PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 1

February 10, 2016

Manager, Flight Standards Service

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operation

West Building Ground Floor Room w-12-140

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Petition for Exemption

RE: Petition of R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. for an Exemption under Section 333 of the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and from certain rules of 14 C.F.R.

Dear Sir or Madam:

The following is a Petition for Exemption relating to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012. Specifically, this Petition for exemption is filed by DMZ Marketing, LLC., on 

behalf of R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. for exemption from certain rules of 14 C.F.R. R. J. 

Corman Railroad Group, LLC. requests Exemption in an effort to be granted permission to 

operate small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“sUAS”) commercially in the United States of 

America. These operations would be subject to the current rules and regulations, not stated 

herein as rules requested for exemption under Section 333, under the jurisdiction of the 

Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Additionally, all operations will adhere to strict safety rules enforced by R. J. Corman Railroad 

Group, LLC. within their company. These safety rules will be modeled after recommendations 

made by the FAA and community-based organizations such as the Academy of Model 

Aeronautics. Specific conditions relating to the safe operations of sUAS by R. J. Corman 

Railroad Group, LLC. will be covered in more detail in the documentation to come, however 

basic flight safety parameters often cited by organizations such as the Academy of Model 

Aeronautics will be closely followed, such as operations at low altitudes and adequate distances 

away from airports, heliports, and approach areas to name a few. 

Petitioner Name: R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. 

Petitioner Contact: Benjamin Gettinger

Petitioner Phone Number: 859-881-2445

Petitioner Email Address: ben.gettinger@rjcorman.com

Petitioner Address: 101 R. J. Corman Drive

Nicholasville, KY 40340

Document Preparer: DMZ Marketing, LLC.

Contact Person: Zach Fiene

Phone Number: 608-370-2858

Email Address: dmzaerial@gmail.com

Website: www.dmzaerial.com

Address: 1501 Parkview Court

Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 USA
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 2

As was established in Huerta v. Pirker, an aircraft is, “any” “device” that is “used for flight.”1

Clearly this broad definition encompasses the types of sUAS the petitioner, R. J. Corman 

Railroad Group, LLC., plans on flying commercially within the United States of America and as 

such, are governed by the rules of 14 C.F.R. Due to this, in the following Petition for Exemption 

and associated documentation, R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will establish clear reasoning 

as to why their particular commercial sUAS flights should be granted exemption and why their 

business should be exempt from certain parameters of 14 C.F.R. 

As has been established by the FAA over the last year, sUAS pilots are allowed to petition for 

exemption from certain aircraft rules that may be inapplicable to sUAS craft or that may place 

an undue burden on a petitioner looking to turn their sUAS hobby into a commercial business. 

R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. would like to request exemption from certain parameters 

contained in 14 C.F.R. The specific rules for which R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. requests 

exemption will be covered in further detail in the documentation to come, but, in summary, R. 

J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. looks to be exempt from the types of rules that may limit or 

otherwise prevent their intent of operating sUAS commercially within the United States.

Furthermore, these commercial operations would only be conducted after a granted Section 

333 Exemption and within the outlined conditions below or that may be otherwise highlighted 

by the Federal Aviation Administration in their Exemption Approval Letter. 

With the approval of this exemption, R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will be allowed to 

commercially operate their sUAS within the United States of America. Specifically, R. J. Corman 

Railroad Group, LLC. will be allowed to fly commercially with the DJI Inspire 1 and DJI Matrice 

100. Furthermore, R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will be operating their sUAS in furtherance 

of various applications within the following industries; Cinematography, Insurance, Railroad 

Services, and Search and Rescue. Details of these flight crafts; their manuals, safety 

parameters, operational checklists and more, along with these sUAS flight applications, will be 

expanded upon in more detail below. 

In addition to R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC.’s Petition for Exemption pertaining to the use 

of the aforementioned aircraft and use-cases, the granting of this Petition will also allow for the

commercial operations of sUAS in Class G Airspace, below 400 feet Above Ground Level 

(“AGL”), nationwide, or as otherwise granted in a Certificate of Authorization (“COA”). To start, 

R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will adhere to the blanket Certificate of Authorization that is 

granted to each entity receiving an Exemption Number. This COA currently allows for flights 

nationwide, in Class G Airspace, below 200 feet AGL.2 Further flight areas sought by R. J. 

Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will be applied for through the FAA’s COA Portal. Additionally, 

with the potential hazards and obstacles associated with low-altitude flight, R. J. Corman 

Railroad Group, LLC. will adhere to the Visual Flight Rule (“VFR”) minimums which apply to this 

airspace. Further details on these operational minimums will be discussed in the 

documentation to come.
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 3

The Petition for Exemption below provides details relating to the proposed applications of 

commercial sUAS use by R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. Specifically, R. J. Corman Railroad 

Group, LLC. seeks exemption in an effort to conduct commercial operations within the 

following industries; Cinematography, Insurance, Railroad Services, and Search and Rescue.

In addition to the variety of Industry applications highlighted above, this Petition for Exemption 

will also cover details on various methods of operation and sensor/imagery types for the 

various applications. Specifically, R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will incorporate a variety of 

sensor payloads on its sUAS in an effort to capture necessary imagery or data types for each 

specific application or use-case. Examples of the payload technologies used on the sUAS 

include, but are not limited to; Visible Light Spectrum Imagery, Near Infrared (“NIR”) Imagery, 

Thermal Infrared Imagery, LIDAR, Sensor Technologies, GPS Guidance, Photogrammetry, SemiAutonomous and Autonomous Flight Controllers (For safety), Object Avoidance Systems, and 

more. With the data collected from these various sensor payloads, R. J. Corman Railroad 

Group, LLC. will be able to provide high quality data for representatives from the belowhighlighted industries. 

 Cinematography: High-resolution images and video can provide an elevated 

vantage point from which to assess an asset; such as a railroad, facility, train, or 

the like. This elevated vantage point can yield a different perspective and 

provide valuable information relating to the asset's condition, compliance 

relating to the asset's continued use, marketing pertaining to the business that 

owns, controls, or manages the asset, and more.

 Insurance: High-quality, high-resolution imagery, coupled with advanced 

identification and measurement software, can help turn aerial data collected by 

a sUAS into actionable information for Insurance Agents, Adjusters, third-party 

service providers, asset owners, and the like. With an aerial map of a train 

derailment for example, advanced software can identify the precise location of 

train cars and other debris, providing an assessment of the overall scene and a 

record of what it looked like prior to clean-up. This information can be valuable, 

especially in the event of any litigation or other challenges.

 Railroad Services: High-quality, high-resolution imagery can help those in the 

Railroad Industry better service their infrastructure and promote their 

businesses. In terms of Railroad management, imagery-data and 3D modeling 

can help railroads gain confidence in their operations and efficiency in their 

practices. In particular, aerial imagery can be used for various forms of 

compliance, be it organizational compliance relating to safety or other 

benchmarks or whether it be compliance with outside parties, such as insurance 

companies, banks, or government agencies. Furthermore, aerial imagery 

provided by a UAV can assist in various railroad service efforts, such as 

infrastructure inspection, train derailment assessments, and the like. 

Additionally, in the event of an environmentally-impactful derailment, aerial 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 4

services related to environmental protection can be executed in an effort to 

minimize a potentially hazordous situation. Finally, in various repair or clean-up 

situations that require the use of large equipment, an aerial perspective, 

provided by a UAV, can be valuable as it pertains to that piece of equipment’s 

movement around the job site.

 Search and Rescue: High-quality, high-resolution imagery and aerial video can 

provide an incredible vantage point from which search and rescue teams can 

more effectively scope out an area. Furthermore, with the ability to stitch still 

images and georeference data, Search and Rescue teams can more effectively 

map the areas they have already searched and more efficently direct their 

resources to lesser searched areas.

The applications highlighted in this petition obviously provide high quality data to a variety of 

interested parties in various industries. However, sUAS have more to provide than just 

interesting pictures and efficient operations. There is also the enhanced safety sUAS provide 

not only for the operators of these systems, but also, the people around them, communities as 

a whole, and the National Airspace System (“NAS”).

Within this Petition for Exemption you will find that the applications highlighted above along 

with the aircraft systems utilized by R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC., satisfy the conditions 

highlighted by the Federal Aviation Administration as requirements for a successful Section 333 

Exemption Petition.

3

 Specifically, the sUAS operating in furtherance of the industry applications

above should;

1. Provide a benefit to the public as a whole, and;

2. Not adversely affect safety. 

To answer these requirements this Petition for Exemption will highlight the public benefits 

provided by the proposed sUAS operations as well as show the positive affect these operations 

will have on safety. Specifically, it will be shown that the commercial sUAS flights proposed in 

this Petition further the public interest by satisfying what is sometimes referred to as the 3D’s 

or 4D’s of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (“UAV”) Intervention.

4

 Basically, the “D” list provides a 

description of situations in which an unmanned vehicle should be used in place of a manned 

aircraft, more clearly, those situations in which an aerial operation is going to be; Dull, Dirty, 

Dangerous, or Deep.

5

 This list is often associated with early military applications utilizing UAV’s. 

The UK Ministry of Defense for example has used this list in determining the role of Unmanned 

Aircraft, highlighting the importance of Unmanned Systems in times where the operation is;

5

 Dull - flights require persistence or repetition.

 Dangerous - flights carry a high degree of risk.

 Dirty - flights must be carried out in hazardous environments, or;

 Deep - flights are beyond the range of manned platforms. 

 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 5

In addition to the justification that will be provided in detail in the pages to come relating to the 

4 D’s of UAV Intervention and safety attributes of the sUAS Operations proposed in this Petition 

for Exemption, it is also important to quickly consider the aircraft types utilized by R. J. Corman 

Railroad Group, LLC. 

As mentioned above, R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. seeks exemption for the utilization of 

the DJI Inspire 1 and DJI Matrice 100. All of these aircraft are small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

and are battery-powered. Operations conducted by R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. with 

these sUAS will adhere to the guidelines set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration and 

Community-Based Organizations such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics (“AMA”). Through 

the adherence of these guidelines, R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will commercially operate 

their sUAS with an equivalent level of safety, if not superior level of safety, as outlined by the 

Federal Aviation Administration’s Section 333 Exemption Guidelines. 

Furthermore, the commercial sUAS operations being proposed by R. J. Corman Railroad Group, 

LLC. in this Petition for Exemption would produce far safer methods of data-capture than 

currently-used collection methods in which manned aircraft are used. Consider that manned 

aircraft weigh thousands of pounds, are made of metal, are powered by a combustion engine, 

carry flammable fuel, and are carrying people. Plus, with the type of data-capture proposed in 

this Petition, a manned aircraft would have to operate in high-risk situations, including, in close 

proximity to the ground where the risk of an accident is highest and the risk to people and 

property on the ground is the greatest. Contrasting the two aircraft types, it is clear that a

plastic, battery-powered, unmanned vehicle operating at low altitudes, would be much safer 

than a multi-thousand-pound, metal-aircraft, powered by a combustion engine, and carrying a 

person at low altitudes. 

This fact is further bolstered by the operational and aircraft-specific parameters given by the 

FAA when deciding whether or not to grant Section 333 Exemptions.

6

 These directives include;

1. The size of the aircraft

2. The weight of the aircraft

3. The speed of the aircraft

4. The operational capability of the aircraft

5. The aircraft operation’s proximity to airports

6. The aircraft operation’s proximity to populated areas, and;

7. The aircraft operation’s adherence to Visual Line of Sight Rules

As highlighted above, it is clear that this Petition for Exemption and both the aircraft types and 

applications stated herein, strictly adhere to the operational and aircraft-specific parameters 

highlighted by the FAA for a successful Exemption Petition and thus, support the granting of 

this Exemption. A summary of the reasoning behind this statement can be found below as;

1. All proposed sUAS are Small

2. All proposed sUAS weigh below 55 lbs.
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 6

3. All proposed sUAS travel at less than 100 mph (87 Knots)

4. All proposed sUAS are capable flight systems and have been granted 

Exemptions previously

5. All proposed operations will take place at least 5 miles from an Airport

6. All proposed operations will take place in unpopulated areas (Unless prior 

approval is given {See Condition #34 [“Proposed Conditions of the 

Exemption”] below})

7. All proposed operations will adhere to the Visual Line of Sight Rules

By adhering to the parameters published by the FAA and by promoting the public good through 

the various Industry applications to be highlighted below, this Petition for Exemption on behalf 

of R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. strongly supports approval.

We kindly ask for your consideration of this Petition for Exemption. Please see the table of 

contents below for all our documentation and for assistance in reviewing this Petition. Thank 

you for your efforts in reviewing this document and we look forward to your response. If you 

have any questions while reviewing this document, please do not hesitate to ask. You can 

contact the Preparer of this document for all questions relating to this petition and they can be 

reached by email at dmzaerial@gmail.com. Further contact information can be found at the 

top of this Petition or on the following website; www.dmzaerial.com. Once again, thank you for 

your efforts in reviewing this Petition for Exemption and we look forward to your reply.

Best Regards,

DMZ Marketing, LLC. (DMZ Aerial)

Contact Information

Document Preparer:

DMZ Marketing, LLC.

1501 Parkview Court

Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 USA

Contact: Zach Fiene

Phone: 608-370-2858

Email: dmzaerial@gmail.com

Petitioner:

R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC.

101 R. J. Corman Drive

Nicholasville, KY 40340

Benjamin Gettinger

859-881-2445

ben.gettinger@rjcorman.com
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 7

Disclosure

The Petitioner for this exemption is R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC., a railroad service provider that 

serves all seven major North American railroads, as well as many regional and shortline railroads. R. J. 

Corman Railroad Group, LLC. purchased document preparation services through DMZ Marketing, LLC. 

for the purpose of petitioning the FAA to be allowed to fly their small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

commercially within the United States. DMZ Marketing, LLC., also known as DMZ Aerial, helps formulate 

these documents and work with the customer to help promote safe flying practices and appropriate 

operations. This is done through questionnaires, phone conversations, document preparation, training 

module creation, and more. If you have any questions relating to the Petitioner or DMZ Marketing, LLC. 

(“DMZ Aerial”), please do not hesitate to contact us using the contact information provided above.

