Anderson O’Conner

Anderson O'Conner . 

36 Sun Mountain St

Califon, NJ 07830 

October 18th 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

RE: Exemption Request, under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, from 14 

CFR Part 21;

14 CFR 61.113(a); 14 CFR 91.7(a); 14 CFR 91.9(b)(2); 14 CFR 91.105; 14 CFR 91.119(c); 14 

CFR 91.121; 14

CFR 91.151(a)(1); 14 CFR 91.203(a)(1); 14 CFR 91.203(b); 14 CFR 91.405(a); 14 CFR 

91.407(a)(1); 14 CFR

91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2); 14 CFR 91.417(a) & (b).

Dear Sir or Madam:

I, Anderson O'Conner , am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012 and the

procedures contained within 14 CFR Part 11 to request that I, Anderson O'Conner , an 

owner and operator of

a small unmanned aircraft system, be exempted from certain Federal Aviation 

Regulations (“FARs”) listed in

Table 1 in order to allow commercial operations of my small, unmanned aircraft system 

(sUAS) aerial imaging, photography, and videography of properties,Aerial 

education and training,mapping operations and search and rescue operations

Section [1] of this petition includes my contact information as the applicant. Section [2] 

enumerates the

regulations from which exemption is being requested in order to permit the operation of 

a small,

lightweight sUAS under controlled conditions and in a predetermined and clearly 

bounded space for the

purpose of aerial imaging, photography, and videography of properties,Aerial 

education and training,mapping operations and search and rescue operations 

These regulations that pertain to

the sUAS platform itself are further discussed in Section [3], along with additional 

measures to maintain the

current level of safety. Section [4] discusses exemptions pertaining to the operator, and 

how any potential
risks are mitigated by limiting operation to a trained pilot-in-command (PIC) with a visual

observer (VO). Section [5] examines exemptions pertaining to flight operations and how 

safety will be

maintained at an equivalent or higher level than current approaches by implementation 

of Standard

Operating Procedures (SOP). Finally, Sections [6] and [7] include a summary for the 

Federal Register and

concluding remarks, respectively.

With the platform, personnel, and procedures contained herein in place, as well any 

additional guidance

from the FAA in consideration of this exemption, it is my strong belief that these sUAS 

operations will meet

and exceed the current level of safety and environmental impact of larger scale manned 

aircraft that

currently perform these functions. Approval of this exemption would thereby enhance 

safety, reduce

environmental impact, and fulfill the responsibility of the Secretary of Transportation (the 

FAA

Administrator) to “...establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft 

systems in the national

airspace system” pursuant to Section 333(c) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

of 2012.

[1] APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION

The name, address, and additional contact information for the applicant is:

Anderson O'Conner 

36 Sun Mountain St

Califon NJ 07830

Email: ara9112003@msn.com

[2] REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN PARTS OF 14 CFR

The applicant hereby petitions the Secretary of Transportation and Federal Aviation 

Administration for

exemption to the below referenced (in Table 1) and, in Sections [3] to [5] more fully described, 

Federal

Aviation Regulations that currently may apply to the commercial use of a small, unmanned 

aircraft system.
Table 1 - List of Requested Exemptions

This exemption request is expressly submitted to fulfill Congress’s goal in passing the FAA 

Modernization

and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), Sections 333(a) through 333(c). This law directs the Secretary 

of

Transportation to consider whether certain UAS may operate safely in the national airspace 

system before

completion of the rulemaking called for under Section 332 of the same Act.

The Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 further states, if “the Secretary determines under 

[Section 333]

that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system, the 

Secretary

shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national 

airspace system.”

The applicant interprets this provision to place the duty on the Secretary to not only process 

applications for exemptions under Section 333, but for the Secretary to affirmatively craft 

conditions for the safe

operation of sUAS, should it be decided that the conditions of this application do not fulfill the 

statutory

requirements for approval.

Recently, the framework for precedent in this area has also been established with the granting 

of several

exemptions on the grounds of Section 333, whereby safety to the national airspace system has 

been

maintained. Some of these recent exemptions, which provide some obvious and apparent 

similarities to

the current exemption request, are Exemption 11138 (Douglas Trudeau), Exemption 11062 

(Astraeus
Aerial), Exemption 11109 (Clayco, Inc), and Exemption 11110 (Trimble Navigation Ltd).

