detailed descriptions as to why each of the applications highlighted above can provide a benefit to the public as a whole and r easons why the exemption would not adversely affect safe ty

.



### AgriculturePETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 48

Precision Agriculture is an industry that has seen a significant infl ux of sUAS use over the past few years. With this influx of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Technologies, farmers and their Ag partners have become more efficient and effective in making various Ag

- related management decisions.

There is an adage that points to the importance of agriculture to the public that reads, “...once in your life you need a doctor, a lawyer, a policeman, and a preacher, but every day, three ti mes a day, you
need a farmer.” 13 This adage really highlights the importance of agriculture to the public as a whole, as the Ag industry, and particularly farmers, are the people who provide the general public with one of their three essential needs, food.

What sUAS provide to the Ag Industry are a method by which to collect information and make

manage ment decisions that are more data

- driven and thus, more effective. Consider the use of sUAS to provide targeted scouting and aerial imaging/mapping to farmers and their Ag partners (Agronomists, Crop Consultants, Seed Dealers, etc.).

Every year millions of acres of farmland are scouted by a variety of people, whether it is the farmers themselves, or an Ag partner of theirs, such as a Cooperative Agronomist, Crop Consultant, Field Intern, or other third party Ag partner. The idea behind scouting is to co llect in

- season information about the crops and fields in question.

This is obviously in the public interest as it is estimated by the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (“FAO”) that by the year 2050 Global Food Production w ill have to in crease by 70% in order to feed a population that is estima ted to grow to over 9 billion. 14

Where sUAS come into play is that they provide even more efficiency and data

- driven decision

- making than we even use today. Why is this? It is because a sUAS ca n provide a new perspecti ve and in turn provide a new data

- set from which information can be derived and decisions can be ma de. Consider a crop scout walking a set of fields, t aking a tissue sample, submitting it to a lab for analysis, and returning
the lab data to the farmer so that the farmer can make an In

- Season management decision. N ow consider this example if this same crop scout were equipped with the same types of sUAS utilized by the
Petitioner.

First of all, the scout would be much more efficient. A recent study at the University of Wisconsin

Whitewater showed that scouting with a sUAS was up to 80% more efficient than walking an entire
fiel d. 15 Considering this efficiency fact alone, a scout is going to be much more efficient each day, which allows him/her to scout more acres and thus provide more information to more farmers to make data

driven decisions and produce more food as a whole. However, efficiency is not the only benefit.

In addition to efficien cy, a scout can also be more targeted, meaning they can pinpoint areas of the field most in need of a thorough walk

- through and go straight to those spots as opposed to walking randomly through the field (which is the standard practice for many scouts). B y gaining an aerial perspective with a sUAS, scouts can view the entire field in a video or picture quickly and in turn, see blotches of discoloration or diseased crop instantly. Using the internal GPS Guidance System onboard the aircraft,
this scout can also georeference their imagery, meaning each picture they take can be tagged with a
Geo

- coordinate (Latitude and Longitude). This allows them to pinpoint an area of distress in the field, get the geo

- tag, input it into their Smart Phone or Tablet, and wa lk straight to that area of distress. This is both efficient and vital to the farmer and his crop. While a typical crop scout might completely miss aPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 49

distressed area of a field (due to the lack of an aerial perspective), a targeted scout with a sUAS is g oing to have the opportunity to point out all the issues in the field and in turn manage those areas to minimize the damage (yield loss).

The same University of Wisconsin

- Whitewater study that found the increased efficiency statistics
associated with sUA S use for crop scouting

, also found that when sUAS crop scouting is coupled with the recommended management applications, farmers see, on average, a 7

- 10 bushel increase in prod uction (corn). 15 This is important for a variety of reasons. First, 7

- 10 bushe ls turns into a huge number when it is extrapolated across corn acres. On a 1,000 acre corn farm, a 7

- 10 bushel increase is an extra 7,000

- 10,000 bu., which significantly drives down per

- bushel input costs. Additionally, at today’s corn price of about $3 .70, that 7

- 10 bushels is roughly a $26,000

- $37,000 revenue boost for the farm.

With the majority of farms in America (87% accordin g to the EPA’s 2007 Ag Census 16 ) being individually or family owned, those revenue increases and cost savings are putting m ore money into the pocket of
the American farmer.

