April 26, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Exemption request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act.

Dear Sir/Ma’am:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 RPA/UAS 

Consulting LLC, the operator of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) seeks an exemption 

from the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) 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 RPA/UAS 

Consulting LLC to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection.

You'll find that our request is similar to relief previously requested in Grant of Exemption 

Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213. Furthermore, the UAS proposed by RPA/UAS 

Consulting LLC have been approved in Grant of Exemption Nos. 11398 and 11277.

The requested exemption would permit RPA/UAS Consulting LLC to commercially 

operate UAS for the following purposes:

 Airborne photography and videography

 Emergency services support

 Search and rescue

 Emergency Services training 

 UAS operations training

 UAS capability demonstrations

Furthermore, RPA/UAS Consulting LLC will research, develop, and commercial operate UAS to 

conduct:

 Agriculture and land surveying

 News gathering and reporting 

 Railroad inspections

 Bridge inspections

 Infrastructure inspection

 Tall structure inspections (smokestacks, cell phone towers, windmills, and 

electrical transmission towers, ect.)

The primary purpose of RPA/UAS Consulting is to assist other industries by providing 

safe and efficient UAS support. The uses of UAS to perform airborne photography and 
videography as well as aerial inspections and surveying have two major benefits. First, small 

UAS are considerably safer than using manned aircraft in the previously mentioned tasks, and 

also reduces the fall risk of workers. Second, UAS allows the completion of many tasks at a 

fraction of the cost using traditional means. Granting this exemption is in the public interest

because it will dramatically enhance safety, lower-cost, and improve the efficiency of many 

industries.

RPA/UAS Consulting LLC will conduct the aforementioned tasks by using the following 

small sized UAS: DJI Phantom 2 vision+, DJI Phantom 3 professional, DJI Inspire 1, DJI S1000,

and the ASCTEC Falcon 8. The listed UAS are very small, all weighing less than 25 pounds, 

and have advanced navigation systems and automated control features that enhance safety. With 

the exception of the DJI Phantom 3, which is merely an improvement of the Phantom 2 vision+, 

all of the UAS there will be operated with this exemption have been previously approved in other

Section 333 exemption requests. 

The chief pilot and owner of RPA/UAS Consulting, Joseph Yasunaga, is an experienced 

Commercial Pilot and a FAA Certified Flight Instructor with over 2000 hours of military UAS 

experience. RPA/UAS Consulting PICs will all possess a minimum of a FAA Private Pilot's 

License and a current Class III medical. All of RPA/UAS Consulting operations will strictly 

adhere to FAA regulations with safety being the number one priority. All operations will be 

conducted via unaided visual line of sight below 400 feet AGL and outside of any controlled 

airspace unless the controlling agency gives express permission.

RPA/UAS Consulting LLC respectfully submits a grant of exemption is in the public 

interest because the use of small UAS in lieu of comparatively more expensive and hazardous 

fixed and rotary wing aircraft or other conventional manned methods of inspection greatly 

enhances efficiency and achieves a level of safety that is significantly higher. Furthermore, 

RPA/UAS Consulting will assist other industries in the safe application of UAS and promote the 

benefits of safe UAS operations. Approval of this exemption would enhance safety and fulfilled 

the Secretary of Transportation's responsibility under the section 333(c) of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 to “establish requirements for the safe operation of such 

aircraft systems in the national airspace system.”

Name and address of the applicant:

Joseph Yasunaga

RPA/UAS Consulting

Cell: (662) 425-6560

Email: RPA.UAS.Consulting@Gmail.com

Address: 751 Langly St

 Colorado Springs, Co. 80916
JUSTIFICTION UNDER SECTION 333

According to the FAA’s Public Guidance for Petitions for Exemption Filed under Section 333

“Section 333 grants the Secretary of Transportation the authority to determine if an unmanned 

aircraft system, as a result of its size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports 

and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight does not create a hazard to users of 

the national airspace system or the public or pose a threat to national security”. RPA/UAS 

Consulting LLC submits that the small size and weight of the purposed UAS coupled with the 

fact that the operations will be conducted at low altitudes, slow airspeed, and within visual line 

of sight of the operator; our operations pose no potential hazard to the national airspace system, 

general public, or present any threat to national security.

