pg. 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC

Regulatory Docket No. _______________

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION OF:

RONALD WINGO

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

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM

PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE:

THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112-95)

Submitted on June 29,2015

Ronald Wingo

Ronald Wingo

2710 N Argyle 

Fresno, CA 93727

Tel: (559) 291-1176
pg. 2

SUMMARY

Ronald Wingo 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 Ronald Wingo to operate an Unmanned Aircraft 

System (UAS) for the commercial purpose of conducting aerial acquisitions within the National 

Airspace System (NAS).

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONER

Ronald Wingo provides UAV aerial data collection for advanced mobile and aerial 

technologies which enable companies to operate more efficiently and achieve competitive 

advantages in their respective markets.

BACKGROUND

Unmanned Aircraft Systems: 

Ronald Wingo seeks an exemption to operate the following:

DJI Phantom series DJI Inspire Align M690L

Steadidrone “Mavrik” Aeryon “Skyranger”

The UAV’s that will be operated by Ronald Wingo 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 as (N180UV) 

and carries its registration on board the aircraft.

BASIS FOR PETITION

Petitioner, Ronald Wingo, 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, 
pg. 3

Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems, hereby petitions the Administrator to 

commercially operate the UAV’s within the National Airspace System (NAS), and for an 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).

In consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the 

unmanned aircraft and its operation, Ronald Wingo’ operation of the UAV’s 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, Ronald Wingo 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. Ronald Wingo submits that the requested 

relief is proper since an equivalent level of safety will be ensured. Ronald Wingo will perform 

maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on the UAV using the methods, techniques, and 

practices prescribed in the operating documents. Furthermore, Ronald Wingo will document and 

maintain all maintenance records for the UAV’s.

Relief from certain requirements of Section 61.113(a) and (b), entitled Private pilot privileges 

and limitations: Pilot in command, is requested by Ronald Wingo to the extent necessary to allow 

operation of the UAV’s by a Pilot in Command (PIC) who has demonstrated, by meeting minimum 

flight-hour and currency requirements and who has successfully acquired specific skills,

demonstrating the PIC is able to safely operate the UAV’s according to the manufacturers pilot 

training requirements and in a manner consistent with this exemption, including evasive and 

emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and 

structures.

Ronald Wingo seeks relief from Section 91.7(a), entitled, Civil Aircraft Airworthiness, 

because the UAV does not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, 

Subpart H. As such, Ronald Wingo submits that it will ensure that the UAV is in an airworthy 

condition, prior to every flight, by determining that the UAS is in compliance with the operating 
pg. 4

documents 

Ronald Wingo also seeks an exemption from the requirements of Section 91.121, entitled 

Altimeter Settings, because the altitude reporting equipment of the UAV is set to zero feet above 

ground level (AGL), rather than local barometric pressure or field altitude, before each flight. The 

altitude information of the UAV is provided to the PIC via a barometric pressure sensor, Global 

Positioning System (GPS) equipment, and a radio communications telemetry data link, which 

downlinks from the UAS to the GCS for active monitoring of the flight path. A level of safety 

equivalent to Section 91.121 will be ensured as the altitude of the UAV will be reported to air traffic 

control (ATC) in feet above ground level (AGL), and Ronald Wingo will operate the UAV within 

visual line of sight, at or below 400 feet AGL.

Additionally, Ronald Wingo seeks an exemption from the requirements of Section 91.151(b), 

entitled Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions. Ronald Wingo submits that safety will not be 

affected by operation of the UAV’s during daylight hours in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) 

under visual flight rules (VFR), with enough battery power to fly for a total duration of 20 minutes to 

the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 10 

minutes.

In accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 11.81, Ronald Wingo provides the following information 

in support of its petition for exemption:

A. NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER. 

Ronald Wingo

2710 N Argyle

Fresno CA 93727

The point of contact for this Petition and specific contact information is as follows:

Ronald Wingo

2710 N Argyle

Fresno, CA 93727

(559)291-1176

rwingo@montico.net
pg. 5

B. THE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF 14 C.F.R. FROM WHICH RONALD 

WINGO SEEKS EXEMPTION. 

1. Ronald Wingo 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) prescribe 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 carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. 

2. Ronald Wingo 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. Ronald Wingo 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 m 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; 

4. Ronald Wingo 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:
pg. 6

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft 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, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes.

5. Ronald Wingo seeks exemption from the requirement of Section 

91.405(a). 

