**IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION OF: BENJAMIN H. CHENTNIK** 

**FOR AN EXEMPTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF**  **FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113(a) & (b),**  **91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), AND 91.417(a) & (b) CONCERNING** 
**COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF 3D ROBOTICS SOLO**
**UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO**
**SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND**  **REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUB LIC LAW 112** 

**­ 95)** 

Submitted on April 25, 2015

BENJAMIN H. CHENTNIK

1460 Via De Pepi

Boynton Beach, FL 33426

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIA TIONS

................................. 3

SUMMARY

............................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF PETITIONER

......... 4

BACKG ROUND

......................................................... 4

BASIS FOR PETITION

................................................. 5

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PETITIONER

......................... 8

THE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF 14 C.F.R. FROM WHICH
BENJAMIN H. CHENTNIK SEEKS EXEMPTION

............... 8THE EXTENT OF RELIEF BENJAMIN H. CHENTNIK SEEKS
AND THE REA SON BENJAMIN H. CHENTNIK SEEKS THE

RELIEF.

................................................................... 12

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING BENJAMIN H. CHENTNIK REQUEST WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

........... 16

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING THE EXEMPTION
WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT SAFETY

.................. 20

CONCLUSIO N

........................................................... 39

AGL AOI ATC ATO AV CFR COA FAA FAR GCS GPS LOL N
AS NOTAM PIC Section 333 Section 333 SO

SOP UA UAS VFR VLOS VMC VTOL

**GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS**

Above Ground Level Area of Interest Air Traffic Control Air Traffic Organization Ae rial Vehicle

Code of Federal Regulations Certificate of Authorization Federal Aviation Administration Federal Aviation Regulation Ground
Control Station

Global Positioning System Loss of Link National Airspace System
Notice to Airman

Pilot In Command FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA)

Safety Observer Standard Operating Procedures Unmanned Aircraft Unmanned Aircraft System Visual Flight Rules Visual Line of Site Visual Meteorological Conditions Vertical Takeoff and Landing**SUMMARY**

Benjamin H. Chentnik seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R §§ 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b), to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA). This exemption will permit Benjamin H. Chentnik to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) for the commercial purpose of
conducti ng aerial video and photography, cell tower land and infrastructure inspection for civil operations within the United
States of America.

**INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONER**

My name is Benjamin H. Chentnik, I am 29 years old and a recent graduate of Digital Media Arts College (DMAC) in Boca Raton, Florida. I have started a boutique sized design/marketing agency specializing in web design, graphic design, animation, marketing, photography, and videography. I would like to be able to offer aerial ph otography and videography to my clients as a safer and more cost efficient alternative to the traditional method of using a helicopter and SLR camera.

**BACKGROUND**

Unmanned Aircraft Systems: 3D Robotics Solo UAS

Benjamin H. Chentnik seeks an exemption to op erate 3D Robotics systems for compensation or hire within the NAS. The 3D Robotics Solo is a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aircraft (UA). These UAS’s use a Ground Control Station (GCS), displayed on an electronic tablet or smartphone. The 3D Robotics Solo has a maximum gross weight of approximately 3 pounds 4 ounces, a length of 18 inches width of 18 inches, height of 10 inches, and a maximum speed of approximately 47.8 knots

. The
3D Robotics Solo UAS is equipped with four main rotors; drivenby Lithium Polymer battery powered electric motors.

The 3D Robotics Solo UAS that will be operated by Benjamin H. Chentnik will be registered in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44103, Registration of Aircraft

, as well as 14 C.F.R Part 47, Aircraft Registration

, and marked in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Identification and Registration Marking

.

**BASIS FOR PETITION**

Petitioner, Benjamin H. Chentnik, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. § 11.61) and the FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), Section 333, Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems

, hereby petitions the Administrator to commercially operate the 3D
Robotics Solo UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS), and for an exemption from the requir ements of 14 C.F.R §§ 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b).

In consideration of the speed, weight, size, and limited operating
area associated with the unmanned aircraft and its o peration, Benjamin H. Chentnik operation of 3D Robotics Solo UAS meets the conditions of FMRA Section 333 and therefore, will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H.

Accordingly, Benjamin H. Chentnik requests relief from Sections 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b), as these sections set forth requirements for maintenance that only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate.

Benjamin H. Chentnik submits that t he requested relief is proper since an equivalent level of safety will be ensured. Benjamin H. Chentnik will use experienced personnel or technicians to perform maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on the UAS's using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in theoperating documents (i.e., Monthly Maintenance Log, and 3D
Robotics Solo Instruction Manual). Furthermore, Benjamin H.
Chentnik will document and maintain all maintenance records for
the 3D Robotics Solo UAS

.

Relief from c ertain requirements of Section 61.113(a) and (b),
entitled Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command

, is requested by Benjamin H. Chentnik to the extent necessary to allow a Pilot in Command (PIC) holding a private pilot or higher
level ce rtificate, as well as an airman medical certificate, and who has demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight- hour and currency requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the 3D Robotics
Solo UAS in a manner consistent with this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and structures.

