UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

__________________________________________ 

Petition for Exemption 

Pursuant to Pub. Law 112-95 § 333 

and 14 CFR Part 11 

Concerning Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

Commercial Operations 

and Certificate of Authorization Request 

 

__________________________________________

PETITION OF PRAETORIAN UAS, LLC

FOR REGULATORY EXEMPTION

AND REQUEST FOR A

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION

Filed Electronically on September 7, 2015

Michelle Murtha, Esq.

Murtha Law Firm, LLC

26 Railroad Avenue #318

Babylon, New York 11702-2204

Phone: (631) 721-3396

Fax: (631) 991-7168

mmurtha@murthalawfirm.com

Counsel for Petitioner

Praetorian UAS, LLC
2

I. The Petitioner

1. Petitioner Praetorian UAS, LLC respectfully submits this Petition requesting

exemption from regulations the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) considers applicable 

to the civil operation of unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”), and from regulations that the FAA 

considers necessary for a UAS operator to be exempted from in order to engage in the proposed 

operations described herein. 

2. Petitioner Praetorian UAS, LLC is a New York based limited liability company.

3. Petitioner is managed by Commander John Gallegro, U.S. Navy, Ret., who is also 

the current designated Pilot-In-Command for all proposed Praetorian UAS, LLC UAS 

operations.

4. John Gallegro is a United States Naval Test Pilot School graduate who has 

completed three deployments overseas, flown 34 different type/model/series aircraft, 

accumulated over 3,000 flight hours, has completed four cruises, and remains an active licensed 

pilot.

5. As a former Director of the U.S. Navy Unmanned Aircraft Systems Test 

Directorate, he led the first dedicated UAS developmental test squadron operating at a NAVAIR 

Level III Competency (AIR 5.1.11) with a team comprised of military test pilots up to and 

including Commander (O-5) rank, GS civilians up to and including GS-15, and 

management of various aircrew and maintenance contracts and contractors necessary for 

mission executions. 

6. Petitioner’s Managing Member - Pilot-In-Command’s vast experience with 

unmanned aircraft systems demonstrates that Petitioner has a wealth of knowledge and a high 

regard for safe UAS operations within the national airspace.
3

7. As such, Petitioner is capable of conducting civilian commercial UAS 

operations safely in the national airspace for the proposed operations listed below. 

II. Proposed Operations

8. Praetorian UAS, LLC wishes to provide services to consumers interested in 

training, research, aerial data capture and for search and rescue operations using UAS in the 

following areas: 

a. sUAS Operator Training 

b. Product Demonstrations 

c. Search and Rescue operations

d. Research and Development 

e. Aerial Photography and Videography

f. Agricultural Surveying and Application 

9. Previous exemptions have already been granted by this agency for other 

applicants for each and every one of the proposed activities listed above, and as such, this 

Petitioner is submitting no new or novel requests for approval. 

III. The Unmanned Aircraft System

10. Petitioner operates a DJI Phantom 3 Professional, which is a common UAS that 

has previously received authorization via a Certificate of Authorization (COA). 

11. The DJI Phantom 3 Professional weighs less than 55 lbs,, has a built- in capability 

to limit the height flown above the ground, as well as capacity to limit the radius of the distance 

it flies from the operator and the ability to exclude it from Class B, C and D airspace, including a 

no fly zone feature. 

12. Its system also has a failsafe function featuring an autopilot system, which means 
4

when the communication between the main controller and the transmitter is lost, the system will 

automatically trigger a “Return to Home” feature and will land safely. 

13. This submission does not include the Operating Manual for the aforementioned 

UAS, as it has previously received authorization via a Certificate of Authorization (COA) 

granted by the FAA on numerous occasions. However, a copy of the Operating Manual for the 

DJI Phantom 3 Professional can be submitted upon request. 

IV. Operating Procedures

14. Praetorian UAS, LLC’s operating procedures meets the following requirements: 

a. Praetorian UAS, LLC will only operate its UAS in line of sight of a pilot 

and/or observer and will operate at sites that are a 'sufficient distance' from

populated areas within a pre-determined and clearly marked flight area. 

