Rupprecht Law P. A. 

2811 Grande Parkway, Suite 113 | Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 

P: (561) 222-6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com 

November 11, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,

Washington, DC 20590

Petition for Amendment to Grant Commercial UAS Flight Instruction and 

Update Address

"The pilot who teaches himself has a fool for a student."

Robert Livingston, Flying the Aeronca

Mechanikids, LLC dba Red Raptor petitions for an amendment to the previously granted exemption #

12594 (Docket Number FAA-2015-0818). Red Raptor was previously granted operational approval for 

aerial data collection and closed-set tv/movie filming using the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, 

DJI Phantom 3, DJI S900, DJI S1000, and DJI Inspire.

I. QUICK REFERENCE SUMMARY

 This petition is to add on the operational approval of flight instruction1to the previous exemption. 

Many petitioners have requested authority to conduct UAS training and received this response, “At 

this time, the FAA is unable to authorize UAS operations for training until a further assessment is 

completed.”

 This exemption is being submitted as part of a group of four petitions that are virtually identical: 

o Enviroskycam (FAA-2015-1101)

o Altair Video Productions, LLC D/B/A/ Cinemaerial Visuals (FAA-2015-3757)

o Shenandoah Drones, LLC (FAA-2015-5846)

 All the manuals will be sent in confidentially because they are considered proprietary under 14 

CFR 11.35 (b) and we argue should be protected under 5 U.S.C. § 552 et. seq.

 The previous address for the Petitioner was 324 Datura St., Suite 200, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

but the new address is 2811 Grande Parkway, Suite 113, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410.

 

1

In 1991, the FAA established an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee which created the Air Traffic Subcommittee which 

established the Unmanned Aerospace Vehicle Operations Working Group. In 1996, this working group presented to the FAA 

four advisory circulars on UAV “Design Criteria, Maintenance, Operations and Pilot Qualification and Training.” Our definition 

of flight instructor is very similar to the flight instructor qualifications proposed by the working group. See page 23. 

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/atuavot1-102891.pdf
Page 2 of 26

II. TABLE OF CONTENTS AND THE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS

WHICH THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING ADDITIONAL RELIEF

FROM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. QUICK REFERENCE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1

II. TABLE OF CONTENTS AND THE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS WHICH THE PETITIONER IS 

REQUESTING ADDITIONAL RELIEF FROM....................................................................................... 2

III. PETITIONER’S CONTACT INFO:..................................................................................................... 3

IV. THE EXTENT OF RELIEF THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING .......................................................... 4

VI. REASONS WHY GRANTING THIS PETITION WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ...... 10

A. How Allowing Flight Instruction Will Benefit the Public ......................................................... 10

1. The public needs qualified professionals to learn how to safely operate................................... 10

2. It will encourage a culture of safety to prevent harm..................................................................11

3. The public can use the flight instructor endorsements in safety evaluations. .............................11

4. It enables insurance carriers to increase the operational safety of their clients and lower 

premiums.................................................................................................................................... 12

B. How Allowing Students to Learn Safe UA Operations Will Benefit the Public........................ 12

V. THE REASONS WHY THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REGULATIONS 

AND WHY THE EXEMPTION WOULD PROVIDE AN EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY ........ 13

A. Regulations Which Have Not Been Exempted In Previous Exemptions .................................. 14

1. 14 C.F.R. § 61.1: Applicability and Definitions......................................................................... 14

2. 14 C.F.R. § 61.3(d): Flight Instructor Certificate....................................................................... 15

3. 14 C.F.R. § 61.31(c) & (d): Limitations on the Carriage of Persons, or Operating for 

Compensation or Hire and Pilot in Command........................................................................... 16

4. 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(h) & (j) Logging Training Time and Aircraft Requirements for Logging 

Flight Time................................................................................................................................. 17
Page 3 of 26

5. 14 C.F.R. § 61.195: Flight Instructor Limitations and Qualifications. ...................................... 18

6. 14 C.F.R. § 91.105: Flight Crewmembers at Stations................................................................ 18

B. Regulations Which Have Been Exempted In Previous Non-Flight Instructing Exemptions .... 19

1. 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a): Medical Certificates................................................................................. 19

C. Exempted Regulations the Petitioner Wishes To Maintain Without Change............................. 20

1. 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(c): Medical Certificates................................................................................. 20

2. 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) & (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations, 14 C.F.R. § 

61.113 (a): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations; 14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a): Sport Pilot 