Airworthiness of the UAS

The Federal Aviation Act (49 U.S.C.§44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act both 

authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft from the requirement for an airworthiness certificate, upon 

consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capability of the particular UAS. RPA/UAS 

Consulting LLC purposes using DJI Phantom 2 vision+, DJI Phantom 3 professional, DJI Inspire 

1, DJI S1000, and the ASCTEC Falcon 8. The proposed systems have the inherent advantage of 

being small in size and battery-operated therefore do not carry flammable fuel, this significantly 

reduces any potential damage in the event of a mishap. RPA/UAS Consulting LLC will operate 

the proposed UAS below 400 feet AGL, at speeds less than that recommended by the 

manufacturer, and at all times less than 50 knots. Operations will only be conducted in during 

daylight hours, in uncontrolled airspace, unless specific permission is granted by the controlling 

agency, and within visual line of sight of the operator. 

With the exception of the DJI Phantom 3, which is merely an improvement of the DJI 

Phantom 2, all of the UAS that will be operated with this exemption have been previously 

approved in other Section 333 exemption requests. The DJI Phantom 2 vision+, DJI Inspire 1, 

DJI S1000 were approved for use in Exemption No. 11398. The ASCTEC Falcon 8 was 

approved in Exemption Number 11277. An analysis of these criteria demonstrates that the 

purposed UAS operated without an airworthiness certificate, in the restricted environment and 

under the conditions proposed will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed 

or helicopter) operating with an airworthiness certificate without the restrictions and conditions 

proposed.

Operation of the UAS

RPA/UAS Consulting LLC will ensure that the exemption does not adversely affect safety and 

will operate at a level of safety at least equal to existing rules by operating with the following 

limitations and conditions:

 All operations will strictly adhere to manufactures owners, operators and maintenance 

manual.

 All operations will occur in class G airspace, unless specifically authorized by the 

controlling authority.
 All operations will be conducted during daylight hours.

 All operations will occur below 400 feet AGL.

 All operations will be conducted and visual meteorological conditions with visibility of at 

least three nautical miles.

 All operations will be conducted with at least 500 feet below clouds and with a horizontal 

separation of at least 2000 feet.

 At no time will the operator allow the aircraft within 500 feet of nonparticipating person,

structure, or vehicle.

 Preflight operations will be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer's 

recommendation and preflight checklist.

 All maintenance will be conducted in accordance with manufacturers recommendations 

and documented in the aircraft logbook

PIC Requirements

RPA/UAS Consulting LLC respectfully submits that the operator requirements should 

take into account the advanced internal navigation and autopilot systems of the proposed UAS. 

The DJI and ASCTEC systems both have a high degree of control and are extremely stable even 

in high wind environments. Both companies incorporate various built-in capabilities that limit 

the potential for operations outside of the aircraft capability.

The pilot in charge (PIC) is solely responsible for the safe operation of the UAS. 

RPA/UAS Consulting LLC will only use PIC’s who possess and FAA commercial or private 

pilot's license and a class III medical. RPA/UAS Consulting LLC will also ensure that all PICs

comply with manufacturer training requirements, and have been deemed safe and proficient by 

the chief pilot.

The regulations from which the exemption is requested are as follows:

14 C.F.R. Part 21;

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b);

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

14 C.F.R. 61.133(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.7(b);

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2);

14 C.F.R. 91.109(a);

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) & (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. 91.417(a) & (b).
14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H: Airworthiness Certificates 14 CFR § 91.203(a)(1)

Subpart H, Airworthiness Certificates, establishes the procedural requirements for the 

issuance of airworthiness certificates as required by FAR §91.203 (a) (1). Given the size and 

limited operating area associated with the aircraft to be utilized by RPA/UAS Consulting LLC, 

an exemption from Part 21 Subpart H meets the requirements of an equivalent level of safety 

under Part 11 and Section 333 of the Reform Act. The Federal Aviation Act (49 U.S.C.§44701 

(f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act both authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft from the 

requirement for an airworthiness certificate, upon consideration of the size, weight, speed, 

operational capability, and proximity to airports and populated areas of the particular UAS. Our 

small UAS's will be operated at low speed in a controlled environment, away from airports and 

any densely populated area. An analysis of these criteria demonstrates that the UAS's operated 

without an airworthiness certificate, in the restricted environment and under the conditions 

proposed will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or helicopter) 

operating with an airworthiness certificate without the restrictions and conditions proposed. 