Such operations will insure that the UAS will not create a hazard to users of 

the national airspace system or the public.

b. Praetorian UAS, LLC will not operate its UAS within 5 nautical miles of an 

airport reference point (ARP) as denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility 

Directory (AFD), unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s 

management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to 

Praetorian UAS, LLC. 

c. Flights will be terminated at 25% battery power reserve. 

d. The UAS will be programmed so that it will not be operated at an altitude of 

more than 400 feet AGL. 

e. Minimum crew for each operation will consist of the UAS Pilot in 

Command and the Visual Observer. 
5

f. The UAS Pilot in Command will be an airline transport, commercial, 

private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate holder and will also hold a 

current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license 

issued by a state, the District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a 

possession, or the Federal government. 

g. The UAS operated by the Petitioner weighs less than 55 pounds, including 

the payload (i.e. camera, lens, and gimbal). 

h. The UAS will operate at speeds of no more than 55 knots. 

15. Given the small size of the UAS and the restricted sterile environment within 

which it will operate, Petitioner’s UAS operations will adhere to the Reform Act's safety

requirements. 

16. Under the requested exemption, Praetorian UAS, LLC will ensure that all 

operators have completed a UAS education and training program, including but not limited to all 

applicable regulations and guidance documents; aeronautical background information such as 

charts, NOTAMS and Aircraft Circulars; Radio Communications Procedures; Human Factors 

and Crew Resource Management; Basic Small UAS Aerodynamics; Weather factors; 

Airmanship and Decision-making and Safe Operating Procedures. 

V. Exemptions Sought

17. The Petitioner Requests Relief From the following regulations, to the extent the 

FAA deems them applicable to the operation of civil UAS for the indicated purposes: 

a. 14 CFR 21 and 14 CFR 36 

b. 14 CFR 45.23(b) 

c. 14 CFR 61.23 

d. 14 CFR 61.101, 14 CFR 61.113, and 14 CFR 61.315 

e. 14 CFR 91.103 
6

f. 14 CFR 91.7(a) 

g. 14 CFR 91.105

h. 14 CFR 91.109 

i. 14 CFR 91.119 

j. 14 CFR 91.121 

k. 14 CFR 91.151 

l. 14 CFR 91.203(a) and (b) 

m. 14 C.F.R. 91.215 

n. 14 CFR Subpart E (91.401- 91.417) 

o. 14 CFR 91.9(b)(2) 

A. 14 CFR § 21 and 14 CFR § 36 

18. Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR § 21 concerning airworthiness certificates, as 

well as any associated noise testing requirements of § 36, with respect to the UAS identified 

herein. 

19. As set out herein, the size, weight, speed, operational capability, visual line-ofsight operation, and intended operating area of the UAS meets the conditions of Pub. Law 112-

95 § 333 (“Section 333”). 

20. Moreover, the proposed operating procedures present an equivalent level of safety 

or better. 

21. Petitioner requests that an exemption be granted or, in the alternative, a finding 

made that relief from parts 21 and 36 are not necessary for Petitioner’s intended operation. (See, 

e.g., Grant of Exemption No. 11282, Docket. No. FAA-2014-0977 (April 6, 2015), finding that 

such an exemption is “not necessary.”) 

B. 14 CFR § 45.23(b) 

22. Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR § 45.23(b) concerning aircraft markings, to 

the extent such relief is necessary. 

23. Given the size of the UAS, its operation within visual line of sight of the operator
7

and other factors, such an exemption is warranted. 

C. 14 CFR § 61.23 

24. The regulation provides that a person requires a first or second class medical to 

act as pilot in Command of an aircraft for compensation or hire. 

25. Petitioner’s proposed operations require that the Pilot in Command (“PIC”) must 

hold a current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, 

the District of Colombia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. 

26. Since the aircraft cannot carry passengers or property, Petitioner’s proposed 

operating procedures meets the intent of § 61.23, and Petitioner requests that an exemption be 

granted. 

D. 14 CFR § 61.101, 14 CFR § 61.113, and 14 CFR § 61.315 

27. The regulations provide that no person that holds a Recreational Pilot, Sport Pilot, 

or Private Pilot certificate may act as a PIC of an aircraft for compensation or hire. 

28. Petitioner’s proposed operations require that the PIC must hold at least an airline 

transport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. 

29. Since the aircraft cannot carry passengers or property, Petitioner meets the intent 

of § 61.113 Subparagraph (b) and requests that an exemption be granted. 

E. 14 CFR § 91.103 

30. Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR § 91.103 concerning preflight action,

particularly that portion of the regulation concerning FAA-approved flight manuals (which do 

not exist). 

31. Petitioner will ensure that its pre-flight actions concerning UAS operations reflect 
8

that the PIC will “become familiar with all available information” concerning the proposed 

flight, and therefore present an equivalent or better level of safety. 

32. Given the size of the UAS, its operation within visual line of sight of the operator

and other factors, such an exemption is warranted. 