In addition to the basic benefits provided by a sUAS in terms of efficiency and targeted scouting of problem areas, there is also the benefit of using more advanced payloads to pull even more information from an aerial assessment utilizing a sUAS. Consider the increasing popularity of Near

- Infrared and Thermal Infrared Imaging payloads. Both these payload types provide information to the farmer t hat can help in management decisions and management practices.

A Near Infrared Imaging Payload, like the Tetracam ADC Snap or Micasense RedEdge for example, can provide information relating to the Near Infrared light reflectance bouncing off an Agricultu ral crop. This data is not viewable to the naked eye and is not “capturable” by a standard visible

- light spectrum digital camera. However, this data can be extremely important and suggest crop stress within a field. By utilizing a sUAS, an operator like the Petitioner could provide a new data layer to farmers and agronomists that could help them determine plant stress within their fields and map it according to the georeferenced, stitched imagery. Additionally, this type of imagery could also assist in managem ent practices. With a stitched

- orthomosaic, l ike the ones created using NIR and georeferenced Imagery, farmers can create management zones in their fields using Ag software and even create georeferenced prescription maps, which are utilized to variab le

- rate fertilizers and chemicals onto fields.

Using this type of data and software minimizes over and under application of chemicals and fertilizers and ensures the right amount of product is applied to each acre of the field. This will serve the publi c interest by creating a healthier environment with less runoff and water contamination as well as provide for more sustainable farming practices. Plus, all of this is done by making data

- driven chemical and fertilizer applications derived from sUAS Image ry, which in turn saves the farmer money by using the correct amount of product and ensures maximum yields by optimizing the application so that each acre of farmland receives exactly the amount of product it needs based on plant stress.

The above example mostly pertains to Precision Agriculture, however it should be noted that there are a variety of applications in agriculture outside Precision Agriculture that can also be positively impacted by sUAS use. Cattle operations as an example can monitor the he alth of their cattle by flying over their herds with thermal cameras. Plant operators can monitor the temperature of their grain piles by utilizing these same thermal cameras in much the same way. So clearly, there are many applications in the Ag Space t hat could utilize sUAS.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 50

Furthermore, it should also be considered that these steps forward in efficiency and management practices are done while utilizing a safe and effective sUAS Tool that is not only maintaining the safety of the National Airspace b ut also taking into consideration customer and public privacy as well as eliminating the risks associated with the alternative form of imagery capture using a manned aircraft.

Referring back to the 4

- D analysis of UAV use, it is clear that the agricultur al applications of data capture point to the use of UAV systems over manned aircraft because;

 Dull

– Ag flights require repetition as crop stress and/or animal health

, need to be checked frequently. In some applications, daily or even hourly flights may be necessary. Due to this requirement of high repetition, a sUAS is well suited for the job over a manned aircraft, which would basically require a full time pilot on

- call 24 hours a day.

 Dangerous

– Ag flights have the potential to carry a high degree of risk, especially when flying low over crops or cattle. Really, any low altitude flight in a manned aircraft is more dangerous than a high altitude flight because of the increase in obstacles and less margin for error. It is for this reason that Crop Dusting is a dangerous industry as pilots are operating
manned aircraft at altitudes much lo wer than their Private and Commercial Pilot counterparts. Furthermore, utilizing a sUAS fly

- over in agriculture can produce safer operations when compared to the alternative. Consider flying over cattle for example. Flying over a cattle operation with a sUAS can be a much safer cattle management practice than actually having a human monitoring or checking the animals while in the herd. Human interaction in a large herd could potentially cause a stampede or more likely, an aggressive animal bucking or ot herwise injuring a human.

 Dirty

– Ag flights have the potential to be carried out in hazardous environments. As stated above, operating within a cattle herd with several aggressive bulls is a hazardous
environment and an environment which is better nav igated by a non

- human, such as a

sUAS.

 Deep

– Ag flights can sometimes be beyond the range of manned platforms. First, sUAS have the ability to fly at lower altitudes and thus capture higher resolution data than what a
manned aircraft could do. Addit ionally, flights around structures on a farm or near a farm (such as silos, barns, radio towers, etc.) could potentially be hazardous for a manned aircraft
while a micro

- drone has a lot more maneuverability in tight spaces.

