May 11, 2015

 Exemption No. 11549

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–0292

Mr. Mark Thomas

President

Thomas’ Wildlife Solutions, Inc.

14 Lorraine Road

Westerly, RI 02891

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated February 2, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

for an exemption. The petitioner requested to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to 

conduct aerial videography/cinematography for marketing, exterior structure inspections, and 

volunteer search and rescue missions.

See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations and 

the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner.

Airworthiness Certification

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is a 3D Robotics IRIS+.
2

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products 

and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates. In accordance with the statutory criteria 

provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112−95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and in 

consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the 

aircraft and its operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this aircraft 

meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds that the requested relief from 

14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness 

Certificates, and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, is 

not necessary.

The Basis for Our Decision

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial data collection. The FAA has issued grants of 

exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. 

In Grants of Exemption Nos. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0352), 

11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC (see

Docket No. FAA−2014−0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (see Docket No. 

FAA−2014−0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned 

aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or 

crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in 

addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled 

by this exemption is in the public interest.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• They are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in Grant of 

Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213;

• The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 

11213 also apply to the situation you present; and 

• A grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, 

delegated to me by the Administrator, Thomas’ Wildlife Solutions, Inc. is granted an 

exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 

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

91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform 

aerial data collection. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.
3

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of exemption, Thomas’ Wildlife Solutions, Inc. is hereafter referred to as 

the operator.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the 3D Robotics IRIS+

when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. Proposed operations of any 

other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are 

not permitted. 

3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The 

exemption holder may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine 

compliance with the 87 knot speed restriction. In no case will the UA be operated at 

airspeeds greater than the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the 

aircraft manufacturer.

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level 

(AGL). Altitude must be reported in feet AGL.

5. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. 

This requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other than 

corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate or 

U.S. driver’s license.

6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within 

the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and VO at all times. The VO may be used 

to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS 

capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times; 

electronic messaging or texting is not permitted during flight operations. The PIC 

must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for the 

duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the duties 

required of the VO.

7. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its 

operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of 

exemption, are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. The operating 

documents must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the 

Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and 

limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, 
4

the conditions and limitations herein take precedence and must be followed. 

Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operating 

documents. The operator may update or revise its operating documents. It is the 

operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised 

documents to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. The 

operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension 

or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator determines that any update 

or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then 

the operator must petition for an amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s 

UAS Integration Office (AFS−80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding 

updates or revisions to the operating documents.

8. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation 

or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo 

a functional test flight prior to conducting further operations under this exemption. 

Functional test flights may only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at 

least 500 feet from other people. The functional test flight must be conducted in such 

a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property.

9. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is 

in a condition for safe operation.

10. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre-flight inspection and determine the 

UAS is in a condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection must account for all 

potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment. If the 

inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is 

prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the 

UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight.

11. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul, 

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and 

aircraft components.

12. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer 

safety bulletins.

13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC must hold either an airline transport, 

commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. The PIC must also hold a 

current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a 

state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal 

government. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 

14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.
5

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the 

ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be 

operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and 

maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC 

qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 

14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs 

(training, proficiency, and experience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to 

safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated 

under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, 

training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During 

training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for 

flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA 

with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

15. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All 

operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights 

under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point (ARP) as 

denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) or for airports not 

denoted with an ARP, the center of the airport symbol as denoted on the current 

FAA-published aeronautical chart, unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s 

management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption 

holder. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available 

to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

17. The UA may not be operated 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.

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a 

pre-determined location within the private or controlled-access property.

19. The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies.

20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast 

weather conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the 

intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve 

power recommended by the manufacturer if greater.

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). All 

operations shall be conducted in accordance with an ATO-issued COA. The 

exemption holder may apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct 

operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the attached COA.
6

22. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial 

number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification 

(N−Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must 

be as large as practicable.

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and flight of the UAS and 

any documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the 

PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. 

These documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement 

official upon request.

24. The UA must remain clear and give way to all manned aviation operations and 

activities at all times. 

