June	1,	2015

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation	

Docket	Management	System	

1200	New	Jersey	Ave.,	SE	

Washington,	DC	20590	

Chopper	Shots	Imaging,	LLC Petition	for	Exemption	to	Operate	

Unmanned	Aircraft	Systems	for	Aerial	Photography	and	Filming	

FAA	Regulatory	Docket	

NAME	AND	ADDRESS	OF	PETITIONER:

Chopper	Shots	Imaging,	LLC.	

Attn:	Rael	Lubner

CHOPPER	SHOTS	IMAGING,	LLC

3751	Main	St,	Ste.	600-322

The	Colony,	TX	75056

561-972-8859

info@choppershots.net
I.	PETITION	SUMMARY	

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

Pub.	L.	No.	112-95	(2012),	126	Stat.	11	(“Section	333”)	and	the	Federal	Aviation	

Administration’s	(“FAA”)	general	exemption	authority	under	49	U.S.C.	§	44701(f),	

Picture	Factory,	Inc.	(“Petitioner”)	hereby	petitions	for	exemptions	from	14	C.F.R.	

Part	21,	14	C.F.R.	§§	61.113(a)	and	(b),	61.133(a),	91.7(a),	91.9(b)(2),	91.103(b)(1),	

91.119(c),	91.121,	91.151,	91.203(a)	and	(b),	91.405(a),	91.407(a)(1)	91.409(a)(2),	

91.417(a)-(b),	14	C.F.R.	Part	47,	14	C.F.R.	Part	45,	Subpart	C.

The	proposed	exemptions,	if	granted,	would	allow	Petitioner	to	operate	small,	

camera-mounted	unmanned	aircraft	systems	(“UAS”)	weighing	55	pounds	or	less	

for	the	purpose	of	filming motion	pictures,	music	videos,	web	videos,	corporate	

videos,	television	programs,	commercials,	aerial	photography	and	video,	surveying	

for	development,	agriculture	inspection,	aerial	360	degree	panoramas,	and	aerial	

mapping.	

Based	on	the	small	size	of	Petitioner’s	UAS,	the	qualifications	and	experience	of	

Petitioner’s	UAS	operators,	and	the	restricted,	sterile	environment	within	which	

Petitioner	will	operate,	the	requested	exemptions	fall	squarely	within	the	zone	of	

safety	envisioned	by	Congress	and	set	forth	in	Section	333.	Additionally,	the	

enhanced	safety	achieved	by	replacing	significantly	larger	manned	aircraft	carrying	

crew	and	flammable	fuel	with	small	UAS	carrying	no	passengers	or	crew	and	

operated	under	the	specific	guidelines	and	procedures	proposed	by	Petitioner	gives	

the	FAA	good	cause	to	find	that	the	UAS	operations	enabled	by	the	instant	Petition	

are	in	the	public	interest. Thus,	the	requested	exemptions	should	be	granted.	

II.	BACKGROUND	

For	more	than	a	decade,	Petitioner’s	production	and	filming	professionals	have	

provided	aerial	video services	and	camera	support	for	television	programs,	

corporate	and	music	videos,	marketing	videos,	and	events	around	the	world.	

Combining	the	latest	technology	with	a	long	track	record	of	safe	and	successful	

projects. In	order	to	continue	to	provide	the	highest	level	of	service,	and	to	promote	

safety	by	eliminating	the	need	for	large	manned	aircraft	on	a	filming	set,	Petitioner	

seeks	regulatory	exemptions	that	will	allow	Petitioner	to	employ	camera-mounted	

UAS	technology	in	the	filming	and	production	process.	

