1

Clayton J. Inskeep Sonoma, CA – Section 333 Exemption Petition

July 15, 2015 

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal Aviation Regulations from 14 

C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a)&(b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b) (2); 91.103(b); 91.109; 

119.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a)&(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a) (1); 91.409(a) (2); 91.417(a)&(b) 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

I, Clayton J. Inskeep, am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and 

the procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, to request that I, Clayton J. Inskeep, an owner and 

operator of small unmanned aircraft, be exempted from the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed 

below so that I, Clayton J. Inskeep, may operate my small ultra-lightweight unmanned aircraft system 

(“UAS”) commercially in airspace regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). 

As described herein I, Clayton J. Inskeep, am an employee of a small business within the State of 

California; experienced in flying hobby type helicopters and aircraft for recreational purposes and am a 

FAA certificated airplane pilot (certificate number 2718499). I have added a hobby grade quad-copter 

UAS (Phantom 3 Professional) to my inventory equipped with an attached camera with intent for aerial 

videography/cinematography and inspection to augment real estate listings, land development, events, 

promotional videos and aerial surveys following exemption and approval by the FAA. 

My, Clayton J. Inskeep’s, exemption request would permit operation of ultra-lightweight, 

unmanned (piloted by remote control) and comparatively inexpensive UAS(s) in tightly controlled and 

limited airspace, in areas away from the general public, airports, heliports and vehicular traffic. Such 

commercial operations will take place within property boundaries for individual homeowner real estate 

listing videos/photos, and such additional inspection, promotional and surveying operations as may be 

commercially viable. Currently, unmonitored amateur hobbyists with no safety plan or controls in place 

to prevent catastrophe legally operate similar lightweight, remote controlled UAS’s in the National 

Airspace System. 

I, Clayton J. Inskeep, have personally developed and implemented safety protocols and controls 

to avoid and prevent public hazard as a former employee of a government contractor in a national 

defense environment, and will apply this experience and my extensive background in aircraft operation 

and maintenance to the proposed project. I expect to contribute materially to the body of knowledge 

of this fledgling industry and to assist the FAA in developing safety protocols exclusive to lightweight 

UAS operations as I, Clayton J. Inskeep, record flight data and other information gained through 

permitted flight operations. 

Granting my, Clayton J. Inskeep’ s, request comports with the Secretary of Transportation’s (FAA 

Administrator’s) responsibilities and authority to not only integrate UAS's into the National Airspace 
2

Clayton J. Inskeep Sonoma, CA – Section 333 Exemption Petition

System, but to “...establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems [UAS's] under 

Section 333(c) of the Reform Act specific to the use of UAS's for real estate, photography and 

videography purposes.” Further I, Clayton J. Inskeep, will conduct my operations in compliance with the 

protocols described herein or as otherwise established by the FAA. 

For the reasons stated below I, Clayton J. Inskeep, respectfully request the grant of an 

exemption allowing me to operate ultra lightweight, remote controlled UAS’s to enhance real estate 

listing videos for homeowners who cannot afford expensive manned aircraft, and to perform such other 

commercial photography and promotional services as may become available. This will promote local 

economic growth through increased employment and an increased tax base. It will further enhance 

public safety by replacing heavier manned aircraft containing combustible fuel that poses a potential 

public hazard. California has been plagued with serious drought conditions that only emphasize more 

the importance of using a UAS system as opposed to a fixed wing or rotorcraft in this area. If a mishap 

were to occur, flying either a rotorcraft or fixed wing aircraft carrying combustible fuels, the devastation 

to the surrounding area residents and economies could be disastrous.

I. Contact Information: 

Clayton J. Inskeep, 

19170 Mesquite Ct.

Sonoma, CA 95476

Office 707-996-9831

Email: cjinskeep@gmail.com or Clayton@bitcoinsultants.com

II. The Specific Sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations From 

Which Clayton J. Inskeep Requests Exemption are: 

14 CFR 21; 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. 91, et seq.; 14 CFR 407 (a) (1); 14 CFR 

409 (a) (2); and, 14 CFR 417 (a) & (b). 

