July 8, 2015

Cinema Architects LLC

Michael Percelli

20 Clara Street

North Haledon, NJ 07508

(201) 961-2977

United States Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption Request Pursuant To Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of 2012

Dear Sir or Madam: 

This petition is being submitted on my behalf without legal counsel or consulting services. 

Cinema Architects, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company doing business as 

Cinema Architects (“CA”). We are writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 

20121(the “Reform Act”) and the procedures contained in 14 C.F.R. 11, to request that CA, an owner 

and operator of small unmanned aircraft, be exempted from the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) 

listed below so that CA may operate its small unmanned aircraft / lightweight unmanned aircraft 

systems (“UAS”) commercially in airspace regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). 

As described herein, CA is looking to become a leader in capturing high definition feature film 

quality aerial cinematography with small, unmanned aircraft and lightweight UASs. CA wants to be a 

company that can publicly show its ability to carry feature film quality camera systems, like the Arri 

Alexa and Red Digital Cinema Dragon, on a stable UAS platform. CA will outfit each of its small 

unmanned aircraft for aerial photography and cinematography, primarily for use in the motion 

picture industry, and given their stability and maneuverability, they may be used for other 

cinematography, by law enforcement personnel and by other first responders. CA UASs are the most 

advanced remote control aircraft being used for these purposes and they are already highly regarded by 

noteworthy experts in the field of unmanned rotorcraft, as well as feature film directors. 

 Based primarily in New Jersey, CA would now like permission to fly its UASs commercially in 

the United States to capture aerial cinematography, conduct research on UAS safety protocols and to 

develop an enhanced platform for first responder use. 

1

 112 P.L. 95 (2012).
U.S. Dept of Transp. 

July 8, 2015

Page 2 of 7

To date, CA has rejected all offers to work with feature film directors on locations within the 

United States, to ensure it is in compliance with any applicable FARs. It has done so despite Judge 

Patrick G. Geraghty’s decision in the Raphael Pirker matter and his reasoning that no FARs prohibit 

the use of small unmanned aircraft or lightweight UASs like those flown by CA. 

CA’s exemption request would permit its operation of lightweight, unmanned (piloted by 

remote control) and comparatively inexpensive UASs in tightly controlled and limited airspace. 

Predetermined, specifically marked areas of operation, cordoned off locations and corresponding 

enhancements to current safety controls will allow CA to operate within current safety parameters while 

innovating new ones. Currently, similar lightweight, remote controlled UASs are legally operated by 

amateurs with no flight experience, safety plan or controls in place to prevent catastrophe. It is only 

logical to allow CA’s experienced remote control pilots, technicians and safety crew to operate 

similar lightweight UASs. This will act to further safety protocols specific to lightweight UASs as 

CA researches flight data and other information gained through permitted flight operations. 

Granting CA’s request comports with the Secretary of Transportation’s (FAA 

Administrator’s) responsibilities to not only integrate UASs into the national airspace system, but to 

“...establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems [UASs] in the national airspace 

system” under Section 333(c) of the Reform Act. Further, CA will conduct its operations in

compliance with the protocols described herein or as otherwise established by the FAA. 

For the reasons stated below, CA respectfully requests the grant of an exemption allowing it to 

operate lightweight, remote controlled UAS’s. 

1. Cinema Architects Contact Information:

Cinema Architects, LLC

Michael Percelli

20 Clara Street

North Haledon, NJ 07508

Tel.: (201) 961-2977

E-Mail: Cinemarchitects@gmail.com

2. The Specific Sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations From Which CA

Requests Exemption are: 

14 CFR 21; 

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

14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b); 

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

14 CFR 407 (a) (1); 

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

14 CFR 417 (a) & (b). 
U.S. Dept of Transp. 

July 8, 2015

Page 3 of 7

3. The Extent of Relief CA Seeks and the Reason It Seeks Such Relief:

2

CA submits this application in accordance with the Reform Act, 112 P.L. 95 §§ 331-334,

seeking relief from any currently applicable FARs operating to prevent CA’s contemplated 

commercial cinematic, research and other flight operations within the national airspace system. The 

Reform Act in Section 332 provides for such integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into our 

national airspace system as it is in the public’s interest to do so. CA’s lightweight UASs meet the 

definition of “small unmanned aircraft” as defined in Section 331 and therefore the integration of 

CA’s lightweight UASs are expressly contemplated by the Reform Act. CA would like to operate its 

lightweight UASs prior to the time period by which the Reform Act requires the FAA to 

promulgate rules governing such craft. 

The Reform Act guides the Secretary in determining the types of UASs that may operate safely

in our national airspace system. Considerations include: 

• The weight, size, speed and overall capabilities of the UAS;

• Whether the UAS will be operated near airports or populated areas; and,

• Whether the UAS will be operated by line of sight.

112 P.L. 95 § 333 (a). Each of these items militates in favor of an exemption for CA’s UASs utilize

up too twelve counter-rotating propellers for extreme balance, control and stability. They each 

weigh less than 55 pounds, including cinematic or other equipment. Each of CA’s small unmanned 

aircraft are designed to primarily hover in place and operate at less than a 50 knot maximum speed. 