Therefore, the promotion of th e public interest described above coupled with the enhanced safety provided by sUAS flights in Agriculture, strongly supports the granting of this petition.

Additionally, the following previously granted exemptions point to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS us e in the Agriculture Industry as being within the public interest.

 Exemption Numbers:PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 51

o 11110

o 11136

o 11167

o 11192

o 11222



### Cinematography

The A erial Cinematography Industry is an industry that has been operating for many years to capture
cinema

- quality footage from low altitudes. Initially this type of cinematography was captured using fixed wings and helicopters, but in more recent years, the b usiness has started to utilize UAVs. The reason the industry has transitioned to these small aircraft is because newer UAV systems have be en able to capture the quality video the industry is looking for but at a much lower cost and with significantly lower risks.

One of the reasons manned aircraft cinematography is so expensive is because of the dangers associated with flying a 6,000 pound aircraft, filled with flammable fuel, powered by a combustion engine, at low altitudes and over people. The insurance costs alone for these types of activities are high and accidents have happened in the industry. Some of these accidents have even lead t o casualties.

A few years ago, ten people died when two helicopters crashed while filming the French Realty Show, “Dropped.” 17

Whenever you have manned aircraft operating at low altitudes there are added risks. These risks include ground structures, co nfined spaces, and more. Additionally, when you have manned aircraft, any accidents are much more catastrophic than if you had the same situation with unmanned aircraft. Once again, this is because of the size and flammable fuel carried on

- board manned a ircraft. A small Unmanned Aircraft does not have these attributes, plus, because there are no people on board, the chances of causalities is lower because there is no pilot.

It is important to remember that the weight of the UAVs utilized by the Petitio ner will weigh no more
than 10 pounds and contain no crew, flammable fuel, or combustion engine. This limited weight and size will significantly reduce the potential for casualties or mass property damage in the case of a crash. Furthermore, the use of electric power by the Petitioner’s UAVs is much more environmentally

- friendly than that of a manned aircraft, which is carrying a significant amount of unnecessary weight using
carbon

- based fuel sources. Therefore, in addition to the increased safety obta ined by a UAV performing aerial cinematography, there is also the added public benefit of a healthier environment.

Furthermore, while traditional aerial cinematography utilizing conventional aircraft can perform in close proximity to people and proper ty, it should be pointed out that a UAV is even safer than the traditional methods because of the limited size, weight, speed, operating conditions, and safety features included on the proposed aircraft within this petition. Additionally, as is highlighte d in the FAA ModernizationPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 52

and Reform Act of 2012, the integration of UAS into the National Airspace System is inherently in the public interest so long as it can be accomplished with at least an equivalent level of safety as is currently provided by exist ing FAA rules and regulations.

On top of this, the utilization of sUAS in the Aerial Cinematography Industry falls in line with the 4D’s of UAS Intervention, which points to the Public Interest of using UAVs over manned aircraft. The reasoning
for this can be seen below;

 Dull

– Aerial Cinematography is an industry that requires repetitive flights. There are often multiple takes of the same scene in order to get the perfect shot with the perfect lighting. For this reason, the same flight has to occur several times in a short time period. This isn’t necessarily efficient for a manned aircraft because it needs to stay aloft during filming and due to this, wastes time and fuel waiting for successive shots. A UAV on the other hand can land in between shots and use signific antly less power. Plus, because of the inherent risks of flying at low altitudes for manned aircraft (structures, people, obstacles, etc.), repetitive shots require repetitive risky flight operations.

 Dangerous

– Aerial Cinematography is almost always done at very low altitudes, which is dangerous airspace for large, manned aircraft. There are more obstacles to consider at low altitudes and less margin for error. Therefore

, aerial cinematography flights using manned aircraft are more dangerous than if the same manned aircraft were operating at higher altitudes with less obstacles and more space. Thus, an unmanned craft is a safer alternative as it is more maneuverable in confined spaces and less damaging in the case of a crash.

