1

Drone/UAS Practice Group 35 E Wacker Drive

Suite 1875

Chicago, IL 60601

Tel. 312.201.8310

 Jeffrey@Antonelli-Law.com

U.S. Department of Transportation March 7, 2017

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: SkyFly Cinema, LLC Exemption No. 16842

Response to ALPA Letter 

Docket No. FAA-2015-7598

Dear Sir or Madam:

This letter is in response to the ALPA opposition letter to our client’s petition for exemption 

under Section 333. ALPA states that it cannot support applicant’s petition unless certain safety 

questions have been addressed. In this letter, we will show that each of the safety questions ALPA 

expresses concern with have been addressed in previous submissions to the FAA, or by the FAA 

itself in Exemption No. 16842, which has already been granted to the applicant.

1. ALPA claims that the UA in question poses a greater risk that other UAs that have been 

previously-approved to operate in the NAS. However, the UA in question has already 

been approved to operate at weights less than 55 lbs., up to 400 ft. AGL and at speeds 

up to 87 mph. (FAA–2007–3330). Applicant is now seeking to add no more than an 

additional 15 lbs. of weight to the UA during operations. This does not change the size 

of the aircraft, how fast it will fly, or how high it will fly.

2. ALPA states that the PIC and VO should be able to maintain VLOS of the aircraft 

during the operation. Applicant has not requested permission to operate beyond line of 

sight of the PIC, and will utilize at least one VO during operations. Moreover, applicant 

is adhering to Condition and Limitation #8 and #9, which require VLOS operations and 

the utilization of a VO.

3. ALPA claims that applicant’s use of Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Ion Polymer battery 

cells in the UA pose a safety risk. However, the FAA has routinely permitted use of 

this power source in previously-granted UAs. For example, the DJI Inspire 1 utilizes 

Lithium-Ion batteries, and the Parrot AR Drone utilizes a Lithium-Ion Polymer battery. 

Both of these UAs have been previously-granted by the FAA and are on the list of UAs 

found atFAA-2007-3330. Moreover, applicant’s primary fuel source in the UA in 

question is not a battery, but a gasoline-oil mixture.
2

4. ALPA claims that the applicant does not have appropriate C2 link failure modes, 

strategies, and mitigations. However, this information has been provided to the FAA in 

Exhibit 1 on pages 13, 22, 23 ,27, and 29 and in Exhibit on page 23. The FAA has 

previously determined that applicant is utilizing appropriate C2 link failure modes, 

strategies, and mitigations in granting Exemption No. 16842 to applicant. Applicant is 

not requesting permission to utilize different C2 link procedures. 

5. ALPA’s statements regarding airworthiness certification have previously been 

addressed by the FAA. In Exemption No. 16842, the FAA stated that this UA does not 

require an airworthiness certificate because it meets the requirements of Section 333 of 

Public Law 112-95 in reference to 49 USC 44704.

6. In Exemption No. 16842, the FAA has previously determined that an appropriate level 

of pilot licensure for operation of a UA is either an airline transport, commercial, 

private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. (Condition and Limitation #3).

7. ALPA’s statements regarding airworthiness certification have previously been 

addressed. In Exemption No. 16842, the FAA stated that this UA does not require an 

airworthiness certificate because it meets the requirements of Section 333 of Public 

Law 112-95 in reference to 49 USC 44704.

8. ALPA claims that applicant does not have appropriate pre-flight procedures. However, 

applicant’s preflight procedures can be found in Exhibit 1 on pages 13 and 18.

Additionally, applicant is adhering to Condition and Limitation #13 which details the 

FAA’s requirements for preflight inspection for applicant’s UAs.

9. Applicant will meet the see-and-avoid requirement by flying within the line of sight of 

the PIC and utilizing one or more VOs during operations. Applicant will also give right 

of way to manned aircraft. (Condition and Limitations #8, 9, and 26). 

10. Applicant’s operations will be at or below 400 ft. AGL. The FAA has previously 

determined that this is an appropriate altitude for UAs. (Condition and Limitation #7). 

11. Applicant will utilize the DJI Ace One flight controller system. This system uses a 

GPS/Compass module, as well as an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) which consists 

of a 3-axis accelerometer, one 3-axis gyroscope, and a barometer. The FAA has 

previously determined that utilization of the DJI Ace One flight controller in this UA 

meets the standards for 14 CFR 91.121 by granting Exemption No. 16842. Applicant 

is not requesting permission to utilize a different flight control system. 

12. The UA in question does not utilize batteries for its power source, unlike what ALPA 

claims. It is a gasoline-powered aircraft. Moreover, in Exemption No. 16842, the FAA 

has previously approved this UA to operate so long as there is enough fuel on board so 

that the UA can conduct the intended operation and to operate after that for at least five 

minutes, or with the reserve power recommended by the manufacturer if greater.

(Condition and Limitation #21). 

13. ALPA claims that applicant does not have appropriate maintenance and inspection