33. Alternatively, given that Petitioner will account for all relevant site-specific 

conditions in its preflight procedures, Petitioner asks for a finding that an exemption from § 

91.103 is not necessary for the intended operations. 

F. 14 CFR § 91.7(a)

34. Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR § 91.7(a) concerning civil aircraft 

airworthiness. 

35. Given the size of the UAS, its operation within visual line of sight of the operator, 

and other factors providing an equivalent level of safety, such an exemption is warranted. 

36. Moreover, because petitioner proposes that no airworthiness certificate be issued 

for the UAS to be operated under this exemption, § 91.7(a) is inapplicable. 

37. Therefore, in the alternative, Petitioner requests a determination that an exemption 

from § 91.7(a) is not necessary. 

G. 14 CFR § 91.105

38. Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR § 91.105 concerning “Flight crewmembers at 

stations” and seat belt/harness fastening. 

39. Because there are no crew members on board the UAS, and persons involved in 

the UAS operations will be present at the UAS ground station, Petitioner requests an exemption.

40. Petitioner’s operating procedures provide for an equivalent level of safety.

41. Petitioner therefore requests either an exemption, or an acknowledgement that an 
9

exemption is not necessary. 

H. 14 CFR § 91.109

42. Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR § 91.109 concerning flight instruction and 

dual controls. 

43. Training will be conducted with dual controls utilizing two Spektrum transmitters 

with a wireless link between the transmitters. One transmitter is designated the master transmitter 

and the other transmitter is designated as a slave. The PIC instructor, utilizing the master 

transmitter, will at all times be able to assume control of the UAS. 

44. Thus, Petitioner requests either an exemption or confirmation that none is 

required. 

I. 14 CFR § 91.119 

45. Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR § 91.119 concerning minimum safe altitudes. 

46. Petitioner’s UAS will be operated no higher than 400 feet above ground level, 

and, under its operating procedures, safe alternative landing and “abort site” locations will be 

selected in advance of each flight, in compliance with 14 CFR § 91.119(a) which permits 

operations “[a]nywhere.” 

47. With respect to the balance of § 91.119 concerning minimum altitudes, Petitioner 

proposes to conduct operations at least 50 feet from non-essential or non-participating persons, 

and prior to each operation the PIC will make a safety assessment of the risk of operating within 

the proximity of structures, vehicles and vessels. 

48. Petitioner believes that given the size, weight and speed of the UAS to be 

operated, these parameters, along with its operating procedures present an equivalent level of 

safety compared to the 500-foot minimum safe altitude of a manned aircraft set out in § 
10

91.119(c). 

49. Petitioner is aware that in prior UAS exemption grants, the FAA has included as 

an operating condition a 500-foot minimum distance separation from uninvolved persons. 

50. Petitioner hereby requests the FAA either to raise the maximum operational 

altitude under Petitioner’s proposed exemption to 500 feet above ground level (from the typical 

400 feet), or, preferably, to reduce the required distance separation from uninvolved persons to 

no greater than 400 feet, so that Petitioner's UAS, when in operation, may pass above persons in 

the operational area. (In Petitioner’s experience, the requested minimum separation parameter of 

50 feet provides a very high level of safety.) 

J. 14 CFR § 91.121 

51. The regulation requires that aircraft shall maintain cruising altitudes by reference 

to an altimeter setting available within 100 NM of the aircraft. 

52. Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR § 91.121 concerning altimeter settings, as 

Petitioner's UAS will utilize a GPS altitude read-out, set to zero at the ground elevation of the 

departure location, thus indicating to the operator the operational altitude in feet above ground 

level. 

53. This approach will provide an equivalent level of safety. 

K. 14 CFR § 91.151 

54. The regulation provides that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under 

day-VFR conditions unless there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and to 

fly after that for at least 30 minutes. 

55. The intention of this regulation is to provide a fuel, or “energy” reserve as a safety 

buffer for delays to landing. 
11

56. Petitioner’s UAS is battery operated, and the maximum duration of flight from a 

single battery charge is an average of 15 minutes with a 20% reserve. 

57. Since the aircraft will never fly more than 1/2 NM from the point of intended 

landing, a full battery charge at launch will ensure that Petitioner meets the reserve energy 

requirement of this paragraph. 

58. Petitioner requests an exemption to the word "fuel", and asks for an equivalent 

interpretation with the word "energy". 

59. Petitioner also requests exemption from the 30 minute reserve and asks that its 

reserve be to fly the mission to the point of intended landing and have at least a 20% battery 

reserve remaining.