 Dirty

– Some aerial cinematography is extreme in nature and may include things like airborne obstacles. While the Petitioner’s UAV system would be maintaining a safe distance from this hazardous environment and remaining within line of sight, it is impo rtant to consider that unpredictable accidents can happen in which a bird might fly into a prop as an example. In this
situation

, it would obviously be better to have a small unmanned craft than a large, manned aircraft, carrying a pilot and flammable fuel . As was seen in the Miracle on the Hudson Incident, birds can have a devastating effect on an aircraft if they damage a prop or get sucked into an engine.

 Deep

– Some aerial cinematography might require capabilities that only an unmanned aircraft can perform, such as flying in extremely close proximity to structures or other obstacles at low speeds. This type of application would be impossible for most ma nned aircraft and if not impossible, fairly dangerous. For this reason

, an unmanned aircraft would be required.

Additionally, the following previously granted exemptions point to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in the Aerial Cinematography Industry as being within the public interest.

 Exemption Numbers:PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 53

o 11540

o 11153

o 12031



### Environmental Protection

Environmental Protection and Conservation are a vital component of a healthy pla net. Throughout the

years , many conservation efforts have been made based on environmental research captured from the air. Imaging from these elevated altitudes gives researchers on the ground a different vantage point
which allows for more detailed infor mation of a broader area. Much like aerial imagery experts in the Agricultural Industry, conservationists use many of the same aerial imaging techniques, including, multispectral imagery, visible light spectrum imagery, image stitching, 3D mapping, and mo re. The data sets that can be captured using these various techniques allows for researchers to develop action plans on how to best address potential environmental concerns. It is for this reason that the Petitioner seeks an exemption under Section 333 i n an effort to provide services to the Conservation Industry. Clearly, the use of any aerial imagery device is helpful in the fight to protect the environment but especially when that device is inexpensive, efficient to operate, rapidly deployable, safe t o operate, and produces a low carbon footprint.

All of these attributes are associated with the types of small unmanned aircraft utilized by the Petitioner. Due to this, it is the Petitioner’s view that the utilization of sUAS in the Conservation Indust ry is within the Public Interest, as it provides the public good of a healthier planet. Additionally, it is the belief of the Petitioner that the use of sUAS in the Conservation Industry would also provide an equivalent level of safety as is provided by c urrent rules governing manned aircraft.

For many years

, manned aircraft have been utilized to execute a variety of tasks in the Conservation landscape, including, taking population counts of species, examining environmental disasters such as oil spills, t aking multispectral imagery to observe invasive species growth, and much more. These types of applications typically require a vehicle that can fly, a couple humans to operate the craft and manage the sensors, and some sort of sensor payload that may incl ude devices such as visible and multispectral cameras as an example.

This is clearly a large operation and potentially a very expensive one in terms of time and money. Consider the fact that to own or rent a manned aircraft is highly expensive for the av erage conservationist. Additionally, consider that many of the types of businesses that operate in this space

are non

- profits who may not have the budgets to fund a full

- scale flyover with an actual plane. Plus, with many of these businesses being donati on

- based, their budgets may fluctuate from year to year based on the economy. This could potentially make it very difficult to perform multi

- year studies in which multiple flights over multiple years must be flown. In a good year these example non

- profit s might be able to swing it but in bad years, when their donations are down, they may have difficulty funding these manned flights and therefore, may need to end the study or move forward with incomplete data.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 54

A small unmanned aircraft, such as the one f lown by the Petitioner, avoids many of the pitfalls mentioned above relating to manned aircraft. From a monetary perspective, consider the fact that many small unmanned aircraft cost less than $5,000, meaning for a one

- time fixed cost, a
conservationist c an obtain a rapidly deployable, aerial imaging device, that has very low running costs (as it is battery powered). This is a huge advantage for the personal conservationist or the non

- profit. Additionally, from a time standpoint, a sUAS is rapidly deploy able, meaning a user can take it out of its case and literally be imaging an area of interest in a couple minutes. This helps in many situations, but especially those situations that are fast moving. In the case of an environmental disaster as an example

, the Petitioner may want to capture the immediate aftermath which is likely not possible for a manned aircraft as you have to rent planes ahead of time. Also, in any situation where animals are involved, a rapidly deployable system is key. This is becau se a species that is being target for imaging may be rare and the opportunity to snap a photo is very short

- lived.

