Petition for Exemption

R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 1

Dear Sir or Madam:

The purpose of this letter is to petition the Federal Aviation Administration for an exemption 

from certain Federal Aviation Administration Regulations in order for the petitioner, Randal A. 

Wiedemann, to operate an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) within the National Aerial System, 

in furtherance of his business as an aviation consultant. Mr. Wiedemann has 40 years of aviation 

planning experience and has been a certified FAA 5010 Airport Safety Inspector since 2004 (by

GCR Inc., in association with the FAA's Airport Engineering Division, AAS-100, Airport Safety 

Data Program). He is well acquainted with the risks that come with operating an aircraft in the 

United States.

The petitioner desires to use the Phantom 2 to record low altitude video of airports that desire 

videos for public outreach purposes and to aid in some 5010 airport safety inspections. Of 

course, these inspections or other aerial videos would only be taken when the subject airport was 

closed for short periods and NOTAMs describing the activity were issued. Granting this 

exemption will benefit the public interest in the following ways:

 Ultra-Small electric-powered unmanned aerial systems can obtain low altitude video 

footage with far less risk of injury or property damage, and far less noise disturbance than 

a manned helicopter flight. This UAS weighs less than 3 pounds, carries no fuel or crew, 

therefore the risk of fire following an incident or accident due to fuel spillage is 

eliminated, and risk to onboard crew is also eliminated, and

 Publishing airport-related public outreach videos on the internet that includes aerial video 

provides the public with greater detailed information and increases production value over 

ground shots.

 There are times when the FAA 5010 Airport Master Record inspection process can be 

aided through video inspection (rooftops, multiple tree obstruction sites that are difficult 

to access, etc.).

Precedence for granting such an exemption request can be found in FAA exemption # 11138.

Pursuant to 14 CFR §§ 11.61-.103 and Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act

of 2012, PL 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012), the petitioner is submitting the following information with

this request:

Identity of Petitioner

Randal Wiedemann

P.O. Box 621

Georgetown, KY, 40324

Phone: (502) 535-6570

Email: randal@rawiedemann.com

Description of Operations
Petition for Exemption

R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 2

The UAS that is the Subject of this Petition.

Mr. Wiedemann is the owner of a DJI Phantom 2, Vision+ v3.0 Quadcopter with a 3-axis gimbal 

and HD video camera, model number of P330Z, and its associated portable ground station 

controller (together the "Subject UAS"). The Subject UAS is a quad-copter with a camera 

mounted beneath it, piloted via a portable ground station. It weighs less than 3 pounds (1,242 

grams). The Phantom 2 is a widely known unmanned aircraft, and is the same type of aircraft 

that was recently the subject of the approval of an exemption by the FAA. See In re Douglas 

Trudeau, FAA Exemption No. 11138 (Jan. 5, 2015)

The portable ground station used by Mr. Wiedemann to pilot the unmanned aircraft is a two 

channel, wireless communication device using an FCC-compliant 5.8GHz frequency band for 

controlling the aircraft, and a 2.4 MHz data link for video and flight data. The Subject UAS is 

equipped with lost-link capability, which enables the Phantom 2 to enter a fail-safe Return-toHome Mode in the event that the link between the aircraft and the ground station is lost. The 

Subject UAS can operate for a total of approximately 28 minutes on one battery charge. It has a 

maximum range from the ground station of 2,300 feet. However, it also has programmable 

height and radius limits to establish an operations area. Without programming the Subject UAS, 

it has a default height limit of 393 feet AGL.

The UAS Pilot in Command

Mr. Wiedemann asserts that under § 61.113 (a) and (b) private pilots are limited to 

noncommercial operations, however, he can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by

current regulations because his UAS does not carry any pilots or passengers. Further, while

helpful, a pilot license will not ensure remote control piloting skills. He further indicates that the

risks of operating a UAS are far less than the risk levels inherent in the commercial activities

outlined in 14 CFR part 61, et seq., thus he requests an exemption from § 61.113 Private Pilot 

Privileges and Limitations: Pilot in Command.