III. The Extent of relief Clayton J. Inskeep seeks and the Reason He Seeks Such Relief: 

I, Clayton J. Inskeep, submit this application in accordance with the Reform Act, 112 P.L. 95 §§ 

331-334, seeking relief from any currently applicable FARs operating to prevent me, Clayton J. Inskeep, 

from operating contemplated commercial cinematic, academic and other flight operations within the 

National Airspace System. The Reform Act in Section 332 provides for such integration of civil unmanned 

aircraft systems into our National Airspace System as it is in the public’s interest to do so. My, Clayton J. 

Inskeep’s, ultra-lightweight UAS meets the definition of “small unmanned aircraft” as defined in Section 

331 and therefore the integration of my ultra light-weight UAS is expressly contemplated by the Reform 

Act. I would like to operate my ultra-lightweight UAS prior to the time period by which the Reform Act 

requires the FAA to promulgate rules governing such craft. 
3

Clayton J. Inskeep Sonoma, CA – Section 333 Exemption Petition

Thereby, providing direct experience and valuable information for formal regulation that can be 

administered uniformly to all real estate and other commercial related UAS aerial video and 

photography. The Reform Act guides the Secretary in determining the types of UAS's that may operate 

safely in our National Airspace System. Considerations include: The weight, size, speed and overall 

capabilities of the UAS's; whether the UAS will be operated near airports or heavily populated areas; 

and, whether the UAS will be operated by line of sight. Each of these items reflects in favor of an 

exemption for me, Clayton J. Inskeep. My UAS utilizes four (4) counter-rotating propellers for balance, 

control and stability. My UAS is equipped with GPS and auto return safety technology. It weighs less 

than five (5) pounds (far below the maximum 55-pound limit), including camera with gimbal. 

I, Clayton J. Inskeep, consider safety as paramount with each flight. My small unmanned aircraft 

is designed to hover in place via GPS and operate in a 13 Knot (15 mph) wind. For safety, stability and 

fear of financial loss my policy will be to not fly in winds exceeding 8 Knots (10 mph). Built-in safety 

systems include a GPS mode that allows my UAS to hover in place when radio controls are released. 

With three modes to choose from, I utilize the Smart Mode for aerial videography/photography. This is 

the safest, most reliable and stable mode to prevent accident and hazard. When pilot communication is 

lost UAS is designed to slowly descend to point of take-off. I do not and will not operate my UAS near 

airports, hospitals, police heliports, or areas where the general public is within fifty to one hundred (50-

100) yards depending on location, conditions and weather. I will be constantly on alert for any manned 

aircraft and prepared to land/abort immediately to the nearest and safest ground point should a

manned aircraft approach my location or I suspect manned aircraft may approach near my location. 

My UAS is capable of vertical and horizontal operations, and is flown only within my line of sight 

(LOS) as the remote control pilot. Utilizing battery power rather than combustible fuels, flights generally 

last between five (5) to ten (10) minutes, with an altitude under two hundred (200) feet. I, Clayton J. 

Inskeep, will utilize a fresh fully charged battery with each flight as a safety precaution; full flight time 

limit for each battery is up to twenty-five (25) minutes. I do not operate my UAS at or below 

manufacture recommend minimum charge levels for operation, preferring to remain well within a safe 

operating range to insure adequate communication between radio control and UAS to eliminate 

potential for crash, loss of control or other hazard. Reserve batteries are at hand with each exercise to 

insure replacement for a sufficiently safe level of operation. I do not believe in taking risks that may 

cause a crash, which could not only create a hazard to public/property/manned aircraft, but would 

seriously jeopardize the economics of the venture. I have logged numerous practice flights in remote 

areas as a hobbyist simulating flights for future commercial use to gain familiarization with the 

characteristics of this specific UAS's performance under different temperature and weather conditions. 

