June 30, 2015

U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12­140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,

Washington, DC 20590

Re:​Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal Aviation Regulations

from 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a)&(b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b) (2);

91.103(b); 91.109; 119.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a)&(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a) (1); 91.409(a) (2);

91.417(a)&(b)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I, Chris Hanaford, am writing pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act

of 2012 and the procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. part 11, to request that I, Chris

Hanaford, an owner and operator of a small unmanned aircraft, be exempted from the Federal

Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed below so that I, Chris Hanaford, may operate my small

lightweight unmanned aircraft system (“UAS”) commercially in airspace regulated by the Federal

Aviation Administration (“FAA”).

THE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM (UAS):

A lightweight, battery operated 4­motor rotorcraft in the form of a quadcopter that takes off and

lands vertically, manufactured by DJI, Model Phantom 3 which carries:

● An on­board flight computer with GPS navigation and location ability that receives

signals for flight controls from a ground ­based transmitter/controller as well as an iOS

mobile device application

● An on­board camera capable of capturing imagery in the form of full color, high

definition still photos and video;

● An on­board telemetry system that delivers flight data from the on ­board flight computer

to the on­board radio transmitter including altitude AGL, horizontal and vertical speed,

compass direction of flight and direction back to its launch site;

● A 2.4 Ghz on­board radio transmitter that transmits live video from the on board camera

plus all the flight data from the telemetry system described above.
I, Chris Hanaford, am a videographer within the State of California; with extensive experience

operating UAS’s Along with several other types of quadcopters, I have owned and operated DJI

UAS’s and have accumulated many hours of flight time during recreational flights since the

technology first became available without incident. I have always been committed to safety with

each flight.

My, Chris Hanaford's, exemption request would permit operation of a lightweight, unmanned

(piloted by remote control) UAS in tightly controlled and limited airspace. Predetermined in

areas away from general public, airports, heliports and vehicular traffic for community videos,

and within property boundaries for individual homeowner real estate listing videos/photos.

Currently, similar lightweight, remote controlled UAS's are legally operated by unmonitored

amateur hobbyists with no safety plan or controls in place to prevent catastrophe.

I, Chris Hanaford, have personally instilled safety protocols and controls to avoid and prevent

public hazard, as well as manned aircraft hazards/catastrophe. This will act to further safety

protocols exclusive to lightweight UAS's specific to real estate video and photography usage as

I, Chris Hanaford, record flight data and other information gained through permitted flight

operations to share with the FAA through any required FAA reports to assist with future protocol

and safety regulation.

Granting my, Chris Hanaford’s, request comports with the Secretary of Transportation’s (FAA

Administrator’s) responsibilities and authority to not only integrate UAS's into the national

airspace system, but to “...establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems

[UAS's] in the national airspace system” under Section 333(c) of the Reform Act specific to the

use of UAS's for real estate/Realtor purposes. Further I, Chris Hanaford, will conduct my

operations in compliance with the protocols described herein or as otherwise established by the

FAA.

For the reasons stated below I, Chris Hanaford, respectfully request the grant of an exemption

allowing me to operate lightweight, remote controlled UAS’s for academic community

awareness to benefit/stimulate attraction to the area and to enhance real estate listing videos for

homeowners who cannot afford expensive manned aircraft for the same purpose. Both of which

will promote local economic growth through increased employment and increased tax base.

Both with public safety in mind by using my, Chris Hanaford’s, lightweight UAS as an alternative

to flying heavier manned aircraft containing combustible fuel that could pose a potential public

hazard that can cause catastrophic devastation to the public.