Section 91.405, entitled Maintenance required, 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 section, have 

discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter[.]

6. Ronald Wingo 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 under § 43.7 of 

this chapter[.]

7. Ronald Wingo 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. Ronald Wingo seeks exemption from the requirements of Sections 

91.417(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 
pg. 7

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(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 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. 
pg. 8

C. THE EXTENT OF RELIEF RONALD WINGO SEEKS AND THE 

REASON RONALD WINGO SEEKS THE RELIEF. 

1. Extent of relief Ronald Wingo seeks and the reason Ronald Wingo 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 the necessary Pilot 

Certificate.

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.

As set forth more fully below, Ronald Wingo submits that an equivalent level of safety will be 

maintained because no PIC will be allowed to operate the UAV unless that PIC holds a Pilot 

Certificate, has met certain flight-hour and currency requirements, demonstrating that the PIC is able 

to safely operate the UAV in a manner consistent with the operations specifications as set forth herein, 

including evasive and emergency maneuvers, as well as maintaining appropriate distances from 

people, vessels, vehicles and structures

2. Extent of relief Ronald Wingo seeks and the reason Ronald Wingo seeks 

relief from Section 91.7(a). 

Relief from Section 91.7(a) entitled Civil aircraft airworthiness, is requested to the extent 

required to allow Ronald Wingo to determine that the UAV’s is in an airworthy condition prior to 

every flight by ensuring that the UAS is in compliance with the operating.

Ronald Wingo seeks the requested relief because the UAV does not require an airworthiness 

certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. Therefore, Ronald Wingo will ensure that 

the UAV is in an airworthy condition based upon its compliance with the operating documents prior 

to every flight, and further, determine that the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight, as stated in the 
pg. 9

conditions and limitations below.

3. Extent of relief Ronald Wingo seeks and the reason Ronald Wingo seeks 

relief from Section 91.121. 

Relief from Section 91.121, entitled Altimeter settings, may be required to allow flight 

operations of the UAS’s altitude reporting equipment may be set on the ground to zero feet AGL, 

rather than local barometric pressure or field altitude, before each flight. 

The UAV’s utilizes a ground proximity 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).

Considering the limited altitude of the proposed operations, relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 is 

sought to the extent necessary to comply with the applicable conditions and limitations stated below. 

As more fully set forth herein, a level of safety equivalent to Section 91.121 will be ensured as the 

altitude of the UAV will be reported to air traffic control (ATC) in feet above ground level (AGL), and 

Ronald Wingo will operate the UAV within visual line of sight, at or below 400 feet AGL.

4. Extent of relief Ronald Wingo seeks and the reason Ronald Wingo 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 UAV’s during daylight hours in 

visual meteorological conditions (VMC), under visual flight rules (VFR), for a total duration of 20

minutes to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for 

at least 10 minutes. Ronald Wingo seeks the requested relief because without an exemption from 

Section 91.151(b), the flight time duration of the battery powered UAV’s will severely constrain the 

practicality of any aerial acquisition and research flight operations that Ronald Wingo proposes to 

conduct pursuant to this Petition.

Significantly, as set forth below, the technical specifications of the UAV’s operating 

documents, and Ronald Wingo’ proposed operating limitations, ensure that Ronald Wingo will safely 

operate the battery powered UAV during daylight hours in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) 

under visual flight rules (VFR), with enough battery power to fly, for a total duration of 20 minutes to 
pg. 10

the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 10

minutes (i.e., 20 percent battery power remaining)

5. Extent of relief Ronald Wingo seeks and the reason Ronald Wingo 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 airworthiness certificate, Ronald Wingo requests relief from these Section because 

the UAV’s does not require an airworthiness certificate. As set forth more fully below, the UAV

meets the conditions of FMRA Section 333, for operation without an airworthiness certificate. 

Accordingly, Ronald Wingo will perform maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on the 

UAS using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the operating documents. 

Furthermore, Ronald Wingo will document and maintain all maintenance records for the UAV’s.

D. THE REASONS WHY GRANTING RONALD WINGO’ 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 Ronald Wingo

to safely, efficiently, and economically perform aerial acquisitions within the NAS, commercially in 

support of: federal, state and local government agencies, land surveying, the utility industry and the oil 

& gas industry. Additionally, use of the UAV’s will decrease congestion of the NAS, reduce pollution, 

and provide significant benefits to the economy. Notably, the benefits of Ronald Wingo’ proposed 

operation of the UAV’s will be realized without implicating any privacy issues.