[3] RELATING TO THE SMALL, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM

[3.1] OVERVIEW AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicant petitions herein to exempt operations with a Phantom 3 Professional (the sUAS). 

The Phantom 3 is a lightweight sUAS, carries no people or combustible fuel, and has several 

built-in safety features

in the event of flight emergencies. Based on the physical and safety features of the Phantom 3 

Professional,

along with previous findings in Exemption 11138 (Douglas Trudeau), it is believed that this 

platform falls

under the purview of Section 333, is able to meet or exceed acceptable safety levels, and is 

appropriate for

exemption.

Lightweight, small UAS. The complete specifications and operating limits for the Phantom 3 

Professional can

be found in the Phantom 3 Professional User Manual, supplied as an attachment to this petition. 

However, it is

instructive to highlight some of the more pertinent operational limits that bound the risk of usage 

of the

Phantom 3 Professional:

 Maximum dimension of the Phantom 3 Professional is less than 23 inches, which counts the

maximum diagonal distance including maximum swept area of the propellers.

 Maximum weight for the Phantom 3 Professional configurations flown under this petition are

less than 3 lbs with imaging sensors onboard.

 Maximum speed for the Phantom 3 Professional is 30 mph. In practice, the Phantom 3 

Professional

is never flown at maximum speeds for the requested application (see Section [5.1]) as it is

contrary to the objective of sharp photographs or smooth video. For reference, even at

maximum speed, the momentum of the Phantom is comparable to a kicked soccer ball.

 Maximum flight time is limited to 30 minutes by available charge stored in the onboard

battery.

 Exceptional agility is provided by yaw rates up to 200°/sec and 20 ft/sec climb rates. This

agility allows the Phantom 3 Professional to be safely operated in smaller, less accessible 

spaces

than could ever be imagined with conventional aircraft. Also, avoiding obstacles or

responding to flight emergencies can be accomplished with significantly less standoff

distance than is currently required for larger, manned aircraft.

 No occupants and benign cargo. A significant risk mitigation is provided by virtue of the fact that the 

sUAS

is inherently unmanned. Any risk of injury to people onboard the aircraft is completely 

eliminated. This

provides a significant safety upgrade over current operations that use manned helicopters to 

provide

similar services. Low flying helicopters near tree lines not only endanger occupants of the 

helicopter, but

also people on the ground. The sUAS avoids the risk to occupants completely. Additionally, as 

the

Phantom 3 Professional is an electric sUAS, the absence of a combustible fuel is an important 

factor in reducing
risk to people and property on the ground should an accident occur.

Built-in safety features. The Phantom 3 Professional has safety features to mitigate two of the 

most common

malfunctions for sUAS – loss of communication with the base station and low battery levels.

 The Phantom 3 Professional mitigates loss of communication (e.g., exceeding transmitter 

range,

blocked RF signal, electrical malfunction) by incorporating GPS functionality. The Phantom 2

Vision + records the “home” GPS coordinates (set automatically on startup, verified during the

preflight inspection). Then, if communication is lost during flight, the sUAS can hover in place

to see if signal is restored or initiate a “Return to Home,” returning to the “home” GPS

coordinates and executing a landing there.

 If the battery reaches a critically low level, the “Return to Home” feature is also initiated. This

feature returns the unit back to the “home” location and executes a landing before power is

lost. This feature, and Standard Operating Procedures discussed in Section [5], mitigate one of

the most tangible risks to sUAS – exhausting onboard battery charge that often leads to a crash.

 The sUAS also features a programmable maximum altitude and horizontal range to prevent

accidental flight boundary excursions (limits set to 400 feet and 2000 feet, respectively).

 Finally, the sUAS includes software-defined “restricted areas” around airports where the

Phantom 3 Professional will not be able to operate. This is supplemented by Standard 

Operating

Procedures which further reduce operating areas, as discussed later.