III.	STATUTORY	AUTHORITY	

A.	Section	333	

Section	333,	titled	“Special	Rules	for	Certain	Unmanned	Aircraft	Systems,”	provides	

a	mechanism	for	seeking	expedited	FAA	authorization	of	safe	civil	UAS	operations	in	

the	National	Airspace	System	(“NAS”).	Section	333(a)	states	that	the	FAA	“shall	

determine	if	certain	unmanned	aircraft	systems	may	operate	safely	in	the	national	
airspace	system	before	completion	of	the	[comprehensive]	plan	and	rulemaking	

required	by	section	332(b)(1)	of	this	Act	or	the	guidance	required	by	section	334	of	

this	Act.”	In	Section	332(b)(1),	Congress	made	it	clear	that	Section	333	provides	a	

mechanism	for	“expedited	operational	authorization.”	The	FAA	has	committed	to	

complying	with	this	mandate	by	granting	several	petitions	almost	identical	to	the	

one	at	hand.	See,	e.g.,	

Exemption	No.	11062,	Regulatory	Docket	No. FAA-2014-0352	(granting	regulatory	

exemptions	to	Chopper	Shots	Imaging,	LLC for	operation	of	unmanned	aircraft	

systems	for	the	purpose of filming	motion	pictures,	music	videos,	web	videos,	

corporate	videos,	television	programs,	commercials,	aerial	photography	and	video,	

surveying	for	development,	agriculture	inspection,	aerial	360	degree	panoramas,	

and	aerial	mapping.).	

Section	333(b)	identifies	several	factors	that	the	FAA	should	consider	in	

determining	whether	commercial	UAS	operations	should	be	approved.	These	

include	UAS	that,	“as	a	result	of	their	size,	weight,	speed,	operational	capability,	

proximity	to	airports	and	populated	areas,	and	operation	within	visual	line	of	sight	

do	not	create	a	hazard	to	users	of	the	[NAS]	or	the	public	or	pose	a	threat to	national	

security.”	See	Section	333(b).	

B.	Section	44701(f)	

In	addition	to	the	specific	authority	conferred	by	Section	333,	the	FAA	

Administrator	has	general	authority	to	grant	exemptions	from	the	FAA’s	safety	

regulations	and	minimum	standards	when	the	Administrator	decides	a	requested	

exemption	is	in	the	public	interest.	See	U.S.C.	§	44701(f).	

IV.	REQUESTED	EXEMPTIONS	

Petitioner	requests	relief	from	the	following	regulations:	

Part	21	prescribes,	in	pertinent	part,	the	procedural	requirements for	issuing	and	

changing	design	approvals,	production	approvals,	airworthiness	certificates,	and	

airworthiness	approvals.	

Section	61.113	prescribes	that	“no	person	who	holds	a	private	pilot	certificate	may	

act	as	a	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,”	(see	Section	61.113(a)),	and	that	“a	private	pilot	may,	for	

compensation	or	hire,	act	as	pilot	in	command	of	an	aircraft	in	connection	with	any	

business	or	employment	if:	(1)	The	flight	is	only	incidental	to	that	business	or	

employment;	and	(2)	The	aircraft	does	not	carry	passengers	or	property	for	

compensation	or	hire,”	(see	Section	61.113(b)).	
Section	61.133(a)	sets	forth	privileges	for	persons	holding	commercial	pilot	

certificates,	including	a	provision	impliedly	limiting	to	persons	holding	a

commercial	pilot	certificate	the	ability	to	act	as	pilot	in	command	of	an	aircraft	“[f]or	

compensation	or	hire.”	

Section	91.7(a)	prescribes,	in	pertinent	part,	that	no	person	may	operate	a	civil	

aircraft	unless	it	is	in	an	airworthy	condition.	

Section	91.9(b)(2)	prohibits	operation	of	U.S.	registered	civil	aircraft	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.

Section	91.103(b)(1)	prescribes,	in	pertinent	part,	that	each	pilot	in	command	shall,	

before	beginning	a	flight,	become	familiar	with	all	available	information	concerning	

that	flight,	to	include,	“For	any	flight,	runway	lengths	at	airports	of	intended	use,	and	

the	following	takeoff	and	landing	distance	information: 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.”	

Section	91.119(c)	prescribes	that,	except	when	necessary	for	takeoff	or	landing,	no	

person	may	operate	an	aircraft	below	the	following	altitudes:	“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.”	

Section	91.121	requires,	in	pertinent	part,	each	person	operating	an	aircraft	to	

maintain	cruising	altitude	by	reference	to	an	altimeter	that	is	set	“to	the	elevation	of	

the	departure	airport	or	an	appropriate	altimeter	setting	available	before	

departure.”	