Table of Contents

Petition for Exemption ............................................................................................................................ 1

Contact Information................................................................................................................................ 6

Disclosure................................................................................................................................................ 7

The Applicant........................................................................................................................................ 10

Commitment to Safety ...................................................................................................................... 10

Experience and Expertise................................................................................................................... 11

Privacy............................................................................................................................................... 11

Publishable Summary............................................................................................................................ 11

Petitioner’s Contact Information ........................................................................................................... 13

Proposed sUAS Operations.................................................................................................................... 14

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems..................................................................................................... 14

DJI Inspire 1 ................................................................................................................................... 14

DJI Matrice 100.............................................................................................................................. 14

Unmanned Flight Crew...................................................................................................................... 15

Unmanned Flight Conditions.............................................................................................................. 15

Unmanned Flight Operations............................................................................................................. 16

Aircraft and Equivalent Level of Safety................................................................................................... 17

National Security................................................................................................................................... 17

Proposed Conditions of the Exemption.................................................................................................. 17

Exemptions Requested & Applicable Conditions/Reasoning................................................................... 23

14 C.F.R 21(h): Airworthiness Certificates.......................................................................................... 23
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 8

14 C.F.R. 27: Airworthiness Standards - Normal Category Rotorcraft.................................................. 24

14 C.F.R. 43.7: Authorized Maintenance/Repair/Alteration Personnel ............................................... 24

14 C.F.R. 43.11: Dispositions of Records for Inspections..................................................................... 24

14 C.F.R. 45.11: Making of Products................................................................................................... 25

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b): Display of Marks; General..................................................................................... 25

14 C.F.R. 45.27: Marking of the Aircraft – Rotorcraft.......................................................................... 25

14 C.F.R. 45.29: Size of Marks............................................................................................................ 26

14 C.F.R. 61.3: Requirement for Certificates, Ratings, and Authorizations.......................................... 26

14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) and (c): Medical Certificates – Requirements and Duration.................................... 27

14 CFR 61.101(e) (4) and (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations......................................... 27

14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations – Pilot In Command.......................... 28

14 C.F.R. 61.315(a)(c): Privileges and Limits of Sport Pilot’s License ................................................... 29

14 C.F.R. 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness..................................................................................... 33

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual................................................................................. 33

14 C.F.R. 91.9(c): Civil Aircraft Marking, Placards ............................................................................... 33

14 C.F.R. 91.103: Preflight Action....................................................................................................... 34

14 C.F.R. 91.105: Flight Crewmembers at Stations............................................................................. 34

14 C.F.R. 91.109: Flight Instruction .................................................................................................... 35

14 C.F.R. 91.113(b): Right-of-Way Rules............................................................................................. 36

14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes ......................................................................................... 37

14 C.F.R. 91.121: Altimeter Settings................................................................................................... 38

14 C.F.R. 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for VFR Flight Conditions...................................................... 39

14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) and (b): Civil Aircraft – Certifications Required..................................................... 40

14 C.F.R. 215: ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use ..................................... 40

14 C.F.R. 91.403: General................................................................................................................... 42

14 C.F.R. 91.405(a): Maintenance Required....................................................................................... 43

14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1): Operation after Maintenance or Alteration .................................................... 43

14 C.F.R. 409(a)(1) and (2): Inspections.............................................................................................. 43

14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance Records............................................................................. 44

Privacy .................................................................................................................................................. 45

Public Interest and Safety...................................................................................................................... 45

Cinematography ............................................................................................................................ 47

Insurance....................................................................................................................................... 49
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 9

Railroad Services............................................................................................................................ 50

Search and Rescue......................................................................................................................... 52

Regulations Requested for Exemption ................................................................................................... 54

Appendix 1: Regulations Requested for Exemption – List................................................................... 54

Exhibit List............................................................................................................................................. 54

Exhibit 1: R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. Operations Manual ........................................................ 54

Exhibit 2: R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. Logbook Example........................................................... 54

Exhibit 3: R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. Visual Observer Training Procedures & Guide ................ 55

Visual Observer Training Procedures.............................................................................................. 55

Visual Observer Training Guide ...................................................................................................... 55

Exhibit 4: R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. Pilot In Command Training Guide................................... 55

Pilot In Command Training Procedures.......................................................................................... 55

Pilot in Command Training Guide................................................................................................... 55

Exhibit 5: DJI Inspire 1........................................................................................................................ 55

Exhibit 6: DJI Inspire 1 User Manual................................................................................................... 55

Exhibit 7: DJI Inspire 1 Quick Start Guide............................................................................................ 55

Exhibit 8: DJI Inspire 1 Features......................................................................................................... 56

Exhibit 9: DJI Inspire 1 Specifications.................................................................................................. 56

Exhibit 10: DJI Inspire 1 Flight Controller System................................................................................ 56

Exhibit 11: DJI Inspire 1 Smart Battery Manual................................................................................... 56

Exhibit 12: DJI Matrice 100 ................................................................................................................ 56

Exhibit 13: DJI Matrice 100 User Manual............................................................................................ 56

Exhibit 14: DJI Matrice 100 Features.................................................................................................. 56

Exhibit 15: DJI Matrice 100 Specifications.......................................................................................... 56

Exhibit 16: DJI Matrice 100 Smart Battery Manual ............................................................................. 57

References............................................................................................................................................ 57

Exemption References........................................................................................................................... 58
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 10

The Applicant

The Applicant seeking this Exemption is R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC., headquartered at; 

101 R. J. Corman Drive

Nicholasville, KY 40340

R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC serves all seven major North American railroads, as well as many 

regional and shortline railroads. Headquartered in Nicholasville, Kentucky, its field offices have spread 

across 24 states, reaching as far west as Arizona.

These operations encompass an array of services, including railroad construction, 12 shortlines, 14 

switching services, 21 derailment service divisions, 10 material yards, aircraft maintenance, dispatching, 

distribution centers, signal construction, Railpower locomotive design, a dinner train, and roadwayworker safety-training services.

Commitment to Safety

A commitment to safety is key to any successful business. R. J. Corman Railroad Group is committed to 

operating within the National Airspace System safely and legally. It is for this reason that they have filed 

this Petition for Exemption in an effort to make their actions known and to be sure they are operating 

within the rules and regulations set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration. Additionally, R. J. 

Corman Railroad Group will require all pilots to hold the appropriate licenses and certifications to 

operate their aircraft. Furthermore, the company’s intent on utilizing a licensed Pilot In Command 

shows their commitment to safety. A licensed pilot is not only required by current FAA rules but also 

provides for a heightened level of safety for the National Airspace as a pilot will have completed 

significant training in the National Airspace System and have knowledge of all Federal Aviation Rules. 

Plus, in addition to the Petitioner’s utilization of a licensed Pilot In Command, they will also be following 

the conditions set forth within the Conditions of the Exemption Section below (including pre-flight 

training), which will provide an equivalent, if not superior level of safety as is provided by current rules. 

Furthermore, because an OSHA safety rating is a key statistic in the railroad industry, R. J. Corman 

Railroad Group has several safety initiatives in place. "Safety is our #1 priority" is one of R. J. Corman 

Railroad Group's core values. Additionally, the company recognizes employees and divisions for each 

year of service with zero injuries or property damage. Along with that, every year, each of the 

company's field employees attends a week-long safety procedure training seminar. In fact, the company 

that writes the safety training curriculum and conducts the courses is now owned by R. J. Corman 

Railroad Group, showing the company's belief in safety and the importance of providing safety services 

to the railroad industry.

Finally, it should be noted that R. J. Corman Railroad Group also has an aircraft division which houses an 

aircraft service department and aircraft maintenance company. The company currently owns two Bell 

Helicopters as well as two Learjets and employs four full-time pilots and three other full-time employees 

who hold pilots licenses. Furthermore, their national headquarters has a runway and their office 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 11

buildings are aircraft hangers. Clearly, R. J. Corman Railroad Group's continuous interaction with the 

National Airspace, their certified Pilots, and their FAA-Certified businesses, show the company's 

experience with aviation and understanding of the importance of the National Airspace System.

Experience and Expertise

R. J. Corman has been a service provider to the railroad industry since 1973. The company owns and 

operates 11 railroads. Additionally, the business also has an Aviation Services department as well as an 

entire Aircraft Maintenance company. They currently own two Bell helicopters and two Learjets and 

employ 4 full-time pilots as well as three other full-time employees who hold pilots licenses. The campus 

for the company's national headquarters has a runway and their office buildings are aircraft hangars. 

Clearly, R. J. Corman Railroad Group has an experienced staff with significant knowledge in the aviation 

industry. Furthermore, the R. J. Corman Railroad Group is unique in its immediate access to an FAACertified Maintence Company and a group of highly experienced pilots to draw more information about 

Federal Aviation Rules and how to operate safely within the National Airspace System.

Additionally, the company has an array of talented employees, including Ben Gettinger, who holds a 

bachelor's degree in media communication (with an emphasis in video production) and has over 10 

years of photography experience. This type of experience will be important in developing content for R. 

J. Corman Railroad Group. Plus, the company currently employs experts in various railroad-related 

service-fields, including Train Derailment Recovery. In the past, R. J. Corman Railroad Group utilized 

helicopters to assess damage and determine the best tools to clean up the wreck. Moving forward, they 

will likely implement the use of UAV Technologies for much of the same uses. Having a trained staff that 

has previously assessed train derailments from the air will allow R. J. Corman Railroad Group to draw on 

their past experiences and utilize UAVs effectively.

Privacy

Privacy is important in any business, but especially one in which imagery is captured. For this reason, R. 

J. Corman Railroad Group will use commonly accepted practices in order to secure imagery. A few of 

the practices they will put into action include; obtaining proper permissions and consent, notifying 

authorities of any pending flights that may cause call-ins, keeping data on a secure computer system, 

notifying adjacent properties of impending flights, and the like. Additionally, they will also seek what is 

required by law to remain compliant and secure in terms of data/imagery privacy.

Publishable Summary

DMZ Marketing, LLC. files this petition for exemption on behalf of R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC., a 

railroad service provider that serves all seven major North American railroads, as well as many regional 

and shortline railroads. R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. is seeking exemption from certain parameters 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 12

of 14 C.F.R. in order to commercially operate sUAS within the United States in the following industries; 

Cinematography, Insurance, Railroad Services, and Search and Rescue.

Specifically, R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. requests exemption from the following Federal Aviation 

Administration rules;

1. 14 C.F.R 21(h): Airworthiness Certificates

2. 14 C.F.R. 27: Airworthiness Standards - Normal Category Rotorcraft

3. 14 C.F.R. 43.7: Authorized Maintenance/Repair/Alteration Personnel

4. 14 C.F.R. 43.11: Dispositions of Records for Inspections

5. 14 C.F.R. 45.11: Making of Products

6. 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b): Display of Marks; General

7. 14 C.F.R. 45.27: Marking of the Aircraft – Rotorcraft

8. 14 C.F.R. 45.29: Size of Marks

9. 14 CFR 61.3: Requirement for Certificates, Ratings, and Authorizations

10. 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c): Medical Certificates – Requirements and Duration

11. 14 CFR 61.101(e) (4) and (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations

12. 14 CFR 61.113(a) & (b): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations – Pilot In Command

13. 14 C.F.R. 61.315(a): Privileges and Limits of Sport Pilot’s License

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

15. 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual

16. 14 C.F.R. 91.9(c): Civil Aircraft Marking, Placards 

17. 14 C.F.R. 91.103: Preflight Action

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

19. 14 C.F.R. 91.109: Flight Instruction

20. 14 C.F.R. 91.113(b): Right-of-Way Rules 

21. 14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes

22. 14 C.F.R. 91.121: Altimeter Settings

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

24. 14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) and (b): Civil Aircraft – Certifications Required 

25. 14 C.F.R. 215: ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use

26. 14 C.F.R. 91.403: General

27. 14 C.F.R. 91.405(a): Maintenance Required

28. 14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1): Operation after Maintenance or Alteration

29. 14 C.F.R. 409(a)(1) and (2): Inspections

30. 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance Records

The approval of this Petition for Exemption would allow for the commercial operation of small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems by R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. These commercial operations would 

strictly adhere to all Federal Aviation Administration rules and regulations not stated herein as rules 

requested for exemption. The commercial operations flown by R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC., if this 

Petition were granted, would be flown utilizing one of the following aircraft platforms; the DJI Inspire 1

or DJI Matrice 100. Specifically, the commercial operations utilizing these unmanned aircraft would 

center around the following industry applications; Cinematography, Insurance, Railroad Services, and 

Search and Rescue.
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 13

Additionally, all the industry applications highlighted above would include one or more of the unmanned 

aircraft noted above flying no more than 400 feet Above Ground Level (“AGL”) or in airspace otherwise 

specified in a granted Certificate of Authorization (“COA”). 

Furthermore, this Petition for Exemption should be granted to R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. because 

the operation of the listed sUAS above will provide for commercial operations while maintaining an 

equivalent level of safety as would be provided by the above-listed rules. Additionally, as will be 

highlighted below, the small Unmanned Aircraft utilized by R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will provide 

methods of aerial-data-collection far safer than the alternative of manned-aircraft-collection of the same 

data-sets. Low altitude data-collection flights, in close proximity to people and property, are far safer 

when accomplished using a battery-powered sUAS weighing less than 10 lbs., than with a combustionengine-powered, multi-thousand-pound, manned aircraft, with flammable fuel onboard. 

Considering the seven factors highlighted by the FAA as parameters for successful Section 333 Exemption 

Petitions, including; Size, Weight, Speed, Operational Capability, Proximity to Airports, Proximity to 

Populated Areas, and Operations within Visual Line of Sight,

6

this Petition supports the Petitioner’s 

request for exemption relating to each operational and aircraft-specific parameter. Specifically, the 

aircraft utilized by R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. are in the small-size category, they are below the 55 

lbs. weight class, they travel at less than 100 mph, they are proven flight platforms based on previously 

granted petitions, all operations will be conducted at least 5 miles from an airport and over unpopulated 

areas (unless otherwise granted permission by the FAA in a granted Certificate of Authorization), and all 

flights will be conducted within Visual Line of Sight. 

In addition, the data-collection-flights provided by the sUAS highlighted in this Petition, will promote safer 

operations for professional service providers in the aforementioned industries. 

Petitioner’s Contact Information

Petitioner: 

R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC.

Benjamin Gettinger

101 R. J. Corman Drive

Nicholasville, KY 40340

859-881-2445

ben.gettinger@rjcorman.com

Document Preparer:

DMZ Marketing, LLC.

