August 7, 2015

United States Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

Filed at www.regulations.gov

SUBJECT: Petition for Exemption under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations

Submitted by:

Steve Welebny, C.P.

Certified Photogrammetrist/ Comm, Multi, Inst

10 Wrick Ave.

Titusville NJ 08560

973-316-8743

swelebny@borbas.com
Dear Sir or Madam:

Request for Part 333 Exemption

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the “Reform Act”) and 14 

C.F.R. Part 11, Steven Todd Welebny (the petitioner and operator) seeks an exemption from the Federal 

Aviation Regulations listed below to permit the operations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the 

National Airspace System for the purpose of Aerial Data Collection.

14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b)

14 CFR 91.7(a)

14 CFR 91.119(c)

14 CFR 91.121

14 CFR 91.151(a)(1)

14 CFR 91.405(a)

14 CFR 91.407(a)(1)

14 CFR 91.409(a)(1) and (2)

14 CFR 91.417(a) and (b)

Reason for Relief

The exemption from the above Federal Aviation Regulations, and adherence to applicable conditions 

and limitations, would permit Aerial Data Collection within the NAS by the petitioner, utilizing UAS

equipped with small digital cameras.

Recent advances in sensors, computer processing, digital imaging processing, lightweight flight 

management systems, and the emergence of the small UAS as a capable platform, have converged such 

that a small UAS can be utilized to create a range of products that were previously only theoretical.

While modern vertical digital aerial cameras are extraordinarily good at what they do, and terrestrial 

cameras can produce impressive results of the sides of objects, neither on its own can produce a 

complete three-dimensional model.

A lightweight UAS carrying aloft a good quality consumer-grade camera quality can capture images from 

multiple perspectives. When enough of these images are acquired from these perspectives and in the 

proper sequence, the digital imagery can be used to generate very detailed three-dimensional models, 

create extremely accurate photogrammetric mapping products, and perform numerous other survey

activities from a remote perspective.
Public Benefit

There is a large demand for three-dimensional products from the survey, engineering, transportation, 

environmental, and architectural communities to name a few. Properly and safely deployed, a small UAS 

can provide these communities with new and enhanced products obtained from a new perspective at 

lower cost than traditional products.

The petitioner has retired from an exclusively aerial survey firm, to what is a land survey firm. This land 

surveying firm specializes in surveys of brownfields, hazardous and toxic waste sites, contaminated 

industrial and energy facilities, and many other environmental and remediation sites. The entire team 

undergoes recurrent training for working with hazardous materials, and working in hazardous 

environments, along with routine baseline blood screening for toxins.

The public bears a large part of the cost for environmental monitoring and rehabilitation of toxic sites. It 

is expensive to place people on these sites. Any remote surveying that can take the place of an 

individual worker or surveyor equipped for possible exposure is going to be a less expensive survey.

There are additional hazards regularly facing the crew and the contractors hiring them when working on 

rooftops, near ledges, in and around excavations, and along waterfronts. The team works in these 

locations all the time.

The petitioner has the tools, knowledge, and experience required to perform dangerous survey tasks 

more safely and more efficiently, while bringing new survey products to the engineering community, but 

requires some regulatory exemption. 

Survey Missions

The typical mission would be during daylight by a client’s request, over a site they possessed command 

and control. Non-essential personal would not be present in the survey area. All missions will be geofenced horizontally to the survey area, and vertically beneath 200’ AGL unless otherwise granted a 

specific COA. The mission will be conducted in such a manner so that a visual line of sight can be 

maintained for the entirety of the flight.

Most pre-flight activities normally conducted while preparing for a manned flight still apply. This would 

include checking that the weather is above minimum visibility for flight, and that conditions don’t 

exceed the capabilities of the UA. NOTAMS, and TFR’s will be reviewed. The mission’s proximity to 

airports, heliports, and airspace will be determined during preflight planning.

Outside of areas where operations requiring coordination or notice, it may be prudent and polite to 

alert an air traffic control facility if the UAS operation is nearby. Depending on the location of the survey 

it may be prudent as well to notify local authorities so that they can inform the public should anyone 

inquire about the UAS operation.

