April 9, 2015

Exemption No. 11310 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0608

Mr. Henry H. Perritt, Jr. Counsel for Co lin Hinkle 1131 Carol Lane Glencoe, Il 60022

Dear Mr. Perritt :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, in cluding the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated September 8 , 2014 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Colin Hinkle ( hereinafter petitioner or operator ) for an exemption

. The exemption would all ow the petitioner to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct aerial photography

.
See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA des cribing the proposed operations and the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption

.

Discussion of Pu blic Comments:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 20, 2014

, ( 79 FR 58852 ). Seven comments were received. Five commenters, including Modovolate Aviation

, supported the petition

. The Air Line Pilots Association, Int ernational (ALPA) and the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) opposed it.2

In support of the petition, individuals cited the petitioner’s experience as a professional pilot. Modovolate Aviation stated that the terms of the petitioner’s reque st would assure safe operation and minimize hazards to manned aircraft to persons and property on the ground. Modovolate Aviation also stated that the petitioner’s small UAS operation will provide the rest of the sUAS community with a concrete exemption of how it can fly its sUAS safely for recreational and commercial purposes.

ALPA expressed concern regarding several aspects of the petition. ALPA stated that the anticipated operation is expected to occur below 400 ft. above ground level (AGL) above the

su rface in Class G airspace. There must be means both to ensur e that the sUAS remained within the defined airspace and to ensure that the hazard of other aircraft intruding on the operation is mitigated.

The FAA believes the limitations under which the pet itioner will operate (i.e., visual line of sight ( VLOS ) and at or below 400 feet AGL) are sufficient mitigations to this risk so that the operations will not adversely affect safety.

ALPA noted that the petition does not state how the pilot and the observ er will be able to communicate with each other. ALPA also noted that text messaging could have an unknown latency extending to severa l minutes. NAAA stated UAS observers must be present and able to communicate with the operator from the most minimal dist ance possible. The FAA has inserted a condition regarding PIC and visual observer communications.

ALPA asserted the UAS’s lithium polymer batteries have numerous associated fire and explosion hazards as outlined in DOT/FAA/AR−09/55, “Flammability Assessment of Lithium

- Ion and Lithium

- Ion Polymer Battery Cell Designed for Aircraft Power Usage (January 2 010),” and that the safe carriage of the batteries and the mitigations in place for known risks should be addressed. The referenced study was primarily conducted to determine how certain battery cells react in a fire situation aboard manned airplanes. Gi ven the size of the battery and the operating conditions of the UAS, the FAA concludes that the use of a lithium polymer battery will not pose an undue safety risk for the proposed operations.

ALPA commented that command and control (C2) link failures are one of the most common failures on a UAS, and that lost link mitigations should require safe modes to prevent fly

aways or other scenarios. The FAA has inserted conditions and limitations in this exemption to mitigate the risk associated with such failur es.

ALPA also noted that the petitioner’s proposed operations are for “compensation or hire,” and therefore contends the pilot must hold at least a current FAA commercial pilot certificate with an appropriate category and class rating for the type of airc raft being flown, as well as specific and adequate training on the UAS make and model intended to be used. Similarly, ALPA asserted a current second

- class airman medical certificate should be required. NAAA also commented on pilot qualification, stating

—3

Just as manned aircraft pilots are required to undergo a rigorous training curriculum and show that they are fit to operate a commercial aircraft, so too must UAS operators. Holding a commercial certificate holds UAS operators to similar high standards as commercial aircraft operators and ensures they are aware of their responsibilities as commercial operators within the NAS. Medical requirements ensure they have the necessary visual and mental acuity to operate a commercial aircraft repeatedly over a

s ustained period of time.

The FAA has reviewed the knowledge and training requirements of sport, recreational, private and commercial certificates and concluded that a UAS PIC holding a minimum of a sport pilot certificate, and operating under this exempti on, would not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the ground.

Although the petitioner did not request an exemption from § 91.113, A L P A not ed the
p e tition e r must sp ec i f y a m ea ns to m ee t s e e a nd a void re qu i r e m e nts in § 91.113 g i v e n the

a bs e n c e of a n onbo ar d pilot. The FAA notes that all flights must be operated within VLOS of the pilot in command ( PIC ) and visual observer ( VO )

.
ALPA also expressed concern that the petition makes no reference to compliance w ith, or a request for waiver from, 14 CFR 61.195, Flight instructor limitations and qualifications

, which defines the requirements for flight instructors. A certificated flight instructor is authorized to provide the instruction required for the certifica tes or ratings or currency listed in 14 CFR § 61.193. A person instructing on how to operate the UAS under the petitioner’s training program would not need to be a certificated flight instructor because the instruction is not being provided for a certifica te or rating listed in § 61.193. We note that none of the UAS operations proposed by the petitioner require such flight instruction because § 61.31( l ) allows for operation of the UAS by an airman who is current per 14 CFR § 61.56 without a category and cla ss rating. Instruction provided toward obtaining the pilot certificate required by this exemption would need to be provided by a certificated flight instructor.

