In the matter of the petition for :

Corey Huish

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations for the purpose of Real 

Estate Photography.

The petitioner request for an exemption from part 14 CFR part 11 and Section 333 of the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (PL 112-95)

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

Unmanned Aircraft System 

The petitioner states that given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area 

associated with the aircraft to be utilized by the applicant, an exemption from 14 CFR 

part 21, Subpart H (Airworthiness Certificates), subject to certain conditions and 

limitations, is warranted and meets the requirements for an equivalent level of safety 

under 14 CFR part 11 and Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 (PL 112-95). The petitioner further states that UAS operated without an 

airworthiness certificate in the restricted environment and under the conditions and 

limitations proposed by the petitioner will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional 

aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate issued under 

14 CFR part 21, Subpart H and not subject to the proposed conditions and limitations. 

The petitioner states that the unmanned aircraft (UA) to be operated under this request is 

less than 55 lbs. fully loaded, flies at a speed of no more than 50 knots, carries neither a 

pilot nor passenger, carries no explosive materials or flammable liquid fuels, and operates 

exclusively within a secured area as set out in the MPTOM. In addition, the petitioner has 

integrated safety features into the design of the UAS, as described in the petitioner’s 

FOPM, to ensure the safety of persons and property within and surrounding the limited 

operating area. The petitioner further describes that, in the event the UAS loses 

communications or its GPS signal, the UA will have the capability to return to a predetermined location within the Security Perimeter and land. It will also have the 

capability to abort a flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies. 

The petitioner states that even though its UAS will have no airworthiness certificate, an 

exemption may be needed from 14 CFR § 45.23 as the UA will have no entrance to the 

cabin, cockpit, or pilot station on which the word “experimental” can be placed. Given 

the size of the UA, the petitioner notes that the two-inch lettering will be impossible. The 

petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be provided by having the UA 

marked with the word “experimental” on the fuselage in compliance with 14 CFR § 

45.29(f), in a location where the pilot, observer, and others working with the UA will see 

the identification. 
The petitioner states that the maintenance requirements in the pertinent sections of 14 

CFR part 91 are only applicable to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate in accordance 

with part 43. The petitioner states that its V.3 UAS does not have specific maintenance 

instructions. The petitioner also states that it intends to follow any manufacturers’ 

recommended instructions and procedures when those procedures exist for certain 

components of UAS. 

UAS Pilot In Command (PIC) 

The petitioner asserts that since the UA will not carry a pilot or passengers on board, the 

proposed operations will not adversely affect safety by requiring the PIC operating the 

aircraft to have a private pilot’s license rather than a commercial pilot’s license. In 

support of its position, the petitioner argues that, since there are no standards for either 

private or commercial UAS pilot certificates, knowledge of airspace regulations 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. 

Furthermore, the petitioner explains that, given the restricted and controlled airspace 

within which operations will take place, the key factors needed by the PIC are knowledge 

of the airspace within which the “closed-set filming” operation will take place and how 

that airspace fits into the National Airspace System (NAS). The petitioner also states that 

it cannot be assumed that a commercial pilot, approved to operate a helicopter or fixed 

wing aircraft, has the skill or ability to safely operate an unmanned aerial vehicle, 

operating at 200 feet AGL or lower, within strictly controlled pre-approved airspace. 

Additionally, the petitioner states that the aircraft will be operated within a secure 

environment, which no one will be allowed to enter unless they are part of the 

production, have been fully briefed of the risks prior to operation of the UAS, and have 

consented to the risks associated with being in the operating area. Should there be a 

mishap, the UA being flown pose significantly less of a threat than the helicopters and 

fixed wing aircraft now being employed because they are a fraction of the size, carry no 

flammable fuel, and do not carry crew or passengers. This is in stark contrast to 

conventional aircraft that are flown to the site, carry flammable fuel, carry passengers and 

crew, and operate in a much larger area. 

UAS Operating Parameters 

The petitioner states that all flights will be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of 

a pilot and/or observer, and that the UA flights will be limited to a maximum altitude of 

200 feet AGL. The petitioner further states that an operator will ensure that only 

consenting production personnel will be allowed within 100 feet of the UA operation, but 

this radius may be reduced to 5 feet based upon an equivalent level of safety 

determination. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved 

given the size, weight, and speed of the UAS, as well as the location where it is operated. 

The petitioner states that the UAS will be operated within a safe operating perimeter, the 

boundaries of which will be determined by production personnel and the UAS PIC based 

on the site-specific filming activities and speed of the UAS required for the operation, 
and coordinated with the jurisdictional FAA FSDO and local government officials as 

applicable. The petitioner states that only participating and consenting production 

personnel will be allowed within this perimeter; the petitioner also states their intention to 

comply with the guidelines outlined in Order 8900.1 V3, C8, S1 with regard to 

nonparticipating personnel outside the safety perimeter. The petitioner argues that, 

compared to flight operations with aircraft or rotorcraft weighing far more than its 

maximum 55 lb. UA, and the lack of flammable fuel, any risk associated with its UAS 

operations is far less than those with conventional aircraft operating at or below 500 feet 

AGL. 