Regarding UAS operational training, Mr. Wiedemann has flown numerous practice flights in

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

with the characteristics of his UAS’ performance under different temperature and weather

conditions. Additionally, Mr. Wiedemann agrees to abide by the UAS Operating Parameters 

listed in the next section.

UAS Operating Parameters

Mr. Wiedemann states he will abide by the following additional operating conditions under the

exemption for which he is making application:

 Operate his UAS below 300 feet and within a radius of 1,000 feet from the controller to 

aid in direct line of sight visual observation;

 Operate the UAS for 15-20 minutes or less, per flight
Petition for Exemption

R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 3

 Land his UAS prior to the manufacturer’s recommended minimum level of battery 

power;

 Operate his UAS only within visual line of sight (VLOS), and during hours of daylight;

 Use the UAS’ global positioning system (GPS) flight safety feature whereby it hovers 

and then slowly lands if communication with the remote control pilot is lost;

 Conduct all operations under his own personal and flight safety protocols (including 

posting a warning sign reading: “Attention Aerial Photography in Progress – Remain 

Back 150 feet”) contained in the operating documents and will actively analyze flight 

data and other sources of information to constantly update and enhance his safety

protocols;

 Contact respective airports if operations will be within 5 miles to advise them of his

estimated flight time, flight duration, elevation of flight, and other pertinent information;

 Always obtain all necessary permissions prior to operation; and

 Have procedures in place to abort flights in the event of safety breaches or potential

danger.

Specific Sections of 14 CFR From Which Petitioner Seeks an Exemption

Mr. Wiedemann seeks an exemption from the following FARs:

14 CFR Part 21, Subpart H Certification procedures for products and parts, Airworthiness Certificates

14 CFR Part 36 Noise standards: Type and airworthiness

14 CFR § 45.23 Display of marks; general

14 CFR Part 61 Certification: Pilots, flight instructors, and ground instructors

14 CFR § 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness

14 CFR § 91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements

14 CFR § 91.103 Preflight action

14 CFR § 91.105 Flight crewmember stations

14 CFR § 91.109 Flight instruction

14 CFR § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes

14 CFR § 91.121 Altimeter settings

14 CFR § 91.151 Fuel requirements for flights in VFR conditions

14 CFR § 91.173 ATC clearance and flight plan in IFR conditions

14 CFR § 91.203 Civil aircraft: Certifications required

14 CFR § 91.207 Emergency locator transmitters

14 CFR Part 91, Subpart E Maintenance

The Extent of Relief Sought, and Reasons for Seeking the Exemption
Petition for Exemption

R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 4

14 CFR Part 21, Subpart H. Part 21 establishes the procedures for issuance of certificates 

of airworthiness, as mandated by 49 U.S.C. § 44704. Under Section 333 and 49 U.S.C. § 

44701(b), the FAA may exempt aircraft from airworthiness certification. The petitioner requests 

an exemption from the requirements of this Part because the size, weight, speed, operational 

capability in which the Subject UAS pose significantly less risk than the risks posed by

conventional aircraft. Manned aircraft pose risks to the life and safety of the crew; that is not a 

consideration with the Subject UAS. Risks to third parties are also minimized given the 

lightweight and slow speed at which the Subject U AS would operate. Nor are there risks of fuel 

spillage or fire in the event of an accident. Thus Mr. Wiedemann requests that the FAA waive 

the requirement that the Subject UAS, particularly the aircraft portion, require an airworthiness 

certificate.

14 CFR Part 36. FAR Part 36, Subparts A, F, and O, establish certain noise standards for 

certification of various aircraft types. Because the Subject UAS would not have an airworthiness 

certificate, and given its small size and negligible noise impact, the petitioner requests an 

exemption from FAR Part 36.

14 CFR § 45.23. FAR Part 45.23 establishes marking requirements for aircraft; paragraph 

(b) mandates that the registration number be displayed in letters not less than two inches in 

height. The Subject UAS is small enough that it cannot accommodate the type-size requirement. 

Accordingly, Mr. Wiedemann requests an exemption from this part.