ALPA commented that while the petitioner’s aircraft has a barometric sensor, the platform do es not have a barometric altimeter as required by 14 CFR § 91.121. ALPA stated that processes or mitigations must be in place to ensure the UA can accurately maintain altitude including engineering processes, software development and control, electronic ha rdware development and control, configuration management, and design assurance to ensure the aircraft and its control system(s) operate to the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the National Airspace System (NAS).

ALPA express ed concern on whether the petitioner’s UAS can comply with the aircraft light requirements for night operations in § 91.209, given i ts limited electric power. This exemption limits operations to daytime only.

ALPA opposed the petitioner’s request for an e xemption from the aircraft maintenance and record keeping requirements. ALPA asserted that the petitioner’s small UAS “should comply4

to the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS.” The FAA finds that adherence to the petit ioner’s operating documents, as required by the conditions and limitations below, is sufficient to ensure that safety is not adversely affected.

ALPA also expressed concern that the petitioner’s request is not for a single specific operation or location, but for all operations of the same general type. ALPA stated that this results in a considerable increase in the FAA’s oversight tasks. The FAA notes ALPA’s concern and in order to minimize potential impact to the NAS, the FAA requires that each operator s ecure a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) which covers specific details of the petitioner’s operation. The FAA recognizes that UAS integration will generate new NAS access demand and will review and adjust accordingly.

NAAA noted that its membe rs operate in low

- level airspace, and therefore clear low

- level airspace is vital to the safety of these operators. NAAA stated that seeing and avoiding other aircraft and hazardous obstructions is the backbone for agricultural safety, and that agricultura l pilots depend on pilots of other aircraft to perform their see

- and

- avoid functions to prevent collisions. NAAA believes UAS operations at low altitudes will increase the potential for collision with agricultural aircraft.

The FAA recognizes these conce rns and has incorporated associated conditions and limitations into this exemption, including: (a) a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) issued for all operations; (b) operations conducted within VLOS of the PIC and the VO; and (c) the UAS PIC must always yield right

- of

- way to manned aircraft.

NAAA stated that FAA airworthiness certification should be a requirement for all unmanned aircraft to operate within the NAS. NAAA recommended UAS be equipped with ADS

- B or similar identification and positioning systems, strobe lights, high

- visibility markings and registration numbers. NAAA also recommended UAS be operated strictly within the line

- of

sight of the ground controller, with the assistance of a VO and clear of any low

- flying manned aircraft.

As discussed below, Sec tion 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to determine, considering a number of factors laid out in the statute, that an airworthiness certificate is not necessary for certain operations. The Secre tary has made that determination in this case and therefore the aircraft operated by the petitioner will not need to be certificated by the FAA.

Airworthiness Certification

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is a DJI Phantom 2 Vision

.
The petitioner r equested relief from 14 CFR part 21, C ertification procedures for products and parts, Subpart H

— Airworthiness Certificates . In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of P ublic Law 112

− 95 in reference to 49 U

. S

. C

. § 44704, and in5

con sideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this aircraft meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds that t he requ ested relief from 14 CFR part 21, and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, is not necessary.

The Basis for Our Decision

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial data collection

. The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grants of Exemption No s

. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial ( see Docket No. FAA−2014−0352), 11109 to Clayco, Inc. ( see Docket No. FAA−2014−0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC ( s ee Docket No. FAA−2014−0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Lab s , Inc. ( see Docket No. FAA−2014−0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or

c rew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• They are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in Grant of Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213;

• The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, a nd 11213 also apply to the situation you present; and

• A grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority conta ined in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Colin Hinkle is granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ), 61.101(e)(4 ) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a) , 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407( a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) to the extent necessary to allow the petitioner to operate a UAS for the purpose of aerial data collection

. This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitat ions

In this grant of exemption, Colin Hinkle is hereafter referred to as the operator.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.6

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the following aircraft described in the operating documents which is a DJI Phantom 2 Vision weighing less than 55 pounds, including any payload. Proposed operations of any other aircraft wil l require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption

.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed

- set motion picture and television filming are not permitted

.