I. Contact Information:

Chris Hanaford

12446 Summerwind ST

Cerritos, CA 90703
Office: (714) 322­7544

Email: crhanaford@gmail.com

II. The Specific Sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations From Which Chris

Hanaford Requests Exemption are:

14 CFR 21;

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b);

14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 91, et seq.;

14 CFR 407 (a) (1);

14 CFR 409 (a) (2); and,

14 CFR 417 (a) & (b).

III. The Extent of relief Chris Hanaford seeks and the Reason He Seeks Such Relief:

I, Chris Hanaford, submit this application in accordance with the Reform Act, 112 P.L. 95 §§

331­334, seeking relief from any currently applicable FARs operating to prevent me, Chris

Hanaford, contemplated commercial cinematic, academic and other flight operations within the

national airspace system. The Reform Act in Section 332 provides for such integration of civil

unmanned aircraft systems into our national airspace system as it is in the public’s interest to do

so. My, Chris Hanaford’s, lightweight UAS meets the definition of “small unmanned aircraft” as

defined in Section 331 and therefore the integration of my lightweight UAS is expressly

contemplated by the Reform Act. I would like to operate my lightweight UAS prior to the

time period by which the Reform Act requires the FAA to promulgate rules governing such craft.

Thereby, providing direct experience and valuable information for formal regulation that can be

administered uniformly to all real estate related UAS aerial video and photography. The Reform

Act guides the Secretary in determining the types of UAS's that may operate safely in our

national airspace system. Considerations include: The weight, size, speed and overall

capabilities of the UAS's; Whether the UAS will be operated near airports or heavily populated

areas; and, Whether the UAS will be operated by line of sight. 112 P.L. 95 § 333 (a). Each of

these items reflect in favor of an exemption for me, Chris Hanaford. My UAS utilizes four (4)

counter­rotating propellers for balance, control and stability. My UAS is equipped with GPS and

auto return safety technology. Weighing less than five (5) pounds (far below the maximum 55

pound limit); including camera with gimbal.

I, Chris Hanaford, consider safety as foremost with each flight. My small unmanned aircraft is

designed to hover in place via GPS and operate in less than a 24 knot (15 mph) wind. For

safety, stability and fear of financial loss I will not fly in winds exceeding 16 kph (10 mph). Built

in safety systems include a GPS mode that allows my UAS to hover in place when radio

controls are released. With three modes to choose from, I utilize the Smart Mode for aerial

videography/photography. This is the safest, most reliable and stable mode to prevent accident
and hazard. When pilot communication is lost UAS is designed to slowly descend to the point of

take off. I do not operate my UAS near airports, Hospitals nor Police heliports, and do not

operate near areas where general public is within fifty to one hundred (50­100) yards depending

on location, conditions and weather. I am constantly on alert for any manned aircraft

(Police/Medical helicopters, etc.) and prepared to land/abort immediately to the nearest and

safest ground point should a manned aircraft approach my location or I suspect manned aircraft

may approach near my location. My UAS is capable of vertical and horizontal operations, and

are flown only within my line of sight of me, as the remote control pilot. Utilizing battery power

rather than combustible fuels, flights generally last between three (3) to seven (7) minutes, with

an altitude under one hundred fifty (150) feet. I, Chris Hanaford, utilize a fresh fully charged

battery with each flight as a safety precaution; full flight time limit for each battery is nine (9) to

twelve (12) minutes as tested. I do not operate my UAS at or below manufacturer recommend

minimum charge levels for operation; preferring to remain well within a safe operating range to

insure adequate communication between radio control and UAS to eliminate potential for crash,

loss of control or hazard. Reserve batteries are at hand with each exercise to insure

replacement for sufficient safe level of operation. I do not believe in taking risk that may cause a

crash, that could create hazard to the public/property/manned aircraft, and have no desire to

lose an investment. I have clocked numerous practice flights in remote areas as a hobbyist

simulating flights for future commercial use to gain familiarization with the characteristics of this

specific UAS's performance under different temperature and weather conditions. I also practice

computerized simulated flights to maintain adequate skills and response reflex time. All for the

sake of safety.

I, Chris Hanaford, am extremely cautious when operating of my UAS lightweight unmanned

aircraft and will not “create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public.” 112

P.L. 95 § 333 (b). Given the small size and weight of my UAS it falls well within Congress’s

contemplated safety zone when it promulgated the Reform Act and the corresponding directive

to integrate UAS's into the national airspace system. Chris Hanaford’s UAS, used in hobby

flight, has a demonstrable safety record and does not pose any threat to the general public or

national security.