Limitations. ................................................................................................................................ 20

3. 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness. ..................................................................... 21

4. 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c): Minimum Safe Altitudes........................................................................ 21

5. 14 C.F.R. § 91.121: Altimeter Settings. ..................................................................................... 23

6. 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions. ................................ 23

7. 14 C.F.R. § 91.405 (a); § 91.407 (a)(1); § 91.409 (a)(1)& (2); § 91.417(a) & (b): Maintenance 

Inspections ................................................................................................................................. 24

VII. FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY................................................................................................ 24

VIII. OPERATING DOCUMENTS.......................................................................................................... 25

IX. STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO GRANT THIS PETITION ............................................................ 25

X. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................... 26

III. PETITIONER’S CONTACT INFO:

Mechanikids, LLC dba Red Raptor

2811 Grande Parkway, Suite 113

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Legal Counsel for Petitioner

Rupprecht Law, P.A.

2811 Grande Parkway, Suite 113

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 

jon@jrupprechtlaw.com
Page 4 of 26

IV. THE EXTENT OF RELIEFTHE PETITIONER IS SEEKING

The Petitioner proposes these restrictions and believes that these limitations provide an equivalent 

level of safety, if not greater, as the FAR’s presently imposed upon the Petitioner. Each of the regulations 

above will be talked about in greater detail in another section in this petition. The underlined text shows 

text that differs from the “stock” 333 restriction.

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 

2 Vision+, DJI Phantom 3, DJI S900, DJI S1000, and DJI Inspire aircraft when weighing less 

than 55 pounds including payload. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new 

petition or a petition to amend this exemption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are permitted.

Operations for the purpose of flight and ground training are permitted.

3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The exemption 

holder may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine compliance with the 87 

knot speed restriction. In no case will the UA be operated at airspeeds greater than the maximum 

UA operating airspeed recommended by the aircraft manufacturer.

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL). 

Altitude must be reported in feet AGL.

5. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. This requires 

the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, as 

specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate or U.S. driver’s license.

6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within the visual 

line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and VO at all times. The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS 

requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be 

able to communicate verbally at all times; electronic messaging or texting is not permitted 

during flight operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his 

or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform 

the duties required of the VO.

7. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in 

accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of exemption, are hereinafter 

referred to as the operating documents. The operating documents must be accessible during 

UAS operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists 

between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the 

operating documents, the conditions and limitations herein take precedence and must be 

followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operating 
Page 5 of 26

documents. The operator may update or revise its operating documents. It is the operator’s 

responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the 

Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. The operator must also present 

updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension or amendment to this grant of 

exemption. If the operator determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon 

which the FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must petition for an amendment to its 

grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacted if questions 

arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating documents.

8. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or flight 

characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo a functional test 

flight prior to conducting further operations under this exemption. Functional test flights may 

only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at least 500 feet from other people. The 

functional test flight must be conducted in such a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to 

persons and property.

9. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is in a 

condition for safe operation.

10. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre-flight inspection and determine the UAS is in 

a condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection must account for all potential 

discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment. If the inspection reveals a 

condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating 

until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition 

for safe flight.

11. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, 

inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and aircraft components.

12. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer safety bulletins.

13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC must hold either an airline transport, commercial, private, 

recreational, or sport pilot certificate. The PIC must 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. The PIC must 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.

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the ability to 

safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this 

exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate 

distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and 

currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the 

purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience-
Page 6 of 26

building) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent 

with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this 

exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training 

sessions. During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential 

for flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with 

appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

15. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All operations 

must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights under special 

visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point (ARP) as denoted 

in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) or for airports not denoted with an ARP, 

the center of the airport symbol as denoted on the current FAA published aeronautical chart, 

unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or otherwise permitted 

by a COA issued to the exemption holder. The letter of agreement with the airport 

management must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official 

upon request.

17. The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from 

a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC.

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a

predetermined location within the private or controlled-access property.

19. The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies.

20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather 

conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to 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. 

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). All operations 

shall be conducted in accordance with an ATO-issued COA. The exemption holder may apply 

for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct operations that cannot be conducted under 

the terms of the attached COA.

22. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial number, 

registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N Number) markings 

in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and flight of the UAS and any 

documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the PIC at the 

Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. These documents must 

be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.
Page 7 of 26

24. The UA must remain clear of and give way to all manned aviation operations and activities at 

all times.