Section	91.151(a)	prescribes	that	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.	

Section	91.203	prohibits,	in	subpart	(a),	any	person	from	operating	a	civil	aircraft	

unless	it	has	within	it	(1)	an	appropriate	and	current	airworthiness	certificate;	and	

(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).	

Section	91.203	prescribes,	in	subpart	(b),	that	no	person	may	operate	a	civil	aircraft	

unless	the	airworthiness	certificate	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.	
Section	91.405(a)	requires,	in	pertinent	part,	that	an	aircraft	operator	or	owner	

shall	have	the	aircraft	inspected	as	prescribed	in	subpart	E	of	the	same	part	and	

shall,	between	required	inspections,	except	as	provided	in	paragraph	(c)	of	the	same	

section,	have	discrepancies	repaired	as	prescribed	in	Part	43	of	the	chapter.	

Section	91.407(a)(1)	prohibits,	in	pertinent	part,	any	person	from	operating	an	

aircraft	that	has	undergone	maintenance,	preventative	maintenance,	rebuilding,	or	

alteration	unless	it	has	been	approved	for	return	to	service	by	a	person	authorized	

under	§	43.7	of	the	same	chapter.	

Section	91.409(a)(2)	prescribes,	in	pertinent	part,	that	no	person	may	operate	an	

aircraft	unless,	within	the	preceding	12	calendar	months,	it	has	had	an	inspection	

for	the	issuance	of	an	airworthiness	certificate	in	accordance	with	part	21	of	this	

chapter.	

Section	91.417(a)	and	(b)	prescribes,	in	pertinent	part,	that-

(a)	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,	

preventative	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	revisions	date.	If	the	AD	or	safety	directive	involves	

recurring	action,	the	time	and	date	when	the	next	action	is	required.	

(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.	

Sections:	Petitioner’s	UAS	will	not	be	identified	by	serial	number,	registered	in	

accordance	with	14	C.F.R.	Part	47,	and	have	identification	(N-Number)	markings	in	

accordance	with	14	C.F.R.	Part	45,	Subpart	C.	UAS	is	too	small	to	include	markings.

V.	PETITIONER’S	PROPOSED	OPERATIONS	SATISFY	SECTION	333.	

A.	Unmanned	Aircraft	System	

The	UAS	to	be	operated	under	this	request	are	less	than	55	lbs.	fully	loaded,	will be	

operated	at	a	speed	of	no	more	than	50	knots,	carry	neither	a	pilot	nor	passenger,	

carry	no	explosive	materials	or	flammable	liquids,	and	operate	exclusively	within	a	

secured	area.	Petitioner’s	UAS	use	a	radio	frequency	spectrum	for	operation	and	

control	that	complies	with	Federal	Communications	Commission	(“FCC”)	

requirements,	and	Petitioner	has	integrated	safety	features	into	the	UAS,	as	

described	in	Petitioner’s	Flight	Operations	and	Procedures	Manual	(“FOPM”).1	

1	The	FOPM	will	be	submitted	separately	and	confidentially	under	14	

C.F.R.	11.35(b),	as	the	manuals	contain	proprietary	information	that	the	applicant	

has	not	and	will	not	share	with	others.	The	manuals	contain	operating	conditions	

and	procedures	that	are	not	available	to	the	public	and	are protected	from	release	

under	the	Freedom	of	Information	Act,	5	U.S.C.	§§	552,	et	seq.	
Petitioner’s	UAS	are	equipped	with	redundant	safety	mechanisms	allowing	them	to	

operate	safely	after	experiencing	certain	in-flight	failures.	If	a	lost-link	event	occurs,	

including	the	loss	of	ground	communications	and/or	the	loss	of	a	GPS	signal,	

Petitioner’s	UAS	have	the	ability	to	perform	a	pre-coordinated,	predictable,	

automated	flight	maneuver	and	return	to	a	predetermined	location	within	a	

designated	security	perimeter	for	landing.	The	UAS	further	have	the	ability	to	abort	

a	flight	in	the	event	of	unpredicted	obstacles	or	emergencies.	All	flights	will	be	

terminated	after	a	maximum	of	30	minutes	or	with	25%	remaining	battery	power,	

whichever	occurs	first.	Thus,	good cause	exists	for	granting	Petitioner’s	requested	

relief	from	14	C.F.R.	§	91.151(a)	(setting	forth	fuel	requirements	for	flight	in	VFR	

conditions).	

