**Petition for Exempt ion** 

**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, PL1 12
-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 Exempt**  **ion**

**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. Itweighs less than 3 pounds (1,242 grams). The Phantom 2 is a widely known unmanned aircraft, and is the same ty pe 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 Exempt ion** 

**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 u pdate 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 Exempt ion** 

**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 ty pes. 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 ty pe-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 Exempt ion** 

**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' AGLceiling 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. Itis 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 air worthiness 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 f rom this FAR.**Petition for Exempt ion** 

**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. Inaddition, 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 Wo uld 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 ty pes 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 Exempt ion** 

**R.A. Wiedemann & Associates, Inc. 7**  **Language for Inclusion in the Federal Regi ster**  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 above

referenced 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