## Adam Wondolowski

- 333 Petition

November 20, 2015 P a g e | 1 of 9 

### Erick F. Larsen

Consultant to
Adam Wondolowski
262 W. Linden Ave. # C Burbank, LA, Ca 91502
818

- 732

- 0330 ErickLarsen@Outlook.com November 20, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportatio n Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request (Petition) for Exemption from Certain Regulations per Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act) and 14
C.F.R. Part 11, professional photographer, Adam Paul Wondolowski

, ( Adam Wondolowski

, Petitioner, or Operator ) hereby applies for an exemption from the listed Federal Avi ation Regulations (FARs ) to allow business use (commercial operation) of his fleet of Unoccupied (unmanned) Aerial System (UAS), 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.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner

, Adam Wondolowski is a United States born citizen with an active U.S. passport and a
valid Colorado Driver’s License . He is performing expert professional cinematography, videography, and photography worldwide

, with the followin g contact information :

Adam Wondolowski
806 Solano Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90012

323

- 703

- 9645

Wondox@aol.com

Adam Wondolowski is a highly creative and skilled professional photographer whose commercial

services inc lude aerial photography and cinematography

, and Talent, Event , and Cinematic
Promotion and Production

. Adam Wondolowski is conveniently based in the heart of Hollywood

, California

.

Adam Wondolowski utilizes only the latest technology, including diverse mu lticopters of ev ery size,

## Adam Wondolowski

- 333 Petition

November 20, 2015 P a g e | 2 of 9 type, as well as state of the art brushless gimbals

, to capture and compose p erfect cinematography and photography to his client s ’ delight. Adam has many y ears of experience building and safely piloting multicopters and with a mul titude of aerial and ground based cutting edge cameras

, equipment, and creative techniques.

As an aircraft pilot, Adam Wondolowski is able to provide aerial productions and still photographs of the highest quality and at the safest and most eff icient prod uction level with his fleet of diverse rotorcraft, including Inspire 1 and Phantom 3 Professional rotorcraft . Aerial photography and cinematography by Adam Wondolowski instantly increases the production value of any project.

Small business is the backbone of America. Through years of UAS commercial experience, pilot

, Adam Wondolowski

, has develo ped numerous diverse clients in need of safe and lawful
commercial UAS aerial data collection (ADC) services. Growth of p etitioner’s small UAS business will provide new jobs and an incr eased level of safety to many who currently are in need of UAS

ADC commercial services. Current FAA UAS policy prevents Petitioner from continuing to provide
civil UAS ADC commercial services in the absence of the requested exemption s

.

Petitioner seeks to operate his fleet of UAS to conduct aerial data collection (ADC) which includes any remote sensing and measuring by an instrument(s) aboard the unmanned aircraft (UA). Examples include imagery (photography, video, infrared, etc.), el ectronic measurement (precision surveying, RF analysis, etc.), chemical measurement (particulate measurement, etc.), or any other gathering of data by instruments aboard the UA.

In particular Petitioner seeks authorization to conduct commercial UAS traini ng and remote ADC, mapping, surveying, photography, filming, videography, demonstrations , surveying, spraying, sampling, measuring, and inspections of (or for):

1.) Construction, architectural, engineering, insurance, risk management, security, real esta te, resort, golf, cemetery, entertainment, sports, utility, energy (oil, gas, solar, wind, & electric), hydro (water), transportation (port, rail, truck, & bus), mining, bridge, telecommunications, agriculture (farming, ranching, & growing) flare s tack, pl atform, tower, pole, pipeline and other infrastructure, structures, sites, systems, features and operations; and,

2.) Recreational, commercial, governmental, Emergency Management Agencies (EMA) and entities; and,

3 .) Closed

- set motion picture and telev ision (MPT) filming and production which must be conducted pursuant to petitioner’s FOM, petitioner’s operating documents, and the Motion Picture
and T elevision Production Operations M anual (MPTOM) special UAS operating provisions (Appendix AA of petitione r’s FOM); and,

4.) Environmental, scientific, archaeology, conservation, climate change, natural

resource, wildlife, oceanographic, forestry, weather, search & rescue, emergency

## Adam Wondolowski

- 333 Petition

November 20, 2015 P a g e | 3 of 9 services, humanitarian relief, public & private entity support, assistance and monitoring
of infrastructure, structures, sites, systems, features, and operations; and,

5.) Research, education, crew training, development, testing, certification, and validation of safe and lawful commercial, experimental, hobby, and recreational UAS curriculum, education, and safe flight training, demonstrations, and events involving UAS design, manufacture, assembly, purchase, sale, maintenance, repair, inspection, safe operation, record keeping, and required FAA
documentation.

