18400 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 800 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612-0514

TELEPHONE (949) 760-1121 / FAX (949) 720-0182

Direct Dial Number: (949) 224-6247

Direct Facsimile Number: (949) 224-6407

E-Mail Address: pfraidenburgh@buchalter.com

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

March 2, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Fresh Cut Above, Inc.’s Petition for Exemption to Operate

Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Aerial Filming and Photography

FAA Regulatory Docket

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PETITIONER COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

Fresh Cut Above, Inc. Paul J. Fraidenburgh

Attn: John David Currey BUCHALTER NEMER

829 Ocean Avenue, Suite C 18400 Von Karman Ave, Suite 800

Seal Beach, CA 90740 Irvine, CA 92612

323.515.5700 949.224.6247

jd@freshcutcreative.com pfraidenburgh@buchalter.com
March 2, 2015

Page 2

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

I. PETITION SUMMARY

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, 

Pub. L. No. 112-95 (2012), 126 Stat. 11 (“Section 333”) and the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (“FAA”) general exemption authority under 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), 

Fresh Cut Above, Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for exemptions from 14 C.F.R. 

Part 21, 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113(a) and (b), 61.133(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b)(1), 

91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151, 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1) 91.409(a)(2), 

91.417(a)-(b). The proposed exemptions, if granted, would allow Petitioner to operate 

small, camera-mounted unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”) weighing 55 pounds or less

for the purpose of closed-set filming and aerial photography.

Based on the small size of Petitioner’s UAS, the qualifications and experience of 

Petitioner’s UAS operators, and the restricted, sterile environment within which 

Petitioner will operate, the requested exemptions fall squarely within the zone of safety 

envisioned by Congress and set forth in Section 333. Additionally, the enhanced safety 

achieved by replacing significantly larger manned aircraft carrying crew and flammable 

fuel with small UAS carrying no passengers or crew and operated under the specific 

guidelines and procedures proposed by Petitioner gives the FAA good cause to find that 

the UAS operations enabled by the instant Petition are in the public interest. Thus, the 

requested exemptions should be granted.
March 2, 2015

Page 3

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

II. STATUTORY AUTHORITY

A. Section 333

Section 333, titled “Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems,”

provides a mechanism for seeking expedited FAA authorization of safe civil UAS 

operations in the National Airspace System (“NAS”). Section 333(a) states that the FAA 

“shall determine if certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national 

airspace system before completion of the [comprehensive] plan and rulemaking required 

by section 332(b)(1) of this Act or the guidance required by section 334 of this Act.” In 

Section 332(b)(1), Congress made it clear that Section 333 provides a mechanism for 

“expedited operational authorization.” The FAA has committed to complying with this 

mandate by granting several petitions almost identical to the one at hand. See, e.g., 

Exemption No. 11062, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0352 (granting regulatory 

exemptions to Astraeus Aerial for operation of unmanned aircraft systems for the purpose 

of filming for the motion picture and television industry).

Section 333(b) identifies several factors that the FAA should consider in 

determining whether commercial UAS operations should be approved. These include 

UAS that, “as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to 

airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a 

hazard to users of the [NAS] or the public or pose a threat to national security.” See 

Section 333(b).
March 2, 2015

Page 4

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

B. Section 44701(f)

In addition to the specific authority conferred by Section 333, the FAA

Administrator has general authority to grant exemptions from the FAA’s safety 

regulations and minimum standards when the Administrator decides a requested 

exemption is in the public interest. See U.S.C. § 44701(f).

III. REQUESTED EXEMPTIONS

Petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Part 21 prescribes, in pertinent part, the procedural requirements for issuing and 

changing design approvals, production approvals, airworthiness certificates, and 

airworthiness approvals.

Section 61.113 prescribes that “no person who holds a private pilot certificate may 

act as a 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,” (see Section 61.113(a)), and that “a private pilot may, for 

compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any 

business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or 

employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation 

or hire,” (see Section 61.113(b)).

Section 61.133(a) sets forth privileges for persons holding commercial pilot 

certificates, including a provision impliedly limiting to persons holding a commercial 
March 2, 2015

Page 5

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

pilot certificate the ability to act as pilot in command of an aircraft “[f]or compensation 

or hire.”

Section 91.7(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil 

aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

Section 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation of U.S. registered civil aircraft unless there 

is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, 

approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

Section 91.103(b)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot in command 

shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information 

concerning that flight, to include, “For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended 

use, and the following takeoff and landing distance information:... 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 data contained therein.”