1501 Parkview Court

Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 USA

Contact: Zach Fiene

Phone: 608-370-2858

Email: dmzaerial@gmail.com

Website: www.dmzaerial.com
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 14

Proposed sUAS Operations

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

This Petition for Exemption under Section 333 will permit the Petitioner to operate the DJI Inspire 1 and 

DJI Matrice 100. Further operating characteristics, specifications, and other important craft-specific 

information on the DJI Inspire 1 and DJI Matrice 100 are covered in detail starting with Exhibit 5. Each of 

these documents are publically circulated and have been previously vetted by the FAA in previously

granted Petitions for Exemption under Section 333. In the aircraft summaries below, please see the 

references to previously granted petitions for the use of each specific aircraft type in commercial 

operations within the United States. 

DJI Inspire 1

The requested exemption will permit the Petitioner the right to use the DJI Inspire 1 Quadcopter for 

commercial use within the United States of America and under the strict adherence of FAA Guidelines, 

ATO-Issued COA’s, and the like. The DJI Inspire 1 has a weight of 2,935 grams including the battery 

payload. Furthermore, this quadcopter is capable of a max flight speed of 22 meters per second and has 

the following abilities; 

 Vertical Take-Off

 Vertical Landing

 Hover-Hold Position

 Simultaneous Vertical & Horizontal Movement

 Maximum Flight Speed Abilities in every lateral direction

For easy reviewing, please see the Inspire-Specific Exhibits below for more information on the DJI Inspire 

1 craft, its specifications, abilities, and more. Additionally, please consider the FAA’s previous review of 

these exhibits and granting of Petitions using these supporting documents for the commercial use of the 

DJI Inspire 1 in the following listed Exemptions;

 Jeffery Greer – Berkshire Hathaway Home Services – Exemption Number 11587/11587A

 Phillip Stiles – GPS Development, LLC dba SkyViewHD – Exemption Number 11399/11399A

DJI Matrice 100

The requested exemption will permit the Petitioner the right to use the DJI Matrice 100 Quadcopter for 

commercial use within the United States of America and under the strict adherence of FAA Guidelines, 

ATO-Issued COA’s, and the like. The DJI Matrice 100 has a maximum take-off weight of 3,400 grams 

including technical payloads and batteries. Furthermore, this quadcopter is capable of a max flight 

speed of 22 meters per second and has the following abilities; 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 15

 Vertical Take-Off

 Vertical Landing

 Hover-Hold Position

 Simultaneous Vertical & Horizontal Movement

 Maximum Flight Speed Abilities in every lateral direction

For easy reviewing, please see Matrice 100-Specific Exhibits below for more information on the DJI 

Matrice 100 craft, its specifications, abilities, and more. Additionally, please consider the FAA’s previous 

review of these exhibits and granting of Petitions using these supporting documents for the commercial 

use of the DJI Matrice 100 in the following listed Exemption;

 Dan Pham – Alert5 International, LLC. – Exemption Number 11814

Unmanned Flight Crew

The unmanned flight crew operating R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. flight crafts for purposes of 

commercial operations within the United States under this proposed Exemption will consist of a Pilot In 

Command (“PIC”) and a Visual Observer (“VO”). 

Adhering to current FAA guidelines and precedent established in previously granted Section 333 

Exemptions, the PIC will have, at minimum, a Recreational or Sport Pilot’s License and a Third Class 

Medical Certificate or a valid U.S. Driver’s License.

7

 Additionally, both the PIC and VO will be trained in 

the operation of sUAS prior to commercial operations. Furthermore, any new information surrounding 

the aircraft’s efficient, effective, or safe operations, will be disseminated by R. J. Corman Railroad Group, 

LLC. to both the PIC and VO to ensure continued safe flights.

On top of the general sUAS training, the PIC will also have completed, at a minimum, 25 hours of sUAS 

flight training with the specific sUAS craft they are using for their commercial operation and will be 

required to receive annual continued education and training moving forward. A specific PIC Training 

Presentation is contained in the exhibits below and will accompany this Petition for Exemption.

The Visual Observer will also have completed specific training relating to their duties during an 

unmanned flight. The training procedures that will be used to educate VO’s are contained in Exhibits 1 

& 3 below. 

Unmanned Flight Conditions

As has been described above, the sUAS-use proposed by the Petitioner in this Petition for Exemption 

under Section 333, revolves around the following industries; Cinematography, Insurance, Railroad 

Services, and Search and Rescue. Each of these industry applications will be described in further detail 

below under the “Unmanned Flight Operations” Title. 

Moving on from the specific use-cases, it should also be noted that all commercial sUAS flights proposed 

in this Petition for Exemption will be conducted below 400 feet AGL or as otherwise permitted in a 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 16

granted Certificate of Authorization. Furthermore, all flights will be conducted within Visual Line of 

Sight, as is currently advised by the Federal Aviation Administration and Academy of Model 

Aeronautics.

6

 Additionally, the PIC will only operate the Petitioner’s sUAS if weather conditions permit 

safe operations. The judgement of “Safe Weather Conditions” will be determined based on several 

standing classifications developed by the Federal Aviation Administration. These include operations 

being conducted under the Visual Meteorological Conditions (“VMC”) rules. 

As stated previously in this Petition, R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will strictly adhere to the FAA’s 

Visual Flight Rules, and obviously, to be following Visual Flight Rules, R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC.

will have to first satisfy the Visual Meteorological Conditions associated with VFR flights. In particular, 

the Petitioner will be cognizant of the boundary between Visual Meteorological Conditions, which allow 

for Visual Flight Rules, and Instrument Meteorological Conditions, which require Instrument use. 

Specifically, R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will be considering the VMC Minima pertaining to 

Visibility, Cloud Ceilings, and Cloud Clearances associated with airspace below 400 feet AGL, where the 

Petitioner’s sUAS will be flying. Thus, the Petitioner will only operate when visibility is at least 3 statute 

miles from the PIC and at a minimum of 500 feet below and 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud.

8

In addition to the particular flight conditions stated above, it should also be noted that the flight crew 

will always make an assessment of the current situation for each, specific flight. This assessment will 

conclude with a determination of the relative safety of the flight and any risks or hazards that may be 

present. If this assessment finds that the flight will be too dangerous or that there are too many hazards 

or risks associated with the flight, the flight crew will not take off. Furthermore, in order to maintain the 

safety of the general public, flight operations utilizing the Petitioner’s sUAS will only take place after 

permission is granted to the Petitioner by the landowner, property owner, or other controlling 

representative. All current FAA regulations not covered within this petition will be followed as well as all 

local and state rules surrounding flights near or around people. Additional information on the 

parameters dictating flights near people can be found below in the “Proposed Conditions of the 

Exemption.”

Unmanned Flight Operations

When conducting commercial flight operations under the proposed applications in this Petition for 

Exemption, a commitment to safety will always be paramount. Additionally, with the goal of each flight 

to accurately collect valuable aerial data in an efficient manner, it will be vital for all flights to be safe for 

several reasons, including;

 The safety of the Flight Crew will be necessary for continued flights.

 The safety of the general public will be necessary for continued operations.

 The safety of the aircraft will be necessary for continued commercial endeavors.

Furthermore, in an effort to supply the Cinematography, Insurance, Railroad Services, and Search and 

Rescue industries with valuable data, it will be imperative for all R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. flights 

to be conducted in a safe and professional manner so as to not risk the safety of the flight crew, general 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 17

public, or aircraft, as well as to avoid damaging people or property operating in the National Airspace 

System or on the ground below. 

To ensure the safe and professional execution of each sUAS flight, all flights will be conducted utilizing at 

least a two-person flight crew. This flight crew will consist of an adequately-trained (“Unmanned Flight 

Crew”) PIC and VO. For specifics pertaining to the standard operating procedures utilized by the 

Petitioner under the proposed Petition for Exemption and for more details on training, please see 

Exhibits 1-4. 

Aircraft and Equivalent Level of Safety

As is stated in the FAA’s Section 333 Exemption Guidelines, Petitioners for Exemption must show that 

their proposed commercial, sUAS operations provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by 

the rule from which the Petitioner seeks an exemption.

6

 As will be highlighted below, the request for 

this Exemption by the Petitioner is fortified by its commitment to safety. Furthermore, the operation of 

sUAS by the Petitioner, using the previously stated flight crafts and operating within the above-stated 

use-cases under the rules, regulations, and limitations stated herein, should be permitted under the 

proposed exemption. Reasoning for this can be derived from the strict adherence to existing regulations 

from the Federal Aviation Administration as well as the adoption of the following conditions; each 

providing at least an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the existing rule.

National Security

 

In addition to the arguments supporting the Petitioner’s exemption from certain rules contained in 14 

C.F.R., it is also important to note that the granting of this petition and in turn, permission for the 

Petitioner to conduct commercial sUAS flights, will not present a national security threat. As has been 

stated in this Petition, and, as is precedent from the Federal Aviation Administration, the PIC of a sUAS

must hold, at minimum, a Recreational or Sport Pilot’s Certificate, meaning he or she has already been 

subject to a security screening by the Department of Homeland Security.9 

This provision, relating to the acquisition of a Recreational or Sport Pilot’s Certificate, points to checks 

already provided by the FAA and Department of Homeland Security in ensuring secure aircraft 

operations. As is stated by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the Transportation Security 

Administration (“TSA”) must assess information in order to identify individuals that may pose a threat to 

transportation security and coordinate countermeasures with other Federal Agencies such as the FAA. 

Therefore, due to the fact it is a requirement for all PICs to be at least Recreational or Sport Pilot 

Certified, it can be assumed that adequate security checks by the TSA and FAA have taken place prior to 

a sUAS Pilot conducting commercial operations. 

Proposed Conditions of the Exemption

As is noted by the Federal Aviation Administration in their, “Section 333 Petition Guidance & Checklist”3

form, Section 333 Exemption Petitioners are strongly advised to, “Carefully review the Conditions and 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 18

Limitations Section in the most recently granted exemptions.”3 Due to this, the following Conditions of 

the proposed Exemption closely follow this guidance and mirror many of the same conditions previously 

noted by other exemption petitioners. The following list will highlight these conditions and establish a 

framework from which the petitioner, R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC., will conduct their commercial 

sUAS operations under a granted petition for exemption. 

1. Proposed operations using small Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the United States under the 

granted form of this Petition for Exemption will be limited to the following aircraft, which all 

weigh less than 55 pounds including batteries and operational/technical payloads; DJI Inspire 1

and DJI Matrice 100.

Furthermore, any aircraft outside of this comprehensive list for this Petition for Exemption will 

have to be added to an amended version of this petition or a new Petition for Exemption must 

be filed with the new flight platform(s).

2. The proposed use-cases/applications contained within this Petition for Exemption under Section 

333 are as follows; Cinematography, Insurance, Railroad Services, and Search and Rescue.

All of these flights will take place below 400 feet AGL nationwide unless otherwise advised in an 

ATO-issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization. 

3. All flights conducted by R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will be below 400 feet AGL, operated 

within Visual Line of Sight, and have a live, GPS-based, read-out of altitude during the flight. 

Furthermore, each flight will begin with a “Zero Altitude” start-point, thus creating an accurate 

AGL calculation. 

4. All flights conducted by the Petitioner will be controlled by a trained flight crew consisting of a 

licensed (at minimum Recreational or Sport Pilot’s Certificate) PIC with a Medical Certificate or 

equivalent valid U.S.A. Driver’s license and a trained Visual Observer.

5. All flights conducted by the Petitioner will include aircraft that are flying below the 87 knot (100 

mph) airspeed maximum, highlighted by the FAA in their guidelines. 

6. All flights conducted by R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will be conducted within Visual Line of 

Sight, during daytime flying hours, and adhere to Visual Flight Rules under the Visual 

Meteorological Conditions associated with 400 foot AGL airspace. 

7. The Petitioner will not allow any PIC to operate a sUAS unless the PIC meets the qualification 

standards set by the Federal Aviation Administration (i.e. Minimum - Sport Pilot’s Certificate and 

Medical or U.S.A. Driver’s License) and by the safety guidelines and operational capabilities 

relating to safe sUAS operations, such as;

a. Evasive Maneuvers

b. Emergency Actions

c. Fail-Safe Knowledge

d. Flight Skills
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 19

i. Maintaining adequate distances from;

1. People

2. Property

3. Structures

4. Etc.

8. PIC qualification flight hours will be logged in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. 61.51(b). 

Additionally, a record of the PIC training will be documented and made available upon request 

by the Administrator. 

9. Training operations will only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, 

all persons not essential for flight operations will be deemed nonparticipants, and thus, the PIC 

will operate the aircraft with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 

C.F.R. 91.119. 

10. As highlighted by the FAA, the Visual Observer’s duty is to visually observe the relevant airspace 

for aircraft, hazards, obstacles, structures, or the like. For this reason, the VO will not be 

allowed to operate the camera or other instruments on the sUAS during flight operations. 

Instead, a third person will have to serve as a camera operator if the flight crew seeks a 

dedicated pilot and dedicated camera operator. 

11. The PIC, for the duration of an unmanned flight, will be named prior to the flight. Due to this, 

once the PIC is named and a flight is begun, the PIC will not be able to transfer his/her 

designation as the PIC through the duration of the flight. Furthermore, the PIC is the Captain of 

the flight crew and will ensure that the Visual Observer is qualified to hold the VO position for 

the duration of the flight. 

12. Each commercial sUAS flight performed by R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will be planned for 

ahead of the flight date. This will be to ensure adequate time for all participants to prepare and 

to obtain all the necessary permissions (landowners, homeowners, property owners, etc.) if any 

are needed. All flights will be preceded by a meeting at least one day before the flight at which 

all participants of the flight will be present. This is to ensure adequate knowledge and 

preparedness prior to the sUAS flight. 

13. Aircraft maintenance is obviously vital for any commercial sUAS operation. It ensures safety and 

is necessary prior to each flight to maintain safe, efficient, and effective flight operations. Once 

again, the PIC, as the captain of the flight crew, will take a leading role in inspecting the aircraft 

prior to flight. The PIC will likely have the most experience of anyone on the flight crew and will 

be in tune with the specific maintenance needs of each specific flight craft. If the PIC were to 

find an error in the flight craft or any of the associated systems, including the Ground Control 

System for example, he/she would ground the flight until adequate maintenance is completed 

and the aircraft is once again safe to fly. All maintenance on flight crafts utilized by the 

Petitioner will be noted and logged to ensure the safety of all aircraft and the people operating 

them. 