IV. How Chris Hanaford’s Request Will Benefit the Public As A Whole:

Aerial videography for geographical awareness and for real estate marketing has been around

for a long time through manned fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. For small budget real estate

companies and average homeowners the expense of such aerial videography is cost

prohibitive. Only large companies and high end Realtors or luxury homeowners can afford to

absorb such expense. Depriving non­luxury homeowners and lower budget Realtors from a

valuable marketing tool. Manned aircraft pose a threat to the public through potential

catastrophic crash that the community has experienced in the past with military aircraft and

medical helicopter crashes. Each resulting in loss of life. Each with combustible fuel that

exploded and burned on impact. Police helicopters have made emergency hard landings within
city limits. My, Chris Hanaford's, UAS pose no such threat since size and lack of combustible

fuel alleviates any potential threat to the public.

Congress has already proclaimed that it is in the public’s interest to integrate commercially flown

UAS's into the national airspace system, hence the passing of the Reform Act. Granting my,

Chris Hanaford’s, exemption request furthers the public interest through academic/visual

awareness of the geographical benefits in and around the area. My lightweight UAS is battery

powered and creates no emissions that can harm the environment. The consequence of my

lightweight UAS crashing is far less than a full size helicopter or fixed wing aircraft; which are

heavy, contain combustible fuel and can cause catastrophic devastation to the public.

The public’s interest is furthered by minimizing ecological and crash threat by permitting aerial

video/photo capture through my battery operated lightweight UAS's. Permitting me to

immediately fly within national air space furthers economic growth. Granting my Chris

Hanaford’s exemption request substantially furthers the economic impact for the community and

also for companies looking to relocate or build in these area as well as individuals looking to

relocate for career advancement through academic and geographical awareness. Both of which

serve as a stimulus to the community.

V. Reasons Why Chris Hanaford’s Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect Safety Or How The

Exemption Will Provide a Level of Safety At Least Equal To Existing Rule:

My, Chris hanaford’s, exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the contrary, for the

reasons stated permitting me, Chris Hanaford, to log more flight time in FAA controlled airspace,

with communication with the FAA, will allow me to contribute to the innovation and

implementation of new and novel, as of yet undiscovered safety protocols for Realtors that can

be embraced by the National Association of Realtors, and for development in cooperation with

the FAA. In addition I, Chris Hanaford, submit the following representations of enhancements to

current aerial videography and photography for real estate:

● My UAS weighs less than 5 pounds complete with a small ultra lightweight high quality

camera;

● I only operate my UAS below 200 feet (well within the 400 foot permissible ceiling set

by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012);

● My UAS only operate for 15­ 20 minutes per flight; I land my UAS prior to manufacturer

recommended minimum level of battery power;

● I pilot my UAS through remote control only by line of sight;

● My UAS has GPS a flight safety feature whereby it hovers and then slowly lands if

communication with the remote control pilot is lost;

● I actively analyze flight data and other sources of information to constantly update and

enhance safety protocols;

● I only operate in reasonably safe environment that are strictly controlled, are away from

power lines, elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas;
● I conduct extensive pre­flight inspections and protocol, during which safety carries

primary importance;

● I always obtains all necessary permissions prior to operation; and,

● I have procedures in place to abort flights in the event of safety breaches or potential

danger.

My, Chris Hanaford’s, safety protocols provide a level of safety equal to or exceeding existing

rules. It is important to note that absent the integration of commercial UAS into our national

airspace system, helicopters are the primary means of aerial video and photography for

community awareness and real estate. While the safety record of such helicopters is remarkably

astounding, there has been incidents involving loss of life as well as extensive property

damage; it is far safer to operate a battery powered lightweight UAS.