25. The UAS may not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle.

26. All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, 

vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from 

the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure that 

nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where 

nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight 

operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating 

persons; and

b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission for 

operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of 

operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard.

The PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons are not considered nonparticipating persons 

under this exemption.

27. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with permission 

from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from property 

owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted.

28. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries of 

the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to the FAA's UAS 

Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: 

www.ntsb.gov.

For the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming and production, the following 

additional conditions and limitations apply.

29. The operator must have a motion picture and television operations manual (MPTOM) as 

documented in this grant of exemption.

30. At least 3 days before aerial filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this exemption must 

submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) with 

jurisdiction over the area of proposed filming. The 3-day notification may be waived with the 

concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities must include at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights;

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted under 

this grant of exemption;
Page 8 of 26

c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on-scene operation of the 

UAS;

d. Make, model, and serial or N-Number of UAS to be used;

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the aerial filming;

f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners and/or local 

officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those who gave permission

must be made available to the inspector upon request;

g. Signature of exemption holder or representative; and

h. A description of the flight activity, including maps or diagrams of any area, city, town, 

county, and/or state over which filming will be conducted and the altitudes essential to 

accomplish the operation.

31. Flight operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet from participating persons consenting 

to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the exemption holder’s

MPTOM.

For the purpose of flight instruction2and ground instruction,3restrictions 32-40 apply. 

32. For the purpose of restrictions 33-40, a certificated flight instructor means:

a. A flight instructor who possesses a FAA flight instructor certificate listed under 14 C.F.R. 

subpart H;

b. Is compliant with 14 C.F.R. § 61.197 flight instructor currency requirements; and

c. Is in compliance with restriction 13.

33. For purposes of restrictions 14 and 26, certificated flight instructors and their students are 

considered essential persons.

34. Certificated flight instructors may have more than one student present during flight or ground 

instruction. 

35. Regarding restriction 6, there must be a VO in addition to the student. This does not preclude 

the VO from being a second student and listening to the instruction being given to the first student.

35. The one operation that is not required to comply with restrictions 27 is flight and ground 

training. A certificated flight instructor may, in addition to using private or controlled-access 

property, use a public park or field that complies with restriction 26(a) and the certificated flight 

instructor has made a safety assessment of the risks and determined that they do not present an 

 

2 14 C.F.R. § 61.1 says, “Flight training means that training, other than ground training, received from an authorized instructor 

in flight [with] an aircraft.”

3

Id. “Ground training means that training, other than flight training, received from an authorized instructor.”
Page 9 of 26

undue hazard to all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures. Flight and ground 

training may also deviate from restriction 18 and have the return home point at a public park or 

field provided the PIC has determined that it would not present an undue hazard to all 

nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures.

36. A certificated flight instructor may endorse in a pilot’s or non-pilot’s logbook training given 

on a UA even though the UA may be a different category or class than what the certificated flight 

instructor is rated for.

37. Any flight training/ground training4cannot be used to fulfil any aeronautical experience.5

38. As long as the PIC is in compliance with restriction 13, the certificated flight instructor may 

either flight instruct while the student is acting as PIC or the flight instructor may act as PIC of a 

student who could not comply with restriction 13.

39. The certificated flight instructor must have logged 1 hour in the particular make and model of 

UA before giving flight or ground instruction.

40. All flight instructing operations where the flight instructor is PIC will be conducted with fully 

functional dual controls.

 

4 As per 14 C.F.R. § 61.1

5

“Aeronautical experience means pilot time obtained in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device for meeting the

appropriate training and flight time requirements for an airman certificate, rating, flight review, or recency of flight experience 

requirements of this part.” Id.
Page 10 of 26

VI. REASONS WHY GRANTING THIS PETITION WOULD BE IN THE

PUBLIC INTEREST

"Mix ignorance with arrogance at low altitude and the results are almost guaranteed to be spectacular."

Bruce Landsberg, AOPA Safety Foundation.

A. How Allowing Flight Instruction Will Benefit the Public

1. The public needs qualified professionals to learn how to safely operate.

Currently, no individuals or businesses have received an exemption to conduct UA commercial flight 

instruction. Making matters worse, no public university can obtain a public COA to conduct flight 

operations.6 How do individuals or businesses get practical flight instruction? Are they expected to just go 

out and fly at some uninhabited baseball field and learn by trial and error crash? Robert Livingston said, 

"The pilot who teaches himself has a fool for a student."