14. Relating to the above Condition, anytime a flight-critical component is replaced or anytime 

there is mission-critical maintenance on the craft, the PIC will conduct a flight test of the system 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 20

before completing the intended, commercial mission. Once again this flight test will be logged 

by the PIC. 

15. Routine maintenance and inspections of the sUAS will be logged by the PIC in accordance with 

the requirements and suggestions laid out by the aircraft manufacturer in terms of aircraft 

component maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limits, which are part of 

the supporting documents for each aircraft below in the aircraft-specific exhibits. The logging of 

these maintenance/inspection checks will be included in the aircraft records and include the 

total time of service and description of work. 

16. All sUAS flights will be conducted within Visual Line of Sight (“VLOS”) of both the PIC and VO at 

all times. Furthermore, VLOS means visual observance unaided by any device other than 

corrective lenses such as eye glasses or contacts. The use of telescopes, FPV systems (for 

purposes of VLOS flights), binoculars, and the like will not be permitted. Also, both the PIC and 

VO should be in constant, verbal communication range. The use of other devices to 

communicate out of verbal range are not permitted. These devices would include, cell phones, 

text messaging, walky-talkies, and the like. 

17. No commercial flight missions will be executed unless it can be determined that the flight crew 

can complete their mission from take-off through landing, with a reserve of 25% battery life. 

The Petitioner’s newest flight crafts have adaptive battery monitors and, for this reason, this 

condition will be an automated process as the Petitioner can set the default Advisory and 

Critical Battery warnings to 35% and 30% respectively, which will warn the PIC of the depleted 

battery and engage him/her to fly home and land with 25% remaining power. For all R. J. 

Corman Railroad Group, LLC. systems without this automated feature, a watch will be used to 

monitor flight times to ensure a safe return home with adequate battery power. However, due 

to the revolving adoption of the newest flight platforms and the current stock of new generation 

flight crafts, the overwhelming majority of sUAS flights after the granting of this exemption will 

utilize a Smart Battery System. 

18. In the case of an unexpected obstacle or in-flight issue, each sUAS the Petitioner operates will 

have the ability to abort a mission and take corrective actions. 

19. The sUAS utilized by R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. will be programmed so that if the sUAS 

loses signal with the PIC or Ground Control Station during flight, the system will return to a 

preprogrammed GPS location located within the operating area containing the flight crew. 

Furthermore, this failsafe can also be used in controlled situations, meaning the failsafe will be 

able to be engaged should something happen on the ground that disallows the PIC from bringing 

the sUAS back in a normal fashion. Additionally, in both situations described above, where the 

failsafe is either a controlled action from the pilot or an uncontrolled situation, like radio-link 

signal loss, the unit will not only fly back to its preprogrammed home point, it also has the ability 

to land itself. This allows safe operations of the aircraft even in troublesome situations, such as 

signal loss, and prevents the unit from flying off uncontrollably or landing in an unknown 

location. 

20. The operating documents required under 14 C.F.R. 91.9 and 91.203 will be maintained and 

available to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the aircraft anytime the sUAS is operating. 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 21

Furthermore, these documents will be available for review by the Administrator or other law 

enforcement officials upon request and are additionally contained in Exhibit 1, with appropriate 

links to the specific flight manuals of each flight craft requested in this Petition for Exemption. 

21. It is always important to specify precedent when determining operating practices. For this 

reason, if a discrepancy exists between the conditions laid out in this Petition for Exemption and 

the actual Granted Exemption, the conditions laid out in the finalized Granted Exemption will 

take precedent over the conditions laid out in this Petition. Furthermore, if there are no 

discrepancies between the Petition and Grant of Exemption, the Petitioner will follow the 

procedures outlined in the Operating Documentation below. Additionally, if any changes are 

made to the Operating Procedures and Documentation contained in this Petition for Exemption, 

the Petitioner will present the updated documents upon request from the Administrator. Also, 

should the Petitioner determine that an update or change to the procedures or documentation 

would affect the basis of the approved version of this Petition for Exemption, the Petitioner will 

either file for an amendment to the existing Exemption or create a new Petition with the 

revisions. 

22. As has been noted, the Petitioner will obtain written and/or oral permission from the 

landowners, farmers, property owners, or otherwise authorized agents for flights above their 

property. 

23. The Petitioner will also obtain all required permissions and permits from territorial, state, 

county or city jurisdictions, including;

a. Law Enforcement

b. Fire Departments

c. Municipal Agencies, or;

d. Other Appropriate Governmental Bodies 

24. The Petitioner will not conduct operations at night. Furthermore, all operations will be 

conducted under Visual Meteorological Conditions (“VMC”).

25. The Petitioner is aware of the need to obtain an Air Traffic Organization (“ATO”) issued 

Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”) prior to conducting operations under the grant of 

exemption. The Petitioner intends to fly under the Blanket COA provided by the FAA in March 

of 2015 for flights below 200 feet to all Section 333 Exemption holders or under a future ATOissued COA that will be applied for by the Petitioner after receiving their Section 333 Exemption. 

26. All sUAS flights conducted by the Petitioner will be done so in accordance with airspace 

requirements established by the FAA and/or an ATO-issued COA, including;

a. Class of Airspace

b. Altitude Level, and potential;

c. Transponder Requirements

27. As has been stated, the sUAS will not be operated within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference 

point as noted on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 22

that airport’s Air Traffic Control is obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with 

a NOTAM as required by the Operator’s COA. 

28. As stated previously, the Petitioner will follow VMC guidelines for VFR flights and as such, will fly 

only when there is visibility equal to, or in excess of, 3 statute miles from the PIC, while 

maintaining an adequate distance of no less than 500 feet below, or less than 2,000 feet 

horizontally from a cloud.

29. All operations by the Petitioner will be conducted below 400 feet AGL, nationwide or as 

otherwise advised in an ATO-issued COA. 

30. All sUAS craft flown by the Petitioner will be marked and identifiable by a serial number which 

will be as large as practicable given the relatively small size of the aircraft. The FAA has 

previously stated that so long as the markings are as large as practicable given the size of a 

sUAS, an equivalent level of safety can be achieved. 

31. All aircraft utilized by the Petitioner operate via radio frequency, which is governed by the 

Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). For this reason, prior to commercial operations 

under a granted Section 333 Exemption, the Petitioner will ensure the radio frequency spectrum 

used to operate and control its sUAS complies with FCC or other appropriate government 

oversight agency rules and regulations. 

32. As is stated in the FAA guidelines, a sUAS is required to yield the right of way to all manned 

aircraft and aviation operations at all times. This rule will be strictly followed by the Petitioner. 

33. The concentration of a PIC is necessary for safe operations. It is for this reason that the 

Petitioner will not allow any sUAS operations while a PIC is in a moving device or vehicle. These 

vehicles would include things like;

a. Cars/Trucks/SUVs

b. Boats

c. Tractors

d. ATVs

34. All sUAS operations by the Petitioner will be conducted at least 500 feet from all 

nonparticipating people, vessels, vehicles, and structures, unless the following conditions apply;

a. Protective barriers are present that adequately protect nonparticipants from flying 

shrapnel or debris should there be an accident. Furthermore, should a nonparticipant 

leave this safe-zone, the PIC will end the flight. 

b. The Petitioner has been granted permission to operate near a vessel, vehicle, or 

structure by the owner/controller of these properties. In addition to permission, the PIC 

will also have to perform a risk assessment of the situation and potential obstacles/flight 

hazards and determine the safety of the flight. If it is determined that the hazards 

present no risk, the PIC can start the mission. 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 23

35. The Petitioner will log and report to the UAS Integration Office within 24 hours of any incident, 

accident, or flight operation that occurred outside the horizontal and vertical boundaries of the 

operational area as defined by the COA under which the flight was operating. Furthermore, the 

Petitioner will report accidents to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

36. The Petitioner will provide additional flight training to PICs that may be towing objects in the 

event of an exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c) (18). In the event that the Petitioner is exempt, 

each PIC that is designated as being a potential candidate for flying a sUAS while towing an 

object will be required to undergo additional training, on top of their required training and 

certifications, that will consist of 10 hours of training flights while towing objects. These objects 

will be dummy banners that weigh no more than the max weight allowable to satisfy the max 

takeoff weight specifications as highlighted by the manufacturer for each flight craft. 

Furthermore, the 10 hours of training will be required for each aircraft type, thus giving the PIC 

adequate training time and experience while towing objects with specific flight crafts. This will 

be necessary to familiarize each PIC with each specific flight craft in order to learn how specific 

flight craft respond to towing objects, particularly with regard to downwash and wind. 

Additionally, of the 10 total flight hours required for training on towing objects, 5 of these hours 

must be in the max wind tolerances as specified by the manufacturer for each flight craft. 

Training in these conditions will hone the skills of each PIC and allow them to operate in the 

worst case scenario for towing objects, which is high wind. When conducting actual commercial 

flights while towing objects, the Petitioner will not conduct flights in conditions where sustained 

winds are more than 75% of the maximum wind tolerance of the aircraft or when there are wind 

gusts in excess of 75% of the maximum wind tolerance as specified by the manufacturer for 

each aircraft. 

Exemptions Requested & Applicable Conditions/Reasoning

14 C.F.R 21(h): Airworthiness Certificates

Subpart (h) of Part 21 from the Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, Chapter 1, prescribes procedural 

requirements for the issuance of Airworthiness Certificates. Proposed Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 24, 27, 

28, and 33 are all applicable to this particular Regulation and the FAA has found in favor of exempting 

previous Petitions #11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, and 11067 for this portion of 14 C.F.R. 

Furthermore, it is the belief of the Petitioner that a sUAS operating without an Airworthiness Certificate 

but within the conditions stated above would provide an equivalent level of safety to an aircraft 

operating with an airworthiness certificate not subject to the above conditions or limitations.

Additionally, all the sUAS proposed within this Petition for Exemption are small, weigh less than 10 lbs., 

have a flight speed of less than 100 mph, carry no pilots or passengers, carry no flammable fuel, are 

electric-powered, are operated below 400 feet, are operated at least 5 miles from an airport, and are 

flown within unaided, visual line of sight of a trained and licensed Pilot In Command. Plus, with built-in 

fail-safes that include GPS Guidance technologies, Return to Home Features for lost signal and low 

battery emergencies, and for the ability to regain radio connection with the craft after a fail-safe is 

engaged, it is clear the proposed aircraft have safety features equivalent to and superior to conventional 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 24

aircraft that hold airworthiness certificates. For these reasons it is the belief of the Petitioner that they 

be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 21(h). 

14 C.F.R. 27: Airworthiness Standards - Normal Category Rotorcraft

Title 14, Part 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations creates the procedural requirements for 

airworthiness certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft. Due to the fact that the proposed aircraft 

contained within this Petition for Exemption are multi-rotor aircraft, the Petitioner seeks exemption 

from 14 C.F.R 27 for the same reasons stated in the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 21(h).

14 C.F.R. 43.7: Authorized Maintenance/Repair/Alteration Personnel

Title 14, Part 43, Section 43.7 of the Code of Federal Regulations regulates personnel authorized to 

approve aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts for return to 

service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration. Proposed conditions 13 

and 14 are applicable to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemption 

#11208 pertaining to this rule. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Petitioner that the stated rule would 

create a burden as the Petitioner would have to find a regularly authorized conventional mechanic or 

otherwise licensed personnel to sign off on an unconventional flight craft’s maintenance. More clearly, 

it would be difficult to find a mechanic that specializes in Cessna Repair that is also an expert in small 

radio-controlled multi-rotors. 

Additionally, it is likely that the operator of the sUAS (the PIC) would be more knowledgeable on the 

interworking’s of their sUAS than a regular mechanic as they likely have past RC flying experience. 

Particularly, the PICs working for the Petitioner will always have at least 25 hours of RC craft experience, 

in which time they will likely have to repair a prop for example. Due to the relative ease of replacing 

props on a multirotor (screw the broken one off and replace with a new one) it is not necessary for a 

certified or authorized individual to sign off on the repair. Instead, the repair can easily be done by 

authorized personnel working for the Petitioner so long as the conditions and procedures stated above, 

are followed. For these reasons it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 43.7. 

 

14 C.F.R. 43.11: Dispositions of Records for Inspections

Title 14, Part 43, Section 43.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations pertains to the disposition of Records 

for Inspections. Proposed condition number 13 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has 

found in favor of previous Exemption #11208 which contained this rule. For the reasons stated in 

Condition 13 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they

be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 43.11.
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 25

14 C.F.R. 45.11: Making of Products

Title 14, Part 45, Section 45.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations pertains to the manufacturing of 

aircraft and major aircraft components, including, but not limited, aircraft bodies, aircraft engines, and 

aircraft propellers. This particular rule requires various procedures for marking each component with 

fireproof markings and, in a manner acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration, for purposes of 

identification. Proposed Condition for Exemption #30 above, pertains to this particular regulation and 

the FAA has ruled on it in previous Exemption #11208. For the reasons stated in Condition #30 

(“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt 

from 14 C.F.R. 45.11. 

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b): Display of Marks; General

Title 14, Part 45, Section 45.23(b) of the Code of Federal Regulations states that;

 “When marks include only the Roman capital letter “N” and the registration number is 

displayed on limited, restricted or light-sport category aircraft or experimental or 

provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near each 

entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more 

than 6 inches high, the words “limited,” “restricted,” “light-sport,” “experimental,” or 

“provisional,” as applicable.”

In a previous grant of exemption (Exemption #11062) it was determined by the FAA that the exemption 

of sUAS operators from this provision was warranted so long as the aircraft, “have identification (NNumber) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R. 45 (c) if the markings are as large as practicable.” As is 

stated in Proposed Condition #30 above, the Petitioner will mark their aircraft with markings as large as 

practicable and therefore should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b). 

14 C.F.R. 45.27: Marking of the Aircraft – Rotorcraft

According to Title 14, Part 45, Section 45.27, of the Code of Federal Regulations, the operator of a 

rotorcraft;

 Must display on that rotorcraft horizontally on both surfaces of the cabin, fuselage, boom, 

or tail, the marks required by 14 C.F.R. 45.23.