● First, the potential loss of life is diminished because UAS's carry no people on board and

I only operate my UAS in specific areas away from mass populations.

● Second, there is no fuel on board a UAS and thus the potential for fire or explosions is

greatly diminished.

● Third, the small size and extreme maneuverability of my UAS allow me to remotely pilot

away from and avoid hazards quickly and safely.

● Lastly, given its small size and weight, even when close enough to capture amazing

images, my UAS need not be so close to the objects they are focused on through the

technology and use of post editing software allowing pan and zoom.

Accordingly, my UAS has been experimentally operated for familiarization/competency and will

continue to operate at and above current safety levels.

VI. A Summary The FAA May Publish in the Federal Register:

14 C.F.R. 21 and 14 C.F.R. 91: Airworthiness Certificates, Manuals and The Like.

14 C.F.R. 21, Subpart H, entitled Airworthiness Certificates, sets forth requirements for

procurement of necessary airworthiness certificates in relation to FAR §91.203(a)(1). The size,

weight and enclosed operational area of my, Chris Hanaford’s, UAS permits exemption from

Part 21 because my UAS meets (and exceeds) an equivalent level of safety pursuant to Section

333 of the Reform Act. The FAA is authorized to exempt aircraft from the airworthiness

certificate requirement under both the Act (49 U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the

Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit the FAA to exempt UAS's from the airworthiness

certificate

requirement in consideration of the weight, size, speed, maneuverability and proximity to areas

such as airports and dense populations. My, Chris Hanaford’s, current and projected UAS's

meet or exceed each of the elements.
14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an airworthiness certificate. As no

such certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated by the FARs, this Regulation is

inapplicable.

14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. As there are no on

board

pilots or passengers, and given the size of the UAS's, this Regulation is inapplicable. An

equivalent level of safety will be achieved by maintaining a safety/flight manual delineating

areas of where safety can be defined.10 The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this

regulation in Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167, 10167A,

10602, 10700 and 32827.

14 C.F.R. § 91.121 regarding altimeter settings is inapplicable insofar as my UAS utilizes

electronic global positioning systems with a barometric sensor.

14 C.F.R. § 91.203 (a) and (b) provides for the carrying of civil aircraft certifications and

registrations. They are inapplicable for the same reasons described above. The equivalent level

of safety will be achieved by maintaining any such required certifications and registrations by

me, Chris Hanaford.

14 C.F.R. § 45.23: Marking of The Aircraft.

Applicable Codes of Federal Regulation require aircraft to be marked according to certain

specifications. My UAS are, by definition, unmanned. They therefore do not have a cabin,

cockpit or pilot station on which to mark certain words or phrases. Further, two­inch lettering is

difficult to place on such small aircraft with dimensions smaller that minimal lettering

requirement. Regardless, I will mark its UASs in the largest possible lettering by placing the

word “EXPERIMENTAL” on its fuselage as required by 14 C.F.R. §45.29 (f) so that I the pilot, or

anyone assisting me as a spotter with the UAV will see the markings. The FAA has previously

issued exemptions to this regulation through Exemptions Nos. 8738, 10167, 10167A and 10700.

14 C.F.R. § 61.113: Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: PIC.

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) & (b), private pilots are limited to non­commercial

operations. I, Chris Hanaford, can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by current

Regulations because my UAS does not carry any pilots or passengers. Further, while helpful, a

pilot license will not ensure remote control piloting skills. The risks attended to the operation of

my UAS is far less than the risk levels inherent in the commercial activities outlined in 14 C.F.R.

§ 61, et seq. Thus, allowing me, Chris Hanaford, to operate my UAS meet and exceed current

safety levels in relation to 14 C.F.R. §61.113 (a) & (b).

14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes
14 C.F.R. § 91.119 prescribes safe altitudes for the operation of civil aircraft. It allows

helicopters to be operated at lower altitudes in certain conditions. My UAS will never operate at

an altitude greater than 200 AGL; safely below the standard of 400 AGL. I, Chris Hanaford, will

however operate my UAS in safe areas away from public and traffic, providing a level of safety

at least equivalent to or below those in relation to minimum safe altitudes. Given the size,

weight, maneuverability and speed of my UAS, an equivalent or higher level of safety will be

achieved.