New UA recreational pilots turn to YouTube, local RC fields, and hobby/ RC shops to acquire the 

skills needed to operate safely. Sadly, most of these resources have very little understanding of the national 

airspace system and how it works. It has generally functioned as the “partially blind” leading the blind.

Further compounding the problem is the lack of knowledge in the industry of the FAR’s. Proverbs 13:20 

 

6 See Letter from Mark Bury to Jim Williams, 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2014/will

iams-afs-80%20education%20-%20(2014)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf
Page 11 of 26

says, “Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.” Granting 

this exemption will allow the public to “walk with the wise” in operating safely in the national airspace 

system.

2. It will encourage a culture of safety to prevent harm.

Following upon the second part of the proverb above, the culture of the industry is being influenced

by “recreational” non-pilots who have very little knowledge or culture for safety. The most highly

experienced and trained pilots, “the wise,” sat on the sidelines for fear of losing their certificates or their 

livelihood. The culture void was filled with recreational flyers as opposed to professional flyers. If this is 

allowed to continue, the public will suffer harm.

Granting this exemption will encourage a culture of safety by allowing certificated flight instructors 

to come in and make a living, not just a hobby, by mentoring students on what it means to do a pre-flight 

planning in accordance with § 91.103 or what it means to do aeronautical decision making. This will not 

have only an immediate impact, but a long-lasting impact because the students will adopt a similar 

philosophy for safety that they will teach to their co-workers, neighbors, friends, or kids. Flight instructors 

are really role models the industry desperately needs.

3. The public can use the flight instructor endorsements in safety evaluations.

The public will have the ability to evaluate which operator they wish to hire based upon the training 

the operator received from a certificated flight instructor. The public generally does not have much 

knowledge to evaluate operators. Granting this exemption allows the public to choose the safer operator. 
Page 12 of 26

4. It enables insurance carriers to increase the operational safety of their clients and lower 

premiums.

Flight instructors can work with insurance companies to develop training programs that will result in

the operators receiving higher limits of liability for lower premiums. Granting this exemption will benefit 

the public because (1) safety will be reinforced on the front end through the insurance carrier supported 

training programs, (2) in the unfortunate situation where an event does occur, the insurance will attempt 

to make the person whole, and (3) the data from the accident will be used by insurance carriers and flight 

instructors to educate and prevent future accidents. 

B. How Allowing Students to Learn Safe UA Operations Will Benefit the Public.

Many students intend to produce picture and video content. Allowing the Petitioner to flight instruct 

allows the students the ability to use their own UA to obtain picture or video content for recreational or 

commercial purposes rather than manned aircraft which pose a danger to the pilot as well as individuals 

on the ground. 

There are no pilots on board the UA and due to the small size of the UA, there is less risk posed to the 

public on the ground in case of an emergency. Additionally, the UA has multiple motors while most 

manned aircraft have only one engine; thus, there is some motor redundancy for some UA in case of a 

motor malfunction.

Manned airplanes and helicopters produce great amounts of noise pollution disrupting the quiet 

enjoyment of private property of the public on the ground. UA are much quieter and will not disrupt the 

public as much as manned aircraft; thus, the public will benefit from a reduction in noise pollution.
Page 13 of 26

In addition to the noise pollution reduction, engine or turbine powered aircraft produce exhaust which 

affects the environment while the UA of the petitioner are electric and do not produce any emission. The 

byproduct of 100LL emissions is lead entering the air the public breaths while electric motors produce 

none. The environment and the public are benefited by the use of UA.

The UA are much safer than traditional helicopters because instead of having to ferry the helicopter 

from the airport all the way to the shooting location in the air over people and buildings and back to the 

airport, a UA can be transported by ground vehicle. This greatly benefits the public because it minimizes 

the amount of time that the UA is required to fly in the air to get the job done.

UA use batteries for power which are not as flammable and explosive as 100LL or Jet A. If there was 

an emergency where the UA crashed, there is less of a chance for individuals being injured from an 

explosion or fire. UA also use smaller propellers than manned helicopters which will cause far less damage 

in the case of a crash than the “grenading” that typically happens during a manned helicopter crash.

Lastly, the UA will be operated at lower altitudes than most manned aircraft. This vertical separation 

greatly reduces the chance of a mid-air collision.