For the same reasons stated in the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 45.23, the Petitioner believes it 

should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 45.27. More clearly, due to Condition #30 above, which states that the 

Petitioner will mark their aircraft with markings as large as practicable, the Petitioner respectfully asks 

for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 45.27. 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 26

14 C.F.R. 45.29: Size of Marks

According to Title 14, Part 45, Section 45.29, of the Code of Federal Regulations, the operator of an 

aircraft;

 Must display on markings on the aircraft meeting the size requirements of this section

 2-12 inches high depending on the aircraft type

 Width 2/3s wide as the characters are high

 1/6th as thick as the characters are high

 Not less than 1/4th the character width

 Uniform

For the same reasons stated in the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 45.23, the Petitioner believes it 

should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 45.29. More clearly, due to Condition #30 above, which states that the 

Petitioner will mark their aircraft with markings as large as practicable, the Petitioner respectfully asks 

for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 45.29. 

14 C.F.R. 61.3: Requirement for Certificates, Ratings, and Authorizations

Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.3, of the Code of Federal Regulations pertains to the need for a Private 

Pilot’s license to operate an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. The Petitioner seeks exemption from this rule to 

the extent that this rule requires a sUAS operator to hold a Private Pilot’s License. Clearly, the goal of 

this particular rule is to ensure the skill of any Pilot In Command matches the operating area in which 

they are flying. However, it is the Petitioner’s belief that the measure of a Private Pilot’s License and 

the training that went into it is not necessarily connected to that Pilot’s ability to operate a small 

unmanned aircraft at low altitudes. Particularly, the requirement of a Private License yields potential 

PICs that have been trained in multi-thousand pound, manned aircraft, flying at high altitudes in 

comparison to 10 lbs. or less, battery-powered craft, operated at 400 feet AGL or below. For this 

reason, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from this rule as the requirement of a 

Private Pilot’s license is unnecessary. Furthermore, it is stated as such on the FAA website.7

“The FAA also made two other changes to the Section 333 exemption process last week:

 The agency now allows operations under these exemptions by people who hold a recreational 

or sport pilot certificate. Previously, Section 333 operators were required to have at least a 

private pilot certificate. The newly added certificates are easier to obtain, and therefore less 

costly, than a private pilot certificate.”

The authorization of Recreational and Sport Pilot Certificates as an alternative to a Private License points 

to a Private License as being a non-requirement according to the FAA’s integration office. This further 

evidence shows that the Petitioner should be exempt from the aforementioned regulation. Clearly, the 

Petitioner’s requirement of all PICs (Proposed Condition #4) to hold at least a Recreational or Sport 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 27

Pilot’s Certificate yields an authorized level of training according to the FAA’s own website and in turn, 

shows that such a requirement by the Petitioner offers an equivalent level of safety as is provided by 

existing rules. 

Furthermore, Proposed Conditions #4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, among others, show the Petitioner’s commitment 

to safety and arguments for exemption from this rule. 

14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) and (c): Medical Certificates – Requirements and Duration

According to Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.23 (a) & (c), of the Code of Federal Regulations, the operator of 

an aircraft is required to hold a Medical Certificate in various Pilot In Command Situations. As is stated 

in Proposed Condition #4 above, the Pilot in Command will have at least a Sport’s Pilot’s License and at 

least a valid U.S. Driver’s license, which has been ruled by the FAA in previously granted exemptions as a 

suitable alternative to a valid medical certificate for the authorized flights of unmanned systems. 

Furthermore, the FAA has posted on its website this new policy.7 Due to Condition #4 above and the 

current FAA Policy displayed below, the Petitioner believes it should be granted exemption from 14 

C.F.R. 61.23(a) and (c). 

“The FAA also made two other changes to the Section 333 exemption process last week:

 The agency now allows operations under these exemptions by people who hold a recreational or 

sport pilot certificate. Previously, Section 333 operators were required to have at least a private 

pilot certificate. The newly added certificates are easier to obtain, and therefore less costly, than 

a private pilot certificate.

 A third class medical certificate is no longer required. Now, a Section 333 operator only needs a 

valid driver’s license to satisfy the medical requirement. This change is consistent with the 

agency’s approach for sport pilot certificate holders, who may fly light sport aircraft with a 

driver’s license and no FAA medical certificate.”

14 CFR 61.101(e) (4) and (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations

In Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.101(e) (4) & (5), of the Code of Federal Regulations, the FAA states that;

Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (i) of this section, a recreational pilot may not act as pilot in 

command of an aircraft— for compensation or hire or in furtherance of a business. 

As can be seen on the FAA’s website (https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=82485);

“The FAA also made two other changes to the Section 333 exemption process last week:

 The agency now allows operations under these exemptions by people who hold a recreational 

or sport pilot certificate. Previously, Section 333 operators were required to have at least a 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 28

private pilot certificate. The newly added certificates are easier to obtain, and therefore less 

costly, than a private pilot certificate.”

With the intention of Section 333 Exemptions being the integration of commercial unmanned systems 

into the National Airspace System, it is clear that the allowed pilot certificates now authorized by the 

FAA do not adhere to 14 C.F.R. 61.101 (e) (4) and (5) and thus, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they 

should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 61.101 (e) (4) and (5) because this Petition for Exemption is for the 

expressed purpose of conducting commercial operations of sUAS in an effort to earn compensation 

and/or further the business of the Petitioner. As is stated in Proposed Condition #4 above, it is the 

intention of the Petitioner to provide commercial sUAS flights to customers through the use of a flight 

crew, consisting of a Pilot In Command that holds at least a Recreational or Sport Pilot Certificate. 

Therefore, in all likelihood, many PICs employed by the Petitioner will have these specific Certificates 

and as such, will need to be able to fly for compensation. 

Furthermore, as is stated on the FAA’s own website and as is highlighted below;

“The FAA also made two other changes to the Section 333 exemption process last week:

 The agency now allows operations under these exemptions by people who hold a recreational or 

sport pilot certificate. Previously, Section 333 operators were required to have at least a private 

pilot certificate. The newly added certificates are easier to obtain, and therefore less costly, 

than a private pilot certificate.”

Therefore, it is highly likely that many potential PICs will have these Certificates as they are less costly 

and easier to obtain than a commercial Pilot’s License as an example. For these reasons, it is clear that 

the Petitioner should be granted an exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.101 (e) (4) and (5). 

14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations – Pilot In Command

Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.113 of the Code of Federal Regulations states that; 

Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot 

certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for 

compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an 

aircraft. 

Clearly this specific regulation conflicts with the Petitioner’s desire to provide commercial sUAS flights in 

the United States. Furthermore, some of the Petitioner’s PICs will have Private Pilot Licenses and as 

such they will be operating an aircraft (the sUAS) for compensation or hire under the proposed Petition 

for Exemption. 

With the intention of Section 333 Exemptions being the integration of commercial unmanned systems 

into the National Airspace System, it is clear that the allowed pilot certificates now authorized by the 

FAA, including a private pilot’s license, do not adhere to 14 C.F.R. 61.113 and thus, it is the belief of the 

Petitioner that they should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 61.113 because this Petition for Exemption is for 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 29

the expressed purpose of conducting commercial operations of sUAS in an effort to earn compensation 

and/or further the business of the Petitioner. As is stated in Proposed Condition #4 above, it is the 

intention of the Petitioner to provide commercial sUAS flights to customers through the use of a flight 

crew, consisting of a Pilot In Command that holds at least a Recreational or Sport Pilot Certificate (but 

who may also hold a Private License). In addition, the FAA has granted over 800 Section 333 Exemptions 

to businesses and individuals looking to provide commercial/compensation-based sUAS flights. 

Furthermore, looking at 61.113 (b), which states; A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as 

pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: 

 The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and 

 The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. 

The Petitioner seeks exemption from these rules as it is the Petitioner’s goal to fly sUAS missions for 

compensation or hire. Additionally, the specific provision pertaining to not flying aircraft that carry 

property for compensation or hire is something the Petitioner would like to be exempt from as well. 

Various forms of property may be carried on a sUAS, including; Camera Systems, Digital Imagery, 

Sensors, and the like. 

For all these reasons, the Petitioner seeks exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.113 (a) and (b). 

14 C.F.R. 61.315(a)(c): Privileges and Limits of Sport Pilot’s License

In Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.315(a), of the Code of Federal Regulations, the FAA states that;

If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft, except as 

specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Paragraph (c) reads the following;

You may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft:

(1) That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire.

(2) For compensation or hire.

(3) In furtherance of a business.

(4) While carrying more than one passenger.

(5) At night.

(6) In Class A airspace.
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 30

(7) In Class B, C, and D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, and to, from, through, 

or at an airport having an operational control tower unless you have met the requirements specified in 

§61.325.

(8) Outside the United States, unless you have prior authorization from the country in which you seek to 

operate. Your sport pilot certificate carries the limit “Holder does not meet ICAO requirements.”

(9) To demonstrate the aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer if you are an aircraft salesperson.

(10) In a passenger-carrying airlift sponsored by a charitable organization.

(11) At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher.

(12) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles.

(13) Without visual reference to the surface.

(14) If the aircraft:

(i) Has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS, unless you have met the requirements of §61.327(b).

(ii) Has a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS, unless you have met the requirements of 

§61.327(a) or have logged flight time as pilot in command of an airplane with a VH less than or 

equal to 87 knots CAS before April 2, 2010.

(15) Contrary to any operating limitation placed on the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft being 

flown.

(16) Contrary to any limit on your pilot certificate or airman medical certificate, or any other limit or 

endorsement from an authorized instructor.

(17) Contrary to any restriction or limitation on your U.S. driver's license or any restriction or limitation 

imposed by judicial or administrative order when using your driver's license to satisfy a requirement of 

this part.

(18) While towing any object.

(19) As a pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more than one pilot is required by the type 

certificate of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted. 

The Petitioner requests exemption from numerous provisions contained in 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c). 

Particularly, the Petitioner requests exemption from the following subparts of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c); 1, 2, 

3, 9, and 18. Furthermore, the Petitioner believes that the remaining subparts (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19) will be adhered to via proposed conditions contained in “Proposed Conditions 

of the Exemption” above. Specifically, subparts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19 are 

covered by Proposed Conditions 1, 6 & 24, 6, 6, 1, 1, 3, 6 & 28, 6 & 28, 5, 25, 25, and 4 respectively. 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 31

Additionally, pertaining to subparts 1, 2, 3, 9, 18, and 19, the Petitioner seeks exemption due to both 

unnecessary burdens on the Petitioner as well as an equivalent level of safety as is provided by these 

existing subparts of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c). Arguments for each subpart are contained below.

Subpart (1) of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c) states that a Sport-Certified Pilot may not operate an aircraft if that 

aircraft is carrying passengers or property for hire/compensation. This is an unnecessary burden on the 

Petitioner as;

1. They will not be carrying any passengers as they are flying Unmanned Systems, and;

2. There will be situations in which the Petitioner carries property for compensation.

The most likely of these situations will happen when a Petitioner is carrying a device or measurement 

tool owned by another person for compensation. This may include an imaging sensor owned by a third 

party for example. If a third party company owns the actual sensor but wants the Petitioner to utilize 

the tool on the Petitioner’s aircraft, the Petitioner will be flying with property for compensation. This 

compensation is related to the risk of loss while the camera is operating on the Unmanned System as 

well as the aerial perspective achieved by the sensor on a sUAS that would otherwise be impossible to 

obtain if the partner company only had the sensor. This example is common in many industries in which 

ground tools (such as cameras) are utilized on unmanned systems. Without exemption from this rule 

the Petitioner would have to either purchase the 3rd party sensor for use on their own sUAS or forego 

the compensation opportunity because they cannot carry the client’s tool and thus, not get the 

information the client desires. For this reason, it would be a significant burden to utilize a sUAS 

commercially without the ability to carry multiple sensors that may not be personally owned by the 

Petitioner.

Furthermore, it is the belief of the Petitioner that an equivalent level of safety would be provided if 

exempt from this rule because of the extensive training the PIC would have on the sUAS prior to flying 

commercially. This training will be in excess of the existing requirement to have at least a Sport Pilot’s 

or Recreational Certificate. Thus, the PIC will have sufficient manned aircraft and unmanned aircraft 

training to successfully operate the sUAS without endangering the public. The training procedures and 

training materials for the PIC can be found in Exhibits 1 and 4 below. 

In addition to subpart (1) of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c), the Petitioner also requests exemption from subpart 

(2) which states that an operator with a Sport Pilot’s License may not operate an aircraft for 

compensation. As has been highlighted previously, the directive from Congress passed to the FAA via 

the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 was to integrate commercial UAV operations into the 

National Airspace System. Furthermore, in numerous previously filed and granted Petitions for 

Exemption under Section 333, it has been stated by the FAA that;

 The agency now allows operations under these exemptions by people who hold a 

recreational or sport pilot certificate. 

This statement, combined with the initiative behind Section 333 exemptions (the commercial 

integration of UAV operations in the National Airspace System) shows that the FAA has found in favor of 

the idea that commercial UAV operations can be conducted by people who hold a recreational or sport 

pilot certificate. Additionally, this same argument can be made in regard to subpart (3) of 14 C.F.R. 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 32

61.315 (a)(c), which states that a Sport-Certified Pilot may not operate an aircraft in furtherance of a 

business. The FAA defines “Furtherance of a Business” as;

 A flight, even if incidental to your employment or the business you intend to conduct, and 

not required by your business or employment, would be considered “in furtherance of a 

business.”10

Clearly, based on this description, an aerial operation that is “in furtherance of a business” would be 

considered a lesser form of commercialization than flights for hire or compensation as these types of 

flights are incidental to a business as opposed to directly related to the business, which is what a flight 

for compensation would likely be. Therefore, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 

this rule for the same justification as is proposed regarding 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c) (1) and (2). 

On top of subparts (1), (2), & (3) of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c), the Petitioner also seeks relief from subpart 

(9) which states that a Sport-Certified Pilot may not operate an aircraft to demonstrate that aircraft for 

sale. The Petitioner seeks exemption from this rule as they will be carrying an inventory/stock/fleet of 

UAV aircraft in an effort to operate a commercial service business. Furthermore, this 

inventory/stock/fleet will turnover from time to time as new aircraft are added and old aircraft are 

released by the company. In this event it will be important for the Petitioner to have the capability of 

showing off the aircraft to prospective buyers so that they can get the best price for their used systems. 

Plus, with PICs already being heavily trained and experienced with commercial flights, there is no added 

risk to allowing a qualified PIC to demonstrate the aircraft for sale to prospective buyers. The 

demonstration after all would be equivalent or less dangerous than a commercial flight that the PIC 

already performs on a frequent basis as part of their job as a commercial sUAS Pilot. 

