United States of America

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Washington, DC

Regulatory Docket No._____________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION OF:

Aerial Imaging Technologies LLC, dba Aeritek

FOR AN EXEMPTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 14 OF 

THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 14 CFR Part 21 Subpart H, 45.23(b), 

61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b) CONCERNING THE 

OPERATION OF THE DJI S900 AND 3D ROBOTICS AERO-M SMALL UNMANNED 

AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT 

OF 2012, PUBLIC LAW 112-95 FEBRUARY 14 2012, SECTION 333

Submitted on April 1st, 2015

Aerial Imaging Technologies LLC,

dba Aeritek 

Kevin D. Barth

VP of Flight Operations & Co-Owner 

2370 Merri Anne Drive

Jacksonville, FL 32216

Tel: (612) 221-8652

kevin.barth@aeritek.com 
Aerial Imaging Technologies LLC

dba Aeritek 

Kevin D. Barth

VP of Flight Operations & Co-Owner 

2370 Merri Anne Drive

Jacksonville, FL 32216 

kevin.barth@aeritek.com 

April 1st, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Rob Pappas:

I, Kevin D. Barth, am writing, in my capacity as VP of Flight Operations and co-owner of Aerial 

Imaging Technologies LLC, dba Aeritek of Jacksonville, FL, hereinafter referred to as Aeritek, 

pursuant to the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012,

(FMRA) Public Law 112-95 February 14, 2012, Section 333 requesting exemption from the 

applicable Federal Aviation Regulations (FARS) contained herein to operate small unmanned 

aircraft systems (sUAS) within the National Airspace System (NAS) for commercial purposes of 

which are in the public interest. 

Specifically, Aeritek wants to engage in commercial operations that allow us to operate two 

sUAS’s. The first sUAS we intend to operate is a DJI S900 rotorcraft. The second sUAS we 

intend to operate is a 3D Robotics Aero-M. Having a combination of a rotorcraft and a fixed 

wing sUAS will allow us to provide our clients with a sUAS that is appropriate for their needs. 

The DJI S900 will be primarily used for aerial photography, and inspections, while the 3D 

Robotics Aero-M will be primarily used for photogrammetry, precision agriculture, and 

mapping. 

Enclosed within this application for exemption, one will find the following documents: “Aeritek

sUAS, PIC, and Operation of sUAS”, and “Aeritek Operation Manual”. The aforementioned 

documents are submitted as confidential documents under 14 CFR §11.35(b), as they contain 

confidential and proprietary information that Aeritek has not and will not share with others. 

These documents contain operating conditions and procedures that are not available to the public 

and are protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552 et seq. 

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at any time. We 

look forward to working with your office to promote and maintain the safest National Airspace 

System in the world.

Sincerely, 

Kevin D. Barth 
Table of Contents

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION OF PETITIONERS...................................................................................... 4

INTERESTS OF PETITIONERS ............................................................................................... 5

RELEVANT STATUTORY AUTHORITY............................................................................... 5

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PETITIONER .............................................................................. 6

THE EXTENT OF RELIEF AERITEK SEEKS AND THE REASON 

WHY AERITEK SEEKS THE RELIEF.................................................................................. 10

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING AERITEK AN EXEMPTION 

WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT IS, THE PUBLIC 

AS A WHOLE............................................................................................................................. 14

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING AERITEK AN EXEMPTION 

WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT SAFETY, HOW THE 

EXEMPTION WOULD PROVIDE A LEVEL OF SAFETY AT 

LEAST EQUAL TO THAT PROVIDED BY THE RULE FROM 

WHICH AERITEK SEEKS THE EXEMPTION ................................................................... 15

FEDERAL REGISTRY SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 19
4

SUMMARY

Aeritek seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 21 Subpart H, 45.23(b), 

61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b) to operate unmanned aircraft 

systems pursuant to the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 

2012, Public Law 112-95 February 14, 2012, Section 333. This exemption will allow Aeritek to 

operate two small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS), the DJI S-900 and the 3D Robotics AeroM for the purpose of aerial photography, photogrammetry, inspections, precision agriculture, and 

mapping. 