[3.2] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR Part 21 AND 14 CFR §91.203(a)(1)

Text of Cited Regulation:

(a) Except as provided in § 91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has within it 

the

following:

(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. Each U.S. airworthiness certificate

used to comply with this subparagraph (except a special flight permit, a copy of the

applicable operations specifications issued under § 21.197(c) of this chapter, appropriate

sections of the air carrier manual required by parts 121 and 135 of this chapter containing

that portion of the operations specifications issued under § 21.197(c), or an authorization

under § 91.611) must have on it the registration number assigned to the aircraft under part

47 of this chapter. However, the airworthiness certificate need not have on it an assigned

special identification number before 10 days after that number is first affixed to the

aircraft. A revised airworthiness certificate having on it an assigned special identification

number, that has been affixed to an aircraft, may only be obtained upon application to an

FAA Flight Standards district office.

 Reason for Exemption: 14 CFR Part 21, Subpart H, establishes the procedural requirements for the

issuance of airworthiness certificates as required by 14 CFR §91.203(a)(1). Given the small 

size, modest

maximum speed, and limited operating area associated with the sUAS to be used by the 

applicant, an

exemption from Part 21 and §91.203(a)(1) meets the requirements of an equivalent level of 

safety under

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Federal Aviation Act (49 

USC §44701(f))

and Section 333 of the FMRA both authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft from the requirement of 

an
airworthiness certificate, upon consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capability, 

proximity to

airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight of the sUAS. In all cases, 

an analysis

of these criteria demonstrates that the sUAS operated without an airworthiness certificate, in the 

limited

environment and conditions proposed herein, will be at least as safe, or safer, than a 

conventional

rotorcraft aircraft operating with an airworthiness certificate. The applicant respectfully requests

confirmation that this sUAS does not require airworthiness certification, as allowed under 

Section 333 of

the FMRA.

Mitigation Basis: Safety of the general public and the national airspace will be preserved by the 

safety

features of the sUAS platform described in [3.1], the training and certification of the operator 

described in

[4.1], and the additional operational limitations discussed in [5] and supplemented by the 

Standard

Operating Procedures attached to this petition.

Previous clarification that, in relation to a similar sUAS, Part 21 Subpart H was not applicable, 

and therefore

the sUAS does not require an airworthiness certification, was granted in Exemption 11138 

(Trudeau).

[3.3] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.203(b)

Text of Cited Regulation:

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by 

paragraph

(a) of this section 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.

Reason for Exemption: It is believed that, per the request for relief in [3.2] of this petition and 

recent

rulings by the FAA (cf., Exemptions 11138, 11062, and 11110), that an airworthiness certificate is 

not

required for this sUAS. The cited portion of § 91.203(b) seemingly does not allow for aircraft that 

have

been determined by the FAA to not need an airworthiness certificate. Thus, if this sUAS is 

decided not to

need an airworthiness certificate (either under 14 CFR § 91.203(a)(1) or § 91.715), a waiver to 

14 CFR

§91.203(b) is being requested.

Mitigation Basis: Safety of the general public and the national airspace will be preserved by the 

safety

features of the sUAS platform described in [3.1], the training and certification of the operator 

described in

[4.1], and the additional operational limitations discussed in [5] and supplemented by the 

Standard

Operating Procedures attached to this petition.
Previous clarification that, in relation to a similar sUAS, Part 21 Subpart H was not applicable, 

and therefore

the sUAS does not require an Airworthiness certification, was granted in Exemption 11138 

(Trudeau).

[3.4] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.7(a)

Text of Cited Regulation:

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

Reason for Exemption: This regulation requires that no person operate an aircraft unless it is in 

an

airworthy condition. However, should [3.2] of this exemption be granted, there will be no 

airworthiness

certificate issued to this aircraft. Therefore, no FAA regulatory standard will exist for determining

airworthiness to fulfill this requirement. Therefore, relief from §91.7(a) is requested.

Mitigation Basis: An equivalent level of safety will be provided by the conflation of several 

factors. These

factors include the low weight of the sUAS (cf., [3.1]), the modest maximum speed of the sUAS 

(cf., [3.1]),

operation within the limits defined in [5.1] and the attached Standard Operation Procedures, and 

the

successful completion of a pre-flight checklist before every flight. The pre-flight checklist has 

been crafted

by the trained applicant specifically for this sUAS and has been iterated over the course of 

dozens of

recreational flights. The pre-flight checklist can be found as an attachment to this petition and 

includes

pre-flight checks of weather, battery levels, propeller structural integrity, other traffic in the area, 

and

potential obstacles within the flight area (physical or electromagnetic).