Section 91.119(c) prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no 

person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: “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.”
March 2, 2015

Page 6

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

Section 91.121 requires, in pertinent part, each person operating an aircraft to 

maintain cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set “to the elevation of the 

departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.”

Section 91.151(a) prescribes that 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 normal 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.

Section 91.203 prohibits, in subpart (a), any person from operating a civil aircraft 

unless it has within it (1) an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate; and (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). Section 91.203 prescribes, in subpart (b), that no person may operate a civil 

aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate or a special flight authorization issued under § 

91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or 

crew.

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner 

shall have the aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of the same part and shall, 

between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, 

have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in Part 43 of the chapter.
March 2, 2015

Page 7

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

Section 91.407(a)(1) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating an 

aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or 

alteration unless it has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under 

§ 43.7 of the same chapter.

Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an 

aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an inspection for the 

issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that-

(a) Each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records 

for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventative 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
March 2, 2015

Page 8

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

(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 each 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.

(iv) 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 revisions date. If the AD or 

safety directive involves recurring action, the time and 

date when the next action is required.
March 2, 2015

Page 9

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

(vi) Copies of the forms 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 records 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 transferred 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.

IV. PETITIONER’S PROPOSED OPERATIONS SATISFY SECTION 333.

A. Unmanned Aircraft System

The UAS to be operated under this request are less than 55 lbs. fully loaded, will 

be operated at a speed of no more than 50 knots, carry neither a pilot nor passenger, carry

no explosive materials or flammable liquids, and operate exclusively within a secured 
March 2, 2015

Page 10

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

area. Petitioner’s UAS use a radio frequency spectrum for operation and control that 

complies with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) requirements, and

Petitioner has integrated safety features into the UAS, as described in Petitioner’s Flight 

Operations and Procedures Manual (“FOPM”) and Motion Picture and Television 

Operations Manual (“MPTOM”) (collectively, “operations manuals”).

1

Petitioner’s UAS are equipped with redundant safety mechanisms allowing them 

to operate safely after experiencing certain in-flight failures. If a lost-link event occurs, 

including the loss of ground communications and/or the loss of a GPS signal, Petitioner’s

UAS have the ability to perform a pre-coordinated, predictable, automated flight 

maneuver and return to a predetermined location within a designated security perimeter 

for landing. The UAS further have the ability to abort a flight in the event of unpredicted 

obstacles or emergencies. All flights will be terminated after a maximum of 30 minutes 

or with 25% remaining battery power, whichever occurs first. Thus, good cause exists 

for granting Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) (setting forth fuel 

requirements for flight in VFR conditions).

 1 The MPTOM and FOPM will be submitted separately and confidentially under 14 

C.F.R. 11.35(b), as the manuals contain proprietary information that the applicant has not 

and will not share with others. The manuals contain operating conditions and procedures 

that are not available to the public and are protected from release under the Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552, et seq.
March 2, 2015

Page 11

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

Petitioner’s UAS will be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 

14 C.F.R. Part 47, and have identification (N-Number) markings in accordance with 14 

C.F.R. Part 45, Subpart C. Markings will be as large as practicable.

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 (Altimeter 

Settings), Petitioner seeks such relief because Petitioner will not have a typical 

barometric altimeter onboard the UAS. Instead, altitude information will be provided to 

the UAS PIC via a digitally encoded telemetric data feed, which downlinks from the 

aircraft to a ground-based on-screen display. The altitude information will be generated 

by equipment installed onboard the UAS, using GPS triangulation, digitally encoded 

barometric altimeter, radio altimeter, or any combination thereof. Prior to each flight, a 

zero altitude initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the UAS 

PIC. Thus, good cause exists for granting the requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121.

Given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the 

aircraft to be utilized by the applicant, an exemption from 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H 

(Airworthiness Certificates), subject to certain conditions and limitations, is warranted (if 

necessary) and meets the requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 C.F.R. 

Part 11 and Section 333. The UAS operated without an airworthiness certificate in the 

restricted environment and under the conditions and limitations proposed by Petitioner 

will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) 
March 2, 2015

Page 12

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

operating with an airworthiness certificate issued under 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, and 

not subject to the proposed limitations and conditions.

Petitioner will strictly comply with safety and maintenance procedures included in 

all applicable UAS manufacturer’s instructions and operating manuals. To the extent 

such information is not included in the guidelines developed by the manufacturers, 

Petitioners will develop and document maintenance, overhaul, replacement, and 

inspection requirements, procedures to document and maintain maintenance records with 

regard to Petitioner’s UAS, and UAS technician qualification criteria. Petitioner’s 

operations manuals will include maintenance requirements for Petitioner’s UAS, 

including “on-condition” maintenance and modifications. In light of these mitigating 

factors, exemptions from 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 

91.417(a) and (b) are warranted.