Regarding	Petitioner’s	requested	relief	from	14	C.F.R.	§	91.121	(Altimeter	

Settings),	Petitioner	seeks	such	relief	because	Petitioner	will	not	have	a	typical	

barometric	altimeter	onboard	the	UAS.	Instead,	altitude	information	will	be	

provided	to	the	UAS	PIC	via	a	digitally	encoded	telemetric	data	feed,	which	

downlinks	from	the	aircraft	to	a	ground-based	on-screen	display.	The	altitude	

information	will	be	generated	by	equipment	installed	onboard	the	UAS,	using	GPS	

triangulation,	digitally	encoded	barometric	altimeter,	radio	altimeter,	or	any	

combination	thereof.	Prior	to	each	flight,	a	zero	altitude	initiation	point	will	be	

established	and	confirmed	for	accuracy	by	the	UAS	PIC.	Thus,	good	cause	exists	for	

granting	the	requested	relief	from	14	C.F.R.	§	91.121.	

Given	the	size,	weight,	speed,	and	limited	operating	area	associated	with	the	aircraft	

to	be	utilized	by	the	applicant,	an	exemption	from	14	C.F.R.	Part	21,	Subpart	H	

(Airworthiness	Certificates),	subject	to	certain	conditions	and	limitations,	is	

warranted	(if	necessary)	and	meets	the	requirements	for	an	equivalent	level	of	

safety	under	14	C.F.R.	Part	11 and	Section	333.	The	UAS	operated	without	an	

airworthiness	certificate	in	the	restricted	environment	and	under	the	conditions	

and	limitations	proposed	by	Petitioner	will	be	at	least	as	safe,	or	safer,	than	a	

conventional	aircraft	(fixed	wing	or	rotorcraft)	operating	with	an	airworthiness	

certificate	issued	under	14	C.F.R.	Part	21,	Subpart	H,	and	

not	subject	to	the	proposed	limitations	and	conditions.	

Petitioner	will	strictly	comply	with	safety	and	maintenance	procedures	included	in	

all	applicable	UAS	manufacturer’s	instructions	and	operating	manuals.	To	the	extent	

such	information	is	not	included	in	the	guidelines	developed	by	the	manufacturers,	

Petitioners	will	develop	and	document	maintenance,	overhaul,	replacement,	and	

inspection	requirements,	procedures	to	document	and	maintain	maintenance	

records	with	regard	to	Petitioner’s	UAS,	and	UAS	technician	qualification	criteria.	

Petitioner’s	operations	manuals	will	include	maintenance	requirements	for	

Petitioner’s	UAS,	including	“on-condition”	maintenance	and	modifications.	In	light	of	

these	mitigating	factors,	exemptions	from	14	C.F.R.	§§	91.405(a),	91.407(a)(1),	

91.409(a)(1)	and	(2),	and	91.417(a)	and	(b)	are	warranted.	
B.	UAS	Pilot	in	Command	

Petitioner’s	UAS	pilot	in	command	(PIC)	shall	have	passed	the	FAA	ground	school	

examination	and	shall	hold	at	least	a	third-class	medical	certificate	but	shall	not	be	

required	to	hold	a	current	pilot’s	license.	Since	there	are	no	standards	for	either	

private	or	commercial	UAS	pilot	certificates,	knowledge	of	airspace	regulations	

acquired	from	FAA	ground	school	and	dexterity	in	the	control	and	operation	of	the	