The Petitioner also seeks exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c) (18) which states that a Sport-Certified 

Pilot may not operate an aircraft while towing an object. It is the belief of the Petitioner that they be 

exempt from this rule as the maximum takeoff weight of their aircraft will never exceed the max takeoff 

weight specifications highlighted by the manufacturer. These max takeoff weights are the maximum 

weight these aircraft can carry (including themselves) and still fly effectively. Thus, any object being 

towed by the aircraft will have to weigh equal to or less than the maximum allowable weight in order to 

maintain or come under the max takeoff weight specifications highlighted by the manufacturer. 

Additionally, Proposed Condition 36 from the “Proposed Conditions of the Exemption” above, highlights 

reasoning as to why the Petitioner believes their commercial sUAS flights in which objects are towed, 

would provide an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the existing rule. Particularly, the required 

and additional training necessary for a PIC to become an Object Towing PIC shows the skills that would 

be required to tow objects. 

Furthermore, with the continued innovation in the world of sensors, it will be necessary for the 

Petitioner to be able to tow objects, such as tow-behind sensors, in order to remain competitive with 

their competition. Tow-behind sensors might measure air quality, capture imagery, or perform various 

other data collection methods. Competing vehicles for these tow-behind sensors would include ATVs, 

Motorcycles, Manned Aircraft, and the like. All of these potential alternatives are more expensive to 

operate, more dangerous to operate, and dirtier to operate. Each alternative would cost multiple 

thousands of dollars to purchase, are larger, powered by combustion engines, and carry flammable fuel. 

Additionally, they produce negative effects on the environment. For the reasons stated above, the 

Petitioner believes they should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c) (18).
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 33

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

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.7 (a) of the Code of Federal Regulations states; no person may operate a 

civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. Proposed Condition #13 pertains to this particular 

regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemption #11062, 11063, and 11064, which 

contained this rule. For the reasons stated in Condition 13 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) 

above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.7 (a) and the proposed 

condition offers an equivalent level of safety as is currently provided by the existing rule.

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.9 (b) (2) of the Code of Federal Regulations states; 

No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft for which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual 

is not required by Part 21.5 of this chapter, unless there is available, in the aircraft, a current approved 

Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any 

combination thereof. 

Proposed Condition #20 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous 

Exemptions #11062, 11063, and 11064, which contained a request for exemption from this rule. For the 

reasons stated in Condition 20 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the 

Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.9 (b) (2). Furthermore, the proposed condition offers 

an equivalent level of safety as is currently provided by the existing rule as the Operating manuals about 

which this rule pertains are available to the operator at all times on the ground, just as they would be if 

the aircraft was carrying the operator. Thus, any information the operator desires about the aircraft or 

its operating guidelines, can be found within documents within arm’s reach of the operator or on a 

digital device, such as a Smart Phone or tablet, easily accessible to the operator. 

14 C.F.R. 91.9(c): Civil Aircraft Marking, Placards

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.9 (c) of the Code of Federal Regulations states; No person may operate a 

U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless that aircraft is identified in accordance with part 45 of this chapter. 

Proposed Condition #30 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous 

Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule. For the reasons stated in Condition 

30 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt 

from 14 C.F.R. 91.9 (c). Furthermore, the proposed condition offers an equivalent level of safety as is 

currently provided by the existing rule as the FAA has previously determined that exemption from these 

requirements is warranted provided that the aircraft “have identification (N-Number) markings in 

accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Subpart c, if the markings are as large as practicable.”11 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 34

14 C.F.R. 91.103: Preflight Action

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.103 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information 

concerning that flight. This information must include—

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports and 

forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be completed, 

and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has been advised by ATC; 

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff and 

landing distance information: 

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual 

containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing 

distance data contained therein; and

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other 

reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under 

expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind 

and temperature. 

Proposed Conditions # 3, 6, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 28 pertain to this particular regulation and the 

FAA has found in favor of previous Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule, 

including Exemptions #11062, 11063, and 11064. For the reasons stated in Conditions 3, 6, 12, 16, 17, 

20, 22, 23, 24, and 28 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner 

that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.103. Furthermore, the proposed conditions offer an equivalent 

level of safety as is currently provided by the existing rule as Preflight Planning is integral to the 

Petitioner’s sUAS flights and each mission will be carefully planned, taking into consideration weather, 

power requirements, aircraft operating guidelines, and more, as seen in the proposed conditions above. 

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

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.105 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(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. 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 35

(b) Each required flight crewmember of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft shall, during takeoff and landing, 

keep his or her shoulder harness fastened while at his or her assigned duty station. This paragraph does 

not apply if—

(1) The seat at the crewmember's station is not equipped with a shoulder harness; or 

(2) The crewmember would be unable to perform required duties with the shoulder harness 

fastened. 

Proposed Condition #4 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous 

Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule, including Exemption #11185. For 

the reason stated in Condition #4 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the 

Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.105. Furthermore, 14 C.F.R. 91.105 doesn’t really 

apply to the Petitioner’s aircraft as all the aircraft requested by the Petitioner weigh below 10 lbs. and 

do not carry a physical crew. As such, there is no cockpit or other operating area within the vehicle 

where a prospective crewmember would harness themselves in. Instead, all operations of the sUAS are 

executed from the ground from a designated operating area, in which, each crewmember has an 

assigned position at which they will stand during the operation. Generally, this standing area would be 

near the ground station for the PIC and in a pre-designated area (which is determined by the PIC) for the 

VO. Utilizing pre-determined standing areas for both the PIC and VO will ensure safe operating 

procedures of the Unmanned Vehicle. 

14 C.F.R. 91.109: Flight Instruction

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.109 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight 

instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual controls. However, instrument flight instruction 

may be given in an airplane that is equipped with a single, functioning throwover control wheel that 

controls the elevator and ailerons, in place of fixed, dual controls, when—

(1) The instructor has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and

(2) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate 

category and class ratings.

(b) An airplane equipped with a single, functioning throwover control wheel that controls the elevator 

and ailerons, in place of fixed, dual controls may be used for flight instruction to conduct a flight review 

required by§ 61.56 of this chapter, or to obtain recent flight experience or an instrument proficiency 

check required by § 61.57 when—

(1) The airplane is equipped with operable rudder pedals at both pilot stations;

(2) The pilot manipulating the controls is qualified to serve and serves as pilot in command 

during the entire flight;
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 36

(3) The instructor is current and qualified to serve as pilot in command of the airplane, meets 

the requirements of§ 61.195(b), and has logged at least 25 hours of pilot-in-command flight 

time in the make and model of airplane; and

(4) The pilot in command and the instructor have determined the flight can be conducted safely.

(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot 

certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent 

observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and

(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning 

dual controls. However, simulated instrument flight may be conducted in a single-engine 

airplane, equipped with a single, functioning, throwover control wheel, in place of fixed, dual 

controls of the elevator and ailerons, when—

(i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and

(ii) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with 

appropriate category and class ratings.

(d) No person may operate a civil aircraft that is being used for a flight test for an airline transport pilot 

certificate or a class or type rating on that certificate, or for apart 121 proficiency flight test, unless the 

pilot seated at the controls, other than the pilot being checked, is fully qualified to act as pilot in 

command of the aircraft.

Proposed Conditions #4, 7, 8, and 9 pertain to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor 

of previous Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule, including Exemptions 

#11062, 11063, and 11064. For the reasons stated in Conditions #4, 7, 8, and 9 (“Proposed Conditions of 

the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.109. 

14 C.F.R. 91.113(b): Right-of-Way Rules

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.113(b) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under 

instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an 

aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the rightof-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well 

clear.

Proposed Conditions #6 and 32 pertain to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of 

previous Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule, including Exemption 

#11238. For the reasons stated in Conditions #6 and 32 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 37

above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.113(b). Due to the fact 

that all the Petitioner’s sUAS operations will take place under the guidance of a PIC and VO within Line 

of Sight of the aircraft, it is the belief of the Petitioner that their proposed operations offer an equivalent 

level of safety as is provided by the existing rule. 

14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.119 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following 

altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to 

persons or property on the surface. 

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air 

assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 

2,000 feet of the aircraft. 

(c) Over other than congested areas. An 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. 

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted 

without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of 

this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or 

altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and 

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the 

minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. 

Proposed Conditions #3, 6, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34 pertain to this particular regulation and the FAA has 

found in favor of previous Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule. For the 

reasons stated in Conditions #3, 6, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) 

above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.119. 

Each of the Proposed Conditions above create sUAS operations with equivalent safety to what the 

typical manned mission under 14 C.F.R. 91.119 would provide. Remember, when comparing to manned 

operations with manned flight craft, a sUAS is much smaller and light-weight. Consider the fact that a 

manned aircraft weighs thousands of pounds, carries flammable fuel, and is powered by a combustion 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 38

engine. Clearly, carrying out a mission utilizing a sUAS would provide for a safer operation than would a 

conventional aircraft under 14 C.F.R. 91.119.

14 C.F.R. 91.121: Altimeter Settings

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.121 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as 

the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, when operating—

(1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to—

(i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route and within 100 

nautical miles of the aircraft;

(ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, 

the current reported altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or

(iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio, the elevation of the departure 

airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure; or

(2) At or above 18,000 feet MSL, to 29.92′′ Hg.

(b) The lowest usable flight level is determined by the atmospheric pressure in the area of operation as 

shown in the following table:

Current altimeter setting Lowest usable flight level

29.92 (or higher) 180

29.91 through 29.42 185

29.41 through 28.92 190

28.91 through 28.42 195

28.41 through 27.92 200

27.91 through 27.42 205

27.41 through 26.92 210

(c) To convert minimum altitude prescribed under§§ 91.119 and 91.177 to the minimum flight level, the 

pilot shall take the flight level equivalent of the minimum altitude in feet and add the appropriate 

number of feet specified below, according to the current reported altimeter setting:
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 39

Current altimeter setting Adjustment factor

29.92 (or higher) None

29.91 through 29.42 500

29.41 through 28.92 1,000

28.91 through 28.42 1,500

28.41 through 27.92 2,000

27.91 through 27.42 2,500

27.41 through 26.92 3,000

Proposed Condition #3 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous 

Exemptions, particularly Astraeus Aerial, which contained a request for exemption from this rule based 

on the idea that an equivalent level of safety could be provided so long as the Unmanned Aircraft was 

operated below 400 feet AGL, within Visual Line of Sight, and operated with a live, GPS-based, Altitude 

read-out. For the reasons stated in Condition #3 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is 

the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.121 because they are receiving a live, 

GPS-Altitude, read-out on each flight, they are operating below 400 feet AGL, and they are operating 

within Visual Line of Sight. Furthermore, as can be seen in Proposed Condition #3, each flight conducted 

by the Petitioner will begin with a zero-altitude start point. 

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

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.151(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) No person may begin 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. 

Proposed Condition #17 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous 

Exemptions, particularly Astraeus Aerial, which contained a request for exemption from this rule based 

on an equivalent level of safety being provided by a sUAS when ending a flight with at least 25% battery 

life remaining. Clearly, a percent battery life remaining is a better measure for safety when using a sUAS 

because the current battery capacities achieved by these types of vehicles (including all the sUAS

proposed in this Petition for Exemption) often do not allow for flight times of over 25 minutes, which is 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 40

far less than even the reserve time limits mandated by 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a). For the reasons stated in 

Condition #17 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that 

they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a) because they can achieve an equivalent level of safety by 

terminating their flights with 25% battery life remaining. 

14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) and (b): Civil Aircraft – Certifications Required

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.203(a) and (b) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) Except as provided in§ 91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has within it the 

following:

(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. Each U.S. airworthiness certificate used 

to comply with this subparagraph (except a special flight permit, a copy of the applicable 

operations specifications issued under§ 21.197(c) of this chapter, appropriate sections of the air 

carrier manual required by parts 121 and 135 of this chapter containing that portion of the 

operations specifications issued under § 21.197(c), or an authorization under § 91.611) must 

have on it the registration number assigned to the aircraft under part 47 of this chapter. 

However, the airworthiness certificate need not have on it an assigned special identification 

number before 10 days after that number is first affixed to the aircraft. A revised airworthiness 

certificate having on it an assigned special identification number that has been affixed to an 

aircraft may only be obtained upon application to an FAA Flight Standards district office.

(2) An effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the 

United States, the second copy of the Aircraft Registration Application as provided for in§ 

47.31(c), or a registration certification issued under the laws of a foreign country.

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) 

of this section or a special flight authorization issued under§ 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit 

entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.

Proposed Condition #20 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous 

Exemptions, particularly Exemptions #11062, 11063, and 11064, which contained a request for 

exemption from this rule. Additionally, all required paperwork will be available to the PIC and VO on the 

ground as these are Unmanned Systems as opposed to manned aircraft. This paperwork may be in 

hard-copy form or available through a link on the internet, such as a Google Drive account for example. 

14 C.F.R. 215: ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.215 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not conducted under part 121 or 135 of this 

chapter, ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 41

requirements of any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude 

reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S).

(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in 

the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped 

with an operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096 code capability, 

replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC, or a Mode S capability, replying to 

Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC and intermode and Mode S interrogations in 

accordance with the applicable provisions specified in TSO C-112, and that aircraft is equipped with 

automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability that automatically replies 

to Mode C interrogations by transmitting pressure altitude information in 100-foot increments. This 

requirement applies—

(1) All aircraft. In Class A, Class B, and Class C airspace areas;

(2) All aircraft. In all airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 

of this part from the surface upward to 10,000 feet MSL;

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any aircraft which was not originally 

certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been 

certified with such a system installed, balloon or glider may conduct operations in the airspace 

within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part provided such 

operations are conducted—

(i) Outside any Class A, Class B, or Class C airspace area; and

(ii) Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for 

an airport or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower; and

(4) All aircraft in all airspace above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or 

Class C airspace area designated for an airport upward to 10,000 feet MSL; and

(5) All aircraft except any aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine-driven 

electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, 

balloon, or glider—

(i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 

10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface; and

(ii) In the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL within a 10-nautical-mile radius 

of any airport listed in appendix D, section 2 of this part, excluding the airspace below 

1,200 feet outside of the lateral boundaries of the surface area of the airspace 

designated for that airport.