B. UAS Pilot in Command

Petitioner’s UAS pilot in command (PIC) shall hold at least a private pilot’s 

certificate and a third-class medical certificate but shall not be required to hold a 

commercial pilot’s certificate. Since there are no standards for either private or 

commercial UAS pilot certificates, knowledge of airspace regulations acquired from 

FAA ground school and dexterity in the control and operation of the UAS acquired from 

actual operation of the aircraft will be the most important factors in establishing an 

equivalent level of safety. According to the FAA, “the FAA considers the overriding 
March 2, 2015

Page 13

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

safety factor for the limited operations proposed by the petitioner to be the airmanship 

skills acquired through UAS-specific flight cycles, flight time, and specific make and 

model experience, culminating in verification through testing.” See Exemption No. 

11062, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0352, at p. 18. With those factors in mind, 

Petitioner’s UAS PIC shall be required to meet several conditions and limitations as 

outlined in the FOPM and MPTOM, including the following:

• The UAS PIC will have accumulated and logged a minimum of 200 flight 

cycles and 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot and at least 10 

hours logged as a UAS pilot with a similar UAS type (single blade or 

multirotor).

• The UAS PIC will have accumulated and logged a minimum of five hours 

of flight time with the specific make and model of the UAS to be utilized 

for operations under the exemption and three take-offs and landings in the 

preceding 90 days.

• The UAS PIC will have successfully completed the qualification process as 

specified in the operations manuals, to include a knowledge and skill test.2

 2 Prior to operating, the PIC will be required to pass the knowledge and airmanship test 

qualifications developed by Petitioner for the UAS (which are included in Petitioner’s 

operations manuals). There are no established practical test standards that support a 

jurisdictional FAA FSDO (“Flight Standards District Office”) evaluation and approval of 

company designated examiners. Petitioner will conduct these tests in accordance with its 

operations manuals. Given the constraints of the proposed operations, this procedure for 

testing will not adversely affect the safety of the NAS.
March 2, 2015

Page 14

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), it is Petitioner’s 

understanding that Petitioner’s UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate in 

accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, and that exemption from 14 C.F.R. 

§ 91.7(a) is therefore unnecessary. To the extent such an exemption is deemed necessary, 

Petitioner asserts that it should be granted in light of the safety procedures proposed 

herein. In accordance with the pertinent part of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(b), the operator in 

command of Petitioner’s UAS shall be responsible for determining whether the aircraft is 

in a safe condition for flight. Petitioner’s manuals for maintenance and operations shall 

include safety checklists to be used by the operator in command prior to each flight.

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2) (Civil aircraft 

flight manual, marking, and placard requirements) and § 91.203(a) and (b), (Civil 

aircraft: certifications required), it is Petitioner’s understanding that relief from these 

regulations is no longer necessary in light of the FAA Memorandum “Interpretation 

regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at an unmanned aircraft’s 

control station,” dated August 8, 2014. To the extent the FAA deems an exemption from 

this section necessary for Petitioner’s proposed operations, such exemption should be 

granted in light of the mitigating fact that Petitioner will maintain the documents required 

under 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9 and 91.203 at the UAS ground control station during flights.

Additionally, 100% of Petitioner’s operations will utilize a visual observer 

(“VO”). The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC 
March 2, 2015

Page 15

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and the PIC will be able to communicate 

verbally at all times during operational flights.

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103(b)(1), Petitioner 

will comply with the other applicable procedures and requirements stated in § 91.103(a) 

and (b). Specifically, the PIC will take all actions including reviewing weather, flight 

battery requirements, aircraft performance data, and landing and takeoff distances before 

initiation of a flight. The PIC will also account for all relevant site-specific conditions in 

their preflight procedures. Risks presented by sun glare will be mitigated by the PIC’s 

and VO’s ability to see other air traffic and initiate a return-to-home sequence if needed.

The PIC’s UAS operation will be limited to a unique and restricted environment. 

Given the (1) separation of closed-set filming operations from other manned operations, 

(2) parallel nature of aeronautical knowledge requirements incumbent in obtaining a 

private pilot’s license versus a commercial pilot’s license, and (3) the proposed UAS 

airmanship skills of Petitioner’s PICs, the additional manned airmanship experience of a 

commercial pilot would not correlate to the airmanship skills necessary for Petitioner’s

proposed unmanned operations. Thus, Petitioner’s request for relief from 14 C.F.R. 

