May 22, 2015

Exemption No. 11682

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–0734

Mr. Stephen E. Van Vickle

104 South Foxhall Lane

Weyers Cave, VA 24486

Dear Mr. Van Vickle:

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.

By letter dated March 14, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

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

conduct aerial photography, commercial cinematic and academic flight operations.

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 DJI Phantom 2 Vision+.

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 
2

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, Mr. Stephen E. Van Vickle 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.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of exemption, Mr. Stephen E. Van Vickle 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.
3

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the DJI Phantom 2 

Vision+ 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, 

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 
4

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.

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, 
5

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 5 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.

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. 
6

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.

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 
7

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.

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosures
EXEMPTION REQUEST 

Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act. 

MARCH 2, 2015 

STEPHEN VAN VICKLE 

104 South Foxhall Lane, Weyers Cave, Va. 24486 
March 14, 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. 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

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

Stephen E Van Vickie (the applicant), planned operator of Small unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) 

equipped to conduct aerial photography and sutvey for various industries hereby applies for an 

exemption from Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) to allow commercial operation of their sUAS, so 

long as such operations are conducted within and under the conditions outlined herein or as may be 

established by the FAA as required by Section 333. 

Contact information 

Stephen E. Van Vickie 

104 South Foxhall Lane 

Weyers Cave, Virginia 24486 

Phone: (540) 209-0700 

Fax: (540) 437-3517 

Email: Stephen@VanVickle.com 

The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which I seek and exemption: 

Exemption Request Pursuant to Section 333 of the FMRA and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations, Seeking Exemption from: 

14 CFR Part 21 Subpart H 

14 CFR § 45.23{b) 

14 CFR 91.119(c) 

14 CFR 91.121 

14 CFR 91.151 

14 CFR 91.405 

14 CFR 91.407(a)(1) 

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

14 CFR 91.417(a) and (b) 

The extent of relief and the reason I seek the relief: 

I, Stephen E Van Vickie, a commercial pilot, submit this application in accordance with the Reform 

Act, 112 P.L. 95 §§ 331-334, seeking relief from any currently applicable FARs operating to prevent 

me, Stephen E Van Vickie, contemplated commercial cinematic, academic 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 

Stephen EVan VIckie- Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Page 1 of7 
public's interest to do so. My, Stephen E Van Vickie's, sUAS1 meets the definition of "small 

unmanned aircraft" as defined in Section 331 and therefore the integration of my sUAS is expressly 

contemplated by the Reform Act. I would like to operate my sUAS 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 related sUAS aerial video and photography. The Reform Act guides the Secretary in 

determining the types of sUAS that may operate safely in our national airspace system. 

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

sUAS will be operated near airports or heavily populated areas; and, Whether the sUAS 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, Stephen E Van Vickie. My sUAS utilizes four ( 4) counter-rotating propellers for 

balance, control and stability. My sUAS is equipped with GPS and auto return safety technology. 

Weighing less than six (6) pounds {far below the maximum 55 pound limit); including payload. 

I, Stephen E Van Vickie, considers safety as foremost with each flight. Built in safety systems 

include a GPS mode that allows my sUAS to hover in place when radio controls are released. When 

pilot communication is lost sUAS is designed slowly descend to point of takeoff. I do not operate 

my sUAS near Hospitals nor Police heliports, and do not operate near areas where 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, etc.) and 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 sUAS is capable of 

vertical and horizontal operations, and are flown only within my line of sight and my visual observer 

(VO), as the remote control pilot. Utilizing battery power rather than combustible fuels, flights 

generally last between five (5) to fifteen (15) minutes, with an altitude generally under two 

hundred fifty (250) feet. I, Stephen E Van Vickie, utilize a fresh fully charged battery with each 

flight as a safety precaution; full flight time limit for each battery Is (25) minutes as tested. I do not 

operate my sUAS at or below manufacture recommend minimum charge levels for operation2

; preferring to remain well within a safe operating range to insure adequate communication between 

radio control and sUAS 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, or 

other manned aircraft. I have logged1 numerous practice flights in remote areas as a hobbyist 

simulating flights for future commercial use to gain familiarization with the characteristics of this 

specific sUAS's performance under different temperature and weather conditions. I also practice 

computerized simulated flights to maintain adequate skills and response reflex time. All for the sake 

of safety. 