Benjamin H. Chentnik seeks relief from Section 91.7(a), entitled Civil aircraft airworthiness

, because the 3D Robotics Solo UAS

do es not r equire an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. As such, Benjamin H. Chentnik submits
that he will ensure that the 3D Robotics Solo UAS is in an airworthy condition, prior to every flight, by determining that the
UAS is in compliance with the operating documents (i.e., Monthly Maintenance Log, and 3D Robotics Solo Instruction Manual), and
that the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight.

Benjamin H. Chentnik also seeks an exemption from the requirements of Section 91 .121, entitled Altimeter Settings

, as the

3D Robotics Solo UAS will not have a typical barometric altimeter onboard. However, altitude information of the 3D Robotics Solo

UAS will be provided to the PIC via Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment and rad io communications telemetry data link, which downlinks from the UA to the GCS for active monitoring of the flight path. This altitude information, combined with Benjamin H. Chentnik’s operation of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS within
vis ual line of sight, at or below 5 00 feet AGL, will ensure a levelof safety equivalent to Section 91.121.

Additionally, Benjamin H. Chentnik seeks an exemption from the requirements of Section 91.151(b), entitled Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions

. Benjamin H. Chentnik submits that safety will not be affected by operation of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS during daylight hours in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) under visual flight rules (VFR), with enough battery power to fly
for a total duratio n of approximate ly 15 minutes to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after
that for at least 5 minutes.

In accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 11.81, Benjamin H. Chentnik provides the following information in support of its petition fo r exemption:

**A. Name And Address Of The Petitioner.**

The name and address of the Petitioner and point of contact is: Benjamin H. Chentnik

1460 Via De Pepi

Boynton Beach, FL 33426

315

- 225

- 4032

Ben@lucidprints.biz

**B. The Specific Sections Of 14 C.F.R. From Which Benjamin**  **H. Chentnik Seeks Exemption.**

**1. Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 61.113(a) And (b).** 

Section 61.113, entitled Private pilot privileges and limitations:
Pilot in command

, subsections (a) and (b) pres cribe the following, in relevant part:(a) No person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as PIC of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as PIC of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if

—
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment;
and

(2) The aircraft does not car ry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

**2. Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.7(a).** 

Section 91.7, entitled Civil aircraft airworthiness

, subsection (a), states the following:

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

**3. Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.121.** 

Section 91.121, entitled Altimeter settings, subsection (a), states the following, in part :

(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 altime ter 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 stati on; 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.

**4. Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.151(b).** 

Section 91.151, entitled Fuel requirements for flight in VFR

conditions

, subsection

(b), states the following:

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enoug h fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for
at least 20 minutes.

**5. Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks Exemption From The Requirement Of Section 91.405(a).** 

Section 91.405, entitled Maintenance r equired

, subsection (a), states the following: 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 sectio n, have discrepancies repaired as prescrib ed in part 43 of this chapter.

**6. Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.407(a)(1)** 

Section 91.407, entitled Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration

, subsection (a)(1), states the following:(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 u nder § 43.7 of this chapter.

**7. Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Sections 91.409(a)(1) And 91.409(a)(2).** 

Section 91.409, entitled Inspections

, subsection (a), states the following: (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.

**8. Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Sections 91.41**  **7(a) And 91.417(b).**

Section 91.417, entitled Maintenance records

, subsections (a) and (b), state the following:

(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 wo rk 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 e ach 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 f orms prescribed by § 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed:

(1) The r ecords specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other workor for 1 year after the work is performed.

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall
be retained and tr ansferred 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 servi ce.

**C. The Extent Of Relief Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks And The Reason Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks The Relief.** 

**1. Extent Of Relief Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks And The Reason Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks Relief From Section**  **61.113(a) And (b).**

Relief from Section 61.113(a) and (b) entitled Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command

, is requested to the extent necessary to allow a PIC holding a private pilot or higher level certificate, as well as a current and valid airman medical
certificat e, and who has met certain flight-hour and currency requirements, to conduct the proposed UAS flight operations for compensation or hire.

This relief is requested since the limitations set forth in Section 61.113(a) and (b) state that a private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as PIC of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: (1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and (2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

A s set forth more fully below, Benjamin H. Chentnik submits that an equivalent level of safety will be maintained because no PIC will be allowed to operate the 3D Robotics Solo UAS unless that PIC has met certain flight-hour and currency requirements, demonstrating that the PIC is able to safely operate either the 3DRobotics Solo UAS in a manner consistent with the operations specifications as described in this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers, as well as maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and structures.