V. THE REASONS WHY THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING RELIEF

FROM THE REGULATIONS AND WHY THE EXEMPTION WOULD

PROVIDE AN EQUIVALENT LEVELOF SAFETY

The regulations in this petition will be broken up into three sections: (1) regulations which have not 

been exempted in previous exemptions, (2) regulations which have been exempted in previous nonflight instructing exemptions, and (3) exempted regulations the Petitioner wishes to maintain without 

change. 
Page 14 of 26

A. Regulations Which Have Not Been Exempted In Previous Exemptions

1. 14 C.F.R. § 61.1: Applicability and Definitions.

Section 61.1 says, “Authorized instructor means. . . A person who holds a flight instructor certificate 

issued under part 61 of this chapter and is in compliance with §61.197, when conducting ground 

training or flight training in accordance with the privileges and limitations of his or her flight instructor 

certificate[.]” This is a burdensome regulations that is very impractical to comply with. Strictly 

speaking, the only flight instructors that would be “in accordance with the privileges and limitations of 

his or her flight instructor certificate” would be flight instructors with rotorcraft helicopter category 

class ratings. Many flight instructors are only for airplanes. Our proposal is to allow any current FAA 

certificated flight instructor of any category or class, with a current third class medical or driver’s 

license, to flight instruct. Since one of the current regulations is that the flight instructor must be at a 

minimum of a commercial pilot7and the proposed regulations, Part 107, do not even have a provision 

for a flight instructor, allowing a highly trained and knowledgeable flight instructor of any category or 

class to flight instruct is the equivalent level of safety of current regulations, far beyond the 333 

exemptions PIC minimum requirements being given out, and exceedingly beyond the equivalent level of 

safety as the proposed regulations which do not even provide for a flight instructor position.

 

7

14 C.F.R. § 61.183(c).
Page 15 of 26

2. 14 C.F.R. § 61.3(d): Flight Instructor Certificate.

Section 61.3(d)(2) says, “Except as provided in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, no person other than 

the holder of a flight instructor certificate issued under this part with the appropriate rating on that 

certificate may . . . [e]ndorse a pilot logbook to show training given[.]” This section prohibits certificated 

flight instructors from endorsing a pilot logbook to show training was given regarding safe UA operation. 

Allowing certificated flight instructors to endorse logbooks allows pilots and non-pilots to prove they have 

been instructed on safe operation of UA in the national airspace system. Furthermore, prohibiting 

certificated flight instructors from endorsing logbooks for training given prohibits the insurance industry 

from working with flight instructors to develop safety training programs or schools to increase safety and 

lower insurance premiums. Our proposal is to allow any current FAA certificated flight instructor of any 

category or class, with a current third class medical or driver’s license, to commercially flight instruct

with unmanned aircraft.

Granting this exemption will benefit the public in regards to safety because it allows the Petitioner to 

endorse students for training received. The public can use the information in the logbooks to evaluate

which 333 operator they want to hire. Additionally, insurance companies can use this information to offer 

higher limits of coverage for lower costs which benefits the public in case there is an unfortunate event. 

Insurance does not just protect the 333 operator, it attempts to make the injured party whole; therefore, 

granting this exemption would benefit the public because (1) the public can use the flight instructor 

endorsements in safety evaluations and (2) it enables the potential to make the public whole in case of an 
Page 16 of 26

accident. Granting this exemption provides an equivalent level of safety, if not greater, than the 

regulations.

3. 14 C.F.R. § 61.31(c) & (d): Limitations on the Carriage of Persons, or Operating for 

Compensation or Hire and Pilot in Command. 

Section 61.31(c) & (d) says,

(c) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations on the carriage of persons, or 

operating for compensation or hire. Unless a person holds a category, class, and type 

rating (if a class and type rating is required) that applies to the aircraft, that person may 

not act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying another person, or is operated 

for compensation or hire. That person also may not act as pilot in command of that aircraft 

for compensation or hire.

(d) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations on operating an aircraft as the 

pilot in command. To serve as the pilot in command of an aircraft, a person must—

(1) Hold the appropriate category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is 

required) for the aircraft to be flown; or

(2) Have received training required by this part that is appropriate to the pilot 

certification level, aircraft category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is 

required) for the aircraft to be flown, and have received an endorsement for solo flight 

in that aircraft from an authorized instructor.

The FAA previously said in response to the Southern Company Services, Inc. Exemption, “This part 

applies to persons who act as PIC of large aircraft, turbojet-powered airplanes, and other aircraft 

specified by the Administrator through aircraft type certificate procedures, not the Aeryon SkyRanger that 

weighs about 5 pounds. Accordingly, relief from 14 CFR § 61.31 is not necessary.”