I, Stephen E Van Vickie's, am extremely cautious when operating of my sUAS will not "create a 

hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public." 112 P.L. 95 § 333 (b). Given the 

small size and weight of my sUAS's it falls well within Congress's contemplated safety zone when it 

promulgated the Reform Act and the corresponding directive to integrate sUAS's into the national 

airspace system. Stephen E Van Vickie's sUAS, used in hobby flight, has a demonstrable safety 

record and does not pose any threat to the general public or national security. 

1 APPENDIX A- Phantom 2 Vision+ 2 APPENDIX A- Phantom 2 Vision+ Smart Flight Battery Guidelines 3 APPENDIX B - Forms- Pilot Master log 

Stephen E Van Vickie - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Pase 2 of7 
How the request would benefit the public as a whole: 

Aerial videography for geographical awareness has been around for a long time through manned 

fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. For small budget companies the expense of such aerial 

videography is cost prohibitive. Only large companies can afford to absorb such expense. Depriving 

lower budget business from a valuable marketing tool. Manned aircraft pose a threat to the public 

through potential catastrophic crash that this area has experienced in the past with military aircraft 

and medical helicopter crashes. Each resulting In loss of life. Each with combustible fuel that 

exploded and burned on impact. My, Stephen E Van Vickie's, sUAS pose no such threat since size 

and lack of combustible fuel alleviates any potential threat to the public. Congress has already 

proclaimed that it is in the public's interest to integrate commercially flown sUAS's into the national 

airspace system, hence the passing of the Reform Act. Granting my, Stephen E Van Vickie, 

exemption request furthers the public interest through academic/visual awareness of the 

geographical benefits. My sUAS is battery powered and creates no emissions that can harm the 

environment. The consequence of my sUAS crashing is far less than a full size helicopter or fixed 

wing aircraft; which are heavy, contain combustible fuel and can cause catastrophic devastation to 

the public. 

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

video/photo capture through my battery operated sUAS. Permitting me, Stephen E Van Vickie, to 

immediately fly within national air space furthers economic growth. Granting my exemption request 

substantially furthers the economic impact for the companies looking to relocate or build as well as 

individuals looking to relocate for career advancement through academic and geographical 

awareness. Both of which serve as a stimulus to the community. 

Reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to the existing rule: 

My, Stephen EVan Vickie's, exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the contrary, for the 

reasons stated permitting me, Stephen E Van Vickie, to log more flight time 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 development in 

cooperation with the FAA. In addition I, Stephen E Van Vickie, submit the following representations 

of enhancements to current aerial videography and photography: 

• My sUAS weighs 5.7 pounds including payload. 

• My sUAS will not exceed 33.40 MPH (42.6 Knots). 

• My sUAS will only be operated by a person that is at a minimum a licensed private pilot, 

with at least a third class medical. 

• I only operate my sUAS well within the 400 foot permissible ceiling set by the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

• My sUAS will only operate for 5 -15 minutes per flight. 

• My sUAS meets or exceeds all FCC requirements."~ 

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

• I pilot my UAS through remote control only by line of sight of the PIC and the visual 

observer. 

4 APPENDIX- Forms · FCC Verifications 

Stephen EVan VIckie- Section 333 Exemption Petition 

P~ge3or7 
• My UAS has GPS a flight safety feature whereby it hovers and then slowly lands if 

communication with the remote control 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 environment that are strictly controlled, are away from 

power lines, elevated lights and actively populated areas. 

• I conduct pre-flight inspections5 and protocol6

, during which safety carries primary 

importance. 

• I always obtains all necessary permissions prior to operation7

• 

My, Stephen EVan Vickie's, 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 into our national 

airspace system, helicopters are the primary means of aerial video and photography for community 

awareness and real estate. While the safety record of such helicopters is remarkably astounding, 

there has been a local incident involving loss of life; it is far safer to operate a battery powered 

sUAS. 

• First, the potential loss of life is diminished because UAS's carry no people on board and I 

only operates my UAS in specific areas away from mass populations. 

• Second, there is no fuel on board a UAS and thus the potential for fire or explosions is 

greatly diminished. 

• Third, the small size and extreme maneuverability of my UAS allow me to remotely pilot 

away from and avoid hazards quickly and safely. 

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

my UAS need not be so close to the objects they are focused on through the technology 

and use of post editing software allowing pan and zoom. 

Accordingly, my UAS has been experimentally operated for familiarization/competency and will 

continue to operate at and above current safety levels. 