Further, Benjamin H. Chentnik submits that all flights of the 3D
Robotics Solo UAS conducted by the PIC pursuant to the grant of this Petition: (1) will be incidental to Ben jamin H. Chentnik's business; and (2) will not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

**2. Extent Of Relief Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks And The Reason Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks Relief From Section**  **91.7(a).**

Relief from Section 91.7(a) entitl ed Civil aircraft airworthiness

, is requested to the extent required to allow Benjamin H. Chentnik to
determine that the 3D Robotics Solo UAS is in airworthy condition prior to every flight by ensuring that the UAS is in compliance with the operating docum ents (i.e., the Benjamin H. Chentnik Aerial Operations Manual, Monthly Maintenance Log, 3D
Robotics Solo Instruction Manual).

Benjamin H. Chentnik seeks the requested relief because the 3D
Robotics Solo UAS do es not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. Therefore, Benjamin H. Chentnik will ensure that the 3D Robotics Solo UAS
is in airworthy condition based upon its compliance with the operating documents (i.e., Monthly Maintenance Log, and 3D
Robotics Solo I nstruction Manual) prior to every flight, and further, determine that the aircraft are in condition for safe flight,
as stated in the conditions and limitations below.

**3. Extent Of Relief Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks And The Reason Benjamin H. Chentnik Seek**  **s Relief From Section**
**91.121.**Relief from Section 91.121, entitled Altimeter settings, may be required to allow flight operations of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS

, which utilize a barometric pressure sensor, GPS equipment, and a radio communications telemetry data link to downlink altitude information from the UA to the PIC at the ground control station (GCS). Since the FAA requires that any altitude information concerning UAS operations be reported to air traffic control (ATC) in feet above ground level (AGL), Benjamin H. Chentnik seeks the requested relief because the 3D Robotics Solo UAS’ altimeter may be set on the ground to zero feet AGL, rather than the local barometric pressure or field altitude, before each flight.

Considering the limited altitude of th e proposed operations, relief from 14 CFR 91.121 is sought to the extent necessary to comply with the applicable conditions and limitations stated below. As more fully set forth herein, an equivalent level of safety will be
maintained since the 3D Robotics Solo UAS is equipped with a barometric pressure sensor and GPS equipment, which automatically ensures that a g round level pressure setting will be established prior to each flight, and provides the PIC with altitude information of the UA on the heads-up display of the GCS.

**4. Extent Of Relief Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks And The Reason Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks Relief From Section**  **91.151(b).**

Relief from Section 91.151(b) entitled Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, is requested to the extent required to allow flights of the battery powered 3D Robotics Solo UAS during daylight hours in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), under visual flight rules (VFR ), for a total duration of 15 minutes to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 5 minutes. Benjamin H. Chentnik seeks the requested relief because without an exemption from Section 91.151(b), the flight time duration of the battery powered
3D Robotics Solo UAS will severely constr ain the practicality ofany aerial video or still photo flight operations that Benjamin H. Chentnik proposes to conduct pursuant to this Petition.

Significantly, as set forth below, the technical specifications of the
3D Robotics Solo UAS , the 3D Robotics Solo UAS operating documents, and Benjamin H. Chentnik’s proposed operating limitations, ensure that Benjamin H. Chentnik will safely operate the battery powered 3D Robotics Solo UAS during daylight hours in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), under v isual flight rules (VFR), with enough battery power to fly for a total duration
of 15 minutes to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 5 minutes.

**5. Extent Of Relief Benjamin H. Chentnik Se eks And The**  **Reason Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks Relief From Sections 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), And 91.417(a) &**  **(b).**

Since Sections 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) only apply to aircraft with an airwo rthiness certificate, Benjamin H. Chentnik requests relief from these
Sections because the 3D Robotics Solo UAS do es not require airworthiness certificates. As set forth more fully below, the 3D
Robotics Solo UAS meet s the conditions of FMRA Section 333 fo r operation without an airworthiness certificate. Accordingly, Benjamin H. Chentnik will use trained technicians to perform maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on the UAS's using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the UAS operating documents (i.e., the Benjamin H. Chentnik Aerial Operations Manual, Monthly Maintenance Log, and the 3D
Robotics Solo Instruction Manual). Furthermore, Benjamin H.
Chentnik will document and maintain all maintenance records for
the 3D Robotics So lo UAS

. **D. The Reasons Why Granting Benjamin H. Chentnik Request Would Be In The Public Interest; That Is, How It Would** **Benefit The Public As A Whole.**

Granting the present Petition will further the public interest by allowing Benjamin H. Chentnik to safe ly, efficiently, and economically perform aerial video and photography of construction sites, real estate, and landscape over certain areas of
the United States.

Additionally, use of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS will decrease congestion of the NAS, reduce pol lution, and provide significant benefits to the economy. Notably, the benefits of Benjamin H. Chentnik’s proposed operation of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS will be realized without implicating any privacy issues.