25. The UAS may not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle. 

26. All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating 

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons 

from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure 

that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises 

where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of 

the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety 

of nonparticipating persons; and

b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission 

for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of 

the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not 

present an undue hazard.

The PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons are not considered 

nonparticipating persons under this exemption.

27. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with 

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. 

Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be 

obtained for each flight to be conducted.

28. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical 

boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported 

to the FAA's UAS Integration Office (AFS−80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be 

reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions 

contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov.
7

If this exemption permits operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and 

television filming and production, the following additional conditions and limitations apply.

29. The operator must have a motion picture and television operations manual (MPTOM) 

as documented in this grant of exemption.

30. At least 3 days before aerial filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this 

exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO) with jurisdiction over the area of proposed filming. The 3-day 

notification may be waived with the concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities 

must include at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights;

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted 

under this grant of exemption;

c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on-scene operation of 

the UAS;

d. Make, model, and serial or N−Number of UAS to be used;

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the aerial filming;

f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners 

and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those 

who gave permission must be made available to the inspector upon request;

g. Signature of exemption holder or representative; and

h. A description of the flight activity, including maps or diagrams of any area, city, 

town, county, and/or state over which filming will be conducted and the altitudes 

essential to accomplish the operation.

31. Flight operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet from participating persons 

consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the 

exemption holder’s MPTOM.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS 

operations must comply with all applicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, 

parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.
8

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
Mark Thomas, Thomas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

February 2, 2015 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal Aviation Regulations from 14 

C. F. R. 45.23(b); 14 C. F. R. Part 21; 14 C. F. R. 61.113(a)&(b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b) (2); 91.103(b); 91.109; 

119. 121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a)&(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a) (1); 91.409(a) (2); 91.417(a)&(b) 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

I, Mark Thomas, am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 and the procedures contained within 14 C. F. R. 11, to request that I, Mark Thomas, 

an owner and operator of small unmanned aircraft, be exempt from the Federal Aviation 

Regulations ("FARs") listed below so that I, Mark Thomas, may operate my small ultra light 

weight unmanned aircraft system ("UAS") commercially in airspace regulated by the federal 

Aviation Administration ("FAA"). 

As described herein I, Mark Thomas, am a FAA Certificated Single Engine ("ASEL") and Multi 

Engine ("AMEL") pilot with Instrument privileges. I, Mark Thomas, have accumulated in 

excess of 500 hours as a certificated pilot and currently fly an average of over 100 hours per 

year in the National Airspace System ("NAS"). 

I, Mark Thomas, am experienced in flying hobby helicopters for recreational purposes and have 

added a hobby grade quad-copter UAS I to my inventory which is equipped with a GoPro Hero 

camera with intent for aerial videography/cinematography to enhance the safety of my 

employees, my clients, and the general public, as well as for marketing purposes and volunteer 

Search and Rescue ("SAR") missions; following exemption and approval by the FAA. 

I, Mark Thomas, have flown small RC electric helicopters in excess of 8 years without incident. 

Committed to safety on each flight. My, Mark Thomas', exemption request would permit 

operation of ultra light weight, unmanned (piloted by remote control) and comparatively 

inexpensive UAS(s) in tightly controlled and limited airspace. Predetermined in areas away 

from general public, airports, heliports and vehicular traffic for Search and Rescue, and within 

property boundaries for individual property owner exterior inspections. Currently, similar 

lightweight, remote controlled UAS's are legally operated by unmonitored, amateur hobbyists 

I Appendix A— 3D Robotics lris+ Operation Manual 

Mark Thomas, Thoinas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Page I of 10 
Mark Thomas, Thomas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

with no Pilot Certificate, no safety plan or controls in place to prevent catastrophe. I, Mark 

Thomas, have personally instilled safety protocols and controls'-;to avoid and prevent public 

hazard, as well as manned aircraft hazards/catastrophe. This will act to further safety protocols 

exclusive to lightweight UAS's specific to inspection video and photography usage and Search 

and Rescue efforts as 1, Mark Thomas, record flight data 4 and other information gained through 

permitted flight operations to share with the FAA through any required reports to assist with 

future protocol and safety regulations. 