The rigorous pre-flight inspection is to allow the PIC to determine, before every flight, whether 

the sUAS is

in a condition safe for flight per §91.7(b). Relief from §91.7(b) is therefore not expected to be 

necessary,

nor is it being requested as part of this petition.

Relief from §91.7(a) has previously been granted to similar petitions, for example Exemption 

11138

(Douglas Trudeau) and Exemption 11110 (Trimble Navigation Ltd).

[3.5] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.9(b)(2)

Text of Cited Regulation:

(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft

(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by § 21.5 of this chapter

unless there is available in the aircraft a current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight

Manual or the manual provided for in § 121.141(b); and

(2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by § 21.5 of this

chapter, 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.

Reason for Exemption: As the sUAS will not be certificated under Part 21, a Flight Manual is not 

required
by §21.5. Therefore, §91.9(b)(2) requires that there be available, in the aircraft, a “current 

approved

Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any 

combination thereof.”

This exemption is requested for three reasons. The first reason derives from the fact that there 

is no

officially FAA-approved manual for this system, making the requirement inapplicable. Second, 

the inherent

 small size of the platform makes stowage of such material impossible onboard the aircraft as required by

§91.9(b)(2). Third, stowage of such a manual onboard the aircraft would not allow the PIC 

access to it

during flight, causing a potential safety concern. Therefore, relief is requested for §91.9(b)(2).

Mitigation Basis: Safety of the general public and the national airspace will be preserved by best 

capturing

the intent of the original regulation as it pertains to the sUAS at hand. The manufacturer’s User 

Manual

(attached) will be used in place of an approved Flight Manual. The manufacturer’s User Manual 

captures

pertinent information for safe flight and operation, including general performance data, proper

takeoff/landing procedures, and procedures for emergency situations such as loss of a 

communications

link. Stowage of this manual onboard the aircraft is both impossible and believed to be contrary 

to the

intent of the regulation, as the PIC would not be able to access it during flight if it were onboard 

the

aircraft. Therefore, the manufacturer’s User Manual will be stored with the sUAS control station 

such that

it is available to the PIC, consistent with the findings from FAA Memorandum “Interpretation 

regarding

whether certain required documents may be kept at an UA’s control station” dated 8 August 

2014.

[3.6] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.121

Text of Cited Regulation:

(a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or flight level of that

aircraft, as the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, when operating

(1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to

(i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route and within

100 nautical miles of the aircraft;

(ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this

section, the current reported altimeter setting of an appropriate available station;

or

(iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio, the elevation of the

departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure; or

(2) At or above 18,000 feet MSL, to 29.92′′ Hg.

(b) The lowest usable flight level is determined by the atmospheric pressure in the area of

operation as shown in the [table omitted]

(c) To convert minimum altitude prescribed under §§ 91.119 and 91.177 to the minimum flight

level, the pilot shall take the flight level equivalent of the minimum altitude in feet and add the

appropriate number of feet specified below, according to the current reported altimeter setting.
Reason for Exemption: This regulation requires 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. The sUAS may not have a barometric altimeter, but 

rather a

GPS altitude readout from the flight system telemetry. Therefore, an exemption may be needed.

Mitigation Basis: An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the operator by means of the 

Pre-flight

checklist which records the altitude readout at the launch site as shown on the GPS altitude 

indicator

before flight. This site altitude will be subtracted from subsequent GPS altitude readouts to 

arrive at

 altitude AGL. This compensates for field-site barometric pressure variations when calculating altitude 

AGL.

All altitudes reported to ATC will be in feet AGL.

Relief from §91.121 has previously been granted to similar petitions, for example Exemption 

11062

(Astraeus Aerial) and Exemption 11138 (Douglas Trudeau).

[3.7] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.405(a), §91.407(a)(1), §91.409(a)(1) & 

(2), §91.417(a)

& (b)

Text of Cited Regulation:

(.405) Each owner or operator of an aircraft—

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall

between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have

discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

*****

(.407) (a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive

maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless—

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of this

chapter

*****

(.409) (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft

unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had—

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved

for return to service by a person authorized by § 43.7 of this chapter; or

(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21

of this chapter.