**1. The Public Will Benefit From Decreased Congestion Of The**
**NAS.**

The 3D Robotics Solo UAS is battery powered and serve as a safe, efficient, and economical alternative to the manned aircraft traditionally utilized to obtain aerial imagery. By reducing the amount of manned aircraft needed to perform aerial acquisitions, an exemption allowing the use of a 3D Robotics Solo UAS would reduce the amount of manned aircraft in the NAS, reduce noise and air pollution, as well as increase the safety of life and prop erty in
the air and on the g round.

Furthermore, by reducing the number of manned aircraft operating in the NAS, congestion around airports caused by arriving and departing aircraft will be reduced. The 3D Robotics Solo UAS
do es not require an airport to takeoff or land. Likewise, a reduction of manned aircraft conducting aerial video and photography missions would result in fewer aircraft that must be handled by air traffic control during the ground, takeoff, departure, arrival, and landing phases of flig ht operations.

**2. The Public Will Benefit From The Safety And Efficiency Of**

**The 3D Robotics Solo UAS.** Conducting aerial acquisitions with the 3D Robotics Solo UAS

, instead of manned aircraft, will greatly benefit the public by drastically reducing the le vels of air and noise pollution generated during traditional aerial video and still photography flight operations. By using battery power and electric motors, the 3D
Robotics Solo UAS produce s no air pollution, and is the most viable environmentally consci ous alternative to the cabin class, six cylinder internal combustion engine aircraft that are typically utilized for aerial video and photography, while burning approximately 20-30 gallons per hour of leaded aviation fuel. The 3D Robotics Solo UAS, while r educing the carbon footprint of aerial acquisitions, also eliminates noise pollution, as the UAs are propelled by battery powered electric motors, rather than an internal combustion engine.

By using the 3D Robotics Solo UAS to perform aerial acquisitions, the substantial risk to life and property in the air and on the ground, which is usually associated with traditional manned aircraft flight operations, will be substantially reduced or completely eliminated. Aside from the lack of flight crew members loca ted onboard the aircraft, the 3D Robotics Solo UAS (weighing approximately 3 pounds 4, at the maximum gross weights with lengths of 18 inches,
widths of 18 inches, and with no fuel on board), has less physical potential for collateral damage to life and pr operty on the ground, and in the air, compared to the manned aircraft that typically conduct similar operations (weighing approximately 6,000 pounds with a wingspan of approximately 42 feet, a length of 34 feet, and a fuel capacity of 180 gallons).

**3. Performing Aerial Video and Photography Operations With**

**The 3D Robotics Solo UAS**  **Will Benefit The Economy.**

In addition to being safe and efficient, the 3D Robotics Solo UAS
is also an economical alternative to using manned aircraft to
conduct similar a erial operations. As such, operation of the 3D
Robotics Solo UAS will allow United States based companies, likeBenjamin H. Chentnik and Lucid Prints Inc. , to remain competitive and contribute to growth of the U.S. economy. Specifically, with the rising co st of aviation fuel and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regulatory actions phasing out leaded aviation fuels, U.S. owned and operated companies must adopt new and alternative technology in order to remain competitive. Operating the battery powe red 3D Robotics Solo UAS is one such technology that not only allows companies greater operational flexibility compared to manned aircraft, but provides such flexibility without the high operational cost of a traditional manned aircraft.

By operating the 3D Robotics Solo UAS , companies such as Lucid Prints Inc. ( Benjamin H. Chentnik ) , can remain competitive and profitable, and therefore, provide greater job stability to employees and contractors, which will ultimately contribute to growth of the
U.S. econo my. Improved financial performance of U.S. companies, through commercial use of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS

, provides a stable workforce that increases consumer spending; improves local, state, and federal tax revenues; and allows companies to invest in resea rch and development in order to remain competitive both in the United States and abroad.

**4. There Are No Privacy Issues.**

Similar to the manned aerial acquisition flight operations that have been conducted for decades, Benjamin H. Chentnik’s proposed

oper ation of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS will not implicate any privacy issues. Specifically, the 3D Robotics Solo UAS will be operated only in compliance with operating documents (i.e. Monthly Maintenance Log, and the 3D Robotics Solo Instruction Manual) which r equires property owner involvement as well as local law enforcement notification, and in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations, including the minimum altitude requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.119.

**E. The Reasons Why Granting The Exemption Would N ot** **Adversely Affect Safety, Or How The Exemption Would Provide A Level Of Safety At Least Equal To That Provided**  **By The Rule From Which Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks Exemption.** 

**1. Reasons Why The 3D Robotics Solo UAS**  **Meet The**
**Conditions Of The FAA Modernizat ion and Reform Act of**  **2012 (FMRA) Section 333.**

In consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the unmanned aircraft and its operation, Benjamin H. Chentnik’s operation of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS

meet s the regulati on and conditions of FMRA Section 333, and will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H.

Section 333 provides authority for a UAS to operate without airworthiness certification and sets forth requirements f or considering whether a UAS will create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security. Specifically, FMRA Section 333 states the following, in part:

(a) In General.

­­ Notwithstanding any other requirement of t his subtitle, and not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall determine if certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system before completion of the plan and rul emaking required by section 332 of this Act or the guidance required by section 334 of this Act.