Granting my, Mark Thomas', request comports with the Secretary of Transportation's (FAA 

Administrator's) responsibilities and authority to not only integrate UAS's into the national 

airspace system, but to : ... establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems 

[UAS's] in the national airspace system" under Section 333(c) of the Reform Act specific to use 

of UAS's for exterior home inspection and volunteer Search and Rescue efforts. 

For the reasons stated below I, Mark Thomas, respectfully request the grant of an exemption 

allowing me to operate ultra light weight, remote controlled UAS's for the purpose of exterior 

structure inspections and to assist in volunteer Search and Rescue efforts to located missing 

and / or lost persons. Use of UAS's for exterior structure inspections will promote economic 

growth by allowing for greater accuracy and documentation of inspections thereby increasing 

the need for trained employees to perform the necessary repair work, as well as, improving the 

safety to employees, clients and the general public by reducing exposure to ladder accidents. 

The volunteer Search and Rescue efforts will benefit the public by allowing aerial viewing of 

large areas in a more timely manner while reducing the exposure to large aircraft carrying 

volatile fuel. These large aircraft also impact the environment through exhaust emissions and 

noise levels not present in small electric aircraft. 

I. Contact Information: 

Mark Thomas, President 

Thomas' Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

14 Lorraine Road 

Westerly, RI 02891 

Mobile: (401) 633-4018 

Email: Mark.roadkingtawcmail.com 

I1. The Specific Sections of Title 14 of the Code of Fecieral Regulations 

from Which Mark Thomas Requests Exemption are: 

2 Appendix B— Manufacturers Pre-flight Checklist 

3 Appendix C— Personal Pre-flight Checklist 

4 Appendix D— Sample Flight Data Record 

Mark Thomas, Thoinas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exeinption Petition 

Page 2 of 10 
Mxrk Thomas, Thomas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

14 C.F.R. 21; 

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b) 

14 C.F.R. 61.113 (a) & (b); 

14 C.F.R. 91, et seq.; 

14 C.F.R. 407 (a) (1); 

14 C.F.R. 409 (a) (2); and, 

14 C.F.R. 417 (a) & (b). 

III. The Extent of relief Mark Thomas seeks and the Reason He Seeks Such 

Relief: 

I, Mark Thomas, submit this application in accordance with the ReformAct, 112 P.L. 95 §§ 331- 

334, seeking relief from any currently applicable FARs operating to prevent my, Mark Thomas', 

contemplated commercial cinematic, academic, humanitarian and other flight operations within 

the national airspace system. The Reform Act in Section 332 provides for such integration of 

civil unmanned aircraft systems into our national airspace system as it is in the public's interest 

to do so. My, Mark Thomas', ultra light weight UAS meets the definition of "small unmanned 

aircraft" as defined in Section 331 and therefore the integration of my ultra light weight UAS is 

expressly contemplated by the Reform Act. I would like to operate my ultra light weight UAS 

prior to the time period by which the Reform Act requires the FAA to promulgate rules 

governing such craft. Thereby providing direct experience and valuable information for formal 

regulation that can be administered uniformly to all exterior structure inspection as well as, 

search and rescue aerial video and photography. The Reform Act guides the Secretary in 

determining the types of UAS's that may operate safely in our national airspace system. 

Considerations include: The weight, size, speed and overall capabilities of the UAS's; Whether 

the UAS will be operated near airports or heavily populated areas; and, Whether the UAS will 

be operated by line of sight. 112 P. L. 95 § 333 (a). Each of these items reflect in favor of an 

exemption for me, Mark Thomas. My UAS utilizes four (4) counter-rotating propellers for 

balance, control, stability and redundancy and weighs less than three and one half (3'/2) pounds 

(far below the maximum 55 pound limit); including camera and gimbal. 