I, Clayton J. Inskeep, am extremely cautious when operating my UAS/ultra lightweight 

unmanned aircraft and will not “create a hazard to users of the National Airspace System or the public.” 

112 P.L. 95 § 333 (b). Given the small size and weight of my UAS it falls well within Congress’s 

contemplated safety zone when it promulgated the Reform Act and the corresponding directive to 

integrate UAS's into the National Airspace System. Clayton J. Inskeep’s UAS, used in hobby flight, has a 

demonstrable safety record and does not pose any threat to the general public or national security. 
4

Clayton J. Inskeep Sonoma, CA – Section 333 Exemption Petition

IV. How Clayton J. Inskeep’s Request Will Benefit the Public As A Whole: 

Aerial videography for geographical awareness and for real estate marketing has been around 

for a long time through manned fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. For small budget real estate 

companies and average homeowners, the expense of such aerial videography is cost prohibitive. Only 

large companies and wealthy brokers or luxury homeowners can afford to absorb such expense, 

depriving non-luxury homeowners and lower budget brokers from a valuable marketing tool. My, 

Clayton J. Inskeep’s, UAS offer an effective and low cost alternative while posing a much lower 

environmental threat since size and lack of combustible fuel minimizes any potential threat to the 

public. 

Congress has already proclaimed that it is in the public’s interest to integrate commercially 

flown UAS's into the National Airspace System, hence the passing of the Reform Act. Granting my, 

Clayton J. Inskeep’s, exemption request furthers the public interest through academic/visual awareness 

of the geographical benefits in and around Sonoma County, California. My ultra lightweight UAS is 

battery powered and creates no emissions that can harm the environment. The consequence of my ultra 

lightweight UAS crashing is far less than a full size helicopter or fixed wing aircraft, which are heavy, 

contain combustible fuel and can cause catastrophic devastation to the public. Again, considering the 

extreme fire danger present now in all of California due to our current drought conditions, any actions 

to possibly minimize the operation of aircraft carrying combustible fuels for aerial photography or 

surveying and potentially having a mishap is both significant and in the best interest of the public.

The public’s interest is furthered by minimizing potential ecological and crash threat by 

permitting aerial video/photo capture through my battery operated ultra lightweight UAS's. Permitting 

me, Clayton J. Inskeep, to immediately fly within national air space furthers economic growth. Granting 

my exemption request positively impacts the economics of the County of Sonoma, from real estate 

sales, inexpensive aerial surveying and aerial support of the thriving viticulture industry which is a major 

employer and economic engine for Sonoma and the surrounding counties. All of these factors provide a 

potential economic stimulus to the community. 

V. Reasons Why Clayton J. Inskeep’s Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect Safety Or How The Exemption 

Will Provide a Level of Safety At Least Equal To Existing Rule: 

My, Clayton J. Inskeep’s, exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the contrary, for the 

reasons previously stated permitting me, Clayton J. Inskeep, to log more flight time in FAA controlled 

airspace, with ongoing communication with the FAA, will allow me to contribute to the continued 

development and implementation of new and novel, as yet undiscovered safety protocols for the UAS 

community, promoting growth and safety of this new and vital industry in cooperation with the FAA. In 
5

Clayton J. Inskeep Sonoma, CA – Section 333 Exemption Petition

addition I, Clayton J. Inskeep, submit the following representations of enhancements to current aerial 

videography and photography for real estate and other opportunities, to illustrate its benefits: 