(b) Assessment of Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

­­ In making the determination under subsection (a), the Secretary shall determine,

at a minimum

­­
(1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line ofsight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace

system or the public or pose a threat to national security; and

(2) whether a certificate of waiver, certificate of authorization, or airworthiness certification under section 44704 of title 49, United States Code, is required for the operation of unmanned aircraf t systems identified under paragraph (1).

(c) Requirements for Safe Operation.

­­ If the Secretary determines under this section that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system, the Secretary shall establish require ments for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.

In seeking this exemption, Benjamin H. Chentnik submits that the
3D Robotics Solo UAS can operate safely in the NAS pursuant to FMRA Section 333, as demonstrated by: (a) the characteristics of
the 3D Robotics Solo UAS ; (b) the pilot certification requirement; and (c) the specific operating limitations.

**a. The Specifications Of The 3D Robot**  **ics Solo UAS**
**Demonstrate Its Safe Characteristics.**

The 3D Robotics Solo UAS do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security considering its size, weight, speed, and operational capability.

**i. Tech nical Specifications Of The**  **3D Robotics Solo UAS.**

The technical specifications of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS is set forth by the 3D Robotics Solo Specifications and Data Sheet,
included in the 3D Robotics Solo User Manual that has been
submitted for referen ce

.

**ii. The 3D Robotics Solo**  **Autonomous Flight And Navigation**
**Modes Enable The UAS's To Remain Within A Defined Operational Area.** The 3D Robotics Solo UAS may be operated in both manual and fully autonomous flight modes. A complete description of the
fl ight and navigational modes of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS is
included in the 3D Robotics Solo User Manual that has been
submitted for reference.

**i ii. The**  **3D Robotics Solo UAS Is**  **Designed For Automatic**
**Return To Home Point Or Hover In The Event Of Loss Of The Control Link Or Navigation.** 

When the Control Link is lost, the 3D Robotics Solo UAS will remain stationary, in flight, for 3 seconds or more.

If, after 3 seconds, the 3D Robotics Solo UAS do es not reacquire
control link data from the GCS, the UAS will assume that the
Control Link is lost and the UAS will return to the home position (i.e., failsafe mode) via GPS, and will descend to the takeoff position and shutdown.

**iv. The 3D Robotics Solo**  **, GCS And Its Operation.**

A complete description of the o peration and specifications of the
3D Robotics Solo , GCS and flight control software is provided in
the 3D Robotics Solo User that has been submitted for reference.

**b. Flight Operations Of 3D Robotics Solo UAS Is**  **Limited To The Line Of Sight Of A Certifica**  **ted Pilot in Command With A Safety Observer.** 

Benjamin H. Chentnik will only utilize certificated pilots who possess a current and valid airman medical certificate to act as a pilot in command (PIC) of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS. Additionally, a safety obser ver will assist all pilots during flight
time.

**c. Flights Of 3D Robotics Solo UAS**  **Will Be Conducted Pursuant To Specific Operating Limitations.** In seeking this exemption, Benjamin H. Chentnik proposes to commercially operate 3D Robotics Solo UAS for the special purpose of conducting aerial video and photography over areas of United States that do not pose any safety discrepancies to civilians, pursuant to the following specific operating limitations:

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exem ption will be limited to the following aircraft described in the operating documents, rotorcraft UAS's weighing less than 55 pounds maximum gross weight: 3D Robotics Solo , Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this grant.

2. UAS operations under this exemption will be limited to conducting operations for the purpose of aerial video and photography.

3. The UAs may not be flown by any at an indicated airspeed exceeding 47.8 knots.

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 500 feet above ground level (AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operating documents unless a special request is made and approved by ATC. All altitudes reported to ATC mu st be
in feet AGL.

5. The UAs 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.

6. The use of first person view (FPV) by the PIC or safety observer (SO) is not permitted.

7. All operations must utilize a safety observer (SO). The SO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always
maintains VLOS capability. The SO and PIC must be able tocommunicate 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 d uration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the SO can perform the functions prescribed in the operating
documents.

8. The SO must not perform any other duties beyond assisting the PIC with seeing and avoiding other air traffic and other ground
based obstacles/obstructions and is not permitted to operate the
camera or other instruments.

9. The operating documents and the grant of exemption must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy e xists between the conditions and limitations contained in the grant of exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, the conditions and limitations contained in the grant of exemption 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 Administrat or upon request. The operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension or amendment to the grant of exemption. If the operator determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted the exemption, then the operator must petition for 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.

10. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe flight. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessarymaintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground Control Station must be included in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and alterations must be properly documented in the aircraft
records.

11. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or altera tions that affect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo a functional test flight. The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an entry in the aircraft records.

12. The pre-fli ght inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment, not already covered in the relevant sections of the operating documents.

13. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s aircraft/component, mai ntenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements.

