April 9, 2015

 Exemption No. 11310

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0608

Mr. Henry H. Perritt, Jr. 

Counsel for Colin 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, 

including 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 allow the petitioner to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to 

conduct aerial photography.

See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations and 

the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption.

Discussion of Public 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, International (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 request 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 

surface in Class G airspace. There must be means both to ensure 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 petitioner 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 observer will be able to 

communicate with each other. ALPA also noted that text messaging could have an unknown 

latency extending to several minutes. NAAA stated UAS observers must be present and able 

to communicate with the operator from the most minimal distance 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 2010),” 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. Given 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 flyaways or other scenarios. The FAA has inserted conditions and limitations in this exemption 

to mitigate the risk associated with such failures.

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 aircraft 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 

sustained 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 exemption, 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, ALPA noted the

petitioner must specify a means to meet see and avoid requirements in § 91.113 given the

absence of an onboard 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 with, 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 certificates 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 certificate 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 class 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 

does 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 hardware 

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 expressed concern on whether the petitioner’s UAS can comply with the aircraft light 

requirements for night operations in § 91.209, given its limited electric power. This 

exemption limits operations to daytime only.

ALPA opposed the petitioner’s request for an exemption from the aircraft maintenance and 

record keeping requirements. ALPA asserted that the petitioner’s small UAS “should comply 
4

to the same level of safety as other aircraft operated commercially in the NAS.” The FAA 

finds that adherence to the petitioner’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 secure 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 members 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 

agricultural 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 concerns 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-ofsight of the ground controller, with the assistance of a VO and clear of any low-flying manned 

aircraft. 

As discussed below, Section 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 

Secretary 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 requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products 

and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates. In accordance with the statutory criteria 

provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112−95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and in 
5

consideration 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 the requested 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 Nos. 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 (see

Docket No. FAA−2014−0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Labs, 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 

crew, 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, and 

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 contained 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 Limitations

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 will 

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 

exemption 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 manufacturer.

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 able 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; 

electronic 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 herein 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 extension 
7

or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator 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 test 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 determine 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 life 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, recreational, 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 Columbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal 

government. The PIC must also meet the flight review 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 currency 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 to 
8

safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent 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, as 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 FAApublished aeronautical chart, unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s 

management 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 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.

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a predetermined location within the private 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 

operations 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 with this exemption must be identified by serial 

number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (NNumber) 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 the 
9

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 event 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 immediately 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 closer 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 controlled-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 flight 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 Transportation 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 following 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 

exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Flight Standards 
10

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 include 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 production 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 participating 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 applicable 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 Service
1

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 

operate a small Unmanned Aircraft System (“sUAS”) under the conditions and 

limitations set forth in this Petition.

The requested exemption would permit the operation 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 using manned helicopters 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 requested:

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. 

The 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 following:

• 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). 

If the Adminstrator determines 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 the 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 the 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 going out with electronic news gathering ("ENG") vans to cover breaking news as 

assigned by the TV station newsdesk. He also works as a relief photojournalist 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 carrying high-quality video cameras and priced at affordable 

levels intrigued the petitioner. 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 

camera and has flown it 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.

He 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. 

Now, 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 obtains

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. He also notes and has read the congressional mandate in 

sections 332 and 333 of the FAA Revitalization and Reform Act of 2012 that the FAA

move quickly to accommodate the economic and societal benefits that can result from 

widespread deployment of sUAS technology. Accordingly, Petitioner applies for 

authorization under the Federal Aviation Act, and the FARs 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 exclude it from class B, C, 
5

and D airspace. The vehicle also has the built-in capability to return to the launching 

point if the wireless control link is interrupted or if the operator attempts to exceed any 

of the height, radius, or airspace limitations programmed 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 knots. It has four fixedpitch 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 above 400 feet above 

ground level, or more than 1500 feet away from him. He will carefully preflight the 

vehicle before each mission to assure that its compass 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 is low

He will not operate it in controlled airspace. In 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:

 Over 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

 Over expressways

 Over 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 so
6

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

He will retain a professional news helicopter pilot as a special consultant 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 flight training with the ENG pilotconsultant to ensure that the Petitioner is proficient in anticipating and responding 

to situations over breaking news events that might interfere with the safe flight of 

police and other public safety helicopters, 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, proximity 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,

Henry H. Perritt, Jr.

Counsel for Petitioner
7

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) Airworthiness 

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 Altimeter 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 instruments No one aboard to read 
8

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