From a safety standpoint as well, sUAS provide a safe means of image capture. First, a sUAS is unmanned, meaning if there is a loss of the aircraft due to some sort of accident, only the aircraft is damaged and not the pilot and crew inside, as is the case with manned aircraft. Additionally, because the sUAS is small and battery

- powered, it poses a lesser risk to people and property on the ground than does a manned aircraft that weighs thousands of pounds and carries flammable fuel. Furthermore, the type of imagery sought by the Petitioner is imagery that is relatively close to the ground (always below 400 feet AGL). This is a potentially hazardous environment for any aircraft as the chances of collision with a ground

- based object, feature, or structure are significantly increased. Due to this, it is the belief of the Petitioner that it would be safer to have a small unmanned aircraft oper ating in this sort of environment as it is smaller and has superior maneuverability when compared to a manned aircraft.

On top of this, the utilization of sUAS in the Environmental Protection/Conservation Industry falls in line with the 4D’s of UAS Intervention, which points to the Public Interest of using UAVs over manned
aircr aft. The reasoning for this can be seen below;

 Dull

– The Environmental Protection/Conservation Industry is an industry that requires repetitive flights. Often, as is the case in other industries that capture research

- based imagery, multiple flights mu st be performed of the same area with multiple sensor payloads. This could be performed by a manned aircraft, however, it may be more advantageous to utilize a UAV, especially in situations where a flight with a manned aircraft may be risky due to hazards at low

altitudes. Although one flight in a manned aircraft over the area might be possible, multiple flights repeatedly expose that aircraft and the pilot to ground

- based threats, which over time expose the aircraft to increase d chances of an accident.

 Dangerous

– Aerial Conservation Imagery is often captured at low altitudes, which is very dangerous airspace for large, manned aircraft. There are more obstacles to consider at low altitudes and less margin for error. Therefore, Conservation flights us ing manned aircraft are more dangerous than if the same manned aircraft were operating at higher altitudes with less obstacles and more space. Thus, an unmanned craft is a safer alternative as it is more maneuverable in confined spaces and less damaging i n the case of a crash.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 55

 Dirty

– Some Conservation Imagery is captured in potentially hazardous environments. While the Petitioner’s UAV system would be maintaining a safe distance from these potential hazards and remaining within line of sight, it is important to consider that mistakes can happen in unpredictable situations. A flock of birds for example might quickly change directions and come into contact with the aircraft. Usually this isn’t a big deal, however, larger birds, such as geese or cranes, could significantly dam age a manned aircraft by breaking a prop, damaging a window, or being sucked into an engine. Each of these situations is dangerous for the crew onboard. Therefore, it is the belief of the Petitioner that this same type of impact with a small UAV would
be safer than a manned aircraft because in the worst case scenario there isn’t the loss of human life or significant damage to property on the ground as the sUAS weighs below ten pounds and doesn’t carry flammable fuel.

 Deep

– Some Aerial Conservation Imaging might require capabilities that only an unmanned aircraft can perform, such as flying in close proximity to natural features or other obstacles at low speeds. This type of application would be impossible for most manned aircraft and if not impossi ble, fairly dangerous. For this reason

, an unmanned aircraft would be required.

Additionally, the following previously granted exemption points to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in the Environmental Protection/Conservation Industry as being within the public interest.

 Exemption Number:

o 13677



### Real Estate

The Real Estate Industry was one of the first industries to be granted an Exemption under Section 333.
One of the reasons for this is the obvious benefit the utilization of a small unmanned aircraft can provide for the purposes of property and home sales. The ability to gain an aerial perspective of a property or house allows potential buyers a way of seeing the property in its entirety.

When thinking about traditional real estate listings, there are often a series of photographs of the house or property, and its surroundings. However, these pictures are not necessarily cong ruent, meaning the buyer can’t put one picture with the next picture and get a walk

- around of the property.

Furthermore, aerial cinematography for real estate has existed for many years, however it has

prev iously been accomplished using manned fixed wing or helicopter aircraft. The expense of utilizing this form of cinematography is extremely costly and prices many realtors and homeowners out of this form of marketing. However, this form of marketing is ve ry valuable and would likely be used by more people if the service was available at a lower price.