14. The operator must carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping requirements, in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, inspection, alterations,
and sta tus of replacement/overhaul component parts must be noted in the aircraft records, in cluding total time in service, description of work accomplished, and the signature of the authorized person returning the UAS to service.

15. Each UAS operated under this exe mption must comply with all manufacturer Safety Bulletins.

16. The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective action taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections.17. The PIC must possess at least a private pilo t certificate and at
least a current third- class medical certificate.

18. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC meets the operator’s qualification criteria and demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under the exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator ’s PICs are permitted under the terms of the 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 ar e considered non-participants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 91.119.

19. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 C.F.R. § 1.1. All operations must be c onducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). If flight at night is required, a special request will be made at the FAA office closest to proposed area of operations. Flights under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

20. The UA ma y not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point as denoted on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained, and the operation is
conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by the operator’s COA. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available to the Administrator
upon request.21. 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.

22. If the UA loses communications or loses its GPS s ignal, it
must return to a pre- determined location within the planned operating area and land or be recovered in accordance with the operating documen ts.

23. The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in accordance with the operating
documents.

24. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough p ower to fly at normal cruising speed to the intended landing point and land the UA with 25% battery power remaining.

25. The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any op erations under the 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. All operations
shall be conducted in accordance with airspace requirements in the ATO issued COA including class of airspace, altitude level and potential transponder requirements.

26. All aircraft operated in accordance with the exemption must be identified by serial number, registered in accordance with
14 C .F.R. part 47, and have identification (N- Number) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

27. Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrumused for operation and control of the UA mus t comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government oversight agency requirements.

28. The documents required fewer than 14 C.F.R. 91.9 and
91.203 must be available to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the UAS is operating. These
documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

29. The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all manned aviation operations and activities at all times.

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

31. Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons (persons other than the PIC, SO, operator trainees or essential persons), vessels, vehicles, an d
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 and/or;

b. The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures
where the owner/controller of such vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission 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, and;

c. Operations nearer to the PIC, SO, operator tr ainees or essential persons do not present an undue hazard to those persons per §91.119(a).

32. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permissi on from land owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted.

33. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applic able 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

.
**2. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 61.113(a) And (b) Would Not Adversely Affect Safety.** 

Benjamin H. Chentnik submits that the equivalent level of safety established by Section 61.113(a) and (b) will be maintained
because no PIC w ill be allowed to operate the 3D Robotics Solo

UAS unless that PIC has demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight-hour and currency requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the 3D Robotics Solo UAS in a manner consistent with the exemption, includ ing evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels,
vehicles and structures.

Considering Benjamin H. Chentnik’s proposed area of operations, and the operating limitations set forth-above; the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those of commercial pilot requirements (See Exemption No. 11062); and the airmanship skills necessary to safely operate the 3D Robotics
Solo UAS , Benjamin H. Chentnik submits that the additional
manned a irmanship experience of a commercially certificated pilotwould not correlate to the airmanship skills necessary for Benjamin H. Chentnik’s specific proposed flight operations.

The FAA has previously granted relief from Section 61.113(a) and (b) specific to UAS, in circumstances similar, in all material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11112, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11158, 11159, 11160, 11161).

Benjamin H. Ch entnik will not allow any PIC to operate the 3D
Robotics Solo UAS unless that PIC has demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight-hour requirements or the 3D Robotics Solo UAS training and currency requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the 3D Robotics Solo UAS in a manner consistent with this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles
and structures.

Specifically, the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a

manne r consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(b), 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot (with a minimum of 5 hours of those hours as a UAS pilot operating the same make and model of UAS to be used for operations under the exemption). In addition to the
ho ur requirements, the PIC must accomplish 3 takeoffs and landings in the preceding 90 days (for currency purposes).

As in Exemption Nos. 11062, 11138, and 11153, prior documented flight experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable regulations will ensure an equivalent level of safety during Benjamin H. Chentnik’s proposed operations. The Administrator has held that prior documented flight experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable regulations would ensure safe operations, stati ng as follows:

In Exemption No. 11062, the FAA required that prior toconducting operations for the purpose of motion picture filming (or similar operations), the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR 61.51(b), 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot including at least 10 hours logged as a UAS pilot with a multi-rotor UAS. Prior to operations under Exemption No. 11062, the PIC must also have accumulated and logged a minimum of 5 hours as a UAS pilot operating the same make and model of UAS to be used for operations under the exemption. For clarification, the FAA considers these minimum hour requirements to be inclusive rather than additive; i.e. 5 hours make and model time may be included in the 10 hours of
multi- rotor time and the 10 hours may be included in the total 25 hours of UAS rotorcraft time. In addition to the hour requirements, the PIC must accomplish 3 takeoffs and landings in the preceding 90 days (for currency purposes). The FAA finds that at a
minimu m, the flight-hour requirements in Exemption No. 11062 are appropriate to practice and build proficiency in the skills necessary to safely conduct the petitioner’s proposed operations. The FAA also finds that prior documented flight experience that
was obt ained in compliance with applicable regulations would satisfy this requirement. Training, proficiency, and experience-building flights can also be conducted under the grant of exemption to accomplish the required flight time. During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights the PIC is required to operate the UA with appropriate distances in
accordance with 14 C.F.R 91.119.