14 C.F.R. 91.405 (a); 407 (a) (1); 409 (a) (2); 417(a) & (b): Maintenance Inspections.

The above­cited Regulations require, amongst other things, aircraft owners and operators to

“have [the] 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. . . .”

These Regulations only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. They will not,

therefore, apply to my, Chris Hanaford's, UAS. However, as a safety precaution I inspect my

UAS before and after each flight.

A Summary The FAA May Publish in the Federal Register: A. 14 C.F.R. 21 and 14 C.F.R. 91:

Airworthiness Certificates, Manuals and The Like. 14 C.F.R. 21, Subpart H, entitled

Airworthiness Certificates, sets forth requirements for procurement of necessary airworthiness

certificates in relation to FAR § 91.203(a)(1). The size, weight and enclosed operational area of

my UAS permits exemption from Part 21 because my, Chris Hanaford’s, UAS meets an

equivalent level of safety pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act. The FAA is authorized to

exempt aircraft from the airworthiness certificate requirement under both the Act (49 U.S.C. §

44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit the FAA to

exempt UAS's from the airworthiness certificate requirement in consideration of the weight, size,

speed, maneuverability and proximity to areas such as airports and dense populations. My UAS

meets or exceeds each of the elements. 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft

without an airworthiness certificate. As no such certificate will be applicable in the form

contemplated by the FARs, this Regulation is inapplicable. 14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an

aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. As there are no pilots or passengers, and given the size of

the UAS's, this Regulation is inapplicable. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by

maintaining a manual. The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this regulation in

Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167, maintenance program

that involves regular software updates and curative measures for any damaged hardware.

Therefore, an equivalent level of safety will be achieved.

In summary, Chris Hanaford seeks an exemption from the following Regulations:

14 C.F.R. 21, subpart H; 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (a);

14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b)(2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.103(b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.109; 14 C.F.R. § 91.119; 14
C.F.R. § 91.121; 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a); 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.203(a) and (b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.405 (a);

14 C.F.R. § 91.407 (a)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 91.409 (a)(2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.409 (a ) (2); and, 14 C.F.R.

§§ 91.417 (a) & (b) to commercially operate my, Chris Hanaford’s, UAS in community

awareness and real estate operations, and to develop economic platforms for real estate to

enhance the experience of those seeking to relocate to the area. Currently, area awareness and

real estate aerial videography/photography relies primarily on the use of larger aircraft running

on combustible fuel. Posing potential risk to the public. Granting my, Chris Hanaford’s, request

for exemption will reduce current risk levels and thereby enhance safety. My UAS craft do not

contain potentially explosive fuel, is smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than conventional

real estate video and photographic aircraft with much less flight time. Further, I operate at lower

altitudes and in controlled airspace eliminating potential public risk flying to and from established

airfields.

I, Chris Hanaford, have been informally analyzing flight information and will compile safety

protocols and the implementation of a flight operations manual for real estate usage that

exceeds currently accepted means and methods for safe flight. Formal collection of information

shared with the FAA will enhance the FAA's internal efforts to establish protocols for complying

with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. There are no personnel on board my,

Chris Hanaford’s, UAS and therefore the likelihood of death or serious bodily injury is

significantly diminished. My, Chris Hanaford’s, operation of my UAS, weighing less than 5

pounds and travelling at lower speeds within limited areas will provide an equivalent level of

safety as that achieved under current FARs. Accordingly I, Chris Hanaford, respectfully request

that the FAA grant my exemption request and am willing to cooperate in sharing information to

benefit the FAA, safety of manned aircraft, and the general public at large.

Respectfully submitted,

Chris Hanaford

12446 Summerwind ST

Cerritos, CA 90703

PHANTOM 3 USER MANUAL

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom­3/download