8

 The Petitioner 

respectfully disagrees. The Petitioner is asking to be relieved from the category and class requirements for 

commercial operations and PIC. Many other exemptions have been granted by the FAA requiring that the 

 

8 Southern Company Services, Inc., Exemption No. 11239 at page 7. 
Page 17 of 26

pilot only possess a pilot certificate in any category or class (i.e. Exemption # 11221); therefore, an 

equivalent level of safety as the regulations has already been determined by the FAA for the PIC. Our 

proposal is just a slight extension of that and it is to allow any current FAA certificated flight instructor of 

any category or class, with a current third class medical or driver’s license, to commercially flight instruct

as PIC.

4. 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(h) & (j) Logging Training Time and Aircraft Requirements for Logging 

Flight Time. 

Section 61.51(h) says, “A person may log training time when that person receives training from an 

authorized instructor in an aircraft, flight simulator, or flight training device.” While this is a 

painstakingly meticulous reading of the FAR’s, the Petitioner will need an exemption from this regulation 

because there will be no one “in” the aircraft. An equivalent level of safety will be produced under the 

proposed restrictions because there is little difference in safety between logging time in an aircraft and 

outside an aircraft.

Section 61.51(j) says, “Aircraft requirements for logging flight time. For a person to log flight time, 

the time must be acquired in an aircraft that is identified as an aircraft under §61.5(b), and is . . . [a]n 

aircraft of U.S. registry with either a standard or special airworthiness certificate[.]” The Petitioner has 

already obtained an exemption for certain UA; thus, granting this exemption will most definitely be an 

equivalent level of safety as the regulations which became inapplicable with the FAA exercising their 

Section 333 powers. 
Page 18 of 26

5. 14 C.F.R. § 61.195: Flight Instructor Limitations and Qualifications. 

Section 61.195 says, 

“A person who holds a flight instructor certificate is subject to the following limitations: . . .

[a] flight instructor may not conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the flight instructor does 

not hold . . . [a] pilot certificate and flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class 

rating.” Many other exemptions have been granted by the FAA requiring that the PIC only possess a 

pilot certificate in any category or class (i.e. Exemption # 11221). Our proposal is just a slight 

extension of that and it is to allow any current FAA certificated flight instructor of any category or 

class, with a current third class medical or driver’s license, to commercially flight instruct. An 

equivalent level of safety as the regulations can be achieved based upon the restrictions proposed.

6. 14 C.F.R. § 91.105: Flight Crewmembers at Stations. 

Section 91.105 says, “(a) During takeoff and landing, and while en route, each required flight 

crewmember shall—(1) Be at the crewmember station unless the absence is necessary to perform duties 

in connection with the operation of the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs; and (2) Keep 

the safety belt fastened while at the crewmember station.”

The Petitioner’s UA do not have seat belts and no one is inside the aircraft; therefore, an equivalent 

level of safety can be provided since the forces of flight necessitating the need for seatbelts do not affect 

the PIC.
Page 19 of 26

B. Regulations Which Have Been Exempted In Previous Non-Flight Instructing 

Exemptions 

1. 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a): Medical Certificates

Section 61.23(a) says, “Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a person . . . 

Must hold at least a third-class medical certificate . . . When exercising the privileges of a flight 

instructor certificate and acting as the pilot in command[.]” The reason why the Petitioner is seeking 

relief from 61.23(a) & (c) is because in Exemptions # 11221, # 11284, and many others, the FAA has

determined that a U.S. driver’s license being used in lieu of a medical certificate provides an equivalent 

level of safety as sub-section (a). No added safety benefit would be achieved by requiring a certificated 

flight instructor to possess at a minimum of a third class medical. A medical certificate is not required 

for flight instructors in gliders, a sport certificated flight instructor in balloons,9or a flight instructor 

when not acting as PIC.10 A driver’s license is sufficient for a flight instructor “with a sport pilot rating 

while acting as pilot in command or serving as a required flight crewmember of a light-sport aircraft 

other than a glider or balloon.”

11 Our proposal to have the certificated flight instructor to possess a 

driver’s license or third class medical will provide an equivalent level of safety as the regulations. 

Therefore, since the proposed restrictions have already been determined by the FAA to provide an 

equivalent level of safety for commercial operations and there is no added benefit to requiring a third 

class medical for flight instructing, the Petitioner is seeking the same exact restrictions as other 

 

9 See 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(b)(4).

10 See id. at (b)(5).

11 Id. at (c)(1)(iii).
Page 20 of 26

previously granted exemptions to allow the PIC of a commercial flight instructing operation to use at

a minimum either a third class medical or a driver’s license.