Hereinafter, 1 th rough 5, above, referred to as petitioner’s "proposed operations".

In support of his application, petitioner confidentially submits his proprietary and confidential Flight Operations Manual (FOM), his MPTOM, and references to manufacturers’ model specific aircraft documentation (operating documents) for each aircraft in his fleet of four ( 7 ) UAS aircraft (fleet) as shown in the table immediately below:

Commercial operations of any other type of aircraft require a new or amended FAA 333 petition.
Each of petitioner’s UAS is in the process of being duly registered with the FAA which will assign registration numbers shortly.

Specific Regulations for which an exemption is sought:

14 CFR 61.113 (a) 14 CFR 91.7 (a) 14 CFR 91.119 (b) & (c) 14 CPR 91. 121 14 CFR 91.151 (a) 14 CFR 91.405 (a) N Number Serial

Number Manufacturer Name

Model Name

Address

TBD TBD DJI Inspire 1 Adam Wondolowski

TBD TBD DJI Inspire 1 Pro Adam Wondolowski

TBD TBD DJI

S900 Adam Wondolowski

TBD TBD DJI

S1000 Adam Wondolowski

TBD TBD FreeFly Systems
Alta Adam Wondolowski

TBD TBD DJI
Phantom 3 Professional Adam Wondolowski

TBD TBD DJI
Phantom 3 Advanced Adam Wondolowski

## Adam Wondolowski

- 333 Petition

November 20, 2015 P a g e | 4 of 9 14 CFR 407 (a) (1) 14 CPR 409 (a) (1) & ( 2) 14 CFR 417 (a) & (b)

II. PETITIONER’S PROPOSED OPERATIONS DO NOT CREATE SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS

Each UAS utilized by Petitioner is an electric multi

- rotor craft, weighing less than 55 lbs. including ADC payload and has been previously approved by the FAA f or commercial operations

. Each operates at a speed of no more than 100 mph (87 knots) and has the capability to hover, and/or

move in a vertical and hori zontal plane simultaneously. Each will only be operated as visual line of sight (VLOS), remain under 40 0 ft. above ground level (AGL), and will operate only over private or controlled access property with permission from the owner/controller of the property or authorized representative.

During petitioner’s proposed operations the site will be secured and n on

- participants will be kept at least 500 feet away from the operation unless barriers or structures are present that sufficiently
protect non

- participants in the event of an accident or loss of control.

Adam Wondolowski has drafted, and submits confident ially, his proprietary Flight Operations Manual (FOM) and M otion Picture and T elevision O perations M anual (MPTOM) which set forth safety considerations, training, general and specific operating procedures, specifications, inspection, maintenance, setup of the UAS, and other proprietary procedures for the proposed UAS operations.

III. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED OPERATIONS ARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The FAA has issued a Grant of Exemption s to FalconSkyCam

, Exemption No. 11195

, Docket No FAA

2014

- 0884 (March 6, 201 5) and to Measure, a 32 Advisors Company, LLC

, Exemption No. 12646

, Docket No. FAA

– 2015

– 1602 ( August 28, 2015 ), for operations that are substantially similar to those proposed herein. In issuing the Grant to FalconSkyCam , the FAA noted that "[t]he enhanced safety and reduced environmental impact achieved using a UAS 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."

Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the FAA grant the requested exemption summarily and without delay.

IV. EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY

Adam Wondolowski proposes that his fleet of UAS

, with the characteristics and as operated with the limitations listed below, provide for at least an equivalent or even higher level of safety to operations under the current regulatory framework.

## Adam Wondolowski

- 333 Petition

November 20, 2015 P a g e | 5 of 9 These limitations and conditions to which Petitioner agrees to be bound when conducting commercial operations under an FAA issued exemption include:

1.) Each UAS utilized by Petitioner will weigh Less than 55 lbs, operate at a speed of no more than 100 mph ( 87 knots), and will remain under 400 ft. (AGL). 2.) Flights will be operated only during daylight hours, only in visual meteorological conditions, and only within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the pilot in command (PIC) of the UAS. 3.) All operations will utilize a visual observer (VO) in addition to the pilot in command (PIC). 4.) Maximum total flight time for each operational flight will be approximately 30 minutes, or when the Low Battery warning activates.

V. EXEMPTIONS REQUESTED

14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a) and (b): Pri vate, Recreational, or Sport vs. Commercial Pilot Certificates

Sections 61.113 (a) and (b) prohibit private , recreational, or sport certified pilots from operating a traditional aircraft for compensation or hire. Petitioner proposes that his PIC will have at least a private , recreational, or sport pilot’s certificate, and a current FAA 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. Petition er’s PIC will 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.