I Mark Thomas, consider safety as foremost with each flight. My small unmanned aircraft is 

designed to hover in place via GPS and operate in less than a 24 knot (15 mph) wind. For 

safety, stability and fear of financial loss I do not and will not fly in winds in excess of 16 knots 

(10 mph). Built in safety systems include a GPS mode that allows my UAS to hover in place 

when radio controls are released. With five (5) modes to choose from, I utilize loiter mode for 

aerial videography/photography. This is the safest, most reliable and stable mode to prevent 

accident and hazard. If pilot communication is lost the UAS is designed to either slowly 

descend to a landing below its location at the time of signal loss, or, to return to the point of 

Mark Thoinas, Thomas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Page 3 of 10 
Mark Thomas, Thomas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

takeoff and slowly descend to a landing. This option is selectable prior to takeoff. I do not 

operate my UAS near airports, hospitals nor heliports, and do not operate near areas where the 

general public is within fifty to one hundred (50 — 100) yards depending on location, conditions 

and weather. I am constantly on alert for any manned aircraft (Police/Medical helicopters, 

aerial applicators, etc.) and am prepared to land/abort immediately to the nearest and safest 

ground point should a manned aircraft approach my location or I suspect manned aircraft may 

approach near my location. My UAS is capable of vertical and horizontal operations, and is 

flown only within my line of sight as the remote control pilot. Utilizing battery power rather 

than combustible fuels, flights generally last between three (3) to five (5) minutes at an altitude 

under one hundred fifty (150) feet. I, Mark Thomas, utilize a fully charged battery with each 

flight as a safety precaution; full flight time for each battery is eight (8) to eleven (11) minutes 

as tested. I do not operate my UAS at or below manufacturer recommended minimum charge 

levels for operation; preferring to remain well within a safe operating range to insure adequate 

communication between radio control and UAS to eliminate potential for crash, loss of control 

or hazard. Reserve batteries are at hand with each exercise to insure replacement for sufficient 

safe level of operation. I do not believe in taking risk that may cause a crash, that could create 

hazard to the public/property/manned aircraft, and have no desire to lose an investment. I have 

logged numerous practice flights in remote areas as a hobbyist in order to simulate flight for 

future commercial use in order to gain familiarization with the characteristics of this specific 

UAS's performance under differing temperature and weather conditions. I also use a 

computerized flight simulator to maintain and improve skill levels for the sake of safety. 

I, Mark Thomas, am extremely cautious when operating my UAS/ultra light weight unmanned 

aircraft and will not "create a hazard to the users of the national airspace system or the public." 

112 P.L. 95 § 333 (b). Given the small size and weight of my UAS it falls well within 

Congress's contemplated safety zone when it promulgated the Reform Act and the 

corresponding directive to integrate UAS's into the national airspace system. My, Mark 

Thomas', UAS, used in hobby flight, has a demonstrable safety record and does not pose any 

threat to the general public or national security. 

IV. How Mark Thomas' Request Will Benefit the Public As A Whole: 

Aerial videography and photography has been used for quite sometime through manned fixed 

wing and rotary wing aircraft and, more recently, via satellite. Structure inspections have been 

performed in various ways including aerial photography, videography, ladders and lift 

equipment. Traditional aerial videography and photography is not only cost prohibitive for 

many property owners, lifts sometimes will not fit onto the property and when they do, often 

times cause damage to lawns, septic drainage fields and other items. Ladders, especially for 

taller structures, are heavy and unwieldy. These ladders can fall causing injury and damage, 

Mark Thoinas, Thoinas Wildlife Solutions, lnc. - Section 333 Exetnption Petition 

Page 4 of 10 
Mark Thomas, Thomas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

carrying them poses injury risk and, can cause injury to the general public when dropped or by 

falling. In some instances, the spaces around a structure is even too confining for the proper use 

of a ladder. Manned aircraft for such use poses a threat through potential catastrophic crashes. 

These aircraft carry combustible fuel which can explode in an impact. Small UAS's can 

perform these inspection functions in a more timely, safer, more cost effective and less intrusive 

manner thereby increasing public safety and reducing costs to property owners. The small 

UAS's carry no combustible fuel, have very little noise footprint and a much reduced danger in 

the event of a system failure. 

Congress has already proclaimed that it is in the public's interest to integrate commercially 

flown UAS's into the national airspace system, hence the passing of the Reform Act. Granting 

my, Mark Thomas', exemption request furthers the public interest by increasing the viable 

availability of aerial videographic/photographic inspection of structures without the risks of 

larger combustible fuel aircraft and the costs associated therewith, the cost and and potential 

damage caused by mechanical lifts, and the potential hazards caused by traditional ladders. The 

consequences of my ultra light weight UAS crashing is far less than a full size aircraft which 

are heavy, contain combustible fuel and can cause catastrophic devastation to the public. 