*****

(.417) (a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§ 91.411 and 91.413, 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, preventive 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 revision 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(a) of this chapter for each major

alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and

appliances.

(.417) (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.

Reason for Exemption: These sections reference the procedures and protocols under 14 CFR 

Part 43,

which applies only to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. Given that the sUAS will not have 

an

airworthiness certificate, these sections will not apply to the applicant.

Mitigation Basis: Maintenance (including routine maintenance and repair to correct functionality 

issues)

will be conducted by the operator. Any sUAS maintenance or alterations that affect operations or 

flight

characteristics (e.g., replacement of a motor or electronic speed controller, but not replacement 

of the

battery), will undergo a functional flight test before being returned to service. Such maintenance,

inspection, or alterations will be noted in the aircraft logbook, to include total flight hours, 

description of

work, and the signature of the person returning the sUAS to service. As required in §91.7(b), the 

PIC also

completes a pre-flight checklist to ensure the sUAS is safe for flight before every flight. An 

equivalent level

of safety is therefore achieved by documentation of any maintenance or repair work done on the 

sUAS,
functional flight tests after certain maintenance, and pre-flight checkouts to ensure all systems 

are safe for

flight.

Relief from §91.405(a), §91.407(a)(1), §91.409(a)(1) & (2), and §91.417(a) & (b) has previously 

been granted

to similar petitions, for example Exemption 11062 (Astraeus Aerial), Exemption 11138 (Douglas 

Trudeau),

and Exemption 11110 (Trimble Navigation Ltd).

[4] RELATING TO PILOT IN COMMAND

[4.1] OVERVIEW AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The applicant, Anderson O'Conner , would be the pilot-in-command (PIC) for all sUAS 

operations under this

exemption request. Anderson O'Conner ’s commitment to safety, technical expertise in 

aerospace systems,

flight training and certification, and experience with similar systems all enable operation of the 

sUAS while

meeting or exceeding the safety levels currently seen in manned platforms that perform similar 

missions.

Technical Expertise. Anderson O'Conner , has been flying small, electric RC helicopters and 

other small, unmanned aircraft

systems recreationally for over 8 years. Anderson O'Conner has over 25 hours of flight time on 

small,

electric rotorcraft in recreational settings. Moreover, Anderson O'Conner has over 10 hours of 

flight time

on multi-rotor sUAS, and well over the 5 hours of logged flight time on the exact make and 

model of this

exemption.

[5] RELATING TO THE sUAS OPERATIONS

[5.1] OVERVIEW AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

The sUAS under this petition is equipped with an imaging sensor (e.g., GoPro video camera) 

and is to be

operated for aerial imaging, photography, and videography of property in a limited and welldefined

boundary. Some examples of aerial imaging include photographs or videos of structures (e.g., 

roofs, solar

panels, etc.) for subsequent, post-flight visual inspection. Typical examples of aerial 

photography include

the capture of photos of properties for post-flight use in marketing or advertising materials. 

Finally, some

examples of aerial videography are short video clips (limited to 2 minutes in duration) of 

property for later

composition and marketing, advertising, or other uses. All commercial operations are to take 

place on

property with the permission of the property owner, owner’s authorized representative, or 

cognizant local

official.

The proposed operations serve many needs of homeowners, Realtors, and others in a way that 

is more cost
effective and safer than traditional approaches. One example pertains to a homeowner or 

Realtor who

wishes to have an aerial view of a property for advertising, marketing, or reasons of general 

interest.

Traditional methods include the use of a helicopter, posing additional risks due to the persons 

onboard the

platforms, significant weight (several tons), carriage of combustible Jet A fuel (over 100 gallons), 

and the

relative lack of maneuverability/agility of such platforms. This is all compounded by additional 

harmful

impacts to nearby persons who are then exposed to additional noise pollution in excess of 100 

dB, causing

non-active participant safety concerns. Conducting this operation with the sUAS greatly reduces 

(or in

some cases, eliminates) these risks.