1. The public will benefit from the aerial acquisitions performed. 

Ronald Wingo submits this Petition to commercially operate the UAV’s and perform aerial 

acquisition within the NAS, in support of federal, state and local government agencies, land 

surveying, utility industry and the oil & gas industry. The UAV’s will provide safe, efficient, and 

economical aerial acquisition operations to further each of these fields, which are critical to the wellbeing of the general public.

The UAV’s will also be operated by Ronald Wingo to aid in facility inspections and the 

planning of aerial structures.
pg. 11

2. The public will benefit from decreased congestion of the NAS. 

The UAV is battery powered and serves 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 an UAV’s would 

reduce the amount of manned aircraft in the NAS, reduce noise and air pollution, and increase the 

safety of life and property in the air and on the ground.

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 UAV’s does not require an airport to takeoff or land. Likewise, a reduction of manned aircraft 

conducting aerial survey missions would result in fewer aircraft that must be handled by air traffic 

control during the ground, takeoff, departure, arrival, and landing phases of flight operations.

3. The public will benefit from the safety and efficiency.

Conducting aerial acquisitions with the UAV’s, instead of manned aircraft, will greatly 

benefit the public by drastically reducing the levels of air and noise pollution generated during 

traditional aerial survey flight operations. By using battery power and electric motors, the UAV

produces no air pollution, and is the most viable environmentally conscious alternative to the cabin 

class, six cylinder internal combustion twin engine aircraft that are typically utilized for aerial 

acquisitions, and burn approximately 20-30 gallons per hour of leaded aviation fuel. The UAV, while 

reducing the carbon footprint of aerial acquisitions, also reduces noise pollution, as the UAS is 

propelled by battery powered electric motors, rather than an internal combustion engine.

By using the UAV’s 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 located onboard the aircraft, the UAV, has less physical potential for collateral damage to life 

and property on the ground, and in the air, compared to the manned aircraft that typically conduct 

aerial acquisitions (weighing approximately 6,500 pounds with a wingspan of approximately 40 feet, a 

length of 34 feet, and a fuel capacity of 180 gallons).
pg. 12

4. Performing aerial acquisition operations with the UAV’s will benefit the 

economy. 

In addition to being safe and efficient, the UAV is also an economical alternative to using 

manned aircraft to conduct aerial acquisitions. As such, operation of the UAV’s will allow United 

States based companies, like Ronald Wingo, to remain competitive and contribute to growth of the 

U.S. economy. Specifically, with the rising cost 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 powered UAV’s 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 UAS, companies such as Ronald Wingo, 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. economy. Improved financial performance of U.S. 

companies, through commercial use of the UAS, provides a stable workforce that increases consumer 

spending; improves local, state, and federal tax revenues; and allows companies to invest in research 

and development in order to remain competitive both in the United States and abroad.

5. There are no privacy issues. 

Similar to the manned aerial acquisition flight operations that have been conducted for 

decades, Ronald Wingo’ proposed operation of the UAV’s will not implicate any privacy issues. 

Specifically, the UAV’s will be operated pursuant to the specific conditions and limitations set forth 

herein, and in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations, including the minimum altitude 

requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. 
pg. 13

E. THE REASONS WHY GRANTING THE EXEMPTION WOULD NOT 

ADVERSELY AFFECT SAFETY, OR HOW THE EXEMPTION WOULD 

PROVIDE A LEVEL OF SAFETY AT LEAST EQUAL TO THAT PROVIDED 

BY THE RULE FROM WHICH RONALD WINGO SEEKS EXEMPTION. 

1. Reasons why the UAV’s meets the conditions of The FAA 

Modernization 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, Ronald Wingo’ operation of the UAS meets the 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 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. Specifically, FMRA Section

333 states the following, in part:

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other requirement of this 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 rulemaking 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 of sight 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 aircraft 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 requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the 

national airspace system.

In seeking this exemption, Ronald Wingo submits that the UAV’s can operate safely in the 

NAS pursuant to FMRA Section 333, as demonstrated by: (a) the characteristics of the UAS; (b) the 

pilot certification requirement; (c) the specific operating limitations
pg. 14

The specifications of The UAV’s demonstrate its safe characteristics. 

The UAV does 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. Technical specifications. 

The UAV’s Ronald Wingo propose to use have all been approved under previously granted 

exemptions.

ii. The UAV’s Autonomous Flight and Navigation Modes enable the 

UAS to remain within a defined operational area. 