Exemption No. 11138 at page 15. Accordingly, Benjamin H. Chentnik will ensure safe operations by not allowing any PIC to

o perate the 3D Robotics Solo UAS unless that PIC has demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight-hour and currency requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, DJI Inspire 1+, or DJI Spreading Wings S800,
UAS in a manner consi stent with the exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distancesfrom people, vessels, vehicles and structures.

**3. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.7(a) Would Not Adversely Affect Safety** 

**.**
The equivalent level of safety established by Section 91.7(a) will be maintained because prior to every flight, Benjamin H. Chentnik
will ensure that the 3D Robotics Solo UAS is in an airworthy condition based upon the UAS’s compliance with its operatin g documents and as stated in the conditions and limitations herein.

Additionally, the FAA has previously granted relief from Section 91.7(a) specific to UAS, in circumstances similar, in all material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos . 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11112, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11159, 11160, 11161).

**4. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.121 Would Not Adversely Affect Safety.** 

The equi valent level of safety established by Section 91.121 will
be maintained because the altitude information of the 3D Robotics
Solo UAS will be provided to the PIC via GPS equipment and a radio communications telemetry data link, which downlinks from
the UA t o the GCS for active monitoring of the flight path and altitude. This altitude information, combined with Benjamin H. Chentnik’s operation of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS within visual line of sight, at or below 500 feet AGL, will ensure a level of safety equi valent to Section 91.121. The altitude information will be generated by GPS equipment installed onboard the aircraft. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point is automatically established by the UAS's at ground level.

The FAA has previously granted relief from Section 91.121 specific to UAS, in circumstances similar, in all material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos. 11062, 11063,11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11112, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11159, 11160, 11161).

**5. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.151(b) Would Not Adversely Affect Safety.** 

A grant of this exemption would ensure an equivalent level of safety established by 14 C.F.R. Section 91.151(b) as a re sult of (1) the technical specifications of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS ; (2) the limitations on the proposed flight operations; and (3) the location of the proposed flight operations. Accordingly, Benjamin H. Chentnik will ensure that it will safely operate t he battery powered
3D Robotics Solo UAS during daylight hours in VFR conditions, with enough battery power to fly for a total duration of 13.5 minutes to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at leas t 4.5 minutes.

Here, as in Exemption No. 11109, the technical specifications of
the 3D Robotics Solo UAS ; the limitations on the proposed flight operations; and the location of the proposed operations, will ensure an equivalent level of safety established by 14 C.F.R. Section 91.151(b). Furthermore, safety will be ensured as the 3D Robotics
Solo UAS provide s audible and visual warnings to the PIC at the GCS when the UAs experiences low battery voltage, the first warning occurring at approximately 30% remai ning battery power, and again at approximately 10% remaining battery power. At the critically low battery level of 5% , the 3D Robotics Solo UAS will descend and land automatically.

Significantly, previous exemptions granted by the FAA concerning
Section 9 1.151 establish that safety is not adversely affected when the technical characteristics and operating limitations of the UAS are considered. Relief has been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less than the minimums prescribed in Section 91.151,
inc luding Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. Moreover, the FAA has previously granted relief from Section 91.151 specific toUAS, in circumstances similar, in all material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, 10673, 11042, 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080).

**6. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Sections 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), And**  **91.417(a) & (b) Would Not Adversely Affect Safety.**

In seeking this exemption, Benjamin H. Chentnik submits that the equivalent level of safety with regard to the regulatory maintenance and alteration requirements established by Sections 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) will be met because Benjamin H. Chentnik will use trained technicians to perform maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on the UAS's using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the operating documents (i.e., the Benjamin H. Chentnik Aerial Operations Manual, Monthly Ma intenance Log, and 3D Robotics Solo Instruction Manual). Furthermore, Benjamin H. Chentnik will document and maintain all
maintenance records for the 3D Robotics Solo UAS

.

Since the 3D Robotics Solo UAS will be inspected as prescribed by the operating doc uments, Benjamin H. Chentnik will maintain the equivalent level of safety established by Sections 91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1), and 91.409(a)(2).

Likewise, the exemption sought will not adversely affect safety because Benjamin H. Chentnik will use trained tech nicians to perform maintenance, alterations or preventive maintenance on the UAS using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed by the operating documents.

Furthermore, the exemption sought would maintain an equivalent level of safety established by Sections 91.407, 91.417(a) and 91.417(b), because all maintenance of the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, DJI Inspire 1+, and DJI Spreading Wings S800 UAS's will beperformed by trained technicians. Maintenance will be documented and maintained utilizing the mon thly maintenance log.