The public's interest is furthered by minimizing ecological impact and crash threat by permitting 

aerial video/photo capture through my battery operated ultra light weight UAS's. Permitting 

me, Mark Thomas, to immediately fly within national air space furthers economic growth, 

safety, and humanitarian efforts. 

V. Reasons Why Mark Thomas' Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect 

Safety Or How The Exemption Will Provide a Level of Safety Equal to 

Existing Rule: 

My, Mark Thomas', exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the contrary, for the 

reasons stated, permitting me, Mark Thomas, to log more flight time with UAS's in FAA 

controlled airspace, with communication with the FAA, will allow me to contribute to the 

innovation and implementation of new and novel, as of yet undiscovered, safety protocols for 

others wishing to utilize UAS's for building and structure inspection as well as Search and 

Rescue efforts. 

• My UAS weighs less than 3'/2 pounds complete with a small ultra light weight high 

quality camera; 

• I only operate my UAS below 200 feet (well within the 400 foot permissible ceiling set 

by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012); 

• My UAS's only operate for 3- 7 minutes per flight; 

• I land my UAS prior to manufacturer recommended minimum level of battery power; 

Mark Thomas, Thoinas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exeinption Petition 

Page 5 of 10 
Mark Thomas, Thomas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

• I pilot my UAS through remote control ONLY within line of sight; 

• My UAS has GPS as a flight safety feature whereby it hovers and then slowly lands if 

communication with the remote pilot is lost; 

• I actively analyze flight data and other sources of information to constantly update and 

enhance safety protocols; 

• I only operate in reasonably safe environments that are strictly controlled, are away from 

power lines, elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas; 

• 1 conduct extensive pre-flight inspections and protocol, during which safety carries 

primary importance; 

• 1 always acquire all necessary permissions prior to operation; and, 

• I have procedures in place to abort flights in the event of safety breaches or potential 

danger. 

My, Mark Thomas', safety protocols provide a level of safety equal to or exceeding existing 

rules. It is important to note that absent the integration of commercial UAS's into our national 

airspace system, helicopters are the primary means of aerial videography and photography. 

While the safety record of these aircraft is remarkable, there have been instances of catastrophic 

failure and loss of life with extensive property damage; it is far safer to operate a battery 

powered ultra light weight UAS. 

• First, the potential loss of life is minimized because UAS's carry no people onboard and 

I only operate my UAS in areas away from mass populations. 

• Second, there is no volatile fuel onboard my UAS and thus the potential for fire or 

explosions is greatly diminished. 

• Third, the small size and extreme maneuverability of my AUS allows me to remotely 

pilot away from and avoid hazards quickly and safely. 

• Lastly, , iven its small size and weight, even when close enough to capture amazing 

images, my AUS need not be so close to the objects they are focused on through the 

technology and use of post filming editing software allowing for pan and zoom. 

Accordingly, my UAS has been operated as a hobbyist for familiarization / competency and will 

continue to operate at and above currently accepted safety levels. 

VI. A Summary That The FAA May Publish in the Federal Register: 

A. 14 C.F.R. 21 and 14 C.F.R. 91: Airworthiness Certificates, Manuals and The Like. 

14 C.F.R. 21, Subpart H, entitles Airworthiness Certificates, sets forth requirements for 

procurement of necessary airworthiness certificates in relation to FAR § 91.203(a)(1). 

The size, weight and enclosed operational area of my, Mark Thomas', UAS(s) permits 

Mark Thoinas, Thomas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exeinption Petitiou 

Page 6 of 10 
Mark Thomas, Thomas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

exemption from Part 21 because my UAS meets (and exceeds) an equivalent level of 

safety pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act. The FAA is authorized to exempt 

aircraft from the airworthiness certificate requirement in consideration of the weight, 

size, speed, maneuverability and proximity of areas such as airports and dense 

populations. My, Mark Thomas', current and projected UAS's meet or exceed each of 

the elements. 

14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an airworthiness 

certificate. As no such certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated by the 

FARs, this Regulation is inapplicable. 