INTRODUCTION OF PETITIONERS

Aeritek, headquartered in Jacksonville, FL, is a recently formed partnership within the 

State of Florida that intends to engage in commercial sUAS operations after official exemption 

by the FAA is received pursuant to the FMRA Section 333.

Aeritek was founded by owners, Grant Ward, President, and Kevin Barth, Vice President 

of Flight Operations. Both of the founders have a strong passion for developing a sUAS 

company that provides clients with a range of precise aerial imaging solutions through the safe 

and legal competitive advantage an FAA exemption brings. 

In addition to their passion, both of them have a significant amount of experience and 

qualifications related to the sUAS and manned aircraft industries. Grant worked for Link 

Division of the Singer Company installing and maintaining flight simulators for the US Air 

Force. He has flown radio control helicopters and rotorcrafts for recreational purposes for the last 

eight years; as well as professional building of sUAS. Over the course of those eight years, he 

has accumulated approximately 1500 hours of flying sUAS’s. With an electrical engineering 

degree from Ohio Institute of Technology, Grant has knowledge and experience relating to 

maintaining, building and repairing of sUAS. 

Kevin holds a B.S. in Aviation Management and Flight Operations from Jacksonville 

University. The aviation management portion of his degree consisted of the business core that 

included subjects such as: accounting, quantitative analysis, microeconomics, macroeconomics, 

along with the aviation core that included subjects such as: Aviation Law, Advanced Air Traffic 

Control, Crew Resource Management (CRM), Advanced Aircraft Systems of the B-777 and CRJ 

700, and Aviation Automation. The Flight Operations portion of his degree, allowed him to earn 

his commercial single and multi-engine pilot certificates along with his Certified Flight 

Instructor certificate while going to school at the same time.

In support of the FAA’s continuing mission to provide the safest, and most efficient 

aerospace system in the world, Kevin appreciates those efforts as he had an internship at 

American Airlines within the flight safety department. While working within the flight safety 

department at American, Kevin gained valuable experience with different Safety Management 

Systems (SMS). Some of those SMS programs included: FOQA, Flight ASAP, Cabin ASAP, 

and LOSA. In addition, he got to observe the flight and cabin ASAP ERT where the Airlines, 
5

Union, and FAA representatives are present. Those experiences demonstrates his high regard for 

safety in all aerospace operations, whether, manned, or un-manned, and provides Aeritek with a 

safety first mindset. 

With the above listed experiences and knowledge, Aeritek has an excellent combination 

that will allow them to safely operate sUAS’s for commercial purposes upon the granting of an 

exemption by the FAA.

INTERESTS OF PETITIONERS

Aeritek’s mission is to provide clients with accurate aerial imaging solutions that are 

obtained through the safe and legal use of sUAS’s to create efficient and technical analysis for 

applications that will benefit industries and organizations such as: construction companies, 

precision agriculture, and utility companies.

The operation below is a specific example of a property that Aeritek seeks to conduct 

photogrammetry and crop scouting to show methodology of operations for explanatory purposes 

of this exemption. However, Aeritek does not want to limit itself to the specific property 

described below. Accordingly, Aeritek will comply with existing FAA procedures and the 

document titled, “FAA UAS Civil COA Request” before operations are conducted within the NAS 

to ensure safety. 

As described within this application for explanatory purposes, Aeritek seeks to operate its 

DJI S900 and 3D Robotics Aero-M sUAS’s over a rural piece of property located in Putnam

County, Florida for purposes of photogrammetry and crop scouting to allow for a more efficient 

application of fertilizers which ultimately reduces the negative effects on the environment which 

is in the public interest.

The COA process makes applicable FAA Air Traffic Control facilities aware of proposed 

UAS operations, and provides the FAA the ability to consider airspace issues unique to UAS 

operations. 

RELEVANT STATUTORY AUTHORITY

With the passage of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), Public 

Law 112-95 February 14, 2012, Congress has directed the FAA to “safely accelerate the 

integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the National Airspace System. Pursuant to 

Section 333 of the FMRA, the Secretary of Transportation is to consider whether certain 

unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the NAS before completion of the formal UAS 

rulemaking that is predicated to go into effect in September of 2015. Based on FMRA Sections 

333 (a) through (c) below: Aeritek believes it fits within the prescribed statutory requirements. 