L. 14 CFR § 91.203(a) and (b) 

60. Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR § 91.203(a) and (b) concerning airworthiness 

certificates. 

61. The UAS to be operated weighs under 4 pounds, and will be operated within 

visual line of sight, pursuant to Petitioner’s operating procedures, by a knowledgeable 

certificated operator. 

62. An exemption from airworthiness certification is warranted pursuant to Section 

333 in consideration of the weight, size, speed, and operational capabilities of the Petitioner's 

UAS. 

M. 14 C.F.R. § 91.215 

63. This regulation states all aircraft operating within 30 nautical miles of class A, B 

and C airspace must be equipped with automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a 

Mode C capability that automatically replies to Mode C interrogations. 
12

64. Due to the small size and lifting capabilities of Petitioner’s UAS, it cannot carry a 

traditional transponder. 

65. As such, Petitioner requests an exemption.

N. 14 CFR Subpart E (§§ 91.401- 91.417) 

66. The regulation provides that the operator is primarily responsible for maintaining 

the aircraft in an airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 and 43. 

67. Paragraphs 91.407 and 91.409 require that the aircraft be "approved for return to 

service by a person authorized under 43.7" after maintenance and inspection. 

68. It is Petitioner’s intention that the PIC perform maintenance and inspection of the 

aircraft and "be authorized to approve the aircraft for return to service." 

69. The PIC will ensure that the aircraft is in an airworthy condition prior to every 

flight, and conduct detailed inspections after every two hours of flight. 

70. Maintenance performed by the PIC is limited to repairing small cracks, replacing 

a propeller, checking electrical connections and updating software and firmware for the on-board 

computer. 

71. All other maintenance will be performed by the manufacturer or their designated 

repair facility.

72. The PIC will document work performed in accordance with § 91.417. 

73. Due to the size, construction, and simplicity of the aircraft, the PIC can ensure an 

equivalent level of safety. 

O. 14 CFR § 91.9(b)(2) 

74. Petitioner seeks relief from 14 CFR § 91.91(b)(2) concerning flight manuals and 

placard requirements. 
13

75. Because all persons involved in UAS operations will be on the ground, not on 

board the UAS, such an exemption is warranted. 

P. Other Exemptions

76. Petitioner requests relief from any other federal aviation regulation that the FAA 

deems applicable to and preclusive of the proposed UAS operations herein in the absence of such 

an exemption. 

VI. Petitioner’s Request is in the Public Interest and Benefits the Public as a Whole

77. Conducting the aforementioned operations with a UAS will greatly benefit the 

public by drastically reducing the levels of air and noise pollution generated during similar 

traditional flight operations. 

78. By using battery power and electric motors, Petitioner’s UAS produces no air 

pollution, and is the most viable environmentally conscious alternative to the cabin class, six 

cylinder internal combustion engine aircraft that are typically utilized for similar aerial 

operations, while burning approximately 20-30 gallons per hour of leaded aviation fuel. 

79. Petitioner’s UAS, while reducing the carbon footprint of aerial acquisitions, also 

eliminates noise pollution, as the UAS is propelled by battery powered electric motors, rather

than an internal combustion engine. 

80. By using a UAS to perform the aforementioned activities, the substantial risk to 

life and property in the air and on the ground, which is usually associated with traditional 

manned aircraft flight operations, will be substantially reduced or completely eliminated. 

81. Aside from the lack of flight crew members located onboard the aircraft, 

Petitioner’s UAS (weighing approximately 2.8 pounds at its maximum gross weight and with no 
14

fuel on board), has less physical potential for collateral damage to life and property on the 

ground and in the air compared to the manned aircraft that typically conduct similar operations 

(weighing approximately 6,000 pounds with a wingspan of approximately 42 feet, a length of 34 

feet, and a fuel capacity of 180 gallons). 

VII. Request for Blanket COA Approval 

82. On March 24, 2015, the FAA announced that it has implemented a new policy of 

granting "blanket" COAs to applicants requesting exemptions from the Federal Aviation 

Regulations under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 

83. Petitioner hereby requests a blanket, nationwide Certificate of Waiver or 

Authorization for airspace use within Class G airspace, at or below 400 feet. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Michelle Murtha, Esq.

Counsel for Petitioner

Murtha Law Firm, LLC

26 Railroad Avenue #318

Babylon, New York 11702-2204

Tel.: (631) 721-3396

Fax: (631) 991-7168

mmurtha@murthalawfirm.com