Significantly, previous exemptions granted by the FAA concerning Sections 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) establish that safety is not adversely affected when the technical characteristics and oper ating limitations of the UAS
are considered.

In consideration of Benjamin H. Chentnik’s proposed operating limitations, the operating documents, and the technical aspects of
the 3D Robotics Solo UAS , Benjamin H. Chentnik submits that safety will not be adversely affected by granting exemption from 14 C.F.R. Sections 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1) and (a)(2), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b). The FAA has previously granted relief specific to UAS in circumstances similar, in al l material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11112, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153).

**7. The FAA May Prescribe Any Other Conditions For Safe Operation.** 

In accordance with Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) and 14 C.F.R. § 21.16 entitled Special Conditions, Benjamin H. Chentnik requests that the FAA prescribe special conditions for the intended operation of the 3D
Robotics S olo UAS which contain such safety standards that the Administrator finds necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, and 14 C.F.R §§ 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7 (a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.40 7(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b). Such special conditions will permit safe operation of the UAs for the limited purpose of conducting aerial video and photography over certain areas of the United States for compensation or hire.

FMRA Sec tion 333 sets forth the requirements for consideringwhether a UAS will create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security; and further, provides the authority for such UAS to operate without
airworthiness ce rtification in accordance with any requirements that must be established for the safe operation of the UAS in the
NAS.

Likewise, the Administrator may prescribe special conditions pursuant to 14 C.F.R.

§ 21.16, for operation of the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, DJI Inspire 1+, and DJI Spreading Wings S800 UAS's, since the airworthiness regulations of 14 C.F.R. Part 21 do not c o n t a i n a d e q u a t e o r a p p r o p r i a t e s a f e t y s t a n d a r d s , d u e t o t h e n o v e l
o r u n u s u a l d e s i g n features of the aircraft. Section 21.16, entitled Special Conditions, states the following:

If the FAA finds that the airworthiness regulations of this subchapter do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for an aircraft, aircraft engin e, or propeller because of a novel or unusual design feature of the aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller, he prescribes special conditions and amendments thereto for the product. The special conditions are issued in accordance with Part 11 of this chapte r and contain such safety standards for the aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller as the FAA finds necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established in the regulations.

See 14 C.F.R. § 21.16. Therefore, in accordance with FMRA
Secti on 333 and 14 C.F.R. § 21.16, the FAA may prescribe special conditions for Peak Performance’s intended operation of the 3D
Robotics Solo UAS , which contain such safety standards that the Administrator finds necessary to establish a level of safety equivale nt to that established by 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, and

14 C.F.R

Sections 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a),91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b).

∙
**A Summary That Can Be Published In The Federal Register,**

**st ating: The Rules From Which Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks**  **Exemption:**

Benjamin H. Chentnik seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R Sections 61.113(a)&(b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b ).

**A Brief Description Of The Nature Of The Exemption Benjamin H. Chentnik Seeks:** 

This exemption will permit Benjamin H. Chentnik to commercially operate an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) for the purpose of conducting aerial video and photography over ce rtain areas of the
United States.

**Any Additional Information, Views, Or Arguments Available To Support Benjamin H. Chentnik’s Request.** 

This Petition is made pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) Section 333, which directs the

Se cretary of Transportation to determine if certain UAS may operate safely in the NAS. As such, Benjamin H. Chentnik’s request for exemption may be granted pursuant to the authority of FMRA Section 333 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, as set forth above.

FMRA Section 333 sets forth the requirements for considering
whether a UAS will create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security; and further, provides the authority for such UAS to operate without
airworthiness certif ication.

As discussed in detail above, Benjamin H. Chentnik will operatethe 3D Robotics Solo UAS safely in the NAS, without creating a hazard to users of the NAS, or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security.

**CONCLUSION**

As set forth h erein, Benjamin H. Chentnik seeks an exemption pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.61 and Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), which will permit safe operation of the 3D Robotics Solo UAS commercially,
without an airworthiness certifi cate, for the limited purpose of conducting aerial video and photography over certain areas of the United States. By granting this Petition, the FAA Administrator will be fulfilling the Congressional mandate of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, while also advancing the interests of the public, by allowing Benjamin H. Chentnik to safely, efficiently, and economically operate the 3D Robotics Solo
UAS commercially within the NAS.

**WHEREFORE**

, in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations and the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 333, Benjamin H. Chentnik respectfully requests that the Administrator grant this Petition for an exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R Sect ions 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b), and permit Peak Perspective to operate the
3D Robotics Solo UAS commercially for the purpose of conducting aerial video and photography o ver certain areas of the
United States.

Dated: July 16 , 2015

Respectfully submitted, Benjamin H. ChentnikBenjamin H. Chentnik 1460 Via De Pepi Boynton Beach, FL 33426

315

- 225

- 4032 ben@lucidprints.biz www.lpwebdesign.net