14 CFR Part 61. FAR Part 61 sets forth the certification requirements for pilots. Subpart

E establishes the privileges and limitations for holders of a private pilot certificate. The petitioner

requests an exemption that would allow him to operate the Subject UAS for compensation or

hire as part of his aerial photography business for the reasons articulated in In re Trudeau, FAA

Exemption No. 11138, and In re Astraeus, FAA Exemption No. 11062. Mr. Wiedemann will

operate the Subject UAS over property where the owner or owner's representative has requested

that the operation occur. Furthermore, possession of a pilot certificate does not ensure remote

control piloting skills. He thus request exemption from this section.

14 CFR § 91.7. Under FAR 91.7, no person may operate an aircraft unless it is in an 

airworthy condition. To the extent that "airworthy" is defined as requiring an airworthiness 

certificate, the petitioner would request an exemption from this FAR for the same reasons 

identified in his request for an exemption of 14 CFR Part 21, Subpart H. He will not, however, 

operate the Subject UAS if it is not in a condition for safe flight, as required under FAR 91.7(b).

14 CFR § 91.9. Petitioner requests exemption from the requirement of FAR 91.9, which 

requires that all aircraft have certain markings, placards and on-board flight manuals for the 

same reasons as stated in his request for exemption under 14 CFR Part 21, Subpart H, and for a 

deviation from the marking requirements of 14 CFR Part 36, Subparts A, F, and 0. Additionally, 

relevant materials will be kept in a location accessible to the PIC in compliance with the 

regulations.
Petition for Exemption

R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 5

14 CFR § 91.103. FAR 91.103 mandates certain pre-flight action. Petitioner will take all 

necessary pre-flight action, but requests an exemption from this requirement insofar as it is 

interpreted as requiring pre-flight actions appropriate to manned aircraft only.

14 CFR § 91.105. FAR 91.105 mandates that crewmembers be at designated stations, 

have safety belts fastened, etc. Petitioner would be at a designated ground station for each 

mission, but requests an exemption to accommodate the fact that the Subject UAS is unmanned.

14 CFR § 91.109. This FAR requires that all flight instruction be conducted in aircraft 

that have dual controls, or throw-over controls, with an instructor. From time to time the 

petitioner will conduct his own refresher training, but requests an exemption insofar as this FAR 

would be interpreted to require that the ground control station have a second controller or dual 

control capability

14 CFR § 91.119. FAR 91.119 sets forth the minimum safe altitudes over various areas. 

Petitioner requests an exemption from this FAR in order to accomplish the intended function of 

the mission for which he seeks an exemption.

14 CFR § 91.121. FAR 91.121 mandates various altimeter settings in order to maintain 

level flight. Petitioner requests and exemption from this FAR as the Subject UA V will not have 

an altimeter that matches the requirements of this FAR. Operations with the Subject UAV will, 

however, maintain altitude below the 300' AGL ceiling by the petitioner monitoring the altitude 

of the UAS and through the Subject UAS's ability to establish a flight zone that cannot exceed 

the ceiling.

14 CFR § 91.151. Petitioner requests an exemption from the VFR-flight fuel carrying 

requirements because the Subject UAS will operate on battery power. Operations with the 

Subject UAS will, however, maintain a five-minute reserve battery time.

19 CFR § 91.173. Petitioner requests an exemption from the IFR-clearance requirement 

for flights into controlled airspace. It is possible Mr. Wiedemann may operate the Subject UAS 

in conditions that are IFR within controlled airspace. He would request that, after contacting 

ATC for the controlled airspace, he would be allowed to operate in what might be IFR

conditions, but where he still has complete and unfettered line of sight visibility with the Subject 

UAS.

14 CFR § 91.203. FAR 91.203 requires that a civil aircraft have an airworthiness 

certificate and a registration certificate. Mr. Wiedemann requests that he be exempt from 

complying with this FAR insofar as it mandates issuance of an airworthiness certificate, for the 

reasons stated in his request for an exemption under 14 CFR Part 21, Subpart H.