Petitioner will not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the ability to safely

o perate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under petitioner’s exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification flight h ours and currency will be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). Dedicated UAS f lights for the purposes of training the petitioner’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience

- building) and for determining the PIC’s ability to safel y operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS
will be operated under petitioner’s exemption are requested by petitioner to be allowed under the terms of this exemption.

Petitioner further proposes that such PIC and VO training operations will only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and experience

- building flights, all persons not essential for flight operations will be considered nonparticipants, and the PIC will operate the UA with appropriate dista nce from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR §

91.119.

Based upon the above and for the reasons set forth in the FAA's grant of an exemption to Astraeus Aerial, Petitioner does not believe a commercial pilot certificate is necessary for the operatio ns it intends to conduct. See, e.g., In the matter of the petition of Astraeus Aerial, Exemption No. 11062 (issued Sept. 25, 2014). For those reasons, Petitioner requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a) and (b).

## Adam Wondolowski

- 333 Petition

November 20, 2015 P a g e | 6 of 9 14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (a): Civil Aircra ft Airworthiness

Section 91.7 prohibits operation of an unairworthy aircraft, and places responsibility for
airworthiness determina tions on the PIC. Petitioner’s UAS will not have an airworthiness certificate, and there is no FAA regulatory standard for d etermining airworthiness of the UAS. Additionally, Petitioner's operating documents, includi ng FOM, set forth inspection and maintenance procedures to ensure airworthiness. For these reasons, and in accordance with the FAA's grant of an exemption from sect ion 91.7 to Total Safety U.S., Inc., Adam Wondolowski requests an exemption from 14 CFR. § 91.7(a). See, e.g., In the matter of the petition of Total Safety U.S., Inc., Exemption No. 11156 (issued Jan. 29, 2015).

14 C.F.R. §91.119 (b) and (c): Minimum Saf e Altitudes

Section 91.119 establishes safe altitudes for operation of civil aircraft. Section 91.119 (b) prohibits aircraft in congested areas from flying less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the air craft. To the extent that Petitioner’s proposed operations would be considered to be in "congested areas," Petitioner's operati onal procedures, including FOM and MPTOM, and the size, weight and speed of the petitioner’s fleet of UAS, provide an equivalent level of safety such that the proposed operations at lower altitudes should be allowed.

As described in his Flight Operations Manual (FOM), Adam Wondolowski will establish a 500' buffer/sterile area for his operations that will exclude personnel not assoc iated with the operations. Petitioner will also exercise additional control over the sterile area as needed, as set forth in the FOM. Consequently, Adam Wondolowski believes these procedures will reduce or eliminate any potential adverse impacts to safety for o perations in congested areas. Adam
Wondolowski therefore requests an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.119(b).

Section 91.119 (c) prohibits operations in other than congested areas below 500 feet above the surface, or closer than 500 feet to any person, ves sel, vehicle or structure. Since this exemption is
for UAS that fly similarly to a helicopter and requests authority to operate at altitudes up to 400 ft. AGL, an exemption may be needed to allow such proposed operations.

The equivalent level of safety wi ll be achieved given the size, weight, speed of each of petitioner’s

UAS as well as the location where they will be operated. As discussed above, p etitioner’s FOM provides for establishment of a sterile area, including safety buffers of 500 feet for person nel not associated with the operation. Adam Wondolowski there fore requests an exemption from Section 91.119(c) for all authorized personnel associated with the proposed operations.

14 C.F.R. §91.121 Altimeter Settings

This regulation requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain a 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 may not have a barometric altimeter, but instead a constant GPS altitude read out, an exemption is requested.

## Adam Wondolowski

- 333 Petition

November 20, 2015 P a g e | 7 of 9 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

Section 91.151 (a) 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; or (2) At night, to fly after that f or at least 45 minutes."

Maximum total flight time for each of the proposed operations will be no more than approximately 30 minutes. Flights will be safely landed when the battery falls below its nominal voltage, should that occur prior to completion of the operation. Each of petitioner’s UAS has a constant battery voltage display and a Low Voltage LED Warning which alerts when the battery reaches pre

determined levels. This battery level would be more than adequate to return the UAS to its planned landin g zone from anywhere in its limited operating area when the Low Voltage Warning
alerts.

For these reasons, Adam Wondolowski requests an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151 (a). Similar exemptions have been granted to other operations, including Exemptions 2 689F, 5745, 10673, and

10808.

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

These regulations require 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 prescr ibed in part 43 of this chapter ...," and others shall inspect or maintain the aircraft in compliance with Part 43.