My UAS weighs less than 5 pounds complete with a small ultra lightweight high quality built-in 

camera; I only operate my UAS at or below 200 feet (well within the 400 foot permissible ceiling set by 

the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012); my UAS only operates for a maximum of 37 minutes 

per flight; I will land my UAS prior to manufacturer recommended minimum level of battery power; I 

pilot my UAS through remote control only by visual line of sight (VLOS); My UAS has GPS flight safety 

feature whereby it hovers and then slowly lands if communication with the remote control pilot is lost; I 

actively analyze flight data and other sources of information to constantly update and enhance safety 

protocols; I only operate in a safe environment that is strictly controlled, away from power lines, 

elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas; I conduct extensive pre-flight inspections and 

protocol during which safety carries primary importance; I always obtain all necessary permissions prior 

to operation, and I have procedures in place to abort flights in the event of safety breaches or potential 

danger. I am also very familiar with pre-flight procedures for both certificated and experimental civil 

aircraft. I have recently installed a state of the art navigation suite in an experimental aircraft and was 

successful in initializing the system to provide compliance for the upcoming 2020 ADSB FAA mandate for 

aircraft operating in controlled airspace. I am intimately familiar with the rules and limitations for the 

safe operation of all types of aircraft.

My, Clayton J. Inskeep’s, safety protocols provide a level of safety equal to or exceeding existing 

rules. It is important to note that absent the integration of commercial UAS into our planned 

environment that helicopters are the primary means of aerial video and photography for community 

awareness, aerial surveying and real estate. 

First, the potential loss of life is diminished because UAS's carry no people on board and I only 

operate my UAS in specific areas away from mass populations. Second, there is no fuel on board a UAS 

and thus the potential for fire or explosion is essentially eliminated. Third, the small size and extreme 

maneuverability of my UAS allows me to remotely pilot away from and avoid hazards quickly and safely. 

Lastly, the photographic sophistication of the equipment carried on my UAS permits operation from a 

safe distance.

Accordingly, my UAS has been experimentally operated for familiarization/competency and will 

continue to operate at and above current safety levels. I will also be carrying a portable aviation radio 

to notify any aircraft operating in the vicinity of nearby UAS operations.

VI. A Summary the FAA May Publish in the Federal Register: 

A. 14 C.F.R. 21 and 14 C.F.R. 91: Airworthiness Certificates, Manuals and The Like. 14 C.F.R. 21, 

Subpart H, entitled Airworthiness Certificates, sets forth requirements for procurement of necessary 

airworthiness certificates in relation to FAR § 91.203(a)(1). The size, weight and enclosed operational 

area of my, Clayton J. Inskeep’s, UAS permits exemption from Part 21 because my UAS meets (and 

exceeds) an equivalent level of safety pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act. 
6

Clayton J. Inskeep Sonoma, CA – Section 333 Exemption Petition

The FAA is authorized to exempt aircraft from the airworthiness certificate requirement under 

both the Act (49 U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit 

the FAA to exempt UAS's from the airworthiness certificate requirement in consideration of the weight, 

size, speed, maneuverability and proximity to areas such as airports and dense populations. 

My, Clayton J. Inskeep’s, current and projected UAS's meet or exceed each of the elements. 14 

C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an airworthiness certificate. As no such 

certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated by the FARs, this Regulation is inapplicable. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. As there are no on board 

pilots or passengers, and given the size of the UAS's, this Regulation is inapplicable. An equivalent level 

of safety will be achieved by maintaining a safety/flight manual delineating areas wherein safety can be 

defined. 

The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this regulation in Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 

8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167, 10167A, 10602, 10700, 32827 and many others. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.121 regarding altimeter settings are inapplicable in so far as my UAS utilizes 

electronic global positioning systems with a barometric sensor. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.203 (a) and (b) provides for the carrying of civil aircraft certifications and 

registrations. They are inapplicable for the same reasons described above. The equivalent level of safety 

will be achieved by maintaining any such required certifications and registrations by me, Clayton J. 

Inskeep 

B. 14 C.F.R. § 45.23: Marking of the Aircraft. Applicable Codes of Federal Regulation require 

aircraft to be marked according to certain specifications. My UAS are, by definition, unmanned. They 

therefore do not have a cabin, cockpit or pilot station on which to mark certain words or phrases. 