The UAV’s may be operated in both manual and autonomous flight modes. 

iii The UAV Is Designed For Automatic 

Return To Home Point Or Automatic Landing In The Event Of 

Loss Of The Control Link Or Navigation. 

All proposed UAV’s are equipped with Failsafe Functions.

b. Flight operations of the UAV’s are limited to the line of sight of 

a certificated pilot in command with a safety observer. 

Ronald Wingo will only utilize certificated pilots.

Flights of the UAV’s will be conducted pursuant to specific operating limitations. 

In seeking this exemption, Ronald Wingo proposes to commercially operate the UAV’s for the 

special purpose of conducting aerial acquisitions within the NAS, pursuant to the following specific 

operating limitations:

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the following 

aircraft described in the operating documents, a rotorcraft weighing 24kg or less at 

maximum gross.

2. UAS operations under this exemption will be limited to conducting operations 

for the purpose of aerial acquisitions. 
pg. 15

3. The UA may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 90km/h. 

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above 

ground level (AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operating 

documents. All altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL. 

5. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all 

times. This requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any device 

other than corrective lenses.

6. The use of first person view (FPV) by the PIC or visual observer (VO) is not 

permitted. 

7. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The VO may be used to 

satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. 

The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times. Electronic 

messaging or texting is not permitted during flight operations. The PIC must be 

designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for the duration 

of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the functions prescribed in 

the operating documents. 

8. The VO 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 exists 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 Administrator 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 this exemption, 

then the operator must petition for amendment to the 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 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 necessary maintenance 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 alterations 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 
pg. 16

make an entry in the aircraft records. 

12. The pre-flight 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, 

maintenance, over haul, 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 status of replacement/overhaul component parts must be noted in the 

aircraft records, including 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 exemption 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 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). The VO is also required to 

complete the operator’s training requirements. A record of training must be 

documented and made available upon request by the Administrator. Flights for the 

purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and 

experience-building), 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 are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA 

with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 91.119.

18 UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 C.F.R. § 

1.1. All operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). 

Flights under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized. 

19. 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. 

20. If the UA loses communications or loses its GPS signal, it must return to a 

pre-determined location within the planned operating area and land or be recovered in 

accordance with the operating documents. 

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

emergencies in accordance with the operating documents. 

22. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and 
pg. 17

forecast weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to 

the intended landing point and land the UA with 25% battery power remaining. 

23. The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate 

of Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations under the grant 

of exemption. This COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to Airmen 

(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. 

25 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. 

26. Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation 

and control of the UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) or other appropriate government oversight agency requirements. 

27. The documents required under 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. 

28. The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all manned aviation 

operations and activities at all times. 

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

30. The UA may not be operated over congested or densely populated areas. 

31. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property 

with permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representative. 

Permission from land owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained 

for each flight to be conducted. 

32. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or 

vertical boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be 

reported to the FAA's UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents 

must be reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions 

contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov.

2. Reasons why an exemption from the requirements of Section 61.113(a) and (b) 

would not adversely affect safety. 

Ronald Wingo submits that the equivalent level of safety established by Section 61.113(a) and 

(b) will be maintained because no PIC will be allowed to operate the UAV’s unless that PIC has 
pg. 18

demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight-hour and currency requirements, that the PIC is able to 

safely operate the UAV’s in a manner consistent with the exemption, including evasive and emergency 

maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and structures.

Ronald Wingo will not allow any PIC to operate the UAV’s unless that PIC has 

demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight-hour requirements or the UAV’s training and currency 

requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the UAV’s 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 manner consistent with 14 

C.F.R. § 61.51(b), 12 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot including at least 10 hours logged 

as a UAS pilot with a multi-rotor UAS (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 flight hour requirements, the PIC must accomplish 3 take-offs and landings of the 

UAVin the preceding 90 days (for currency purposes).

1. 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, Ronald Wingo will ensure that the UAV’s is in an airworthy condition based 

upon the UAS’s compliance with its operating documents and as stated in the proposed 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, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 11172).

2. Reasons why an exemption from the requirements of Section 91.121 would not 

adversely affect safety. 

The equivalent level of safety established by Section 91.121 will be maintained because the 
pg. 19

altitude of the UAV will be reported to air traffic control (ATC) in feet above ground level (AGL), and 

Ronald Wingo will operate the UAV within visual line of sight, at or below 400 feet AGL. 