 Safe operation of the sUAS will be ensured by a thorough set of Standard Operating Procedures. A 

separate

document has been attached to this petition with the fully detailed SOP; however, these topically 

include:

 Operation limited to visual, line-of-sight (VLOS)

 Operation limited to daytime activities; no night operations

 Use of a visual observer (VO) for all flights, who is in direct verbal contact with PIC

 Operation limited to a maximum altitude of 400 feet AGL

 Operational minimum standoff distances for nonparticipating persons

 Operational minimum standoff distances for nonparticipating vehicles/structures

 Operation with minimum standoff distances to clouds

 No sUAS operations within 5 miles of a Class B, C, or D airport without ATC consent

 Comprehensive Pre-Flight inspection by the PIC to determine safe-for-flight

 Flight duration limited to 30 minutes in length or 30% battery remaining

Each of the above are listed in the attached SOP and are further elaborated upon in subsequent 

sections

that discuss relief to specific FARs and how the portion of the SOP mitigates any risk that may 

be

encountered by exemption from that particular FAR.

[5.2] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.105

Text of Cited Regulation:

(a) During takeoff and landing, and while en route, each required flight crewmember shall—

(1) Be at the crewmember station unless the absence is necessary to perform duties in

connection with the operation of the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs; and

(2) Keep the safety belt fastened while at the crewmember station.

(b) Each required flight crewmember of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft shall, during takeoff and

landing, keep his or her shoulder harness fastened while at his or her assigned duty station. 

This

paragraph does not apply if—

(1) The seat at the crewmember's station is not equipped with a shoulder harness; or

(2) The crewmember would be unable to perform required duties with the shoulder

harness fastened.

Reason for Exemption: The regulation requires crew members (which may include the PIC and 

VO) to keep
a safety belt fastened while at their crewmember stations. As the sUAS has no occupants, this 

regulation is

not applicable as it would be detrimental to flight safety to require the operator and visual 

observer on the

ground to remain with a safety belt fastened. Therefore, exemption from §90.105 is requested.

Mitigation Basis: Due to the unusual nature of the sUAS operation (remotely from ground, with 

no

onboard crew), the safety of the general public, pilot in command, visual observer, and national 

airspace

system is adversely affected under the interpretation of this requirement that the pilot in 

command and

the visual observer on the ground must have a safety belt fastened at a designated station.

[5.3] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.119(c)

Text of Cited Regulation:

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the

following altitudes:

(a) [omitted as not relevant to request for relief]

(b) [omitted as not relevant to request for relief]

(c) 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.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in

paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons

or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply

with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

Reason for Exemption: The regulation requires minimum standoff distances to persons and 

objects (in

other than congested areas) of no less than 500 feet. Due to the altitude limitation of the sUAS 

(of 400 feet

maximum) as well as the intended mission of aerial imaging/photography/videography, it will be 

necessary

to operate closer than 500 feet to essential persons, structures, vehicles, and vessels. 

Therefore, an

exemption is requested.

Mitigation Basis: The applicant has no intentions to operate the sUAS over congested areas. 

However,

there is no clear definition as to what metrics constitute a congested area (as expressed in 

Exemption

11110). While “yellow” areas on sectional charts are a good means to alerting operators to 

potentially

congested areas, these alone only indicate the general area is populated and is not sufficient to 

prescribe

congestion (consistent with the findings of Exemption 11138), nor should they be used for such. 

The level

of congestion should seemingly be determined relative to the aircraft being operated in the 

candidate Area

of Operation. To ensure safety in the event of an emergency, the aircraft would ideally be 

afforded
sufficient space to land without collision due to the density of nearby persons or structures. 

Clearly, the

characteristic length scale (and, therefore, allowable density) for safe landing would vary 

substantially

between an aircraft requiring hundreds of feet to make an emergency landing versus a sUAS 

that requires

only several feet. The pilot in command will therefore use best judgment on whether a particular 

sUAS

Area of Operation, which is spatially limited, is congested before commencing any flight 

activities. Such a

judgment will take into consideration:

 The candidate Area of Operation will not be found acceptable if it includes an open air

assembly of persons

 The candidate Area of Operation will be judged based on the expected flight boundaries.

That is, a large open space in a heavily settled area would be judged based on the open

space and not the surrounding area if operations are to be limited to safely within the open

space.

 The candidate Area of Operation must provide sufficient free space away from persons and

structures to allow typical takeoff, landing, and flight without presenting an undue hazard

to nearby persons or structures.