Further, two-inch lettering is difficult to place on such small aircraft with dimensions smaller that 

minimal lettering requirement. Regardless, I will mark the UASs in the largest possible lettering by 

placing the word “EXPERIMENTAL” on its fuselage as required by 14 C.F.R. §45.29 (f) so that I the pilot, 

or anyone assisting me as a spotter with the UAV will see the markings. The FAA has previously issued 

exemptions to this regulation through Exemptions Nos. 8738, 10167, 10167A and 10700. 

C. 14 C.F.R. § 61.113: Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: PIC. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 

(a) & (b), private pilots are limited to non-commercial operations. I, Clayton J. Inskeep, can achieve an 

equivalent level of safety as achieved by current Regulations because my UAS does not carry any pilots 

or passengers. Further, while helpful, a pilot license will not ensure remote control piloting skills. The 

risks attended to the operation of my UAS is far less than the risk levels inherent in the commercial 

activities outlined in 14 C.F.R. § 61, et seq. Thus, allowing me, Clayton J. Inskeep, to operate my UAS 

meets and exceeds current safety levels in relation to 14 C.F.R. §61.113 (a) & (b). 
7

Clayton J. Inskeep Sonoma, CA – Section 333 Exemption Petition

D. 14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes. 14 C.F.R. § 91.119 prescribes safe altitudes for the 

operation of civil aircraft. It allows helicopters to be operated at lower altitudes in certain conditions. 

My UAS will never operate at an altitude greater than 200 AGL, safely below the standard of 400 AGL. 

I, Clayton J. Inskeep, will however operate my UAS in safe areas away from public and traffic, 

providing a level of altitude safety at least equivalent to or below those in relation to minimum safe 

altitudes. Given the size, weight, maneuverability and speed of my UAS, an equivalent or higher level of 

safety will be achieved. 

E. 14 C.F.R. 91.405 (a); 407 (a) (1); 409 (a) (2); 417(a) & (b): Maintenance Inspections. 

The above-cited Regulations require, amongst other things, aircraft owners and operators to “have [the] 

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 . . . .” 

These Regulations only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. They will not, therefore, apply 

to my, Clayton J. Inskeep’s, UAS. However, as a safety precaution I inspect my UAS before and after each 

flight. 

A Summary The FAA May Publish in the Federal Register: A. 14 C.F.R. 21 and 14 C.F.R. 

91: Airworthiness Certificates, Manuals and The Like. 14 C.F.R. 21, Subpart H, entitled 

Airworthiness Certificates, sets forth requirements for procurement of necessary airworthiness 

certificates in relation to FAR § 91.203(a)(1). The size, weight and enclosed operational area of my UAS 

permits exemption from Part 21 because my, Clayton J. Inskeep’s, UAS meets an equivalent level of 

safety pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act. The FAA is authorized to exempt aircraft from the 

airworthiness certificate requirement under both the Act (49 U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the 

Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit the FAA to exempt UAS's from the airworthiness certificate 

requirement in consideration of the weight, size, speed, maneuverability and proximity to areas such as 

airports and dense populations. My UAS meets or exceeds each of the elements. 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) 

prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an airworthiness certificate. As no such certificate will be 

applicable in the form contemplated by the FARs, this Regulation is inapplicable. 14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) 

requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. As there are no pilots or passengers, and given the size 

of the UAS's, this Regulation is inapplicable. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by maintaining 

a manual. The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this regulation in Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 

8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167, maintenance program that involves regular software updates 

and curative measures for any damaged hardware. Therefore, an equivalent level of safety will be 

achieved. 

In summary, Clayton J. Inskeep, seeks an exemption from the following Regulations: 

14 C.F.R. 21, subpart H; 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (a); 14 C.F.R. § 

91.9 (b)(2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.103(b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.109; 14 C.F.R. § 91.119; 14 C.F.R. § 91.121; 14 C.F.R. § 
8

Clayton J. Inskeep Sonoma, CA – Section 333 Exemption Petition