Additionally, utilizing manned aircraft to capture the type of aerial marketing possible with a sUAS poses significant threats and problems to a community. Obvio usly

, a low

- flying plane or helicopter would supply significant noise and annoyance among neighbors of a home being videoed from a plane orPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 56

helicopter. It is for this reason that there are noise ordinances across the country pertaining to manned
aircraft. Obviously, a light

- weight sUAS will produce much less noise than a helicopter or plane operating at low altitudes. Furthermore, there is also substantially less risk associated with a sUAS performing a low

- altitude real estate flight, especially in popul ated neighborhoods. This is the case because if a manned aircraft goes down in a populated neighborhood there will likely be fatalities or significant damage to the plane and crash site. A sUAS on the other hand would likely cause little damage in the ca se of a catastrophic crash. Plus, because the sUAS proposed in this petition do not carry combustible fuel, the after

- effect damage is far less as well because there isn’t a risk of a fuel tank exploding or starting on fire.

Furthermore, when looking bac k at the 4D’s of UAV Use, it is clear that Real Estate photography and cinematography using small unmanned aircraft fits the 4D’s.

 Dull

– Real Estate flights for aerial cinematography are a sUAS use

- case marked by repetition
and on

- demand access. More clearly, homes may need to be flown multiple times and on

demand. The key to a good real estate video is that it nicely highlights the features of the real estate being filmed and does so in good lighting conditions.

 Dangerous

– Real Estate flights using manned aircraft would be highly dangerous in compari son to unmanned aircraft. The reason for this is because most flights take place low to the ground, right above houses and many times above highly populated neighborhoods. An accident with a manned aircraft in these conditions could be catastrophic, with potentially many casualties and a lot of property damage. An unmanned craft, like the ones described in this petition, would cause much less damage in the case of an accident, as they are small, battery powered, and weigh under 10 lbs.

 Dirty

– Co mmercial UAV flights in the real estate industry can also be dirty, in that they can take place in potentially hazardous environments. Commercial real estate in particular, in which large factories or plants may be being sold, could pose hazardous environ ments that are best filmed by sUAS aircraft so as to not expose humans to hazardous waste, gases, or materials for example. Furthermore, decrepit or abandoned buildings that are dangerous to walk through or near, may be best flown using an unmanned aircra ft.

 Deep

– Once again, sUAS allow for operators to capture high resolution data at low altitudes. This is true in the Real Estate Industry as well and low altitude flight can be especially dangerous for manned aircraft. In particular, any high resolution d ata collection at low altitudes and in confined areas, such as in neighborhoods as an example, can be impossible for manned aircraft as their maneuverability is such that the confined area is too small for safe flight.

Finally, because the proposed sUA S contained in this Petition are battery

- powered, they do not release environmentally hazardous emissions. Thus, utilizing these micro

- UAVs in place of manned aircraft benefits the public by promoting a healthier environment.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 57

By granting this Petition for Exemption and allowing commercial sUAS flights in the Real Estate Industry, the FAA will be contributing to economic growth by supporting the housing industry and commercial real estate industry, thereby strengthening the economy. Furthermore, all of this can be done by maintaining the safety of the National Airspace and people & property on the ground.

Additionally, the following previously granted exemptions point to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in the Real Estate Industry as being within the public interest.

 Exemption Numbers:

o 11062

o 11109

o 11112

o 11213

o 11364



## R egulations Requested for Exemption

Appendix 1: Regulations Requested for Exemption

– List

https://drive.google.c om/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMajc4dHA2bjE4bjg/view?usp=sharing



## Exhibit List

Exhibit 1: Flyboy Drone Company Operations Manual

https:// drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMOGRqTmdRTjI3Q3M/view?usp=sharing



### Exhibit 2: Flyboy Drone Company Logbook Example

Below is a logbook example from the app that is running the Flight Logs for the Petitioner’s aircraf t. The specific flight logs pictured are just an example and not specific to the Petitioner’s prior flights. In addition to the logbook, please see the linked video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=4afE

- rd6xoY ) that shows how the flight logs can be played back utilizing the same logging app for each flight.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 58



### Exhibit 3: Flyboy Drone Company Visual Observer Training Procedures & Guide

Visual Observer Training Proce dures

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMNFllQVJZdHVsQ0E/view?usp=sharing



### Visual Observer Training Guide

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMbElBZTcwUi02aHM/view?usp=sharing