(c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all 

controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder 

maintained in accordance with § 91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C 

equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 42

(d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations must be made to the ATC facility 

having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace within the time periods specified as follows:

(1) For operation of an aircraft with an operating transponder but without operating automatic 

pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode Capability, the request may be made at 

any time.

(2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the airport of ultimate 

destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs 

can be made or both, the request may be made at any time.

(3) For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a transponder, the request must be 

made at least one hour before the proposed operation.

Proposed Conditions #3, 25, 26, and 27 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the 

aforementioned Proposed Conditions, and particularly all the reporting requirements contained in an 

ATO-Issued COA, the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the existing 

rule and ensure adequate compliance with reporting standards as set forth in the rule. 

14 C.F.R. 91.403: General

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.403 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an 

airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.

(b) No person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on an aircraft other 

than as prescribed in this subpart and other applicable regulations, including part 43 of this chapter.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions 

for continued airworthiness has been issued that contains an airworthiness limitations section unless 

the mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified in that section 

or alternative inspection intervals and related procedures set forth in an operations specification 

approved by the Administrator underpart 121 or 135 of this chapter or in accordance with an inspection 

program approved under § 91.409(e) have been complied with.

(d) A person must not alter an aircraft based on a supplemental type certificate unless the owner or 

operator of the aircraft is the holder of the supplemental type certificate, or has written permission 

from the holder.

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the 

aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is 

provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth 

in the rule. 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 43

14 C.F.R. 91.405(a): Maintenance Required

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.405(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

Each owner or operator of an aircraft—

(a) 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;

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the 

aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is 

provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth 

in the rule. 

14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1): Operation after Maintenance or Alteration

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.407(a)(1) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

rebuilding, or alteration unless—

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under§ 43.7 of this 

chapter.

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the 

aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is 

provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth 

in the rule. 

14 C.F.R. 409(a)(1) and (2): Inspections

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.409(a)(1) and (2) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within 

the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had—

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for 

return to service by a person authorized by § 43.7 of this chapter; or

(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of 

this chapter.
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 44

No inspection performed under paragraph (b) of this section may be substituted for any inspection 

required by this paragraph unless it is performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections 

and is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance records.

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the 

aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is 

provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth 

in the rule. 

14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance Records

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.417(a) and (b) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with§§ 91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or 

operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100-

hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each 

aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. 

The records must include—

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work 

performed; and

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for return 

to service.

(2) Records containing the following information:

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each rotor.

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and 

appliance.

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which are required 

to be overhauled on a specified time basis.

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the last 

inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its 

appliances are maintained.

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives 

including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and 

revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date 

when the next action is required.
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 45

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by§ 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration 

to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is 

repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is performed.

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred 

with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under§ 43.11 of this chapter 

shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return to service.

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the 

aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is 

provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth 

in the rule. 

Privacy

When discussing the use of small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, the question of privacy frequently comes 

up. The reason for this is clear as small unmanned aircraft, despite their incredible uses as a tool, also 

have the potential to be used for nefarious activities, such as spying for example. This presents a risk to 

the personal privacy of individuals. Furthermore, in less extreme cases of invasion of privacy, a small 

unmanned craft might accidently capture imagery that would comprise someone’s privacy. Due to 

these potential privacy risks it is imperative for operators of small unmanned craft to use their aircraft 

responsibly and focus on mitigating any of the potential privacy risks their aircraft creates. The 

Petitioner is particularly aware of the privacy concerns of individuals and due to this is extremely 

focused on providing privacy not only for individuals, but also for customers.

 

Public Interest and Safety

According to the Federal Aviation Administration Guidelines for Section 333 Exemptions there are three 

main criteria a successful Petition for Exemption under Section 333 should have;

1. The Petitioner must submit a request for exemption from a rule or set of rules contained in 14 

C.F.R. that the Petitioner believes will be a burden for their operations.

2. The Petitioner must provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from 

which the Petitioner is seeking an exemption, and;

3. The Petitioner’s request must be in the Public Interest.
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 46

To satisfy these main guidelines, the following information will cover the justification of the proposed 

commercial operations under Section 333 requested by this Petition. More clearly, the following 

arguments will show how each of the proposed applications/use-cases are in the public interest and 

promote safety.

Specifically, the sUAS flights proposed in this petition will increase safety for the following applications;

Cinematography, Insurance, Railroad Services, and Search and Rescue. Furthermore, it will be seen that 

the use of sUAS by the Petitioner will also promote safety and reduce negative environmental impacts. 

This will be achieved because of the lower risks associated with a small, plastic, battery-powered sUAS, 

as compared to a manned, multi-thousand-pound, combustion-engine-powered, flammable-fuelcarrying aircraft. Plus, with most sUAS data-capture happening at low altitudes, because of the 

enhanced data resolution possible at low altitudes, customers of sUAS services are getting better, more 

accurate data, while at the same time the public is avoiding the potentially hazardous practice of ultralow-flying manned aircraft. 

Clearly, the combination of better, more accurate data, coupled with the enhanced safety of a sUAS 

over manned aircraft, produces a viable commercial operation that promotes the public interest. 

Evidence of this can be found in the industry-specific examples below. 

In addition to the aforementioned safety benefits and promotion of public interests, it should also be 

noted that all the sUAS aircraft utilized by the Petitioner satisfy the directives passed to the Federal 

Aviation Administration by Congress in the Reform Act of 2012. Specifically, all of the Petitioner’s 

aircraft satisfy the size, weight, speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports, proximity to 

populated areas, and visual line of sight rules and requirements laid out by Congress. 

Furthermore, due to the FAA precedent of requiring, at minimum, a Sport Pilot Certificate, the FAA can 

be assured that all commercial flights proposed in this Petition do not pose a threat to National Security 

as all PIC’s will have already been vetted by the Department of Homeland Security. For these reasons 

and for the numerous arguments contained herein, this Petition for Exemption provides strong 

justification for approval of commercial operations for the above-stated sUAS in the above-stated 

applications and use-cases under Section 333, pursuant to the operating procedures and requirements 

described herein. 

Furthermore, contained in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 was Congress’ clear initiative 

to integrate commercial sUAS flights into the National Airspace System. With this initiative it is 

definitive that Congress believes that the integration of commercial sUAS into the National Airspace 

System is within the Public Interest as they are, obviously, elected representatives of the public assigned 

with the duty of driving policy that promotes the Public Interest. Thus, in addition to the industryspecific examples below, it should also be considered that the integration of all sUAS, pursuant to their 

safe integration to the NAS and providing of at least an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the 

current FAA rules, is inherently within the public interest. 

Please look below to find more detailed descriptions as to why each of the applications highlighted 

above can provide a benefit to the public as a whole and reasons why the exemption would not 

adversely affect safety.
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 47

Cinematography

The Aerial Cinematography Industry is an industry that has been operating for many years to capture 

cinema-quality footage from low altitudes. Initially, this type of cinematography was captured using 

fixed-wings and helicopters, but in more recent years, the business has started to utilize UAVs. The 

reason the industry has transitioned to these small aircraft is because newer UAV systems have been 

able to capture the quality video the industry is looking for but at a much lower cost and with 

significantly lower risks. 

One of the reasons manned aircraft cinematography is so expensive is because of the dangers 

associated with flying a 6,000-pound aircraft, filled with flammable fuel, powered by a combustion 

engine, at low altitudes and over people. The insurance costs alone for these types of activities are high 

and accidents have happened in the industry. Some of these accidents have even lead to casualties. A 

couple years ago, 10 people died when two helicopters crashed while filming the French Realty Show, 

“Dropped.”13 

Whenever you have manned aircraft operating at low altitudes there are added risks. These risks 

include ground structures, confined spaces, and more. Additionally, when you have manned aircraft, 

any accidents are much more catastrophic than if you had the same situation with unmanned aircraft. 

Once again, this is because of the size and flammable fuel carried on-board manned aircraft. A small 

Unmanned Aircraft does not have these attributes, plus, because there are no people onboard, the 

chances of causalities is lower because there is no pilot. 

It is important to remember that the weight of the UAVs utilized by the Petitioner will weigh no more 

than 10 pounds and contain no crew, flammable fuel, or combustion engine. This limited weight and 

size will significantly reduce the potential for casualties or mass property damage in the case of a crash. 

Furthermore, the use of electric-power by the Petitioner’s UAVs is much more environmentally-friendly 

than that of a manned aircraft, which is carrying a significant amount of unnecessary weight using 

carbon-based fuel sources. Therefore, in addition to the increased safety obtained by a UAV performing 

aerial cinematography, there is also the added public benefit of a healthier environment. 

Furthermore, while traditional aerial cinematography utilizing conventional aircraft can perform in close 

proximity to people and property, it should be pointed out that a UAV is even safer than the traditional 

methods because of the limited size, weight, speed, operating conditions, and safety features included 

on the proposed aircraft within this petition. Additionally, as is highlighted in the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012, the integration of UAS into the National Airspace System is inherently in the 

public interest so long as it can be accomplished with at least an equivalent level of safety as is currently 

provided by existing FAA rules and regulations. 

On top of this, the utilization of sUAS in the Aerial Cinematography Industry falls in line with the 4D’s of 

UAS Intervention, which points to the Public Interest of using UAVs over manned aircraft. The reasoning 

for this can be seen below;

 Dull – Aerial Cinematography is an industry that requires repetitive flights. There are often 

multiple takes of the same scene in order to get the perfect shot with the perfect lighting. 

For this reason, the same flight has to occur several times in a short time period. This isn’t 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 48

necessarily efficient for a manned aircraft because it needs to stay aloft during filming and 

due to this, wastes time and fuel waiting for successive shots. A UAV on the other hand can 

land in between shots and use significantly less power. Plus, because of the inherent risks of 

flying at low altitudes for manned aircraft (structures, people, obstacles, etc.), repetitive 

shots require repetitive risky flight operations. In instances where R. J. Corman Railroad 

Group is capturing aerial content for marketing purposes, it would be much more costefficient and safe to utilize a UAV than to use a manned aircraft. 

 Dangerous – Aerial Cinematography is almost always done at very low altitudes, which is 

very dangerous airspace for large, manned aircraft. There are more obstacles to consider at 

low altitudes and less margin for error. Therefore, aerial cinematography flights using 

manned aircraft are more dangerous than if the same manned aircraft were operating at 

higher altitudes with less obstacles and more space. Thus, an unmanned craft is a safer 

alternative as it is more maneuverable in confined spaces and less damaging in the case of a 

crash. In the Railroad Industry, flight operations may involve confined spaces and various 

obstacles. Railroad tunnels as an example would be a location in which a manned aircraft 

would not fly. Additionally, an railroads that travel through the mountains or through 

forests would include many natural obstacles, such as tree, boulders, cliffs, and the like. 

Each of these feature increases the risk associated with manned aircraft as pilots need to be 

hyper-alert in order to avoid an accident. 

 Dirty – Some aerial cinematography is extreme in nature and may include things like fire, 

smoke, noxious fumes, or the like. In the case of a train derailment, various "dirty" hazards 

could be present. In these situations it may be best to utilize an unmanned craft to assess 

the situation before sending humans into the scene. In the case of a derailment of a train 

carrying hazardous or explosive cargo, it may be necessary to send an unmanned aircraft in 

to assess the nature of the situation before exposing humans to a potential explosion or 

poisonous environment. 

 Deep – Some aerial cinematography might require capabilities that only an unmanned 

aircraft can perform, such as flying in extremely close proximity to structures or other 

obstacles at low speeds. This type of application would be impossible for most manned 

aircraft and if not impossible, fairly dangerous. For this reason an unmanned aircraft would 

be required. 

Additionally, the following previously granted exemptions point to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in 

the Aerial Cinematography Industry as being within the public interest. 

 Exemption Numbers:

o 11540
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 49

o 11153

o 12031

Insurance

Another industry that stands to gain from the utilization of sUAS aircraft is the insurance industry. One 

of the reasons for this is the obvious benefit an aerial perspective can be when assessing an insured 

asset. The ability to get above the insured asset allows for a clearer perspective of the situation and 

provides a bird’s eye view of the conditions below. This allows for more accurate insurance estimates 

and payouts. 

The use of UAVs and software allows for more efficient and automated practices. As an example, a 

software program that can utilize image recognition technology to estimate losses would be much more 

automated, and potentially more accurate, than a team of adjusters who all might have slightly different 

biases when making assessments. Over the past couple years, several insurance companies and service 

providers have developed image software to assess various insured assests, such as buildings, houses, 

agricultural crops, roofs, and more. Additionally, several companies have also developed various ways 

of using sensors on UAV systems to provide asset owners with a way to inspect their assets for 

insurance purposes and compliance. Some of these companies have specifically focused on 

infrastructure, such as wind turbines, dams, water towers, and the like. Moving forward, R. J. Corman 

Railroad Group, LLC. would like to provide these same types of inspection/assessment services for 

operators in the Railroad Industry to provide railroads with important information relating to their 

assets and infrastructure. 

For example, due to the fact R.J. Corman Railroad Group specializes in Train Derailment Services, they 

could easily provide various aerial assessments after a derailment in order to record the scene and 

collect valuable information for any future insurance claims or litigation. Furthermore, because R. J. 

Corman already uses manned-helicopters within their business, they have unique experience as it 

pertains to assessing railroads from the air. 

Finally, the Insurance application points to the use of sUAS according to the 4D’s of UAV Intervention. 

 Dull – The insurance application often requires repeated flights of the same area or on-demand 

flights. In the case of a train derailment, multiple passes over a specific flight area may be 

required. In some situations, the environment may be hazardous to manned aircraft, including 

situations in which there is an abundance of ground-based obstacles such as trees, rock 

outcroppings, or the like. Due to the need for repeated passes, this type of flight repeatedly 

exposes manned aircraft to ground-based hazards. 

 Dangerous – Insurance flights can also be dangerous. Consider a train derailment. If R. J. 

Corman Railroad Group were to fly over a derailed train in an effort to collect valuable data, 

there may be many dangers, including; fires, smoke, hazardous spills, or the like. These hazards 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 50

can make for an extremely dangerous situation and if you couple them with enviromental 

hazards such as extreme terrain, it can be very dangerous for manned aircraft. 