C. Exempted Regulations the Petitioner Wishes To Maintain Without Change

1. 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(c): Medical Certificates

The FAA has said previously, “The FAA is also granting relief from § 61.23(c) to allow sport pilot 

certificate holders to operate aircraft other than LSA with a U.S. issued driver’s license under this 

exemption. However, in absence of a defined regulatory structure specific to UAS, the FAA has 

determined the minimum requirement for a UAS PIC under this exemption is to possess at least a U.S. 

driver’s license.”

13 Therefore, since the proposed restrictions have already been determined by the 

FAA to provide an equivalent level of safety, the Petitioner is seeking the same exact restrictions as 

other previously granted exemptions to allow the PIC to operate with either a third class medical or a 

U.S. driver’s license.

2. 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) & (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations, 14 C.F.R. § 

61.113 (a): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations; 14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a): Sport Pilot 

Limitations.

In Exemption # 11221, # 11284, and many others the FAA has declared that requiring the PIC to “hold 

either an airline transport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate”

14 provides an 

equivalent level of safety as the regulations. Likewise, the petitioner is asking for the same restriction.

 

13 Aeryon Labs, Inc., Exemption No. 11213 at 7.

14 Habana Avenue, LLC dba Fly Habana, Exemption No. 11284 at 4.
Page 21 of 26

3. 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness.

Section 333 allows the FAA to determine if our UA will need an airworthiness certificate to be 

compliant. The restrictions and procedures contained in the confidentially submitted manuals will be 

sufficient for determining the airworthiness of the aircraft. The restrictions proposed will require the 

PIC to conduct a pre-flight check to determine airworthiness and the operator to be “responsible for 

maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation.”15 The 

referenced manuals along with the restrictions obligating the PIC and operator to check and ensure the 

UA will provide “sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition in accordance with § 

91.7(a).”

16 Therefore, the Petitioner seeks relief to operate under the proposed restrictions and the 

manuals because they will provide an equivalent level of safety as the regulations.

4. 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c): Minimum Safe Altitudes.

Section 91.119, sub-section (c) requires the petitioner to operate at “[a]n 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.”

17 This regulation is 

impractical because it would require the Petitioner to operate at 500ft above the ground for many 

operations. This is a burdensome problem because many of the objects that need photographing will 

all be at least 500ft away and the photos or video obtained would be almost completely useless.

 

15 Proposed Restriction 9.

16 Clayco Exemption No. 11109 at 13.

17 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c).
Page 22 of 26

The Petitioner proposes to operate within the restrictions given in the Clayco Exemption which 

the FAA has previously determined will provide an equivalent level of safety. “[A]ll persons not 

essential to flight operations (nonparticipating persons) must remain at appropriate distances. In open 

areas this requires the UA to remain 500 feet from all persons other than essential flight personnel 

(i.e. the PIC and VO). . . . If barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently protect 

nonparticipating persons from debris in the event of an accident then the UA may operate closer than 

500 feet to persons afforded such protection. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons 

remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such 

protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately. . . . 

[O]perations may be conducted closer than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles and structures when the land 

owner/controller grants such permission and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of 

operating closer to those objects.”

18 Our proposed restrictions will classify the flight instructor and 

the student as essential persons under restriction 26. The student can be PIC, sport certificate or higher, 

and receive instruction from a certificated flight instructor or the flight instructor can be PIC and be 

giving instruction to a non-certificated student. Whoever is PIC must be complying with restriction 

13. The restrictions will provide an equivalent level of safety as the regulations.

 

18 Clayco Exemption No. 11109, at page 15.
Page 23 of 26

5. 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.”

19 Many UA do not have an altimeter but use GPS to determine height.

Furthermore, the cost of installing an altimeter will be financially burdensome.

An equivalent level of safety can be achieved by the operator, pursuant to following the manuals and

restrictions and using a GPS instead of an altimeter. Furthermore, the Clayco petition and many other 

petitions have been granted allowing GPS to be used in lieu of an altimeter.

6. 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.”

20 Most unmanned aircraft 

cannot fly longer than 30 minutes; therefore, most would always be violating this regulation if they took 

off. The Petitioner believes that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by restricting operations to 

“the intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve power 

recommended by the manufacturer if greater.”