The UAS to be operated is less than 25 lbs. fully loaded, carries neither a pilot nor 

passenger, carries no flammable liquid fuels, and operates exclusively within a secured area. 

Like other civil aircraft, operations under this exemption will be tightly controlled and monitored 

by the PIC. If required, the FAA and general public will have advance notice of all operations.

These safety enhancements, which already apply to civil aircraft operated in connection 

with private property, industrial sites, railroad yards and the like provide a greater degree of 

safety to the public and property owners than conventional operations conducted with 

airworthiness certificates issued under 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. Lastly, application of these 

same criteria demonstrates that there is no credible threat to national security and the NAS posed 

by the UAS, due to its size, speed of operation, location of operation, lack flammable liquid 

fuels, and limited ability to carry an external load.

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

This regulation requires certain experimental, provisionally certificated aircraft, or lightsport category aircraft to be marked with letters between 2 inches and 6 inches high "limited," 

"restricted," "light-sport," "experimental," or "provisional," near each entrance to a cabin, 

cockpit, or pilot station.

Even though the UAS will have no airworthiness certificate, an exemption may be 

needed as the UAS will have no entrance to the cabin, cockpit or pilot station on which the word 

"Experimental" can be placed. Given the size of the UAS, two-inch lettering will be impossible. 

The word "Experimental" will be placed on the fuselage in compliance with §45.29 (f).

The equivalent level of safety will be provided by having the UAS marked on its fuselage 

as required by §45.29 (f) where the pilot, observer and others working with the UAS will see the 

identification of the UAS as "Experimental." The FAA has issued the following exemptions to 

this regulation: Exemptions Nos. 10700, 8738, 10167 and 10167A.
14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a) & (b); 61.133(a): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations; Pilot in

Command; Commercial Pilot Privileges and Limitations.

Part 61.113 (a) states that no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot 

in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor 

may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command or an aircraft. Part 61.113 (b) 

states that a private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in 

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

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

hire. Section 61.133(a) requires an individual with a commercial pilot’s license to be pilot in 

command of an aircraft for compensation or hire.

RPA/UAS Consulting LLC proposes that all operations require that the PIC must either 

hold an either a Commercial or Private Pilot Certificate issued by the FAA. Since there are 

currently no means available for the pilot of a UAS to gain the experience in an equivalent 

category and class in order to apply for a commercial UAS pilot's license, using pilots qualified 

under other categories and classes meets or exceeds the present level of safety provided under 14 

C.F.R. § 61.113(a) & (b). Given the unique nature of commercial UAS operations we do not 

believe that it rises to the level of requiring a commercial pilot to operate the aircraft under§ 

61.133(a).

14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a): Civil aircraft airworthiness.

This regulation requires that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in 

airworthy condition. Should the exemption be granted allowing commercial operation of the 

UAS without an airworthiness certificate, no standard will exist for airworthiness of the UAS. 

Given the size of the aircraft and the requirements published by the manufacture for maintenance 

and the use of safety checklists prior to each flight, an equivalent level of safety will be provided.

14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual in the Aircraft.

The UAS, given its size and configuration has no ability or place to carry such a flight 

manual on the aircraft, not only because there is no pilot on board, but because there is no room 

or capacity to carry such an item on the aircraft.

The equivalent level of safety will be maintained by keeping the flight manual at the 

ground control point where the pilot flying the UAS will have immediate access to it. The FAA 

has issued the following exemptions to this regulation: Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 8738, 9299, 

9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167, 10167A, 10602, 32827, and 10700.