A post-flight check of the UA will be conducted immediately upon landing. With the UA being electrically 

powered, checking the craft for excessively warm components will help insure there are no failures of 

motors, motor controllers, batteries and other components during the next flight. This will also keep the 

operator informed as to whether the UA is being operated within acceptable limits.
There are additional checks recommended by Academy of Model Aeronautics, and the documents 

enclosed contain more detailed checklists and operating guides.

UAS Operations

While the FAA’s Small UAS NPRM is not law, the Major Provisions of Proposed Part 107 Operational 

Limitations are generally not in conflict with recent Part 333 grants of exemption. Small UAS NPRM will 

be used as a sensible guideline for operations when not in conflict with the conditions and limitations of 

a Part 333 exemption.

The petitioner is a member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics. Where there is no existing FAA 

regulation, or not contrary to FAA regulation, missions will also use as a guideline the Academy of Model 

Aeronautics National Model Aircraft Safety Code Parts A and B, and the Operations-RequirementsLimitations section of AMA Document # 560, Radio Controlled Model Aircraft Operation Utilizing 

Failsafe, Stabilization and Autopilot Systems. The Part 333 exemption may for example have more 

restrictive operational limits for a commercial UAS than the AMA guideline. An FAA regulation, 

condition, or limitation would take precedence.

Recent Part 133 exemptions have required that the operator of a UAS possess a pilot certification, and a 

current FAA medical certificate or valid U.S. driver’s license. The Major Provisions of Proposed Part 107 

would require a UAS operator to pass an initial aeronautical test, and be vetted by the Transportation 

Security Administration. As the petitioner for this Part 333 exemption would be the sole operator and 

possesses a Commercial Pilot Certificate, a valid U.S. driver’s license, and a TSA issued Transportation 

Worker Identification Credential, the public’s safety should not be compromised by the operator.

UAS Systems

The UAS operated under this exemption should it be granted, are uniformly equipped with a 

3DRobotics’ Pixhawk autopilot running APM code. Mission planning will be through the Mission Planner 

GCS for APM, and plans uploaded to the autopilot. The GCS and UAS autopilot are linked by a two-way 

915MHz radio telemetry system. Data is uploaded to the autopilot via the radio telemetry link, and the 

GCS gets a live data feed from the UAS. Should it become necessary, the UA can be brought under 

immediate manual control by the operator with a radio transmitter operating at 2.4GHz.

The mission guidance system has extensive failsafe’s that are operational prior to starting a mission, 

while the UA is on station. The autopilot is monitoring the status and health of the sensors required to 

safely conduct a mission. If the autopilot detects erroneous or missing data from a flight critical sensor, 

the autopilot will prevent a launch. If the autopilot detects erroneous or missing data from a flight 

critical sensor during a flight, it will initiate a landing. If the battery of the UA falls beneath 20% it will 

initiate a landing.

While the telemetry system is reporting this activity to the GCS, and the operator at the GCS can initiate 

a return to launch, an immediate landing, or take manual control, the UA autopilot is operating 

independently should the telemetry or radio transmitter link be broken. 

The failsafe’s are well documented in the 3DRobotics X8+ Operation Manual (enclosed). As the APM 

system operates both rotorcraft and fixed-wing craft, the petitioner would be using the 3DR Pixhawk 

autopilot running APM on the two aircraft proposed for the Part 333 exemption. Both will have the 
same autopilot, the same failsafe’s, and interface with the GCS and radio transmitter in the same 

manner. Each is equipped with GPS, external compass, inertial sensors, barometer, and a two-way 

telemetry system monitoring the status and health of the system and communicating it to the GCS. .The 

system will be standard across the commercial fleet.

The failsafe documentation in the 3DR X8+ Operation Manual details the individual failsafe items in a 

manner that is easy to transmit in the exemption request, but the most current and extensive 

documentation for APM and Mission Planner for both platforms can at the time of this writing be 

located at http://ardupilot.com/.

Aircraft Performance and Design

Two UA are being sought exemption for: The 3DRobotics X8+ and the ReadyMadeRC Anaconda.