They are capable of vertical and horizontal operations, but operate only within the line of sight of the 

remote control pilot. In addition to the remote control pilot, CA uses a spotter and a technician, such 

that, at minimum, three CA personnel govern the safe flight of an CA aircraft at all times. 

Utilizing battery power and not combustible fuels, flights generally last between five and twenty 

minutes. CA does not operate its UASs with less than twenty five percent battery capacity. Safety 

systems in place include a GPS mode that allows CA’s UASs to hover in place if communication with 

the radio control pilot is lost and then slowly descend the UAS at twenty five percent battery 

capacity. Further, CA’s fleet is programmed, in some instances, to slowly follow a predetermined set of 

waypoints to return to a safety point if communications are lost. 

CA does not operate its UASs near airports and generally does not operate them near 

populated areas. To date, CA has only operated its fleet on private sets, cordoned off areas and areas 

under the control of CA. CA only operates its UASs in predetermined areas and only in compliance 

with well regarded safety protocols such as those contained within the well established and 

commonly known Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual. 

CA’s operation of its fleet of small unmanned aircraft will not “create a hazard to users of the 

national airspace system or the public.” 112 P.L. 95 § 333 (b). Given the small size and weight of 

CA’s UASs, combined with their operation in cordoned off and well-controlled areas, CA’s fleet falls 

within Congress’s contemplated safety zone when it promulgated the Reform Act and the 

corresponding directive to integrate UASs into the national airspace system. Indeed, CA’s UASs have 

a demonstrable safety record and do not pose any threat to the general public or national security. 

2 The FAA has the authority to issue the exemption sought by CA pursuant to the Federal Aviation 

Act, 85 P.L. 726 (1958), as amended (the “Act”).
U.S. Dept of Transp. 

July 8, 2015

Page 4 of 7

4. How CA’s Request Will Benefit the Public As A Whole:

Granting CA’s exemption request furthers the public interest. First, Congress has already

pronounced that it is in the public’s interest to integrate commercially flown UASs into the national 

airspace system, hence the passing of the Reform Act. Second, CA conducts research into safe UAS 

operations every time it flies one of its UASs. Flight data, visual inspections, recorded observations and 

flight analyses are compiled to further enhance current safety protocols. Allowing CA to log more flight 

time directly relates to its research and its ability to further enhance current safety measures. Third, the 

public has an interest in reducing the danger and emission associated with current aerial cinematic 

capture methods, namely, full size helicopters. CA’s UASs are battery powered and create no 

emissions. If an CA UAS crashes there is no fuel to ignite and explode. The impact of CA’s lightweight 

UASs is far less than a full size helicopter, notwithstanding the statistically noteworthy safety 

record of full size helicopters used in motion picture capture. The public’s interest is furthered by 

minimizing ecological and crash impacts by permitting motion picture capture through CA’s 

lightweight UASs. 

Progression of the arts and sciences has been fundamental to our society since its inclusion in the 

United States Constitution. Indeed, Congress mandated the integration of UASs into our national 

airspace system, in part, to achieve progression in this noteworthy, and inevitable, field. Permitting 

CA to immediately fly within the United States furthers these goals. 

5. Reasons Why CA’s Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect Safety Or How The

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

CA’s exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the contrary, for the reasons stated, 

supra, permitting CA to log more flight time in FAA controlled airspace will allow CA to innovate 

and implement new and novel, as of yet undiscovered safety protocols. In addition, CA submits the 

following representations of enhancements to current aerial motion picture capture techniques: 

• CA’s UASs weigh less than 55 pounds complete with feature length motion

picture quality cameras like the Arri Alexa and Red Digital Cinema Dragon;

• CA only operates its UASs below 400 feet;

• CA’s UASs only operate for 5-20 minutes per flight;

• CA lands its UASs when they reach 25% battery power;

• CA’s remote control pilots operate CA’s UASs by line of sight;

• CA’s remote control pilots have video backup should they somehow loose sight of

the UAS;

• CA staffs each flight with a remote control pilot, technician and spotter with

communication systems enabling real time communication between them;

• CA’s UASs have GPS flight modes whereby they hover and then slowly land if 
U.S. Dept of Transp. 

July 8, 2015

Page 5 of 7

communication with the remote control pilot is lost or battery power is below 25%; 

• CA actively analyses electronic flight data and other sources of information to

constantly update and enhance safety protocols;

• CA only operates in quarantined areas that are strictly controlled, are away from

airports and populated areas;

• CA conducts extensive briefings prior to flight, during which safety carries

primary importance;

• CA always obtains all necessary permissions and permits prior to operation; and,

• CA has procedures in place to abort flights in the event of safety breaches or

potential danger. 

CA’s safety protocols provide a level of safety at least equal to existing rules, and in nearly 

every instance, greater than existing rules. It is important to note that absent the integration of 

commercial UASs into our national airspace system, helicopters are the primary means of aerial motion 

picture capture. While the safety record of such helicopters is remarkably astounding, it is far safer to 

operate a battery powered lightweight UAS. First, the potential loss of life is diminished because UASs 

carry no people on board and CA only operates them in specific areas away from mass populations. 