Furthermore, the altitude information of the UAV will be provided to the PIC via GPS equipment and 

a radio communications telemetry data link, which downlinks from the UA to the GCS for active 

monitoring of the flight path and altitude. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point is 

automatically established by the UAS 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, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171).

3. 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 result of (1) the technical specifications of the UAS; (2) the limitations 

on the proposed flight operations; and (3) the location of the proposed flight operations. Accordingly, 

Ronald Wingo will ensure that it will safely operate the battery powered UAV during daylight hours 

in VFR conditions, with enough battery power to fly for a total duration of 20 minutes to the first 

point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 10

minutes (i.e., 33 percent battery power remaining).

Furthermore, safety will be ensured as the UAV’s provides visual and audible warnings to the 

PIC at the GCS when the UAS experiences low battery voltage, and if no action is taken in response to 

the warnings, the UAS will automatically return to its starting point, land and shut its motor down.

Significantly, previous exemptions granted by the FAA concerning Section 91.151 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, including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. Moreover, the FAA 

has previously granted relief from Section 91.151 specific to UAS, in circumstances similar, in all 
pg. 20

material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, 10673, 11042, 11062, 

11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 

11157, 11158, 11159, 11160, 11161, 11166, 11167, 11170, 11171, 11172). 

4. 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, Ronald Wingo 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 Ronald Wingo will 

perform maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on the UAS using the methods, 

techniques, and practices prescribed in the operating Manual, or will utilize manufacturer authorized 

support services to perform maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on the UAS.

Furthermore, Ronald Wingo will document and maintain all maintenance records.

Since the UAV’s will be inspected as prescribed by the operating documents, Ronald Wingo

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 Ronald Wingo will 

perform maintenance, alterations or preventive maintenance on the UAS using the methods, 

techniques, and practices prescribed by the operating documents, or will utilize the manufacturer’s

authorized support services to perform maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on the 

UAS.

Furthermore, the exemption sought would maintain an equivalent level of safety 

established by Sections 91.407, 91.417(a) and 91.417(b), because Ronald Wingo will document and 

maintain maintenance records.

In consideration of Ronald Wingo’ proposed operating limitations, the operating documents, 

Ronald Wingo 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 
pg. 21

previously granted relief 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, 11166, 

11167, 11170, 11171, 11172).

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, Ronald Wingo requests that the FAA prescribe 

special conditions for the intended operation of the 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), 

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b). Such special conditions will permit safe 

operation of the UA for the limited purpose of conducting aerial acquisitions within the NAS for 

compensation or hire. 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 certification 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 UAS, since the airworthiness regulations of 14 C.F.R. Part 21 do not 

contain adequate or appropriate safety standards, due to the novel or unusual design 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 engine, 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 chapter 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 Section 333 and 14 C.F.R. § 21.16, the FAA may 
pg. 22

prescribe special conditions for Ronald Wingo’ intended operation of the 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 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).

F. A SUMMARY THAT CAN BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER,

STATING: THE RULES FROM WHICH RONALD WINGO SEEKS 

EXEMPTION: 

Ronald Wingo 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 Ronald Wingo seeks: 

This exemption will permit Ronald Wingo to commercially operate an Unmanned 

Aircraft System (UAS) for the purpose of conducting aerial acquisitions within the 

National Airspace System (NAS).

G. ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, VIEWS, OR ARGUMENTS 

AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT RONALD WINGO’ REQUEST. 

This Petition is made pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) 

Section 333, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to determine if certain UAS may 

operate safely in the NAS. As such, Ronald Wingo’ 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 certification.

As discussed in detail above, Ronald Wingo will operate the UAV’s 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 herein, Ronald Wingo 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 
pg. 23

operation of the UAV’s commercially, without an airworthiness certificate, for the limited purpose of 

conducting aerial acquisitions within the National Airspace System (NAS). By granting this Petition, 

the FAA Administrator will be fulfilling the Congressional mandate of the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012, while also be advancing the interests of the public, by allowing Ronald Wingo

to safely, efficiently, and economically operate the UAV’s commercially within the NAS.

WHEREFORE, in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations and the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 333, Ronald Wingo respectfully requests that the 

Administrator grant this Petition for an 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), and permit Ronald Wingo to operate the UAV’s commercially for the purpose of 

conducting aerial acquisitions within the NAS.

Dated: June 29, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

Ronald Wingo.

Ron Wingo

Ronald Wingo

2710 N Argyle

Fresno, CA 93727

Phone: (559) 291-1176

Email: rwingo@montico.net