3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The

ex emption holder may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine compliance with the 87 knot speed restriction. In no case will the UA be operated at airspeeds greater than the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the aircraft manufac turer.

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL). Altitude must be reported in feet AGL.

5. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. This requires the PIC to be a ble to use human vision unaided by any device other than corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA

- issued airman medical certificate or U.S. driver’s license.

6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and VO at all times. The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times ;

e lectronic messaging or texting is not permitted during flight operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the duties required of the VO.

7. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of exemption, are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. The operating documents must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, the conditions and limitations h erein take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operating documents. The operator may update or revise its operating documents. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. The operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension7

or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operat or determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must petition for an amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS

- 80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating documents.

8. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo a functional t est flight prior to conducting further operations under this exemption. Functional test flights may only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at least 500 feet from other people. The functional test flight must be conducted in such

a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property.

9. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation.

10. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre

- flight inspection and d etermine the UAS is in a condition for safe flight. The pre

- flight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight.

11. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and li fe limit requirements for the aircraft and aircraft components.

12. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer safety bulletins.

13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC must hold either an airline transport, commercial, private, re creational, or sport pilot certificate. The PIC must also hold a current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, the District of Col u mbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. The P IC must also meet the flight revi ew requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and curr ency must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experience

- building) and determining the PIC’s ability to8

safely operate the UAS in a manner co nsistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and experience

- building flights, all persons not essential for flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

15. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, a s defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point ( ARP) as denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) or for airports not denoted with an ARP, the center of the airport symbol as denoted on the current FAA

published aeronautical chart, unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s
manag ement is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption holder. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

17. The UA may not be operated les s 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.

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a pre

determined location within the priva te or controlled

- access property.

19. The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies.

20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve power recommended by the manufacturer if greater.

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). All operat ions shall be conducted in accordance with an ATO

- issued COA. The exemption holder may apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the attached COA

.

22. All aircraft operated in accordance wi th this exemption must be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N

Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and flight of the UAS and any documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the9

PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. These documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

24. The UA must remain clear and give way to all manned aviation operations and activities at all times.

25. The UAS may not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle.

26. All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA and/or debris in the e vent of an accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediate ly in a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating persons ’ and b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of operating c loser to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard.

The PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons are not considered nonparticipating persons under this exemption.

27. All operations shall be conducted over private or contro lled

- access property with permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted.

28. Any incident, accident, or flig ht operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to the FAA's UAS Integration Office (AFS

- 80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National Transportat ion Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov

.
If this exemption permits operations for the purpose of closed

- set motion picture and television filming and production, the followi ng additional conditions and limitations apply.

29. The operator must have a motion picture and television operations manual (MPTOM) as documented in this grant of exemption.

30. At least 3 days before aerial filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this

exe mption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Flight Standards10

District Office (FSDO) with jurisdiction over the area of proposed filming. The 3

- day notification may be waived with the concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities must in clude at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights; b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted under this grant of exemption;

c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on

- scene operation of the UAS; d. Make, model, and serial or N

- Number of UAS to be used;

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the aerial filming; f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners and/or local officials to conduct the filming producti on event; the list of those who gave permission must be made available to the inspector upon request;
g. Signature of exemption holder or representative; and h. A description of the flight activity, including maps or diagrams of any area, city, town, county, and/or state over which filming will be conducted and the altitudes essential to accomplish the operation.

31. Flight operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet from par ticipating persons consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the exemption holder’s MPTOM.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS operations must comply with all a pplicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service1 

## Henry H. Perritt , Jr. Attorney at Law

1131 Carol Lane Glencoe, IL 60022 hperritt@gmail.com (312) 504

- 5001 12 August 2014

Hon. Michael Huerta Administrator Federal Aviation Administration U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations from certain parts of the FARs

.

Dear Administrator Huerta :

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act) and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Colin Hinkle

, a professional photographer, hereby applies for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) to allow him to

opera te a small Unmanned Aircraft Sy stem (“sUAS”) under the conditions and
limitations set forth in this Petition.

T he requested exemption would permit the operati on of small, unmanned and relatively inexpensive sUAS under controlled conditions in airspace that is ( 1) limited

, ( 2) predetermined

, and (3 ) would provide safety enhancements to the already safe news gathering operations presently us ing manned helicopter s and airplanes in Chicagoland

. Approval of this exemption would thereby enhance safety and fulfill the FAA Administrator’s responsibilities to “...establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.” Section 333(c) of the Reform Act.