SEC. 333. SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN UNMANNED

AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.
6

(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.

H. R. 658—66

(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 

Accordingly, if the Secretary of Transportation determines that such sUAS’s may operate 

safely within the NAS, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such 

aircraft in the NAS. The proposed operations in this petition for exemption qualify for expedited 

approval under Section 333 above. Each of the statutory criteria and other relevant factors are 

satisfied. 

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PETITIONER

Grant Ward – President and Co-Owner – grant.ward@aeritek.com

Kevin D. Barth - VP of Flight Operations and Co-Owner - kevin.barth@aeritek.com 

Aerial Imaging Technologies LLC

dba Aeritek 

2370 Merri Anne Drive

Jacksonville, FL 32216 
7

THE SPECIFIC SECTION OR SECTIONS OF 14 CFR FROM WHICH AERITEK 

SEEKS AN EXEMPTION

Part 21, Subpart H prescribes, in pertinent part, the procedural requirements for issuing 

airworthiness certificates.

Section 45.23(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that when marks include only the Roman capital 

letter “N” and the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted or light- sport category 

aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on 

that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 

inches nor more than 6 inches high, the words “limited,” “restricted,” “light-sport,” 

“experimental,” or “provisional,” as applicable.

Section 61.113(a) and (b) prescribe, in pertinent part, that—

(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.

Section 91.7(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is 

in an airworthy condition.

Section 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation of U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless there is available in 

the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, 

markings, and placards, or any combination thereof.

Section 91.103 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot in command shall, before beginning a 

flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight, to include—

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports and 

forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be 

completed, and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has been advised 

by ATC;

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff 

and landing distance information:

(1) For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual 

containing takeoff and landing distance data is required, the takeoff and landing 

distance data contained therein; and
8

(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 

other reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft 

performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft 

gross weight, and wind and temperature.

Section 91.109(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft (except 

a manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully 

functioning dual controls.

Section 91.119 prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may 

operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without 

undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over 

any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle 

within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except 

over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be 

operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is 

conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in 

paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter 

complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the

FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less 

than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

Section 91.121 requires, in pertinent part, each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising 

altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set “...to the elevation of the departure airport or an 

appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.”

Section 91.151(a) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR 

conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly 

to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, during the day, to fly 

after that for at least 30 minutes.

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner shall have that 

aircraft inspected as prescribed in Subpart E of the same part and shall, between required 
9

inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, have discrepancies repaired 

as prescribed in part 43 of the chapter.

Section 91.407(a)(1) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating an aircraft that has 

undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless it has been 

approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of the same chapter.

Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an aircraft unless, 

within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an inspection for the issuance of an 

airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that—

(a) Each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and 

records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved 

inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each 

engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. The records must include—

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of 

the work performed; and

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the 

aircraft for return to service.

(2) Records containing the following information:

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, 

and each rotor.

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, 

propeller, rotor, and appliance.

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which 

are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis.

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since 

the last inspection required by the inspection program under which the 

aircraft and its appliances are maintained.

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and 

safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or 

safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive 

involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is 

required.

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) of this chapter for each 

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

propellers, and appliances.
10

(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.

THE EXTENT OF RELIEF AERITEK SEEKS AND THE REASON WHY AERITEK 

SEEKS THE RELIEF

1) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR Part 21 

Subpart H

Relief from 14 CFR Part 21, Certification procedures for products and 

parts, Subpart H, Airworthiness certificates, is requested to the extent that would 

allow Aeritek to operate its two sUAS’s without an airworthiness certificate. 

Aeritek seeks relief because it meets the requirements for exemption that’s 

in accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of PL 112-95 in 

reference to 49 USC 44704 given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating 

area, proximity to airports and populated areas associated with the aircraft and its 

operation. 

2) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 

45.23(b)

Relief from 14 CFR 45.23(b), markings of aircraft is requested to the 

extent Aeritek is exempt from displaying the words, “limited,” “restricted,” 

“light-sport,” “experimental,” or “provisional,” as applicable near the entrance. 

Aeritek seeks relief because the sUAS’s has no entrance to the cabin, 

cockpit, or pilot station on which the word “Experimental” can be placed. In 

addition, Aeritek’s sUAS’s will not be certificated under 14 CFR 21.191 as it 

meets the requirements in Section 333 of PL 112-95.

3) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 

61.113(a) and (b). 
11

Relief from 14 CFR 61.113(a) and (b), Private pilot privileges and 

limitations, is requested to the extent Aeritek is exempt from the limitation that a 

private pilot may not engage in compensation or hire operations. Under current 

regulations, civil operations for compensation or hire require a PIC holding a 

commercial pilot certificate per 14 CFR part 61. Based on the private pilot 

limitations in accordance with pertinent parts of 14 CFR § 61.113(a) and (b), a 

pilot holding a private pilot certificate cannot act as a PIC of an aircraft for 

compensation or hire unless the flight is only incidental to a business or 

employment. 

Aeritek seeks relief because in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus 

Aerial (Astraeus), the FAA determined that a PIC with a private pilot certificate 

operating the Astraeus UAS would not adversely affect operations in the NAS or 

present a hazard to persons or property on the ground. Additionally, as previously 

determined by the Secretary of Transportation, the requirement to have an airman 

certificate ameliorates security concerns over civil UAS operations conducted in 

accordance with Section 333.

4) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.7(a)

Relief from 14 CFR 91.7(a), Civil aircraft airworthiness, is requested to 

the extent Aeritek is exempt from operating an aircraft in an airworthy condition. 

Aeritek seeks relief based on the fact that no airworthiness certificate will 

be issued for the sUAS’s and that no FAA regulatory standard exists for 

determining airworthiness. Aeritek feels compliance with its operating documents 

to be a sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition. 

 

5) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 

91.9(b)(2) 

Relief from 14 CFR 91.9(b)(2), Civil Aircraft Flight Manual, is requested 

to the extent Aeritek is exempt from having a current approved Airplane or 

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

any combination thereof in the aircraft. 

Aeritek seeks relief due to the fact the aircraft is not only too small to 

carry the aircraft flight manual documentation, the documentation would not be 

available to the crew. 
12

6) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.103

Relief from 14 CFR 91.103, Preflight Action, is requested to the extent 

Aeritek is not required to become familiar with certain information, specifically, 

information contained in the FAA-Approved Flight Manual on board the aircraft. 

The PIC will be familiar with all information necessary to safely conduct the 

flight, just not the FAA-Approved Flight Manual because it is non-existent. 

Aeritek seeks relief because an FAA-Approved Flight Manual will not be 

non-exist. Although, there will be no approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight 

Manual available, Aeritek will still comply with other applicable requirements of 

14 CFR 91.103(b)(2). 

7) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 

91.109(a)

Relief from 14 CFR 91.109(a), Flight Instruction, is requested to the 

extent Aeritek is not required to have fully functioning dual controls for an 

aircraft that is being used for flight instruction. 

Aeritek seeks relief because their sUAS’s by design, do not have 

functional dual controls. Instead, flight control is accomplished through the use 

of a remote control that communicates with the aircraft via radio communications. 

8) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 

91.119(c) 

Relief from 14 CFR 91.119(c), Minimum Safe Altitude, is requested to the 

extent Aeritek may operate below 400 feet above the surface and away from any 

person, vessel, vehicle, or structure in non-congested areas. Section 91.119 

prescribes the minimum safe altitude under which aircraft may not operate, 

including 500 feet above the surface and away from any person, vessel, vehicle, 

or structure in non-congested areas. Aeritek will have a maximum operating 

altitude of 400 feet AGL. 