A summary that can be published in the Federal Register 

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, Stephen EVan Vickie's, sUAS permits 

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 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 

5 APPENDIX FORMS - Preflight Check list 6 APPENDIX FORMS- Flight Safety 7 Appendix Forms - Flight Notification 

Stephen EVan Vickie- Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Page 4 of7 

.. 
areas such as airports and dense populations. My, Stephen E Van Vickie's, 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 on board 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 of where safety can be defined. The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this 

regulation in Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 95658, 10167, 10167A, 10602, 

10700 and 32827. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.121 regarding altimeter settings. 

This is inapplicable insofar as my UAS utilizes electronic global positioning systems with a 

barometric sensor. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.203 (a) and (b) provides for the 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 any such required certifications and registrations by me, Stephen E Van 

Vickie. 

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

Applicable Codes of Federal Regulation require aircraft to be marked according to certain 

specifications. My sUAS 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 impossible 

to place on such small aircraft with dimensions smaller that minimal lettering requirement. The FAA 

has previously issued exemptions to this regulation through Exemptions Nos. 8738, 10167, 10167A 

and 10700. 

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 sUAS will never operate at an altitude 

greater than the standard of 400 AGL. I, Stephen E Van Vickie, will however operate my sUAS in 

safe areas away from public and traffic, providing a level of safety at least equivalent to or below 

those in relation to minimum safe altitudes. Given the size, weight, maneuverability and speed of 

my sUAS, an equivalent or higher level of safety will be achieved. The UA may not operate within 5 

nautical miles of an airport reference point as denoted on a current FAA-published aeronautical 

chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport's management is obtained, and the operation is 

conducted in accordance with a NOT AM as required by the operator's COA. The letter of agreement 

with the airport management must be made available to the Administrator upon request. The FAA 

Stephen EVan Vitlde - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Pa&e5 ol7 
has previously issued exemptions to this regulation in Exemptions No. 11067, 11158, 11161, 

11166, 11167, 11170, 11172. 

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

The above-cited 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 an airworthiness certificate. They will not, therefore, 

apply to my, Stephen E Van Vickie's, UAS. However, as a safety precaution I inspect my UAS before 

and after each flight. Log any discrepancies and repairs in the maintenance log8• 

A Summary The FAA May Publish in the Federal Register: 

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)(l). The size, weight and enclosed 

operational area of my UAS permits exemption from Part 21 because my, Stephen EVan Vickie's, 

sUAS 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 sUAS'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 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 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 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 

manual. The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this regulation in Exemption Nos. 8607, 

8737, 8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 95658, 10167, maintenance program that involves regular 

software updates and curative measures for any damaged hardware. Therefore, an equivalent level 

of safety will be achieved. 

Any additional Information, views or argument available to support your request. 

Currently, area awareness and aerial videography/photography relies primarily on the use of larger 

aircraft running on combustible fuel. Posing potential risk to the public. Granting my, Stephen EVan 

Vickie's, request for exemption will reduce current risk levels and thereby enhance safety. My sUAS 

craft does not contain potentially explosive fuel, is smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than 

conventional video and photographic aircraft with much less flight time. Further, I operate at lower 

altitudes and in controlled airspace eliminating potential public risk flying to and from established 

8 APPENDIX- Forms - Maintenance Log 

Stephen E Van VIckie - Section 333 Exemption Petition 

PaRe6of7 
air fields. I, Stephen E Van Vickie, have been informally analyzing flight information and will 

compile safety protocols and the implementation of a flight operations manual for usage that 

exceeds currently accepted means and methods for safe flight. Formal collection of information 

shared with the FAA will enhance the FAA's internal efforts to establish protocols for complying with 

the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. There are no personnel on board my, Stephen E 

Van Vickie's, sUAS and therefore the likelihood of death or serious bodily injury is significantly 

diminished. My, Stephen EVan Vickie's, operation of my sUAS, weighing less than 20 pounds and 

travelling at lower speeds within limited areas will provide an equivalent level of safety as that 

achieved under current FARs. Accordingly I, Stephen E Van Vickie, 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. 

I am not asking for exemption from 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b) as I have a commercial licenses 

(certificate# 2029682) with over 40 years of experience and 17,000+ logged hours. 

I do not wish to exercise the privileges of my exemption outside the U.S. 

Respectfully submitted, 

~f~t-/~ 

Stephen E Van Vickie 

104 South Foxhall Lane 

Weyers Cave, Virginia 24486 

Phone: (540) 209-0700 

Fax: (540) 437-3517 

Email: Stephen@VanVickle.com 

Stephen E Van Vickie-Section 333 Exemption Petition 

Pase 7 of7