UAS	acquired	from	actual	operation	of	the	aircraft	will	be	the	most	important	

factors	in	establishing	an	equivalent	level	of	safety.	According	to	the	FAA,	“the FAA	

considers	the	overriding	safety	factor	for	the	limited	operations	proposed	by	the	

petitioner	to	be	the	airmanship	skills	acquired	through	UAS-specific	flight	cycles,	

flight	time,	and	specific	make	and	model	experience,	culminating	in	verification	

through	testing.”	See	Exemption	No.	11062,	Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA-2014-0352,	

at	p.	18.	With	those	factors	in	mind,	Petitioner’s	UAS	PIC	shall	be	required	to	meet	

several	conditions	and	limitations	as	outlined	in	the	FOPM	and	MPTFOM,	including	

the	following:

•	The	UAS	PIC	will	have	accumulated	and	logged	a	minimum	of	200	flight	cycles	and	

25	hours	of	total	time	as	a	UAS	rotorcraft	pilot	and	at	least	10	hours	logged	as	a	UAS	

pilot	with	a	similar	UAS	type	(single	blade	or	multirotor).	

•	The	UAS	PIC	will	have	accumulated	and	logged	a	minimum	of	five	hours	of	flight	

time	with	the	specific	make	and	model	of	the	UAS	to	be	utilized	for	operations	under	

the	exemption	and	three	take-offs	and	landings	in	the	preceding	90	days.	

•	The	UAS	PIC	will	have	successfully	completed	the	qualification	process	as	specified	

in	the	operations	manuals,	to	include	a	knowledge	and	skill	test.2	

2	Prior	to	operating,	the	PIC	will	be	required	to	pass	the	knowledge	and	airmanship	

test	qualifications	developed	by	Petitioner	for	the	UAS	(which	will	be	included	in	

Petitioner’s	operations	manuals).	There	are	no	established	practical	test	standards	

that	support	a	jurisdictional	FAA	FSDO	(“Flight	Standards	District	Office”)	

evaluation	and	approval	of	company	designated	examiners.	Petitioner	will	conduct	

these	tests	in	accordance	with	its	operations	manuals.	Given	the	constraints	of	the	

proposed	operations,	this	procedure	for	testing	will	not	adversely	affect	the	safety	

of	the	NAS.	

Regarding	Petitioner’s	requested	relief	from	14	C.F.R.	§	91.7(a),	it	is	Petitioner’s	

understanding	that	Petitioner’s	UAS	will	not	require	an	airworthiness	certificate	in	

accordance	with	14	C.F.R.	Part	21,	Subpart	H,	and	that	exemption	from	14	C.F.R.	

§	91.7(a)	is	therefore	unnecessary.	To	the	extent	such	an	exemption	is	deemed	

necessary,	Petitioner	asserts	that	it	should	be	granted	in	light	of	the	safety	

procedures	proposed	herein.	In	accordance	with	the	pertinent	part	of	14	C.F.R.	§	

91.7(b),	the	operator	in	command	of	Petitioner’s	UAS	shall	be responsible	for	

determining	whether	the	aircraft	is	in	a	safe	condition	for	flight.	Petitioner’s	

manuals	for	maintenance	and	operations	shall	include	safety	checklists	to	be	used	

by	the	operator	in	command	prior	to	each	flight.	
Regarding	Petitioner’s	requested	relief	from	14	C.F.R.	§	91.9(b)(2)	(Civil	aircraft	

flight	manual,	marking,	and	placard	requirements	and	§	91.203(a)	and	(b),	(Civil

aircraft:	certifications	required),	it	is	Petitioner’s	understanding	that	relief	from	

these	regulations	is	no	longer necessary	in	light	of	the	FAA	Memorandum	

“Interpretation	regarding	whether	certain	required	documents	may	be	kept	at	an	

unmanned	aircraft’s	control	station,”	dated	August	8,	2014.	To	the	extent	the	FAA	

deems	an	exemption	from	this	section	necessary	for	Petitioner’s	proposed	

operations,	such	exemption	should	be	granted	in	light	of	the	mitigating	fact	that	

Petitioner	will	maintain	the	documents	required	under	14	C.F.R.	§§	91.9	and	91.203	

at	the	UAS	ground	control	station	during	flights.	

Additionally,	100%	of	Petitioner’s	operations	will	utilize	a	visual	observer	(“VO”).	