The name and address of the applicant is:2

Colin Hinkle
Attn: Henry H. Perritt, Jr. Telephone : (312) 504

- 5001
Email: hperritt@gmail.com
Address: 1131 Carol Lane, Glencoe, IL 60022

Regulations from which the exemption is req uested:

14 CFR Part 21

14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b)

14 CFR § 61. 3

14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (a)

14 CFR § 91.9 (b) (2)

14 C.F.R. § 91.103

14 C.F.R. § 91.109

14 C.F. R. § 91.119

14 C.F.R. § 91.121

14 CFR § 91.151 (a)

14 CFR § 91.203 (a) & (b)

14 CFR § 91.205(b)

14 CFR § 91.215

14 CFR § 91.405 (a)

14 CFR § 407 (a) (1)

14 CFR § 409 (a) (2)

14 CFR § 417 (a) & (b)3

The Appendix describes the FARs from which an exemption is requested and summarizes the justification for each requested exemption.

Th e Petition is submitted to fulfill Congress’ goal under Section 333(a) through (c) of the
Reform Act , which directs the Secretary of Transportation to consider whether certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system (NAS) before completion of the rulemaking required under Section 332 of the Reform Act. In making this determination, the Administrator must determine which types of UASs do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public or pose a threat to national security in light of the followin g:

• The UAS’s size, weight, speed, and operational capability;

• Operation of the UAS in close proximity to airports and populated areas; and

• Operation of the UAS within visual line of sight of the operator.

Reform Act § 333 (a).

I f the Adminstrator determ ines that such vehicles “may operate safely in the national airspace system, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft in the national airspace system.” Id. § 333(c) (emphasis added).

The Secretary has delegated his aviation authority to the Administrator of the FAA.

The Federal Aviation Act expressly grants the FAA th e authority to grant exemptions from its regulatory requirements for civil aircraft, a term defined under §40101 of the Act, which includes sUASs

. The Administrator may grant an exemption from a requirement of a regulation prescribed under subsection (a) or (b) of this section or any

sections 44702

- 44716 of th e Federal Aviation Act if Administrator finds the exemption in the public interest. 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f) See also 49 USC § 44711(a); 49 USC § 44704; 14 CFR §91.203 (a) (1).

The petitioner is a professional photojournalist, who earns his living as a contract photographer for several Chicago television stations. His regular assignments involve his goin g out with electronic news gathering (" ENG" ) vans to cover breaking news as assigned by the TV station news desk. He also works as a relief photo journalist for the helicopter contractor that serves Chicago TV stations. He has thus become familiar with
both ground

- based and aerial news photography over the course of several years.4

The wide availability of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, also known as “microdrones,” capable of car rying high

- quality video cameras and priced at affordable levels intrigued the pet itioner. His entire professional career has involved exploring new technologies and adapting them to capture good imagery to inform the public. In July 2014 , he bought a DJI Phantom 2 Vision , installed a three axis gimbal and a GoPro

c amera and has flown i t for total of 30 hours over remote areas of the Chicago metropolitan area , over remote locations in downstate Illinois, and in the Ozark Mountains in Missouri for recreational purposes, exploring the potential and the limitations of its video subsystem.

H e is pleased with the quality of the imagery captured and has edited it into a number of photographic vignettes that meet his high standards for technical quality and artistic

merit.

N ow, a number of people, some professional colleagues and some strangers

, have heard
about Petitioner ’ s activities and have seen the results and are pressing Petitioner to
undertake additional microdrone photography for compensation.

He has been advised by counsel that this is not now permissible unless he obtain s special permission from the FAA. Many competitors of Petitioner are actively flying sUAS to conduct aerial photography for commercial purposes, notwithstanding the FAA’s stated prohibition. H e also notes and has read the congressional mandate in

section s 332 and 333 of the FA A Revitalization and Reform Act of 2012 that the FA A move quickly to accommodate the economic and societal benefits that can result from widespread deployment of sUAS technology. A ccordingly, Petitioner applies for
authorization under the Federal Aviation Act , and the FAR s rules to undertake the following activities for commercial purposes. Unless the Petition is granted, Petitioner will be at a significant competitive advantage if he, as he prefers, complies with FAA policy.

Vehicle

The Petitioner will fly a DJI Phantom 2 Vision equipped with a three

- axis gimbal and

GoPro camera.