14 C.F.R. 91.103: Preflight Action

This regulation requires each pilot in command take certain actions before flight to 

ensure the safety of flight. An exemption is needed from this requirement as the pilot will take 

separate preflight actions, including checking for weather conditions, checking flight battery 

requirements, checking takeoff and landing distances, and all other actions in the manufactures

preflight checklist. These actions will provide an equivalent level of safety.
14 C.F.R. § 91.109(a) & 91.319(a)(1): Flight Instruction

These regulations provide that no person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned 

free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual 

controls.

By design, UASs and remotely piloted aircraft do not have fully functional dual controls. 

Flight control is accomplished through the use of a control station that communicates with the 

aircraft via radio communications. The FAA has previously approved exemptions for aircraft 

without fully functional dual controls. The equivalent level of safety provided by the fact that 

neither a pilot nor passengers will be carried in the aircraft, the ability to control the UAS via 

radio signals from the controller, and by the size and speed of the aircraft.

14 CFR § 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes

Section 91.119 establishes safe altitudes for operation of civil aircraft. Specifically, 

91.119(c) limits aircraft flying over areas other than congested areas to an altitude of 500 feet 

above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft 

may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

The equivalent level of safety will be achieved given the size, weight, speed of the UAS 

as well as the location where it is operated. No flight will be taken without the permission of the 

property owner. Compared to flight operations with aircraft weighting far more than the 

maximum 55 lbs. proposed herein and carrying flammable fuel, any risk associated with our 

operations is far less than those presently presented with helicopters and other conventional 

aircraft operating at or below 500 AGL. In addition, the low-altitude operations of the UAS will 

ensure separation between these UAS operations and the operations of conventional aircraft.

14 C.F.R § 91.121 Altimeter Settings

This regulation requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude by 

reference to an altimeter that is set "...to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate 

altimeter setting available before departure." As the UAS does not have a barometric altimeter, 

but instead a GPS altitude read out, an exemption is needed. An equivalent level of safety will be 

achieved by the operator confirming the altitude of the launch site shown on the GPS altitude 

indicator before flight.

14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

This regulation prohibits an individual from beginning “a flight in an airplane under VFR 

conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly 

to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed – (1) During the day, 

to fly after that for at least 30 minutes.”
An equivalent level of safety can be achieved by limiting flights to what the manufacturer 

recommends, or enough battery reserve to ensure that the UAS lands at the ground station with at 

least 25% of battery power (as determined by the onboard monitoring system and the pilot), 

whichever happens first. This restriction would be more than adequate to return the UAS to its 

planned landing zone from anywhere in its limited operating area. Similar exemptions have been 

granted to other operations, including Exemptions 2689F, 5745, 10673, and 10808.

14 C.F.R. § 91.203 (a) & (b): Carrying Civil Aircraft Certification and Registration

This regulation requires: “no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has [. . .] an 

appropriate and current airworthiness certificate”. “(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft 

unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight 

authorization issued under §91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is 

legible to passengers or crew”.

An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by keeping these documents at the ground 

control point where the pilot flying the UAS will have immediate access to them. The FAA has 

issued numerous exemptions to this regulation. A representative sample of other exceptions 

includes Exemption Nos. 9565, 9665, 9789, 9789A, 9797, 9797A, 9816A, and 10700.

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

Section 91.405(a) requires that an aircraft operator or owner “shall have that 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 . . . .” Section 91.407 similarly makes reference to requirements in Part 43; Section

91.409(a)(2) requires an annual inspection for the issuance of an air worthiness certificate. 

Section 91.417(a) requires the owner or operator to keep records showing certain maintenance 

work that has been accomplished by certificated mechanics, under Part 43, or licensed pilots and 

records of approval of the aircraft for return to service.

Given that these section and Part 43 apply only to aircraft with an airworthiness 

certificate, these sections will not apply to RPA/UAS Consulting LLC UAS. An equivalent level 

of safety, given the small size and unique characteristics of the aircraft, will be maintained by the 

operator accomplishing and documenting all required maintenance specified by the 

manufacturer.