The	VO	may	be	used	to	satisfy	the	VLOS	requirement	as	long	as	the	PIC	always	

maintains	VLOS	capability.	The	VO	and	the	PIC	will	be	able	to	communicate	verbally	

at	all	times	during	operational	flights.	

Regarding	Petitioner’s	requested	relief	from	14	C.F.R.	§	91.103(b)(1),	Petitioner	will	

comply	with	the	other	applicable	procedures	and	requirements	stated	in	§91.103(a)	

and	(b).	Specifically,	the	PIC	will	take	all	actions	including	reviewing	weather,	flight	

battery	requirements,	aircraft	performance	data,	and	landing	and	takeoff	distances	

before	initiation	of	a	flight.	The	PIC	will	also	account	for	all	relevant	site-specific	

conditions	in	their	preflight	procedures.	Risks	presented	by	sun	glare will	be	

mitigated	by	the	PIC’s	and	VO’s	ability	to	see	other	air	traffic	and	initiate	a	return-tohome	sequence	if	needed.	

The	PIC’s	UAS	operation	will	be	limited	to	a	unique	and	restricted	environment.	

Given	the	(1)	separation	of	closed-set	filming	operations	from	other	manned	

operations,	(2)	parallel	nature	of	aeronautical	knowledge	requirements	incumbent	

in	the	FAA	ground	school	exam	and	the	process	of	obtaining	a	private	pilot’s	license,	

and	(3)	the	proposed	UAS	airmanship	skills	of	Petitioner’s	PICs,	the	additional	

manned	airmanship	experience	of	a	private	pilot	would	not	correlate	to	the	

airmanship	skills	necessary	for	Petitioner’s	proposed	unmanned	operations.	Thus,	

Petitioner’s	request	for	relief	from	14	C.F.R.	§	61.113(a)	and	(b)	and	§	61.133(a)

should	be	granted.	

C.	Operating	Parameters	of	Petitioner’s	UAS	

Petitioner’s	UAS	operations	will	be	conducted	within	a	sterile	environment	of	

closed-set	filming.	In	this	controlled	environment,	Petitioner’s	operations	will	

remain	within	VLOS	of	the	PIC and	VO,	below	400	feet	AGL,	and	at	speeds	below	50	

knots.	Only	participating	persons	will	be	permitted	within	the	operating	area.3	

3	Pursuant	to	Order	8900.1	V3,	C8,	S1,	“participating	persons”	includes	all	persons	

associated	with	the	filming	production.	Participating	persons	will	be	briefed	on	the	

potential	risk	of	the	proposed	flight	operations	and	must	acknowledge	and	accept	

those	risks	prior	to	participation.	
Consistent	with	the	relief	typically	provided	to	manned	operations	under	FAA	

Order	8900.1,	Volume	3,	Chapter	8,	Section	1,	Petitioner	requests	relief	from	14	

C.F.R.	§	91.119(c)	with	respect	to	those	participating	persons,	vehicles,	and	

structures	directly	involved	in	the	performance	of	the	actual	filming.	Regarding	

distance	from	participating	persons,	the	operations	manuals	set	forth	safety	factors	

for	authorized	and	consenting	production	personnel.	Because	those	procedures	are	

specific	to	participating	persons,	no	further	FSDO	or	aviation	safety	inspector	

approval	is	necessary	for	reductions	to	the	distances	specified	in	Petitioner’s	

manuals.	

Regarding	the	distance	from	nonparticipating	persons,	Petitioner	will	ensure	that	no	

persons	are	allowed	within	500	feet	of	the	operating	area	except	those	consenting	

to	be	involved	and	necessary	for	the filming	production,	with	the	possibility	of	

reducing	this	distance	to	no	less	than	200	feet	if	it	would	not	adversely	affect	safety	

and	the	Administrator	has	approved	it.	This	is	consistent	with	FAA	Order	8900.1,	

V3,	C8,	S1.	