This vehicle has built in capability to limit the height it flies above the ground, to limit
the radius of the distance it flies from the operator, and to ex clude it from class B, C,5

and D airspace. T he vehicle also has the built

- in capability to return to the launching point if the wireless control link is interrupted or if t he operator attempts to exceed any of the height, radius, or airspace limitations pro grammed into it

.

The vehicle weighs about five pounds empty and has a maximum gross weight of approximately twenty pounds . It has a top speed of about 30 kn ots . It has four fixed

pitch rotors , thrust from which is varied by changing RPM

. It is powered by a lithium polymer battery.

Flight profiles

The petitioner will program the Phantom so that it will not fly abo ve 400 feet above ground level, or more than 1500 feet away from him

. He will carefully preflight the
vehicle before each mission to assure t hat its c ompass and GPS system are properly
calibrated and that the return

- to

- home feature, altitude, and radius limitations work.

He will operate it on aerial photography missions only in the early morning hours and other times when few people are out and about. He will operate it only over largely unpopulated areas where the potential of uncontrolled descent to cause injury or damage i s low

He will not operate it in controlled airspace . I n the unlikely event that a manned aircraft
flies below 400 feet AGL where the petitioners operating his Phantom , he will keep both
the vehicle and manned aircraft in sight and avoid the manned aircraft.

More particularly, the Petitioner will fly the Phantom only over the following types of

areas in Metropolitan Chicago:

 O ver Lake Michigan

, outward of the shoreline

 Over open water in marinas, anchorages, and rivers appurtenant to Lake Michigan

 Over lines of railroad and rail classification yards

 O ver expressways

 O ver nonresidential and noncommercial large

- scale industrial areas

 Over private property when he has been commissioned by the person in legal possession of the property to do so6

 Over breaking news events subject to the following special limitations :

H e will retain a prof essional news helicopter pilot a s a special co nsultant and undertake a period of ground training with that special consultant to understand the rules of thumb that ENG helicopter pilots follow to coexist safely with

, and to provide occasional help to

, law

- enforcement and other public safety agencies.

He will undertake a period of at least six hours fli ght training with the ENG pilot

consultant to ensure that the Petitioner is proficient in anticipating and responding to situations over breaking news events that might interfere with the safe f light of

p olice and other public safety h elicopters, with ground operations, or with manned
aircraft.

The Petitioner's proposed operations satisfy the criteria provided in Section 333 of the
Reform Act relating to size, weight, speed, operating capabilities, proximi ty to airports and populated areas and operation within visual line of sight and national security. The Petition justifies grant of the requested exemptions allow the Petitioner to obtain aerial photography with his microdrone.

Respectfully submitted,

Henr y H. Perritt, Jr.
Counsel for Petitioner7 

## Appendix

FAR section Subject Justification 14 CFR § 45.23(b) Requirement to display registration number on vehicle Insufficient space on vehicle

14 CFR Part 21 Aircraft certification requirements and procedures Designed for manned aircraft; not suitable for off

- the

- shelf sUAS 14 CFR § 61. 3 Requirement for pilot certificate Part 61 requirements designed for manned aircraft, not sUAS; petition describes training for sUAS operator 14 CFR § 91.7 (a) A irworthiness requirement Designed for manned aircraft; not suitable for off

- the

- shelf sUAS 14 CFR § 91.9 (b) (2) Requirement for manual to be available in the cockpit No one aboard to read manual

14 CFR § 91.103(b) Requirement for crew members to be onboard Unmanned vehicle

14 CFR § 91.109 Requirement for dual controls during flight
instruction No one aboard to operate controls

14 CFR § 91.119 Minimum altitudes for safe flight Safety requires operation below these altitudes 14 CFR § 91.121 Al timeter settings No one aboard to read altimeter 14 CFR § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements Vehicle does not use fuel 14 CFR § 91.203 (a) & (b) Requirement for registration and airworthiness certificates to be onboard No one aboard to read certificates

14 CFR § 91.205(b) Cockpit instrument s No one aboard to read8 requirement instruments 14 CFR § 91.215 Transponder requirement Vehicle has insufficient useful load; will be operated below ATC radar coverage 14 CFR § 91.405 (a) Inspection requirements Designed for manned aircraft; not suitable for off

- the

- shelf sUAS 14 CFR § 91.407(a) (1) Inspection approval requirements Designed for manned aircraft; not suitable for off

- the

- shelf sUAS 14 CFR § 91.409 (a) (2) Airworthiness inspection Designed for manned aircraft; not suitable for off

- the

- shelf sUAS 14 CFR § 91.417 (a) & (b) Maintenance records requirements Designed for manned aircraft; not suitable for off

- the

- shelf sUAS