As p rovided in petitioner’s FOM, the operator and the PIC will ensure that the UAS is in working order prior to initiating each flight, and the operator will perform required maintenance and inspections, and keep a log of any maintenance performed.

VI. REGULATION S FOR WHICH EXEMPTIONS ARE UNNECESSARY

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued numerous prior exemptions for many different types of UAS and UAS operations. In those exemptions, the agency noted that exemptions from certain regulations were n ot necessary, due to "the size, weight, speed and limited operating area associated with [the UAS] and its operation."

Based upon the FAA's guidance and the fact that each of petitioner’s UAS is even smaller and slower than many of those UAS in previously issued exemptions, Petitioner believes exemptions from the following regulations are not necessary:

14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H: Airworthiness Certificates. 14 C.F.R. § 45.23 (b): Marking of the Aircraft. 14 C.F.R. §91.7(b): Civil aircraft airworthines s.

## Adam Wondolowski

- 333 Petition

November 20, 2015 P a g e | 8 of 9 14 C.F.R. §91.109: Flight instruction.

Adam Wondolowski also believes that an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103: Preflight Action is not necessary. This regulation requires each pilot in command to take certain actions before flight to
insure the safe ty of flight. An FAA approved rotorcraft flight manual will not be provided for the aircraft. An equivalent level of safety will be provided as set forth in petitioner’s FOM , MPTOM and operating documents submitted as part of this request.

The FAA has pre viously found that adherence to procedures contained in an applicant's operating documents demonstrate compliance with § 91.103, and therefore an exemption from the regulation was not necessary. See, e.g., In the matter of the petition of Total Safety U.S. , Inc., Exemption No. 11156 (issued Jan. 29, 2015).

As detailed in his operating documents, petitioner's PIC will take all actions including reviewing weather, flight battery requirements, landing and takeoff clearance distances and aircraft performance d ata before initiation of flight to ensure the safety of the flight. Consequently, in light of this agency's prior finding in Tot al Safety U.S., Inc., Adam Wondolowski does not believe an exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103 is necessary.

If it is determine d that the petitioner does require exemptions from any of t h e above provisions
from which he has herein stated that he believes no exemption is required: Petitioner requests that such exemptions be granted upon the basis of all that he has stated in this p etition and in his operating documents.

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the Federal Register, should it be determined that publication is needed:

Petitioner seeks an exemption from the following rules: 14 C.F.R. § 61.113 (a) and (b); 91.7 (a); 91.119 (b) and (c); 91.121; 91.151 (a); 91.405 (a); 91.407 (a) (1); 91.409 (a) (1) & (2) and 91.417 (a) & (b) to conduct aerial data collection (ADC) which includes any remote sensing and measuring by an instrument (s) aboard the Unoccupied (Unmanned) Aircraft (UA). Examples include imagery (photography, video, infrared, etc.), electronic measurement (precision surveying, RF analysis, etc.), chemical measurement (particulate measurement, etc.), or any other gathering of data by
instruments aboard the UA.

Privacy All of the proposed operations, UAS flights, will occur only over private or controlled access property with permission from the owner/controller of the property or authorized representative. Petitioner’s pro posed operations will be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations governing privacy at the venue of the flight operation.

VII. CONCLUSION

## Adam Wondolowski

- 333 Petition

November 20, 2015 P a g e | 9 of 9 Adam Wondolowski has requested to use his fleet of UAS for aerial data collection (ADC). Th e FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in this 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), 12646 to Measure, a 32 Advisors Company, LLC, ( see Docket

No. FAA

– 2015

– 1602 ), 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, carryin g crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good
cause to find that the UAS fleet operation enabled by granting an exemption to petitioner is in the public interest.

Upon review of Adam Wondolowski ’s reasons for requesting this exemption, It reaso nably should
be determined that:

1.) They are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in Grant of Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, 12646

, and 11213; 2.) The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112,

1264 6, and 11213 also apply to the situation petitioner presents; and 3.) 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, Adam
Wondolowski should be granted an exemption from 1 4 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 t he extent necessary to allow petitioner’s proposed operations.

Satisfaction of the criteria provided in Section 333 of the Reform Act of 2012

- size, weight, speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports and populated areas and daylight UAS operations to within visual line of sight (VLOS) and national security

- provide more than adequate justification to grant the requested exemptions allowing the proposed operations in the NAS by petitioner

, Adam
Wondolowski

.

Respectfully,

/Signed/ 

### Erick F. Larsen

Consultant to
Adam Wondolowski

262 W. Linden Ave. # C
Burb ank, LA, Ca 91502
818

- 732

- 0330 ErickLarsen@Outlook.com