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. As there are no 

onboard pilots or passengers, and given the size of the UAS's, this Regulation is 

inapplicable. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by maintaining a 

safety/flight manual delineating areas where safety can be defined. The FAA has 

previously issued exemptions to this regulation in Exemptions Nos. 8607, 8737, 8738, 

9299, 9299A, 9565, 956513, 10167, 10602, 10700, 32827 as well as 11138. 

14 C.F.R. 91.121 regarding altimeter settings is inapplicable insofar as my UAS utilizes 

electronic global positioning systems with barometric sensors. 

14 C.F.R. 91.203 (a) and (b) provides for carrying of civil aircraft certifications and 

registrations. They are inapplicable for the same reasons described above. The 

equivalent level of safety will be achieved by maintaining such required certifications 

and registrations by me, Mark Thomas. 

B. 14 C.F.R. 45.23: Marking of the Aircraft. 

Applicable codes of the Federal Regulations require aircraft to be marked according to 

certain specifications. My UAS's are, by definition, unmanned. They therefore do not 

have a cabin, cockpit or pilot station on which to mark certain words or phrases. 

Further, two-inch lettering is difficult to place on such small craft with dimensions 

smaller than minimal lettering requirements. Regardless, I, Mark Thomas, will mark 

my UAS's in the largest possible lettering by placing the word "EXPERIMENTAL" on 

it's fuselage as required by 14 C.F.R. 45.29(f) so that I the pilot, or anyone assisting me 

as a spotter will see the markings. The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this 

regulation through Exemptions Nos. 8738, 10167, 10167A and 10700. 

C. 14 C.F.R. 61.113 (a) and (b) Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: PIC. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 61.113 (a) and (b) private pilots are limited to non-commercial 

operations. I, Mark Thomas, am a current Private Pilot Certificate holder with a valid 

Mark Thomas, Thomas Wildlife Solutions, lnc. - Section 333 Exeinption Petition 

Page 7 of 10 
Mark Thomas, Thomas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

third class physical. My UAS does not carry pilots or passengers. The risks pertaining 

to the operation of my UAS's are far less than the level of risk inherent in the 

commercial activities outlined in 14 C.F.R. 61, et seq. Thus allowing me, Mark Thomas, 

to operate my UAS's in a manner which will meet or exceed current levels of safety in 

relation to 14 C.F.R. 61.113 (a) and (b). The FAA has previously issued exemptions to 

this regulation in other cases including 11138. While The FAA has issued exemptions 

to 14 C.F.R. 61.113 (a) and (b), it has maintained that the pilot must hold a private pilots 

certificate which I, Mark Thomas, do hold. 

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

14 C.F.R. 91.119 prescribes safe altitudes for the operation of civil aircraft. It allows 

helicopters to be operated at lower altitudes in certain conditions. My UAS will never 

operate at an altitude greater than 200 feet AGL; safely below the standard of 400 feet 

AGL. I, Mark Thomas, will however operate my AUS in safe areas away from the 

public and traffic, providing a level of safety at least equivalent to or exceeding those in 

relation to minimum and/or maximum safe altitudes. Given the size, weight, 

maneuverability and speed of my AUS's, an equivalent or higher level of safety will be 

achieved. 

E. 14 C.F.R. 91.405 (a); 407 (a) (1); 409 (a) (2); 417 (a) &(b): Maintenance Inspections 

The above sited Regulations require, amongst other things, aircraft owners and operators 

to "have [the] aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between 

required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have 

discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter..." 

These regulations only apply to aircraft with 

therefore, apply to my, Mark Thomas', AUS's. 