21

 

 

19 14 C.F.R. § 91.121.

20 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a).

21 Habana Avenue, LLC dba Fly Habana, Exemption No. 11284, at page 5.
Page 24 of 26

7. 14 C.F.R. § 91.405 (a); § 91.407 (a)(1); § 91.409 (a)(1)& (2); § 91.417(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”

22 and 

maintain the aircraft in compliance with Part 43. These regulations do not apply because the FAA has 

authority under Section 333 to determine the drones listed do not need an airworthiness certificate. Since 

there is no airworthiness certificate to maintain, Part 43 does not apply.

An equivalent level of safety to Part 43 will be achieved because small UA’s are very limited in size 

and will carry a small payload and operate only in restricted areas for limited periods of time. Moreover, 

the Petitioner is the best suited to maintain the aircraft in an airworthy condition to provide the equivalent 

level of safety as Part 43. Lastly, the petitioner will operate in accordance with the manuals which will 

provide an equivalent level of safety as the burdensome regulations.

VII. FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

As required by 14 C.F.R. Part 11, below is provided a summary of the petition to be published in the 

Federal Register should it be determined that publishing is needed.

 

22 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a).
Page 25 of 26

The Petitioner is seeking an exemption from the following rules:

14 C.F.R. 61.1; 61.3(d); 61.23(a) & (c); 61.31(c) & (d); 61.51(h) & (j); 61.101(e)(4) & (5); 

61.113(a); 61.195; 61 61.315(a); 91.7(a); 91.105; 91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(a)(1); 91.405(a); 

91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) & (2); and 91.417(a) & (b) to operate an unmanned aircraft, weighing 

55 pounds or less, commercially for flight instruction, aerial data collection operations, and closedset tv/movie filming using the DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, DJI Phantom 3, DJI S900, 

DJI S1000, and DJI Inspire.

This petition for exemption is needed because (1) flight instructors are currently not approved to 

fly commercially under 333 exemptions or public COA’ and doing so in compliance with the 

regulations is highly impractical, (2) the public needs qualified professionals to learn how to safely 

operate recreational and commercial unmanned aircraft (“UA”), (3) it will encourage a culture a 

safety to prevent harm, (4) the public can use the flight instructor endorsements in safety 

evaluations, and (5) it enables insurance carriers to increase the operational safety of their clients 

and lower premiums.

The ability to train students to go out and safely operate UA in lieu of hiring a manned aircraft to 

fulfil their recreational or commercial goals will provide a far safer alternative than using a jet or 

piston powered aircraft because small batteries will be used instead of large amounts of highly 

flammable fuel, the UA can be transported to the operation location via ground vehicle as opposed 

to ferrying in the air, the UA will be operated at altitudes far below manned aircraft, and the UA 

will use clean electricity for power as opposed to 100LL which has the by-product of small 

amounts of lead being released into the atmosphere for the public to breathe. The proposed 

restrictions contained in the petition and manuals will provide an equivalent level of safety as the 

regulations.

VIII. OPERATING DOCUMENTS

Mechanikids, LLC dba Red Raptor will operate only within the limitations above and the limitations 

listed in the confidentially submitted manuals. The limitations above will be followed if there is a conflict 

with the manuals.

IX. STATUTORYAUTHORITY TO GRANT THIS PETITION

The Federal Aviation Act gives the FAA the authority to grant exemptions. “The Administrator may 

grant an exemption from a requirement of a regulation prescribed under subsection (a) or (b) of this 
Page 26 of 26

section or any sections 44702-44716 of this title if the Administrator finds the exemption in the public 

interest.”

23 Furthermore, Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 gives the 

Secretary of Transportation the ability to consider whether the unmanned aircraft can operate in the 

national airspace until final regulations are published. Lastly, Congress directed the Secretary for the 

Department of Transportation to “establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft in the 

national airspace system.”

24 The FAA has already established requirements for summary grants which we 

are adopting and incorporating into our proposed operating restrictions.

X. CONCLUSION

The operation of Mechanikids, LLC dba Red Raptor using a small UA, weighing less than 55 lbs., 

conducted under the proposed restrictions outlined above, will provide an equivalent level of safety as 

the burdensome regulations; therefore, this petition should be granted without delay. If I can be of any 

assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (561)222-6979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com

Sincerely yours,

_____________________

Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.

 

23 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f); accord 49 U.S.C. § 44711(b).

24 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-95, § 333(c), 126 Stat. 11 (2012).