### Exhibit 4: Flyboy Drone Company Pilot In Command Training Guide

Pilot In Command Training Procedures

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMNFllQVJZdHVsQ0E/view?usp=sharing



### Pilot in Command Training Guide

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMREF0OHZLZ25Jc2M/view?usp=sharingPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 59



### Exhibit 5 : DJI Phantom 2 Vision +

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

- 2

- vision

- plus



### Exhibit 6 : DJI Phantom 2 Vision + User Manual

http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/phantom_2_vision_plus/en/Phantom_2_Vision_Plus_User_Manual_v1.8_e n.pdf



### Exhibit 7 : DJ I Phantom 2 Vision + Quick Start Guide

http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/phantom_2_vision_plus/en/Phantom_2_Vi sion_Plus_Quick_Start_Guide_e n.pdf



### Exhibit 8 : DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Features

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

- 2

- vision

- plus/feature



### Exhibit 9 : DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Specifi cations

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

- 2

- vision

- plus/spec



### Exhibit 10 : DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Flight Controller User Manual

http://download.dji

- innovations.com/downloads/nazam

- v2/en/NAZA

M_Quick_Start_Guide_v1.26_en.pdf



### Exhibit 11 : DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Smart Battery Manual

http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/phantom_2_vision_plus/Smart_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines.pdfPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 60



### Exhibit 12 : DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Pilot Training Guide

http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/phantom_2_vision_plus/en/Phantom_2_Vision_Plus_Pilot_Training_Guide _v1.1_e n.pdf



### Exhibit 13 : DJI P hantom 3 Professional

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

- 3



### Exhibit 14 : DJI Phantom 3 Professional User Manual

http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_User_Manual_v1.2_en.pdf



### Exhibit 15 : DJI Phantom 3 Professional Quick Start Guide

http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_Quick_Start_Guide_en.pdf



### Exhibit 16 : DJI Phantom 3 Professional Features

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

- 3/feature



### Exhibit 17 : DJI Phantom 3 Professional Specifications

http://www.dj i.com/product/phantom

- 3/spec



### Exhibit 18 : DJI Phantom 3 Professional Flight Controller System

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

- 3/flight

- systemPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 61



### Exhibit 19 : DJI Phantom 3 Professional S mart Battery Manual

http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pd f



### Exhibit 20 : DJI Phantom 3 Professional Safety/Preflight Checklist and Guidelines Training

http://download.dji

- innovations.com/downloads/phant om_3/en/Safety_Guidelines_Disclaimer_en.pdf



### Exhibit 21 : DJI Inspire 1

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire

- 1



### Exhibit 22 : DJI Inspire 1 User Manual

http://download.dji

- innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_User_Manual_v1.2_en.pdf



### Exhibit 23 : DJI Inspire 1 Quick Start Guide

http://download.dji

- innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_Quick_Start_Guide_en.pdf



### Exhibit 24 : DJI Inspire 1 Features

http://www.dji .com/product/inspire

- 1/feature



### Exhibit 25 : DJI Inspire 1 Specifications

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire

- 1/spec



### Exhibit 26 : DJI Inspire 1 Flight Controller SystemPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 62

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire

- 1/flight

- control



### Exhi bit 27 : DJI Inspire 1 Smart Battery Manual

http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf



### Exhibit 28 : DJI Matrice 100

http://dev.dji.com/en/pro ducts/flying

- platforms/matrice

- 100



### Exhibit 29 : DJI Matrice 100 User Manual

http://download.dji

- innovations.com/downloads/dev/Matrice/en/M100_User_M anual_v1.0_en.pdf



### Exhibit 30 : DJI Matrice 100 Features

http://dev.dji.com/en/products/flying

- platforms/matrice

- 100/features



### Exhibit 31 : DJI Matrice 100 Specifications

http://dev.dji.com/en/products/flying

- platforms/matrice

- 100/specs



### Exhibit 32 : DJI Matrice 100 Smart Battery Manual

http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/dev/Matrice/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf



### Exhibit 33 : 3D Robotics X8+

https://3dr.com/x8/PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 63



### Exhibit 34 : 3D Robotics X8+ User Manual

https://3dr.com/wp

- content/uploads/2015/04/X8

- Operation

- Manual

- vC.pdf



### Exhibit 35 : 3D Robotics X8+ Features

https://3dr.com/kb/x8/



### Exhibit 36 : 3D Robotics X8+ Specifications

https://3dr.com/kb/x8/



### Exhibit 3 7 : 3D Robotics X8+ Battery Safety Manual

https://3dr.com/kb/battery

- safety/



## References

1.) 