Aeritek seeks relief due to the fact that since the aircraft will be operating 

at a maximum altitude of 400 feet above the surface, we cannot comply with this 

requirement, therefore, we request exemption. 
13

9) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 91.121 

Relief from 14 CFR 91.121, Altimeter Setting, is requested to the extent 

Aeritek is not required to have a barometric altimeter. The current regulation 

requires a person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitudes or flight level 

by reference to an altimeter that is set to the elevation of the departure point or 

barometric pressure. Accordingly, Aeritek will have a GPS altitude readout 

instead of barometric altimeter. 

Aeritek seeks relief due to the fact that their sUAS’s do not have a 

barometric altimeter. 

10) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 

91.151(a)

Relief from 14 CFR 91.151(a), Fuel Requirements, is requested to the 

extent to operate at less than the minimums prescribed within 14 CFR 91.151(a). 

The current regulation provides that no person may begin a flight in an airplane 

under day-VFR conditions unless there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of 

intended landing and to fly thereafter for 30 minutes. Aeritek feels the intention 

of this section is to provide a reserve of “energy” as a safety buffer. 

Aeritek seeks relief due to the fact that relief has been granted for manned 

aircraft to operate at less than the minimums prescribed in 14 CFR § 91.151(a), 

including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. In addition, similar UASspecific relief has been granted in Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for 

daytime, VFR conditions.

11) Extent of Relief Aeritek Seeks and the Reason Aeritek Seeks relief from 14 CFR 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and (b) 

Relief from 14 CFR 91.405(a), Maintenance Required, 91.407(a)(1), 

Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration, 

91.409(a)(1) and (2) Inspections, and 91.417(a) and (b) Maintenance records, is 

requested to the extent that the regulations listed above do not apply to the 

sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate. 

Aeritek seeks relief due to the fact that the sections listed above and Part 

43 only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate, which Aeritek’s 

sUAS’s will not have. 
14

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING AERITEK AN EXEMPTION WOULD BE IN THE 

PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT IS, THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE

Congress has already proclaimed that safe integration of sUAS’s into the National 

Airspace System is in the public’s interest. Granting Aeritek’s exemption request is in the public 

interest for multiple reasons described below: 

I. Conducting aerial photography, inspections, photogrammetry, crop scouting, and 

topographical mapping in manned aircraft poses a much greater risk to the general 

public than operating a sUAS’s proposed herein that weighs less than 25 pounds. 

Manned aircraft capable of performing the same operations typically weigh 

between 2,000 pounds and 5,000 pounds, much greater than the weight of a 

sUAS, and poses a much greater safety risk to the general public. In addition, 

manned aircraft carry significantly greater proportions of flammable fuel which 

causes a much greater risk to the safety of the general public and can inflict a lot 

more damage as opposed to the sUAS’s. 

II. In terms of emissions and reducing the overall level of carbon dioxide, sUAS’s 

have a fraction of the carbon footprint as compared to the much higher carbon 

footprint of manned aircraft. Since emissions and negative impacts on the 

atmosphere would be reduced, sUAS’s as proposed herein would be in the 

public’s interest. 

III. In terms of environmental impact, the beneficial information received from 

photogrammetry and crop scouting allows farmers within the agriculture industry 

the ability to reduce the amount of fertilizer containing phosphorus by means of 

precision application made possible by sUAS’s. Since fertilizer containing 

phosphorus usually makes its way into lakes and rivers causing negative effects, 

reduction of such fertilizer would be in the public’s interest.

IV. In terms of estimating, calculating, and documenting soil erosion by performing 

aerial photography and topographic mapping, sUAS’s can provide this analytical 

data for a reduced cost and higher safety margins as opposed to having manned 

aircraft conduct similar operations. That data is in the interest of the public and 

can provide community and government agencies with critical information that 

would not have been practical without the use of sUAS’s to capture that data. 