 The candidate Area of Operation must provide sufficient free space to allow emergency

landing procedures without presenting an undue hazard to nearby persons or structures.

 The candidate Area of Operation must allow the flight operations to adhere to the

minimum standoff distances that would otherwise be required of an area other than a

congested area.

If the Area of Operation is determined by the pilot in command to be congested, no flight 

operations shall

occur. If the Area of Operation is determined by the pilot in command to be other than a 

congested area,

the following limitations on flight operations will be imposed, based on the light weight of the 

sUAS (3 lbs)

and the findings of previous FAA analyses:

 Minimum standoff distances to non-participating persons is nominally 500 feet.

 If barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently protect non-participating persons

from the sUAS or debris in the event of an accident, then the sUAS may operate closer than

500 feet to non-participating persons afforded such protection.

o If a situation arises where non-participating persons leave such protection and are

within 500 feet of the sUAS, flight operations must cease as soon as is practicable

and in a manner to ensure the safety of the non-participating person as the primary

concern.

 Minimum standoff distances may be less than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles, and structures

when the owner/controller of any such vessel, vehicle, or structure grants permission and

the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and

determines that it does not present an undue hazard.

 Minimum distance to clouds will be 500 feet below any clouds and 2000 feet horizontally

from any clouds to ensure the PIC and VO have VLOS with the sUAS throughout the flight.

It is noted that, currently, full-scale helicopters are permitted under §91.119(d) to operate in 

similar
missions with potentially less restrictive requirements. It is believed that the proposed limitations 

will

maintain the safety of the general public on the ground at levels that exceed current safety 

levels of

conventional helicopters performing similar missions.

Relief from §91.119(c) has previously been granted to similar petitions, for example Exemption 

11138

(Douglas Trudeau) and Exemption 11110 (Trimble Navigation Ltd).

[5.4] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.151(a)(1)

Text of Cited Regulation:

(a) 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

 Reason for Exemption: The sUAS in this petition does not carry any fuel and, therefore, this regulation is

not well-posed for this sUAS. The sUAS is battery powered with a total flight duration that is 

limited to

approximately 30 minutes. Therefore, requiring enough battery power to fly to the first 

destination plus an

additional 30 minutes is not feasible.

Mitigation Basis: The proposed operations of the sUAS are limited to a defined area, typically a 

single

property, with the property owner/controller’s consent. Due to this, it is believed that not being 

able to fly

for an additional 30 minutes does not engender the types of risks that §91.151(a)(1) was 

intended to

alleviate given the sUAS is small, relatively low speed, and will not be flown over nonparticipating

structures. An equivalent level of safety can be achieved by limiting flights to 30 minutes or 30% 

remaining

battery power (manufacturer-recommended low battery limit), whichever occurs first. This is 

more than

adequate to return the sUAS to the intended landing area and execute a normal landing 

procedure.

Relief from §91.151(a)(1) has previously been granted to similar petitions, for example 

Exemption 11062

(Astraeus Aerial), Exemption 11138 (Douglas Trudeau), and Exemption 11110 (Trimble 

Navigation Ltd).

[5.5] PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF TYPICAL SECTION 333 EXEMPTION CONDITION - 

NOTAMS

Text of Cited Typical Exemption Condition:

The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or 

Authorization

(COA) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of exemption. This COA will also 

require the

operator to request a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) not more than 72 hours in advance, but not 

less than 48

hours prior to the operation.
Feedback on Condition: Due to the nature of the assignments/missions, the starting day/time of 

the sUAS

operations in this petition may not always be known three days in advance, and it would not be 

unexpected

to be asked to support missions the next day (within 24 hours). Furthermore, weather conditions 

in the

Northeast are variable with meteorological forecasts often changing when made several days in 

advance. It

is therefore respectfully requested that the above typical exemption condition be modified to 

require the

operator to request a NOTAM not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 12 hours 

prior to the

operation.

Mitigation Basis: It is believed that this will not adversely affect national airspace safety as 

NOTAMs are

checked before flights and may be checked during flights. Allowing NOTAMs to be requested 

closer to the

actual flight operations (when weather conditions are more accurately predicted) will greatly 

increase the

fidelity of the NOTAM process and airman awareness by producing fewer false-alarms, and, as 

a

consequence, leading to greater vigilance to those receiving the NOTAM.