### NTSB. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration v. Raphael

Pirker . Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 17 Nov . 2014.
PDF. Aircraft Definition.

2.) 

### Administration, Federal Aviation. "FAA Streamlines UAS COAs for Section 333." FAA.gov

.

Federal Aviation Administration, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

3.) 

### Administration, Federal Aviation. "Section 333 Petition Guidance & C hecklist." (n.d.): n.

pag. FAA.gov . Federal Aviation Administration. Web. Conditions for a successful Exemption.

4.) 

### Watts, Adam C., Vincent G. Ambrosia, and Everett A. Hinkley. Unmanned Aircraft

Systems in Remote Sensing and Scientific Research: Classificati on and Consideration of Use . Basel, Switzerland:

w ww.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing, 8 June 2012. PDF. "D's" of UnmannedPETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 64 

### Aircraft Use.

5.) 

### SKYbrary. "Unmanned Aircraft Systems."

- SKYbrary Aviation Safety. N.p., n.d. Web.

20 July 2015.

6.) 

### Administration, Federa l Aviation. "Public Guidance for Petitions for Exemption under

Section 333." FAA.gov . Federal Av iation Administration, n.d. Web.

7.) 

### "FAA Summary Grants Speed UAS Exemptions." FAA Summary Grants Speed UAS

Exemptions. Federal Aviation Administration, n.d. Web. 20 July 2015. Permitting Recreational and Sport Pilot Certificates.

8.) 

### FAR Part 91

- Basic VFR Weather Minimums, Code of Federal Regulations § 91.155

(2004). Print.

9.) 

### Administration, Transportation Security. "Vetting of Airmen Certificates and General

Aviat ion Airport Access and Security Procedures." Department of Homeland Security . Office of Inspector General, 7 July 2011. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

10.) 

### MacPherson, Rebecca B. "U.S. DOT / FAA

- Office of the Chief Counsel." Letter to Mr.

Timothy John Gilbert. 25 Feb. 2 011. MS. 800 Independence Ave. S.W., Washington, DC, Maryland. Clarification on "Furtherance of a business."

11.) 

### Federal Aviation Administration . "Exemption No. 11062A Regulatory Docket No. FAA

2014

- 0352." Department of T ransportation, 23 July 2015. PDF

.

12.) 

### Jensen, Warren, PhD. Ground

- Based Visual Observer/Crewmember Training for UAS

.

New York, NY: Slideserve.com, 9 July 2008. PPT. Visual Observer and Pilot In
Command Training Guidance and Format.

13.) 

### Schoepp, Brenda. "Brenda Schoepp

- International Mentor. Inspirational Speaker.

Creative Writ er." Brenda Schoepp. Brenda Schoepp, 2012. Web. 20 July 2015. Quote.

14.) 

### Organization, Food And Agri cultural. Global Agriculture Towards 2050 . Rome, Italy:

Agricultural Development Economics Division, 13 Oct. 2009. PDF. UN Projections Global Food Demand in 2050.

15.) 

### “ University of Wisconsin

– Whitewater 2014 Annual Report. ” Enactus Scouting Forward.

Whitewater, WI: UW

- Whitewater Enactus, Fe b. 2014. PRINT.

16.) 

### Vil sack, Tom. 2012 Census of Agriculture . Rep. Washington, D.C. : United States

Department of Agriculture, 2014. PDF.PETITIONER

– Flyboy Drone Company DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 65

17.) 

### "Olympic Medalists among 10 Dead as Reality TV Choppers Collide." NBC News . NBC,

n.d. Web. 20 July 2015.



## Exemption References

Exemption # 11467

Exemption # 11905

Ex emption # 11797

Exemption # 12031

Exemption # 11865

Exemption # 11364

Exemption # 11587

Exemption # 11857

Exemption # 11293

Exemption # 11814

Exemption # 11540

Exemption # 11345