1

Henry H. Perritt, Jr.

Attorney at Law

1131 Carol Lane

Glencoe, IL 60022

hperritt@gmail.com

(312) 504-5001

12 August 2014

Hon. Michael Huerta

Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations from certain parts of the FARs.

Dear Administrator Huerta:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform

Act) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Colin Hinkle, a professional photographer, hereby applies 

for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) to allow him to 

operate a small Unmanned Aircraft System (“sUAS”) under the conditions and 

limitations set forth in this Petition.

The requested exemption would permit the operation of small, unmanned and 

relatively inexpensive sUAS under controlled conditions in airspace that is (1) limited,

(2) predetermined, and (3) would provide safety enhancements to the already safe news 

gathering operations presently using manned helicopters and airplanes in Chicagoland. 

Approval of this exemption would thereby enhance safety and fulfill the FAA 

Administrator’s responsibilities to “...establish requirements for the safe operation of 

such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.” Section 333(c) of the Reform Act.

The name and address of the applicant is:
2

Colin Hinkle

Attn: Henry H. Perritt, Jr.

Telephone: (312) 504-5001

Email: hperritt@gmail.com

Address: 1131 Carol Lane, Glencoe, IL 60022

Regulations from which the exemption is requested:

14 CFR Part 21

14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b)

14 CFR § 61.3

14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (a)

14 CFR § 91.9 (b) (2)

14 C.F.R. § 91.103

14 C.F.R. § 91.109

14 C.F. R. § 91.119

14 C.F.R. § 91.121

14 CFR § 91.151 (a)

14 CFR § 91.203 (a) & (b)

14 CFR § 91.205(b) 

14 CFR § 91.215 

14 CFR § 91.405 (a)

14 CFR § 407 (a) (1)

14 CFR § 409 (a) (2)

14 CFR § 417 (a) & (b)
3

The Appendix describes the FARs from which an exemption is requested and 

summarizes the justification for each requested exemption. 

The Petition is submitted to fulfill Congress’ goal under Section 333(a) through (c) of the 

Reform Act, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to consider whether certain 

unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system (NAS) 

before completion of the rulemaking required under Section 332 of the Reform Act. In 

making this determination, the Administrator must determine which types of UASs do 

not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public or pose a threat to national security 

in light of the following:

• The UAS’s size, weight, speed, and operational capability;

• Operation of the UAS in close proximity to airports and populated areas; and

• Operation of the UAS within visual line of sight of the operator.

Reform Act § 333 (a). 

If the Adminstrator determines that such vehicles “may operate safely in the national 

airspace system, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such 

aircraft in the national airspace system.” Id. § 333(c) (emphasis added).

The Secretary has delegated his aviation authority to the Administrator of the FAA.

The Federal Aviation Act expressly grants the FAA the authority to grant exemptions 

from its regulatory requirements for civil aircraft, a term defined under §40101 of the 

Act, which includes sUASs. The Administrator may grant an exemption from a 

requirement of a regulation prescribed under subsection (a) or (b) of this section or any 

sections 44702-44716 of the Federal Aviation Act if Administrator finds the exemption 

in the public interest. 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) See also 49 USC § 44711(a); 49 USC § 44704; 14 

CFR §91.203 (a) (1).

The petitioner is a professional photojournalist, who earns his living as a contract 

photographer for several Chicago television stations. His regular assignments involve 

his going out with electronic news gathering ("ENG") vans to cover breaking news as 

assigned by the TV station newsdesk. He also works as a relief photojournalist for the 

helicopter contractor that serves Chicago TV stations. He has thus become familiar with 

both ground-based and aerial news photography over the course of several years.
4

The wide availability of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, also known as 

“microdrones,” capable of carrying high-quality video cameras and priced at affordable 

levels intrigued the petitioner. His entire professional career has involved exploring 

new technologies and adapting them to capture good imagery to inform the public. In 

July 2014, he bought a DJI Phantom 2 Vision, installed a three axis gimbal and a GoPro 

camera and has flown it for total of 30 hours over remote areas of the Chicago 

metropolitan area, over remote locations in downstate Illinois, and in the Ozark 

Mountains in Missouri for recreational purposes, exploring the potential and the 

limitations of its video subsystem.

He is pleased with the quality of the imagery captured and has edited it into a number 

of photographic vignettes that meet his high standards for technical quality and artistic 

merit. 

Now, a number of people, some professional colleagues and some strangers, have heard 

about Petitioner’s activities and have seen the results and are pressing Petitioner to 

undertake additional microdrone photography for compensation.

He has been advised by counsel that this is not now permissible unless he obtains

special permission from the FAA. Many competitors of Petitioner are actively flying 

sUAS to conduct aerial photography for commercial purposes, notwithstanding the 

FAA’s stated prohibition. He also notes and has read the congressional mandate in 

sections 332 and 333 of the FAA Revitalization and Reform Act of 2012 that the FAA

move quickly to accommodate the economic and societal benefits that can result from 

widespread deployment of sUAS technology. Accordingly, Petitioner applies for 

authorization under the Federal Aviation Act, and the FARs rules to undertake the 

following activities for commercial purposes. Unless the Petition is granted, Petitioner 

will be at a significant competitive advantage if he, as he prefers, complies with FAA 

policy.