1. The 3DRobotics X8+ is a conventional ‘quadcopter’ with central body made from a very strong 

glass epoxy composite, sandwiching four aluminum arms. The 3DR X8+ weighs 3.5kg or less 

(approximately 7.7lbs) with a maximum mission airspeed of less than 15mph (6.7ms). It has a 

maximum flight time of 15 minutes, dependent on loading and maneuvering. The 3DR airframe 

is shared across models and the 2014 Quad Build Manual is enclosed for airframe details and is 

maintained for maintenance reference.

2. The ReadyMadeRC Anaconda is a fixed-wing pusher prop design weighing 3.6kg or less 

(approximately 8lbs) with a maximum mission airspeed of less than 45mph (20ms). It has a 

maximum flight time of 40 minutes, dependent on loading and maneuvering. It is made of a 

frangible foam, has a spring mounted nose gear, and a pusher propeller. The Anaconda should 

cause minimal damage should it strike anything.

Both the petitioner’s UAS fall well within the 15lbs and 70mph limits established in the Academy of 

Model Aeronautics Document #560 Utilizing Failsafe, Stabilization and Autopilot Systems for waypoint 

guided flight. The petitioner’s UAS is within the weight and speed requirements of recently granted Part 

133 exemptions, and would comply with the FAA’s Small UAS NPRM.
Safety

The petitioner’s operations have been standardized by using the same autopilot, radio receiver, radio 

transmitter, telemetry, and GCS on the present fleet. (The petitioner has other units used for practice 

and testing not listed in the exemption request, but these also run the same standardized systems.)

The petitioner has been operating the 3DR Quad and trainers utilizing the same APM autopilot system 

and linking to the Ground Station via telemetry for almost a year at the time of this writing. Training 

flights by autonomous control, manual control, and assuming manual control of an autonomous flight 

are conducted regularly.

Actual payload and endurance of any of the craft or trainers are all variable as with any aircraft or rotorwing. Perhaps more so with electric powered vehicles able to convert potential to energy so quickly. The 

live telemetry and verification of battery voltages by voltmeter and when charging produce real world 

results. With the telemetry including voltage and available amperage as failsafe’s, a mission may be cut 

short or the craft may land even if a mistake was made in operation.

The petitioner has built, disassembled and reassembled several airframes as part of regular 

maintenance and the construction of training ships utilizing the same APM autopilot system. There are a 

very high number of failure points in a ‘multi-copter’. Even well regarded factory aircraft may have 

vulnerable wiring harnesses against sharply machined internal edges.

The petitioner is going to depart the 3

rd person out of sensibility. The petitioner is an individual and 

would be the sole operator of the UAS. It seems logical the petitioner’s own aviation knowledge, 

experience, and certifications, would be relevant in the safety evaluation of the Part 333 exemption 

request.

The petitioner is a Certified Photogrammetrist and professional survey pilot, possessing Commercial, 

Multi and Instrument ratings. I’ve been flying as PIC for almost 35 years have thousands of survey flying 

hours all over the country, with a great deal of time spent in the New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Seattle, 

Baltimore D.C. FRZ and Class B Airspace all over the place. So if it helpful to the petition, the petitioner 

has been flying commercially for many years.

I’ve also had the privilege to work side by side with mechanics and inspectors keeping old survey 

airplanes flying, and learning where and how things fail. I’ve helped build or restore several aircraft and 

know my way around electronics. I’ve never hurt anyone in my career and don’t intend to now. The 

machines I run will be carefully maintained and regularly inspected. Logs will be kept and close at hand.

These UAS surveys will be approached with the same level of care as any survey flight.

I would be pleased if there is an exemption granted, that it could include the construction and operation 

of two rotorcraft or fixed-wing craft with the exactly the same, size, weight, speed, and operationally 

capability or less than the craft listed in this exemption request. They would be equipped with exactly the 

same autopilot, GCS, telemetry, mission planning, and failsafe’s; and would be assembled from high 

quality components, high quality wiring and connectors, and utilize an airframe with room enough for it 

all to be secured safely and properly as it should be in an aircraft.

With Respect,

Steve Welebny