AUS's before and after each flight. 

an airworthiness certificate. They will not, 

However, as a safety precaution I inspect my 

A Summary The FAA May Publish in the Federal Register: A. 14 C.F.R. 21 and 14 C.F.R. 91: 

Airworthiness Certificates, Manuals and The Like. 14 C.F.R. 21 Subpart H, entitled 

Airworthiness Certificates, sets forth requirements for procurement of necessary airworthiness 

certificates in relation to FAR 91.203 (a)(1). The size, weight and enclosed operational area of 

my UAS permits exemption from Part 21 because my, Mark Thomas', UAS meets an equivalent 

level of safety pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act. The FAA is authorized to exempt 

aircraft from the airworthiness certificate.requirement under both the Act (49 U.S.C. § 44701 

(f)) and section 333 of the Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit the FAA to exempt 

UAS's from the airworthiness certificate requirement in consideration of the weight, size, speed, 

maneuverability and proximity to areas such as airports and dense populations. My UAS meets 

Mark Tlhoinas, Thoinas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Page 8 of 10 
Mark Thomas, Thomas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

or exceeds each of the elements. 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without 

an airworthiness certificate. As no such certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated 

by the FAR's, the Regulation is inapplicable. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by 

maintaining a manual. The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this regulation in 

Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167 and 11138 , maintenance 

program that involves regular software updates and curative measures for any damaged 

hardware. Therefore, an equivalent level of safety will be achieved. 

In summary, - Mark Thomas seeks an exemption from the following 

Regulations: 

14 C.F.R. 21, subpart H; 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. 61.113 (a) &(b); 14 C.F.R. 91.7 (a); 14 

C.F.R. 91.9 (b)(2);114 C.F.R. 91.103 (b); 14 C.F.R. 91.109; 14 C.F.R. 91.119; 14 C.F.R. 91.121; 

14 C.F.R. 91.151.(a); 14 C.F.R. 91.203 (a) and (b); 14 C.F.R. 91.405 (a); 14 C.F.R. 91.407 (a) 

(1); 14 C.F.R. 91.409 (a)(2); 14 C.F.R. 91.409 (a)(2) and 14 C.F.R. 91.417 (a) &(b) to 

commercially operate my, Mark Thomas', small unmanned vehicle/lightweight unmanned 

aircraft vehicle in structure inspections and volunteer Search and Rescue operations. Currently, 

aerial property/structure inspections are performed by much larger aircraft operating on 

combustible fuel posing potential risk to the public. Other property/structure inspections of this 

nature are performed using ladders, aerial lifts, and/or ropes and harnesses which expose the 

inspecting personnel to falls, strains, and injury. These pieces of equipment also pose a hazard 

to the public as they sometimes fall or can be dropped. The ladders alone weigh more than my, 

Mark Thomas' UAS. Granting this petition for exemption will reduce the risks involved with 

ladders and/or aerial lifts thereby enhancing safety. Currently, aerial search and rescue efforts 

are also conducted using larger aircraft powered by volatile fuel which, in the event of a crash 

can and has caused explosions and catastrophic damage to persons and property. Granting my, 

Mark Thomas' petition for exemption will reduce the current risk levels to the public and 

property thereby enhancing safety. My UAS craft do not contain potentially explosive fuel, is 

smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than conventional aircraft used for similar functions. 

Further, I operate at lower altitudes and in an very small amount of airspace eliminating 

potential public risk from flying to and from established air fields. 1, Mark Thomas, have been 

analyzing flight data informally and will compile protocols for safety and implement a flight 

operations manual for aerial structural inspection using a UAS, as well as, for voluntary search 

and rescue operations that exceed currently accepted means and measures for safe flight. 

Formal collection of data shared with the FAA and other interested organizations will enhance 

efforts to establish protocols for complying with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012. I, Mark Thomas, would also willingly volunteer time and effort to assist in setting 

guidelines and structure for training future AUS pilots. There are no personnel aboard my, 

Mark Thomas', UAS and therefore the likelihood of death or serious bodily injury is 

significantly diminished. My, Mark Thomas', operation of my UAS, weighing less than 3'/2 

pounds and traveling at lower speeds within limited areas will provide an equivalent or greater 

Mark Tlioinas, Thanas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exeinption Petition 

Page 9 of 10 
Mark Thomas, Thomas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

level of safety as that achieved under cunrent FARs. Accordingly I, Mark Thomas, respectfully 

request that the FAA grant my exemption request and am willing to cooperate in sharing 

information to benefit the FAA, safety of manned aircraft, and the general public at large. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Mark Thomas — President 

Thomas' Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

14 Lorraine Rd 

Westerly, RI 02891 

Mark Thomas, Thoinas Wildlife Solutions, Inc. - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Page 10 of 10