Petitioner	will	not	conduct	UAS	operations	within	5	nautical	miles	of	the	geographic	

center	of	a	non-towered	airport	unless	a	letter	of	agreement	with	that	airport’s	

management	is	obtained	and	the	operation	is	conducted	in	accordance	with	a	Notice	

to	Airmen	(“NOTAM”).	Additionally,	Petitioner	will	not	operate	in	Class	B,	C,	or	D	

airspace	without	written	approval	from	the	FAA.	Nor	will	Petitioner	operate	the	UAS	

less	than	500	feet	below	or	less	than	2,000	feet	horizontally	from	a	cloud	or	when	

visibility	is	less	than	3	statute	miles	from	the	PIC.	

Petitioner’s	UAS	will	remain	clear	and	yield	the	right	of	way	to	all	manned	

operations	and	activities	at	all	times	(including,	but	not	limited	to,	ultralight	

vehicles,	parachute	activities,	parasailing	activities,	and	hangliders).	

Although	Petitioner	seeks	to	comply	with	the	waiver	process	as	described	in	FAA	

Order	8900.1,	Volume	3,	Chapter	8,	Section	1	(Issue	a	Certificate	of	Waiver	for	

Motion	Picture	and	Television	Filming),	the	current	section	of	Order	8900.1	has	

specific	processes	that	preclude	a	jurisdictional	FAA	FSDO	from	issuing	the	required	

Certificate	of	Waiver,	because	the	section	did	not	originally	provide	for	UAS	

operations.	Thus,	Petitioner	seeks	exemption	from	the	applicable	regulations	

normally	waived	during	that	process.	Petitioner	proposes	that	the	FAA	include	the	

required	notifications	and	coordination	with	jurisdictional	FSDOs	through	the	

conditions	and	limitations	accompanying	the	requested	exemption,	and	that	the	

exemption	sought	herein	will	take	the	place	of	the	Certificate	of	Waiver	normally	

issued	by	a	jurisdictional	FSDO	under	8900.1.	Under	this	rubric,	Petitioner	will	

notify	every	FSDO	with	jurisdiction	over	the	area	that	Petitioner	plans	to	operate,	

just	as	with	manned	filming	operations,	and	those	FSDOs	will	have	the	ability	to	

coordinate	further	conditions	and	limitations	with	the	UAS	Integration	Office	to	

address	any	local	concerns.	
Petitioner	will	obtain	an	Air	Traffic	Organization	(“ATO”)	issued	Certificate	of	

Waiver	or	Authorization	(“COA”)	prior	to	conducting	any	operations	under	this	

grant	of	exemption.	In	fulfilling	its	requirements	under	the	COA,	Petitioner	will	be	

required	to	request	a	NOTAM	not	more	than	72	hours	in	advance,	but	not	less	than	

48	hours	prior	to	the	operation.	

D.	The	Requested	Exemption	Promotes	the	Public	Interest	

The	enhanced	safety	achieved	by	replacing	significantly	larger	manned	aircraft	

carrying	crew	and	flammable	fuel	with	small	UAS	carrying	no	passengers	or	crew	

and	operated	under	the	specific	guidelines	and	procedures	proposed	by	Petitioner	

gives	the	FAA	good	cause	to	find	that	the	UAS	operations	enabled	by	the	instant	

Petition	are	in	the	public	interest.	Moreover,	as	the	FAA	has	already	recognized,	

“UAS	provide	an	additional	tool	for	the	filmmaking	industry,	adding	a	greater	degree	

of	flexibility,	which	supplements	the	current	capabilities	offered	by	manned	

aircraft.”	See	Exemption	No.	11062,	Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA-2014-0352,	at	p.	22.	

VI.	CONCLUSION	

For	the	foregoing	reasons,	the	regulatory	exemptions	requested	herein	should	be	

granted	and	Petitioner	should	be	permitted	to	conduct	small	UAS	operations	for	the	

purpose	of	filming	motion	pictures,	music	videos,	web	videos,	corporate	videos,	

television	programs,	commercials,	aerial	photography	and	video,	surveying	for	

development,	agriculture	inspection,	aerial	360	degree	panoramas,	and	aerial	

mapping.

Respectfully	submitted,	

Rael	Lubner

Chopper	Shots	Imaging,	LLC