V. In addition, granting an exemption for Aeritek will help the FAA with the 

research and data collection efforts to develop and promulgate rules applicable to 

commercial sUAS’s operations. Aeritek is more than willing to assist in this 

effort. Indirectly, the public will benefit from this information because it will lead 

to a safer NAS. 
15

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING AERITEK AN EXEMPTION WOULD NOT 

ADVERSELY AFFECT SAFETY, HOW THE EXEMPTION WOULD PROVIDE A 

LEVEL OF SAFETY AT LEAST EQUAL TO THAT PROVIDED BY THE RULE FROM 

WHICH AERITEK SEEKS THE EXEMPTION

1) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR Part 21 Subpart H does not adversely 

affect safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the 3D 

Robotics Aero-M, each weigh less than 25 pounds with payload, does not carry a 

pilot or passengers, carries no explosives or flammable liquid fuels, and operates 

within non-congested areas. The appropriate FAA facility will have advance 

notice of all operations through the existing process of the certificate of 

authorization which has applicable mitigation factors that provide an equal and 

greater level of safety. In terms of national security, the sUAS’s do not pose a 

threat due to the size, speed, weight, lack of explosives or flammable liquid fuels, 

and inability to carry substantial external load. 

2) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 45.23(b) does not adversely affect safety 

and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the 

3D Robotics Aero-M will be registered and marked on the fuselage or frame in 

accordance with 14 CFR Part 47 and 14 CFR Part 45. This is in accordance with 

previous FAA exemptions.

3) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 61.133(a) and (b) does not adversely 

affect safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the 

3D Robotics Aero-M will be operated by the Pilot in Command (PIC) with a 

minimum of a private pilot license and second class medical. The level of safety 

described above is consistent with exemption no. 11062 to Astraeus in which the 

FAA determined that a PIC with a private pilot certificate operating the UAS 

would not adversely affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons 

or property on the ground. The FAA Press Release on February 15, 2015, titled, 

DOT and FAA Propose New Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 

describes that under the proposed rule, the person actually flying a small UAS 

would be an “operator.” An operator would have to be at least 17 years old, pass 
16

an aeronautical knowledge test and obtain an FAA UAS operator certificate. To 

maintain certification, the operator would have to pass the FAA knowledge tests 

every 24 months. Accordingly, Aeritek’s pilots will exceed the existing and 

proposed standards regarding the NAS regulations, see and avoid, and situational 

awareness concepts etc. because they have a current private pilot certificate. 

Therefore, an exemption to Aeritek does not adversely affect safety, and provides 

an equivalent or higher level of safety as described above. Additionally, as 

previously determined by the Secretary of Transportation, the requirement to have 

an airman certificate ameliorates security concerns over civil UAS operations 

conducted in accordance with Section 333 of the FMRA of 2012. 

4) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.7(a) does not adversely affect safety 

and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the 

3D Robotics Aero-M have an outstanding safety record that demonstrates they are 

in fact airworthy. Additionally, given the size of sUAS’s described above, the 

procedures regarding preflight safety checks described below ensures that safety 

will not be adversely affected and provides an equivalent level of safety. Not to 

mention, the FAA has granted the following exemptions to 14 CFR 91.7(a): 

10167, 10602, and 10700. 

5) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.9(b)(2) does not adversely affect 

safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the 

3D Robotics Aero-M will have the appropriate flight manuals at the ground 

station where the PIC of the sUAS has immediate access to it at all times, instead 

of the manual being in the physical aircraft. The safety related purposes of this 

manual requirement will not adversely affect safety by having the flight manual at 

the ground station and is an equivalent level of safety. Additionally, the FAA has 

granted numerous exemptions to the above regulation.

6) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.103 does not adversely affect safety 

and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the 

3D Robotics Aero-M will not have an FAA approved flight manual on board the 

aircraft, however, the PIC will take all required preflight actions that include: 
17

review of current and forecast weather, takeoff and landing distances, aircraft 

performance data given current conditions at time of operation, before the 

commencement of each flight. Therefore, safety will not be adversely affected 

and an equivalent level of safety will be provided by following the conditions and 

limitations described below.

7) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.103 does not adversely affect safety 

and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the 

3D Robotics Aero-M will not have an FAA approved flight manual on board the 

aircraft, however, the PIC will take all required preflight actions that include: 

review of current and forecast weather, flight battery requirements, takeoff and 

landing distances, aircraft performance data given current conditions at time of 

operation, before the commencement of each flight. Therefore, safety will not be 

adversely affected and an equivalent level of safety will be provided because 

Aeritek’s PIC will take certain actions before each flight to ensure safety of flight 

described within the operating documents.

8) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.109(a) does not adversely affect safety 

and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the 

3D Robotics Aero-M will conduct training during dedicated training sessions. 

Given the size and speed of the sUAS’s described above, an equivalent level of 

safe training can still be performed without fully functioning dual controls 

because there will be no non-participating persons in the vicinity when dedicated 

training sessions are being conducted.

9) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.119(c) does not adversely affect safety 

and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the 

3D Robotics Aero-M will remain at appropriate distances from non-participating 

persons. In open areas, the sUAS’s will remain 500 feet away from all persons 

other than essential flight personnel that includes the PIC and Visual Observer 

(VO). In non-open areas, if barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently 

protect non-participating persons from debris in event of an accident, Aeritek 

seeks to operate closer than 500 feet from persons afforded such protections. In 
18

regards to aircraft separation between manned aircraft, operating at a maximum 

altitude of 400 feet allows a 100 foot safety buffer zone between manned and 

unmanned aircraft which provides an equivalent level of safety similar in concept 

to Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums (RVSM). Aeritek will also have the 

permission of the property owner prior to conducting such operations so the 

necessary precautions can be taken to minimize any risks to non-participating 

persons. Additionally, the excellent safety record of the sUAS’s described above 

demonstrates these sUAS’s can be operated safely at lower altitudes and closer 

operating environments. 

10) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.121 does not adversely affect safety 

and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the 

3D Robotics Aero-M will have a GPS altitude readout in feet AGL which is 

consistent with the proper reporting of altitude to (ATC). The PIC will confirm 

that the altitude at the operation site matches the GPS altitude readout. 

Additionally, the PIC will constantly monitor as part of a “scan” that will ensure 

the sUAS’s are operated below the maximum altitude of 400 feet. Therefore, 

safety will not be adversely affected and the equivalent level of safety is described 

above.

11) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.151(a) does not adversely affect safety 

and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the 

3D Robotics Aero-M will have their flights terminated by the PIC with no less 

than 25% remaining battery power available. This restriction is more than 

adequate to return the sUAS’s described above to the landing area from any 

location within the operating area where VLOS is maintained. Accordingly, the 

aforementioned does not adversely affect safety and provides an equivalent level 

of safety. Additionally, the restriction described above is consistent with FAA 

exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, and 10673 for daytime, VFR conditions.

12) Reasons why granting exemption from 14 CFR 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and 

(2), 91.417(a) and (b) does not adversely affect safety and associated equivalent level of safety

The sUAS’s Aeritek intends to operate, specifically, the DJI S900 and the 

3D Robotics Aero-M will be operated in accordance with operating documents 
19

where the operator will: perform the necessary preflight inspections to determine 

airworthiness prior to flight, perform required maintenance, and will keep a log of 

any maintenance performed. As described in Appendix A, the PIC will conduct 

detailed inspections after every 10 hours of flight time and maintain a log of those 

inspections. Maintenance performed by the PIC is limited to updating software, 

firmware, replacing propellers, and any preventative maintenance. Accordingly, 

the procedures described above and contained within Appendix A ensure that 

safety is not adversely affected and provide an equivalent level of safety given the 

sUAS’s size, weight, and speed. 

FEDERAL REGISTRY SUMMARY

Pursuant to 14 CFR 11.81, information to include for exemption, subpart F, the below summary 

is provided for publication in the Federal Register: 

The section or sections Aeritek seeks exemption: 

Aeritek seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 CFR Part 21 Subpart H, 

45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109(a), 91.119(c), 

91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 91.417(a) and 

(b) to operate unmanned aircraft systems pursuant to the Federal Aviation 

Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 

February 14, 2012, Section 333. 

Brief description of the nature of exemption Aeritek seeks: 

This exemption will allow Aeritek to operate two small unmanned aircraft 

systems (sUAS), the DJI S-900 and the 3D Robotics Aero-M for the purpose of 

aerial photography, photogrammetry, inspections, precision agriculture, and 

mapping.