With respect to preflight actions, the petitioner notes it may need an exemption from 14 

CFR § 91.103, because it will not have approved rotorcraft flight manuals. The petitioner 

asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the PIC taking all preflight 

actions as set forth by the manufacture, including reviewing weather, flight battery 

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

initiation of flight. Additionally, the petitioner states that a briefing will be conducted 

prior to each day’s filming regarding planned UAS operations, and all personnel who will 

be performing duties within the boundaries of the safety perimeter will be required to 

attend. 

With respect to the fuel requirements, the petitioner notes that, in order to meet the 30 

minute reserve requirements in 14 CFR § 91.151, UAS flights would have to be limited 

to approximately 10 minutes. The petitioner argues that, given the limitations on the 

UA’s proposed flight area and the location of its proposed operations within a 

predetermined area, a longer time frame for flight in daylight or night VFR conditions is 

reasonable. The petitioner believes that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by 

limiting flights to 30 minutes or 25% of battery power, whichever occurs first. 

The petitioner notes that it may need an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.121, as its UAS 

may have a GPS altitude read out instead of a barometric altimeter. The petitioner asserts 

that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved, as outlined by the manufacture. 

Specifically, the altitude information will be provided to the UAS PIC via a digitally 

encoded telemetric data feed. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point will be 

established and confirmed for accuracy by the PIC. 

Public Interest 

The petitioner states that, given the small size of the UA involved and the restricted 

sterile environment within which it will operate, its proposed operation “falls squarely 

within that zone of safety (an equivalent level of safety) in which Congress envisioned 

that the FAA must, by exemption, allow commercial operations of UAS to commence 

immediately.” Also due to the size of the UA and the restricted areas in which the UAS 

will operate, approval of the application presents no national security issue. The 

petitioner states that, given the clear direction in Section 333, the strong equivalent level 

of safety surrounding the proposed operations, and the significant public benefit, 

including enhanced safety, reduction in environmental impacts, and including reduced 
emissions associated with allowing UAS for movie and television operations, granting 

the requested exemptions is in the public interest. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

Unmanned aircraft system (UAS) 

Regarding the petitioner’s requested relief from 14 CFR part 21 Certification procedures 

for products and parts, the FAA finds that, based on the limited size, weight, operating 

conditions, design safety features, and the imposed conditions and limitations, the 

petitioner has demonstrated that its operations would not adversely affect safety 

compared to similar operations conducted with aircraft that have been issued an 

airworthiness certificate under 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H. 

Commercial motion picture and television aerial filming operations with manned aircraft 

are typically conducted with aircraft holding standard airworthiness certificates issued 

under

part 21, subpart H. These aircraft are normally modified via the Supplemental Type 

Certificate (STC) process to install cameras and other equipment not included in the 

original aircraft design. 

Manned helicopters conducting motion picture and television aerial filming can weigh 

6,000 lbs. or more and are operated by an onboard pilot, in addition to other onboard 

crewmembers, as necessary. The petitioner’s UA will weigh less than 55 lbs. with no 

onboard pilot or crew. The pilot and crew will be remotely located from the aircraft. The 

limited weight significantly reduces the potential for harm to participating and 

nonparticipating individuals or property in the event of an incident or accident. The risk 

to an onboard pilot and crew during an incident or accident is eliminated with the use of a 

UA for the aerial filming operation. 

Manned aircraft are at risk of fuel spillage and fire in the event of an incident or accident. 

The UA carries no fuel, and therefore the risk of fire following an incident or accident 

due to fuel spillage is eliminated. 

During motion picture and television aerial filming with manned aircraft under the 

conditions of an FAA issued Certificate of Waiver, aircraft can be operated in very close 

proximity to participating persons. The safety of these individuals is maintained through 

use of an aircraft with standard airworthiness certification under 14 CFR part 21, Subpart 

H, operation of the aircraft by a qualified and competent pilot, and operating according to 

limitations necessary to ensure safety. In these situations, the filming subject and 

production personnel are exposed to risk by virtue of their close proximity to an aircraft 

in flight. Compared to manned aircraft, the UA being operated by the petitioner reduces 

the risk to participating persons in close proximity to the aircraft due to the limited size, 

weight, operating conditions, and design safety features of the UAS. 
This exemption does not require an electronic means to monitor and communicate with 

other aircraft, such as transponders or sense and avoid technology. Rather the FAA is 

mitigating the risk of these operations by placing limits on altitude, requiring stand-off 

distance from clouds, permitting daytime operations only, and requiring that the UA be 

operated within visual line of sight and yield right of way to all other manned operations. 

Additionally, the exemption provides that the operator will request a NOTAM prior to 

operations to alert other users of the NAS. 

The petitioner’s UAS has the capability to operate safely after experiencing certain inflight failures. The UA is also able to respond to a lost-link event with a pre-coordinated, 

predictable, automated flight maneuver. With regard to USHPA’s concerns about dual 

control systems, current FAA regulations permit motion picture and television filming 

operations by manned aircraft that do not require a copilot. Additionally, under this 

exemption, the FAA requires that the UAS PIC hold a current third class medical 

certificate. Historically, instances of complete PIC incapacitation are rare. In all other 

cases other than complete incapacitation, the PIC has the ability to terminate the flight 

operation or initiate the automated return to home procedure outlined within the FOPM.