§ 61.113(a) and (b) and § 61.133(a) should be granted.

C. Operating Parameters of Petitioner’s UAS

Petitioner’s UAS operations will be conducted within a sterile environment of 

closed-set filming. In this controlled environment, Petitioner’s operations will remain 
March 2, 2015

Page 16

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

within VLOS of the PIC and VO, below 400 feet AGL, and at speeds below 50 knots. 

Only participating persons will be permitted within the operating area.3

Consistent with the relief typically provided to manned operations under FAA 

Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1, Petitioner requests relief from 14 C.F.R. 

§ 91.119(c) with respect to those participating persons, vehicles, and structures directly 

involved in the performance of the actual filming. Regarding distance from participating 

persons, the operations manuals set forth safety factors for authorized and consenting 

production personnel. Because those procedures are specific to participating persons, no 

further FSDO or aviation safety inspector approval is necessary for reductions to the 

distances specified in Petitioner’s manuals.

Regarding the distance from nonparticipating persons, Petitioner will ensure that 

no persons are allowed within 500 feet of the operating area except those consenting to 

be involved and necessary for the filming production, with the possibility of reducing this 

distance to no less than 200 feet if it would not adversely affect safety and the 

Administrator has approved it. This is consistent with FAA Order 8900.1, V3, C8, S1.

Petitioner will not conduct UAS operations within 5 nautical miles of the 

geographic center of a non-towered airport unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s 

management is obtained and the operation is conducted in accordance with a Notice to 

 3 Pursuant to Order 8900.1 V3, C8, S1, “participating persons” includes all persons 

associated with the filming production. Participating persons will be briefed on the 

potential risk of the proposed flight operations and must acknowledge and accept those 

risks prior to participation.
March 2, 2015

Page 17

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

Airmen (“NOTAM”). Additionally, Petitioner will not operate in Class B, C, or D 

airspace without written approval from the FAA. Nor will Petitioner operate the UAS 

less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud or when 

visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC.

Petitioner’s UAS will remain clear and yield the right of way to all manned 

operations and activities at all times (including, but not limited to, ultralight vehicles, 

parachute activities, parasailing activities, and hang gliders).

Although Petitioner seeks to comply with the waiver process as described in FAA 

Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1 (Issue a Certificate of Waiver for Motion 

Picture and Television Filming), the current section of Order 8900.1 has specific 

processes that preclude a jurisdictional FAA FSDO from issuing the required Certificate 

of Waiver, because the section did not originally provide for UAS operations. Thus, 

Petitioner seeks exemption from the applicable regulations normally waived during that 

process. Petitioner proposes that the FAA include the required notifications and 

coordination with jurisdictional FSDOs through the conditions and limitations 

accompanying the requested exemption, and that the exemption sought herein will take 

the place of the Certificate of Waiver normally issued by a jurisdictional FSDO under 

8900.1. Under this rubric, Petitioner will notify every FSDO with jurisdiction over the 

area that Petitioner plans to operate, just as with manned filming operations, and those 
March 2, 2015

Page 18

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

FSDOs will have the ability to coordinate further conditions and limitations with the 

UAS Integration Office to address any local concerns.

Petitioner will obtain an Air Traffic Organization (“ATO”) issued Certificate of 

Waiver or Authorization (“COA”) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of 

exemption. In fulfilling its requirements under the COA, Petitioner will be required to 

request a NOTAM not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior to 

the operation.

When applicable, all UAS operations will be conducted in accordance with any 

state or local privacy laws.

D. The Requested Exemption Promotes the Public Interest

The enhanced safety achieved by replacing significantly larger manned aircraft 

carrying crew and flammable fuel with small UAS carrying no passengers or crew and 

operated under the specific guidelines and procedures proposed by Petitioner gives the 

FAA good cause to find that the UAS operations enabled by the instant Petition are in the 

public interest. Moreover, as the FAA has already recognized, “UAS provide an 

additional tool for the filmmaking industry, adding a greater degree of flexibility, which 

supplements the current capabilities offered by manned aircraft.” See Exemption No. 

11062, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0352, at p. 22.
March 2, 2015

Page 19

Buchalter Nemer

Los Angeles • Irvine • San Francisco • Scottsdale

www.buchalter.com

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the regulatory exemptions requested herein should be 

granted and Petitioner should be permitted to conduct small UAS operations for the 

purpose of closed-set aerial filming and photography.

Respectfully submitted,

BUCHALTER NEMER

A Professional Corporation

By

Paul J. Fraidenburgh

Counsel for Petitioner

Fresh Cut Above, Inc.