Vehicle

The Petitioner will fly a DJI Phantom 2 Vision equipped with a three-axis gimbal and 

GoPro camera.

This vehicle has built in capability to limit the height it flies above the ground, to limit 

the radius of the distance it flies from the operator, and to exclude it from class B, C, 
5

and D airspace. The vehicle also has the built-in capability to return to the launching 

point if the wireless control link is interrupted or if the operator attempts to exceed any 

of the height, radius, or airspace limitations programmed into it.

The vehicle weighs about five pounds empty and has a maximum gross weight of 

approximately twenty pounds. It has a top speed of about 30 knots. It has four fixedpitch rotors, thrust from which is varied by changing RPM. It is powered by a lithium 

polymer battery.

Flight profiles

The petitioner will program the Phantom so that it will not fly above 400 feet above 

ground level, or more than 1500 feet away from him. He will carefully preflight the 

vehicle before each mission to assure that its compass and GPS system are properly 

calibrated and that the return-to-home feature, altitude, and radius limitations work.

He will operate it on aerial photography missions only in the early morning hours and 

other times when few people are out and about. He will operate it only over largely 

unpopulated areas where the potential of uncontrolled descent to cause injury or 

damage is low

He will not operate it in controlled airspace. In the unlikely event that a manned aircraft 

flies below 400 feet AGL where the petitioners operating his Phantom, he will keep both 

the vehicle and manned aircraft in sight and avoid the manned aircraft.

More particularly, the Petitioner will fly the Phantom only over the following types of 

areas in Metropolitan Chicago:

 Over Lake Michigan, outward of the shoreline

 Over open water in marinas, anchorages, and rivers appurtenant to Lake 

Michigan

 Over lines of railroad and rail classification yards

 Over expressways

 Over nonresidential and noncommercial large-scale industrial areas

 Over private property when he has been commissioned by the person in legal 

possession of the property to do so
6

 Over breaking news events subject to the following special limitations:

He will retain a professional news helicopter pilot as a special consultant and 

undertake a period of ground training with that special consultant to understand the 

rules of thumb that ENG helicopter pilots follow to coexist safely with, and to 

provide occasional help to, law-enforcement and other public safety agencies.

He will undertake a period of at least six hours flight training with the ENG pilotconsultant to ensure that the Petitioner is proficient in anticipating and responding 

to situations over breaking news events that might interfere with the safe flight of 

police and other public safety helicopters, with ground operations, or with manned 

aircraft.

The Petitioner's proposed operations satisfy the criteria provided in Section 333 of the 

Reform Act relating to size, weight, speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports 

and populated areas and operation within visual line of sight and national security. The 

Petition justifies grant of the requested exemptions allow the Petitioner to obtain aerial 

photography with his microdrone.

Respectfully submitted,

Henry H. Perritt, Jr.

Counsel for Petitioner
7

Appendix

FAR section Subject Justification

14 CFR § 45.23(b) Requirement to display 

registration number on 

vehicle

Insufficient space on 

vehicle

14 CFR Part 21 Aircraft certification 

requirements and 

procedures

Designed for manned 

aircraft; not suitable for 

off-the-shelf sUAS

14 CFR § 61.3 Requirement for pilot 

certificate

Part 61 requirements 

designed for manned 

aircraft, not sUAS; 

petition describes 

training for sUAS 

operator

14 CFR § 91.7 (a) Airworthiness 

requirement

Designed for manned 

aircraft; not suitable for 

off-the-shelf sUAS

14 CFR § 91.9 (b) (2) Requirement for manual 

to be available in the 

cockpit

No one aboard to read 

manual

14 CFR § 91.103(b) Requirement for crew 

members to be onboard

Unmanned vehicle

14 CFR § 91.109 Requirement for dual 

controls during flight 

instruction

No one aboard to 

operate controls

14 CFR § 91.119 Minimum altitudes for 

safe flight

Safety requires 

operation below these 

altitudes

14 CFR § 91.121 Altimeter settings No one aboard to read 

altimeter

14 CFR § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements Vehicle does not use 

fuel

14 CFR § 91.203 (a) & (b) Requirement for 

registration and 

airworthiness 

certificates to be 

onboard

No one aboard to read 

certificates

14 CFR § 91.205(b) Cockpit instruments No one aboard to read 
8

requirement instruments

14 CFR § 91.215 Transponder 

requirement

Vehicle has insufficient 

useful load; will be 

operated below ATC 

radar coverage

14 CFR § 91.405 (a) Inspection requirements Designed for manned 

aircraft; not suitable for 

off-the-shelf sUAS

14 CFR § 91.407(a) (1) Inspection approval 

requirements

Designed for manned 

aircraft; not suitable for 

off-the-shelf sUAS

14 CFR § 91.409 (a) (2) Airworthiness 

inspection

Designed for manned 

aircraft; not suitable for 

off-the-shelf sUAS

14 CFR § 91.417 (a) & (b) Maintenance records 

requirements

Designed for manned 

aircraft; not suitable for 

off-the-shelf sUAS