14 CFR § 91.207. FAR 91.207 prohibits operation of a US-registered aircraft unless it is 

equipped with an emergency locator transmitter. Given the limited distance of flights of the 

Subject UAS, Mr. Wiedemann requests an exemption from this FAR.
Petition for Exemption

R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 6

14 CFR Part 91, Subpart E. FAR 91, Subpart E requires that owners or operators of 

aircraft have the aircraft inspected at certain intervals, and by certain mechanics. Petitioner 

requests an exemption from this Subpart because the Subject UAS has a trouble-shooting and 

maintenance program that is best executed by the owner/operator, and is simply different from 

the maintenance of manned aircraft. Petitioner will, however, maintain a maintenance log and 

any maintenance records of repair of the Subject UAS.

Public Interest and Benefit Considerations. 

Aerial imaging services generally require use of a manned platform. Close-proximity aerial 

photography is difficult to do, and usually requires the use of a helicopter or slow-moving 

aircraft at an appropriate distance over a populated area. The operation must be conducted in 

VFR conditions, and adds aircraft in congested airspace.

By using the Subject UAS, Mr. Wiedemann aims to provide the public with quality aerial 

photography and videography services at a fraction of the cost involved with manned flight. 

Furthermore, the risks inherent with manned flight are significantly reduced where the aircraft 

conducting the operation is less than fifty-five pounds, remains below 300' AGL, and can operate 

within a very confined cylinder on or directly over the location being photographed.

Publishing airport-related public outreach videos on the internet that includes aerial video 

provides the public with greater detailed information and increases production value over ground 

shots. In addition, there are times when the FAA 5010 Airport Master Record inspection process 

can be aided through video inspection (rooftops, multiple tree obstruction sites that are difficult 

to access, etc.). 

Why the Exemptions Would Not Adversely Affect Safety.

The proposed operations will not adversely affect safety for four primary reasons.

Flights are limited to property over which the owner has requested that the Subject UAS 

operate, so the owners will be aware of the flight operation. As an experienced professional with 

40 years of experience in the airport planning industry, Mr. Wiedemann fully recognizes the 

dangers that a small UAV could pose to all types of manned aircraft. 

Second, the Subject UAS is simply not a large aircraft. Weighing in at less than 3 pounds, 

the likelihood that it would damage property or injure a person is low, even in the event of a 

mishap. Furthermore, aerial imaging is still something done via manned aircraft, and the risk 

there is at least equal to the risk posed by the proposed operation.

Third, the Subject UAS has inherent lost-link capabilities to bring it back to its operating 

base for each mission. It is a redundant system for a more foreseeable problem that could arise. 

Fourth, the Subject UAS will be operated only by the petitioner. Mr. Wiedemann is an 

experienced radio controlled pilot with sufficient flight time and experience with the aircraft to 

conduct a reasonably safe operation.
Petition for Exemption

R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 7

Language for Inclusion in the Federal Register

Mr. Wiedemann purposes that the following language be included in the Federal Register: 

Petition for Exemption.

Federal Aviation Regulations from which Petitioner seeks exemption: 14 CFR Part 21, 

Subpart H; Part 36; § 45.23; Part 61; §§ 91.7; 91.9; 91.103; 91.105; 91.109; 91.119; 

91.121; 91.151; 91.173; 91.203; 91.207; and 14 CFR Part 91, Subpart E.

Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is seeking an exemption from the abovereferenced Federal Aviation Regulations to conduct aerial photography and videography

using a light, unmanned aerial vehicle for airports and local municipalities seeking to 

provide aerial images to promote public outreach and involvement. In addition, there 

may be occasions to use aerial observation to aid FAA 5010 Airport Master Record 

inspections.

Conclusion.

Mr. Wiedemann would like to thank the FAA for considering this request. Please do not hesitate 

to contact him should there be a need for additional information. He looks forward to working 

with the FAA in its determination, and to being part of the discussion as the FAA considers how 

to expand, train, test, register, track and control commercial UAV use in the United States.

Respectfully Submitted,

Randal A. Wiedemann

Petitioner