 Dirty – Consider a hazardous spill that came as a result of a derailed train. This example is an 

insurance event in which an adjuster is going to want to assess the damage while avoiding a 

dangerous environment. Noxious fumes may be in the area and as such, the adjuster might 

want the area flown with a sUAS. 

 Deep – Once again, sUAS allow for operators to capture high-resolution data at low altitudes. 

This is true in the Insurance Industry as well and low altitude flight can be especially dangerous 

for manned aircraft. In particular, any high-resolution data-collection at low altitudes and in 

confined areas can be impossible for manned aircraft as their maneuverability is such that the 

confined area is too small for safe flight.

Additionally, the following previously granted exemptions point to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in 

the Insurance Industry as being within the public interest. 

 Exemption Numbers:

o 11293

o 11857

Railroad Services

The Railroad Service Industry is at the core of R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. Moving forward, R. J. 

Corman Railroad Group would like to provide various aerial services to operators within the railroad 

industry. Among these services, R. J. Corman may provide services relating to infrastructure inspections, 

train derailment assessment, marketing, and other related services.

It is the belief of R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. that they can provide high-quality, high-resolution 

imagery that can assist those in the Railroad Industry better service their infrastructure and promote 

their businesses. 

In terms of Railroad management, imagery-data and 3D modeling can help railroads gain confidence in 

their operations and efficiency in their practices. In particular, aerial imagery can be used for various 

forms of compliance, be it organizational compliance relating to safety or other benchmarks or whether 

it be compliance with outside parties, such as insurance companies, banks, or government agencies. 

Furthermore, aerial imagery provided by a UAV can assist in various railroad service efforts, such as 

infrastructure inspection, train derailment assessments, and the like. Additionally, in the event of an 

environmentally-impactful derailment, aerial services related to environmental protection can be 

executed in an effort to minimize a potentially hazardous situation. Finally, in various repair or clean-up 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 51

situations that require the use of large equipment, an aerial perspective, provided by a UAV, can be 

valuable as it pertains to that piece of equipment’s movement around the job site, ensuring it doesn't 

come into contact with any obstacles or other equipment. 

Railroads are a vital transportation network throughout the United States. They transport products and 

people and provide a cost-effective means of moving material from Point A to Point B. The upkeep of 

these rail-lines is important for our economy as the flow of many goods across the country are 

dependent on the railroads. For this reason, it is the belief of the Petitioner that providing aerial 

services to the railroad industry is within the public good. Furthermore, by following the conditions 

within this exemption petition and the rules and regulations of the FAA, it is the belief of the Petitioner 

that they can provide railroad services while maintaining an equivalent level of safety as is provided by 

existing rules. 

Referring back to the 4D analysis of UAV use, it is clear that the Railroad Services Industry would benefit 

from the use of UAV systems over manned aircraft because;

 Dull – Railroad Service flights may require a lot of repetition and/or rapid deployment of a data 

capture device to ensure data is captured at the right time. A railroad company looking to quell 

runoff issues into local lakes and streams after a train derailment for example, may want to 

examine 3D maps as soon as possible after a derailment. Having this imagey can help them 

document exactly what happened and have concrete information in the future if any of it is 

needed for insurance purposes or litigation. Capturing 3D imagery can be a monotonous task as 

it requires a robotic-like flight route, which is best executed when using a flight computer and 

GPS module onboad a sUAS. 

 

 Dangerous – Railroad Service flights can be dangerous. Consider an aerial service flight over a 

derailed train. If R. J. Corman Railroad Group were to fly over a derailed train in an effort to 

collect valuable data, there may be many dangers, including; fires, smoke, hazardous spills, or 

the like. These hazards can make for an extremely dangerous situation and if you couple them 

with enviroment and terrain hazards, it can be very dangerous for manned aircraft. 

 Dirty – Consider a hazardous spill that came as a result of a derailed train. This example is a 

Railroad Service event in which a railroad repair companies and engineers are going to want to 

assess the damage while avoiding a dangerous environment. 

 Deep – Once again, sUAS allow for operators to capture high-resolution data at low altitudes. 

This is true in the Railroad Service Industry as well, and low altitude flight can be especially 

dangerous for manned aircraft. In particular, any high-resolution data collection at low altitudes 

and in confined areas can be impossible for manned aircraft as their maneuverability is such 

that the confined area is too small for safe flight. 

Therefore, the promotion of the public interest described above, coupled with the enhanced safety 

provided by sUAS flights in the Railroad Service Industry, strongly supports the granting of this petition. 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 52

Furthermore, the following previously granted exemption point to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in 

the Railroad Industry as being within the public interest.

 Exemption Numbers:

o 11206

Search and Rescue 

The Search and Rescue Industry is an industry in which small unmanned aircraft will play a vital role 

moving forward. This industry is known for its rapid response times which are needed in order to save 

lives. Furthermore, the situations and environments common in this industry require documented 

visual observance over broad areas. Currently, much of this is done using aerial imaging from a manned 

aircraft. The imagery captured on these flights is vital not only when it comes to finding lost people but 

also in documenting areas that have already been searched. In a searching effort this is important 

because searchers don’t want to waste time looking in areas that have already been searched. 

Utilizing a UAV allows for searchers to get an aerial vantage point as well as document areas that have 

been searched accurately. For instance, a search crew could map the areas of interest using their UAV, 

stitching the images they get from the camera and have a georeferenced map of the area in question. In 

most cases this map is laid over Google Earth and can clearly mark an area that has already been 

searched. Additionally, because the map is georeferenced, the user can pinpoint locations or objects of 

interest and pull a latitude and longitude for a more detailed search. This is a highly valuable attribute 

of stitched imagery from a UAV. 

In addition, a UAV can provide a superior vantage point for searchers operating on the ground. The UAV 

utilized by the Petitioner offers long-range, high-definition FPV, which can be used by a team leader to 

relay to his ground searchers where to move next and if he sees anything of interest from the air. 

The Petitioner seeks exemption under Section 333 in an effort to gain the right to provide services to the 

Search and Rescue Industry in order to help in situations where a visual inspection from the air is 

necessary. The Petitioner seeks this exemption because they believe the use of unmanned aircraft in 

this industry will provide a public good while maintaining the safety of the National Airspace System. 

The Petitioner’s UAV is rapidly deployable meaning it can help in time-sensitive rescue efforts. 

Additionally, with its ability to take high-definition video and pictures while georeferencing all of its 

images, the Petitioner’s UAV can be a valuable asset to a Search and Rescue Team. Plus, with the aerial 

perspective this type of UAV can provide, the chances of finding a lost or periled individual increase. 

Clearly, finding and saving lost people is a public good and one that can be bolstered through the use of 

a UAV. 

Furthermore, utilizing a UAV for this type of work is a safer alternative when compared to manned 

aircraft. This is the case because often these flights will happen at low altitudes where the risk of 

collision with ground-based features, obstacles, or the like, are greatest. A manned aircraft is not as well 

suited for these flying environments because they are bigger than sUAS, they carry a crew, they are not 

as maneuverable, and they carry flammable fuel. When you couple this with their higher costs to 
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 53

operate, it is clear that an unmanned craft can provide value in terms of cost savings and enhanced 

safety to the Search and Rescue Industry. 

On top of this, the utilization of sUAS in the Search and Rescue Industry falls in line with the 4D’s of UAS 

Intervention, which points to the Public Interest of using UAVs over manned aircraft. The reasoning for 

this can be seen below;

 Dull – The Search and Rescue Industry is an industry that requires dull flights. Often, especially 

with fixed-wing aircraft, a pilot must fly his plane over a specific area of interest in a very specific 

and straight-line pattern. This is to ensure complete coverage of the search zone. This causes 

the pilot to fly the same straight-line routes, one next to the other, over and over. The 

“dullness” of this type of flight can lead to accidents. With a sUAS, the Petitioner has the ability 

to utilize preprogrammed flight routes, which can automate the process and allow for safe

operations. 

 Dangerous – Aerial Search and Rescue Imagery is often captured at low altitudes, which is very 

dangerous airspace for large, manned aircraft. There are more obstacles to consider at low 

altitudes and less margin for error. Therefore, Search and Rescue flights using manned aircraft 

are more dangerous than if the same manned aircraft were operating at higher altitudes with 

less obstacles and more space. Thus, an unmanned craft is a safer alternative as it is more 

maneuverable in confined spaces and less damaging in the case of a crash as it weighs 

significantly less and doesn’t carry a crew or flammable fuel. 

 Dirty – Aerial Search and Rescue Imagery is sometimes captured in hazardous environments. 

While the Petitioner’s UAV system would be maintaining a safe distance from these potential 

hazards and remaining within line of sight, it is important to consider that mistakes can happen 

in unpredictable situations. For instance, if a UAV is being used to provide a live-feed view of a 

rescue situation, there may be a host of unpredictable hazards such as rock-falls, avalanches, or 

the like. In each of these situations it would be better to have an expendable UAV system rather 

than a manned aircraft with lives onboard. 

 

 Deep – Some Search and Rescue imaging may require capabilities that only an unmanned 

aircraft can perform, such as flying in close proximity to natural features or other obstacles at 

low speeds. This type of application would be impossible for most manned aircraft and if not 

impossible, fairly dangerous. For this reason, an unmanned aircraft would be required. 

 

Additionally, the following previously granted exemption points to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in 

the Search and Rescue Industry as being within the public interest. 

 Exemption Number:

o 11419
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 54

Regulations Requested for Exemption

Appendix 1: Regulations Requested for Exemption – List

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMajc4dHA2bjE4bjg/view?usp=sharing

Exhibit List

Exhibit 1: R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. Operations Manual

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMM0ZzTEFBMDhGUWM/view?usp=sharing

Exhibit 2: R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. Logbook Example

Below is a logbook example from the app that is running the Flight Logs for the Petitioner’s aircraft. The 

specific flight logs pictured are just an example and not specific to the Petitioner’s prior flights. In 

addition to the logbook, please see the linked video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4afE-rd6xoY) 

that shows how the flight logs can be played back utilizing the same logging app for each flight.
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 55

Exhibit 3: R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. Visual Observer Training Procedures & Guide

Visual Observer Training Procedures

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMNFllQVJZdHVsQ0E/view?usp=sharing

Visual Observer Training Guide

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMbElBZTcwUi02aHM/view?usp=sharing

Exhibit 4: R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. Pilot In Command Training Guide

Pilot In Command Training Procedures

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMNFllQVJZdHVsQ0E/view?usp=sharing

Pilot in Command Training Guide

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMREF0OHZLZ25Jc2M/view?usp=sharing

Exhibit 5: DJI Inspire 1 

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1

Exhibit 6: DJI Inspire 1 User Manual

http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_User_Manual_v1.2_en.pdf

Exhibit 7: DJI Inspire 1 Quick Start Guide

http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_Quick_Start_Guide_en.pdf
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 56

Exhibit 8: DJI Inspire 1 Features

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1/feature

Exhibit 9: DJI Inspire 1 Specifications

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1/spec

Exhibit 10: DJI Inspire 1 Flight Controller System

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1/flight-control

Exhibit 11: DJI Inspire 1 Smart Battery Manual

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf

Exhibit 12: DJI Matrice 100 

http://dev.dji.com/en/products/flying-platforms/matrice-100

Exhibit 13: DJI Matrice 100 User Manual

http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/dev/Matrice/en/M100_User_Manual_v1.0_en.pdf

Exhibit 14: DJI Matrice 100 Features

http://dev.dji.com/en/products/flying-platforms/matrice-100/features

Exhibit 15: DJI Matrice 100 Specifications

http://dev.dji.com/en/products/flying-platforms/matrice-100/specs
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 57

Exhibit 16: DJI Matrice 100 Smart Battery Manual

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/dev/Matrice/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf

References

1.) NTSB. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration v. Raphael

Pirker. Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 17 Nov. 2014.

PDF. Aircraft Definition.

2.) Administration, Federal Aviation. "FAA Streamlines UAS COAs for Section 333." FAA.gov.

Federal Aviation Administration, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

3.) Administration, Federal Aviation. "Section 333 Petition Guidance & Checklist." (n.d.): n.

pag. FAA.gov. Federal Aviation Administration. Web. Conditions for a successful

Exemption.

4.) Watts, Adam C., Vincent G. Ambrosia, and Everett A. Hinkley. Unmanned Aircraft

Systems in Remote Sensing and Scientific Research: Classification and

Consideration of Use. Basel, Switzerland:

www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing, 8 June 2012. PDF. "D's" of Unmanned

Aircraft Use.

5.) SKYbrary. "Unmanned Aircraft Systems." - SKYbrary Aviation Safety. N.p., n.d. Web.

20 July 2015.

6.) Administration, Federal Aviation. "Public Guidance for Petitions for Exemption under

Section 333." FAA.gov. Federal Aviation Administration, n.d. Web.

7.) "FAA Summary Grants Speed UAS Exemptions." FAA Summary Grants Speed UAS

Exemptions. Federal Aviation Administration, n.d. Web. 20 July 2015. Permitting

Recreational and Sport Pilot Certificates. 

8.) FAR Part 91 - Basic VFR Weather Minimums, Code of Federal Regulations § 91.155

(2004). Print.

9.) Administration, Transportation Security. "Vetting of Airmen Certificates and General

Aviation Airport Access and Security Procedures." Department of Homeland
PETITIONER – R. J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC. DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 58

Security. Office of Inspector General, 7 July 2011. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

10.) MacPherson, Rebecca B. "U.S. DOT / FAA - Office of the Chief Counsel." Letter to Mr.

Timothy John Gilbert. 25 Feb. 2011. MS. 800 Independence Ave. S.W.,

Washington, DC, Maryland. Clarification on "Furtherance of a business."

11.) Federal Aviation Administration. "Exemption No. 11062A Regulatory Docket No. FAA2014-0352." Department of Transportation, 23 July 2015. PDF.

12.) Jensen, Warren, PhD. Ground-Based Visual Observer/Crewmember Training for UAS.

New York, NY: Slideserve.com, 9 July 2008. PPT. Visual Observer and Pilot In

Command Training Guidance and Format.

13.) "Olympic Medalists among 10 Dead as Reality TV Choppers Collide." NBC News. NBC,

n.d. Web. 20 July 2015.

Exemption References

Exemption # 11467

Exemption # 11905

Exemption # 11797

Exemption # 12031

Exemption # 11865

Exemption # 11364

Exemption # 11587

Exemption # 11857

Exemption # 11293

Exemption # 11814

Exemption # 11540

Exemption # 11345