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 Transportation 

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 Aviation 

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 following 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 include 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 multicopters of every 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 perfect cinematography 

and photography to his clients’ delight. Adam has many years of experience building and safely 

piloting multicopters and with a multitude 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 efficient production 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 developed numerous diverse clients in need of safe and lawful 

commercial UAS aerial data collection (ADC) services. Growth of petitioner’s small UAS business 

will provide new jobs and an increased 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 exemptions.

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.), electronic 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 training 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 estate, 

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 stack, platform, 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 television (MPT) filming and production which must be 

conducted pursuant to petitioner’s FOM, petitioner’s operating documents, and the Motion Picture 

and Television Production Operations Manual (MPTOM) special UAS operating provisions 

(Appendix AA of petitioner’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 through 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 for 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 horizontal plane simultaneously. Each will only be operated as visual line of 

sight (VLOS), remain under 400 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 non-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 confidentially, his proprietary Flight Operations 

Manual (FOM) and Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (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 Exemptions to FalconSkyCam, Exemption No. 11195, Docket No FAA2014-0884 (March 6, 2015) 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): Private, 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. Petitioner’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 demonstratesthe ability to safely 

operate 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 hours and currency will be 

logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). Dedicated UAS flights for the purposes of 

training the petitioner’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience-building) and for 

determining the PIC’s ability to safely 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 distance 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 operations 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 Aircraft Airworthiness

Section 91.7 prohibits operation of an unairworthy aircraft, and places responsibility for 

airworthiness determinations on the PIC. Petitioner’s UAS will not have an airworthiness certificate, 

and there is no FAA regulatory standard for determining airworthiness of the UAS. Additionally, 

Petitioner's operating documents, including 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 section 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 Safe 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 aircraft. To the extent that Petitioner’s proposed operations 

would be considered to be in "congested areas," Petitioner's operational 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 associated 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 operations 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, vessel, 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 will 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, petitioner’s FOM 

provides for establishment of a sterile area, including safety buffers of 500 feet for personnel not 

associated with the operation. Adam Wondolowski therefore 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 for 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 predetermined levels. This battery level would be more than adequate to return the UAS to its 

planned landing 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 2689F, 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 prescribed in part 43 of this chapter...," 

and others shall inspect or maintain the aircraft in compliance with Part 43.

As provided 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. REGULATIONS 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 not 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 airworthiness. 
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 safety 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 previously 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 data before initiation of flight to ensure the safety of the flight. Consequently, in light 

of this agency's prior finding in Total Safety U.S., Inc., Adam Wondolowski does not believe an 

exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103 is necessary. 

If it is determined that the petitioner does require exemptions from any of the 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 petition 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 proposed 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). The 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, carrying 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 reasonably 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,

12646, 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 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 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

Burbank, LA, Ca 91502

818-732-0330

ErickLarsen@Outlook.com