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

diminished. Third, the small size and extreme maneuverability of CA’s UASs allow our remote control 

pilots to avoid hazards. Lastly, given their small size and weight, even when close enough to capture 

amazing images, CA’s UASs need not be so close to the objects they are focused on. 

Accordingly, CA’s UASs have operated and will continue to operate at and above current safety levels. 

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

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

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

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

and enclosed operational area of CA’s UASs permits exemption from Part 21 because CA’s UASs meet 

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

exempt aircraft from the airworthiness certificate requirement under both the Act (49 U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) 

and Section 333 of the Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit the FAA to exempt UASs from 

the airworthiness certificate requirement in consideration of the weight, size, speed,

maneuverability and proximity to areas such as airports and dense populations. CA’s UASs meet or

exceed each of the elements.

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

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

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

passengers, and given the size of the UASs, this Regulation is inapplicable. An equivalent level of safety 

will be achieved by maintaining a manual at the flight operations center. The FAA has previously issued

exemptions to this regulation in Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167, 
U.S. Dept of Transp. 

July 8, 2015

Page 6 of 7

10167A, 10602, 10700 and 32827. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.121 regarding altimeter settings is inapplicable insofar as CA’s UASs utilize 

electronic global positioning systems and six internal gyroscopes to provide spatial coordination. 

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

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

will be achieved by maintaining such certifications and registrations at the CA’s flight operations 

center. 

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

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

specifications. CA’s UASs are, by definition, unmanned. They therefore do not have a cabin, 

cockpit or pilot station on which to mark certain words or phrases. Further, two-inch lettering is difficult to 

place on such small aircraft. Regardless, CA will mark its UASs in the largest possible lettering by placing 

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

technician, spotter and others working with the UAV will see the markings. The FAA has 

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

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

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) & (b), private pilots are limited to noncommercial operations. CA can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by current 

Regulations because CA’s UASs do not carry any pilots or passengers. Further, while helpful, a pilot 

license will not ensure remote control piloting skills, though CA’s pilot vetting and training programs will 

Further, private pilot licensees are not needed and CA’s will operate UASs with the same skill. 

Further, the risks attendant to the operation of CA’s UASs is far less than the risk levels inherent in the 

commercial activities outlined in 14 C.F.R. § 61, et seq. Thus, allowing CA to operate its UASs without a 

private pilot as the pilot in control will exceed current safety levels in relation to 14 C.F.R. §61.113 (a) & 

(b). 

D. 14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes.

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

helicopters to be operated at lower altitudes in certain conditions. CA’s UASs will never operate at an 

altitude greater than 400 AGL. CA will, however, operate its UASs in cordoned off areas with security 

perimeters, providing a level of safety at least equivalent to those in relation to minimum safe 

altitudes. Given the size, weight, maneuverability and speed of CA’s UASs, an equivalent level of safety 

will be achieved. 

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

The above-cited Regulations require, amongst other things, aircraft owners and operators to 

“have [the] aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required 

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

prescribed in part 43 of this chapter. . . .” 

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

therefore, apply to CA should its requested exemption be granted. CA conducts an extensive 
U.S. Dept of Transp. 

July 8, 2015

Page 7 of 7

maintenance program that involves regular software updates and curative measures for any damaged 

hardware. Therefore, an equivalent level of safety will be achieved. This is particularly true insofar as CA

has researched and developed its own designs. 

F. Summary

CA seeks an exemption from the following Regulations: 14 C.F.R. 21, subpart H; 14 C.F.R. 

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

91.103(b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.109; 14 C.F.R. § 91.119; 14 C.F.R. § 91.121; 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a); 14 C.F.R. 

§§ 91.203(a) and (b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.405 (a); 14 C.F.R. § 91.407 (a)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 91.409 (a)(2); 14

C.F.R. § 91.409 (a)(2); and, 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.417 (a) & (b) to commercially operate its fleet of small

unmanned vehicles and lightweight unmanned aircraft vehicles in motion picture or television operations,

to conduct its own research and to develop economic platforms for law enforcement / first responders.

Granting CA’s request for exemption will reduce current risk levels and thereby enhance safety. 

Currently, motion picture image capture relies primarily on the use of larger aircraft running on combustible 

fuel. CA’s craft do not contain potentially explosive fuel, are smaller, lighter and more maneuverable 

than conventional motion picture aircraft. Further, CA operates at lower altitudes and in controlled 

airspace. 

There are no people on board CA’s UASs and therefore the likelihood of death or serious bodily 

injury is significantly limited. CA’s operation of its UASs, weighting less than 55 pounds and traveling at 

speeds lower than 50 knots in cordoned off areas will provide at least an equivalent level of safety as that 

achieved under current FARs. 

Accordingly, CA respectfully requests that the FAA grant its exemption request without 

delay. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Michael Percelli

Cinema Architects LLC

20 Clara Street

North Haledon, NJ 07508

(201) 961-2977

cinemarchitects@gmail.com