[6] PUBLIC INTEREST

The proposed exemption under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

is within the

public interest. This petition for imaging, photography, and videography of property would allow 

access to

aerial imaging to those who would previously have been excluded from the market by the cost 

of using a

larger, manned aircraft. The impact to the public is multifaceted, including greater access to 

aerial

capabilities, increased levels of safety over conventional manned systems to perform the same 

duty, and

reduced impact to nearby persons or ecological sites due to noise or burned hydrocarbon 

emissions.

One example is a homeowner who suspects possible roof damage, perhaps as a result of a 

recent storm. To

determine if damage has occurred, the homeowner may wish to inspect the roof before calling a 

carpenter

or repairperson. This may lead to an unprepared homeowner in peril on an icy or slippery roof. 

By

comparison, the sUAS can quickly be used to image the suspect area and those images can 

subsequently be

visually inspected by the homeowner, greatly reducing the risk to persons.

A second example pertains to a homeowner or Realtor who wishes to have an aerial view of a 

property for

advertising, marketing, or reasons of general interest. Traditional methods include the use of a 

helicopter,
posing additional risks due to the persons onboard the platforms, significant weight (several 

tons), carriage

of combustible Jet A fuel (over 100 gallons), and the relative lack of maneuverability/agility of 

such

platforms. This is all compounded by additional harmful impacts to nearby persons who are then 

exposed

to additional noise pollution. Typical decibel noise level for a Bell helicopter at 100 feet is 

approximately

100 dB. By contrast, the sUAS at less than 10 feet is approximately 80 dB, leading to a 4X 

reduction in noise

pollution, even when 10X closer.

[7] SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, IF NEEDED

Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the Federal 

Register,

should it be determined that publication is needed:

Applicant seeks an exemption from the following rules:

14 CFR Part 21, Subpart H; 14 CFR §61.113(a); 14 CFR §91.7(a); 14 CFR §91.9(b)(2); 14 CFR 

§91.105;

14 CFR §91.119(c); 14 CFR §91.121; 14 CFR §91.151(a)(1); 14 CFR §91.203(a)(1); 14 CFR 

§91.203(b);

14 CFR §91.405(a); 14 CFR §91.407(a)(1); 14 CFR §91.409(a)(1); 14 CFR §91.409(a)(2); 14 

CFR

§91.417(a); 14 CFR §91.417(b) to operate a small, unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) weighing 

less

than 3 lbs in commercial aerial imaging, photography, and videography operations.

[8] CONCLUDING REMARKS

It is believed that the criteria presented in this petition, including size, weight, operational 

parameters, pilot

qualifications and training, and Standard Operating Procedures, provide a very high level of 

safety, at or

above current levels, during the proposed sUAS use. This level of safety, the interest to the 

public, and the

 commission of the FAA to integrate sUAS into the national airspace provide more than adequate

justification for the grant of the requested exemptions allowing commercial operation of the 

applicant’s

sUAS.

The attached Standard Operating Procedures, Pre-Flight Checklist, and Emergency Procedures 

have been

developed by efforts of Anderson O'Conner, . However, this material is permitted to be shared 

and

posted without specific protections to facilitate safe and thoughtful flight operations across the 

community.

The applicant is very passionate and active in the field of sUAS. Should any supplemental 

information be

helpful in the adjudication of this exemption petition, please do not hesitate to get in contact. 

Moreover, if

it provides any value now or in the future, the applicant would be pleased to offer feedback on 

the
exemption process or offer input (either procedural or technical) on future implementations to 

satisfy

Sections 332 or 334 of the FMRA. The applicant is actively engaged in teaching short courses 

to high school

students on the topic of sUAS and would be a willing advocate on awareness of proper 

protocols in

integrating sUAS into the national airspace as this field continues to emerge.

Respectfully submitted,

Anderson O'Conner 

36 Sun Mountain St

Califon Nj 07830

ENC: 

-Anderson O'Conner sUAS Standard Operating Procedures

-Anderson O'Conner sUAS Pre-Flight Checklist

-Anderson O'Conner Emergency Procedures

-DJI Phantom 3 Professional User Manual

-Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guideline-2