July 8

, 201 5



### Cinema Architects LLC

Michael Percelli

20 Clara Street

North Haledon, NJ 07508

( 201 ) 961

- 2977

Unite d S tate s Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave

., SE

West Buildin g G roun d F loo r R oo m W12

- 140

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption Request Pursua nt 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 pur suant to the FAA Modernization an d Reform Act of

2012 1 (the “Reform Act ”) and th e procedures co ntained 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 UAS s. 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 aircr aft being used for thes e 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 with in 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 U ASs like those flown by CA

.

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

remote con trol) and comparatively inexpensive UAS s in tig htly co ntrolled and limited airspace.

Predetermined, specifically marked areas of operation, cord oned off locations and corresponding

en hancements to current safety controls will allow CA to o perate 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 experien ced remote con trol 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 requ est co mports with the Secretary of Transportation’s (F AA

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

“...e stablish requirements for the safe o peration of such aircraft sy stems [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 t he F AA

.

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 Spe cific Sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations Fro m 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 Ex tent of Re lief CA Se eks and th e Re ason It Se eks Su c h Re lief : 2

CA submits this application in accordance with the Reform Act, 112 P.L. 95 §§ 331 -3 34

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

co mmercial cinematic

, re search 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 p eriod 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 o u r n ational airspac e s ystem. Consideration s in c lude :

• 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 a n exempti on for CA ’s UASs utilize

up too twelve counter -ro tating 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 p rimarily 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 pil ot, CA uses a spotter and a technician, such

that, at minimum, three CA personnel govern the safe flight of an CA ai rcraft 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 slow ly 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 d oes not operate it s 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. Ho w 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 in to th e natio nal

airspace sy stem

, hence th e passing of th e Reform Act. Second, CA conducts research into safe UAS

op eration s every time it flies one of its UASs. Flight data, visual in spections, reco rded observations and

f lig ht an aly ses are co mpiled to further enhance cu rrent safety protocols. Allowing CA to log more fligh t

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

pu blic has an in terest in red ucing the d ang er and emission associated with cu rrent aerial cinematic

capture methods, namely, full size h elicopters. CA ’s UASs are battery p owered and create no

emission s. If an CA UAS crashes there is no fuel to ignite and explode. The impact o f CA ’s lightweight

UASs is far less than a full size helicopter

, notwithstan ding the statistically noteworthy safety

record of full size helicopters used in motion pictu re capture

. Th e public’s interest is furth ered by

minimizing eco lo gical an d cras h 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

Un ited States Constitution. Ind eed

, Congress mandated the in tegration of UASs into our n ational

airspace sy stem, in p art, to achieve progression in this noteworthy

, an d 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

Exe mption 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

, p ermitting CA to log more flight time in FAA controlled airspace will allow CA to innovate

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

following representations of enhancements to c urrent aerial motion picture capture techniques:

• CA ’s UASs weigh less than 55 p ound s co mplete with feature length mo tio n

picture qualit y cameras like th e A rri Alexa an d Red Digital Cinema Dragon ;

• CA only operates its UASs b elo w 4 00 feet;

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

• CA lan d s 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 b ack up should they someho w l o ose sight of

the U AS;

• CA staffs eac h flight wit h a remote control pilot, technicia n a nd spotter with

co mmu nication systems enabling real tim e communication between them ;

• CA ’s UASs have GPS flight modes wh ereby they hover and then slowly lan d ifU.S. Dept of Transp.

July 8 , 2015

Page 5 of 7

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

• CA actively analyses electroni c flight data and other sources o f information to

constantly updat e and enhan ce 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

primar y 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

com mercial UASs into o ur national airspace system, helicopters ar e the p rimary means of aerial motion

picture capture. Wh ile 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 spec ific 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 av oid 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. 2 1, 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 beca us e 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 air worthiness certificate requirement under both t he Act (49 U.S.C. § 44701 (f))

and Section 333 of the Reform Act

. Both p ieces 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 e ach of the e lemen ts.

14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an airworthiness certificate

. As no

such c ertificate w ill b e a pplicable in t he f orm c ontemplated b y t he F ARs, this R egulation i s i napplicable.

14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an aircraft flight manual in th e aircraft. As th ere 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 operat ions 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 reg arding al timeter se ttin gs is inapplicable insofar as CA ’s UASs utilize

electron ic g lobal positionin g s ystem s a n d s ix in ternal gyroscope s to p rovid e s patial coordination.

1 4 C.F.R. § 91.203 (a) and (b) provides for the carrying of civil aircraft certifications and

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

will be achieved b y maintaining su ch certifications an d registrations at the CA ’s flight o perations

center.

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

.

App licable Co des of Fede ral Regulation requ ire aircraft to be mark ed according to certain

sp ecifications. 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-in ch lettering is difficult to

place on such small aircraft. Regardless, CA will mar k 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 mark ings. The FAA has

previously is sued

e xemp tions t o th is r eg ulation t hrough Exemptio ns Nos. 8738, 10167 , 1 0167A and 10700.

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

.

Pursuant to 14 C. F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) & (b)

, p rivate pilots are limited to non

commercial operations. CA can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by current

Regu latio ns because CA ’s UASs do n ot carry any p ilots or passengers. Further, while helpful, a pilot

license will not ensure remote control pilot ing 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, t he risks attend ant to the operation of CA ’s UASs is far less than the risk levels in herent in th e

commercial activities outlined in 14 C.F.R. § 6 1

, et seq

. Thu s, allo wing CA to operate its UASs with out a

p rivate p ilot as the pilot in control will exceed curren t safety levels in relation to 14 C.F.R. §61.11 3 (a) &

(b).

D. 14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Sa fe Alt itudes

.

1 4 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 UAS s will never operate at an

altitude g reater than 4 00 AGL. CA will, however, operate its UASs in cordoned off areas with security

perimeters, providing a lev el of safety at least eq uiv alent to those in relation to minimum safe

altitudes. Given the size, weight, maneuverabil ity 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 abov e -c ited Regulation s require , amongst other things, aircraft owners and operator s to

“have [the] aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this p art and shall b etween required

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

prescribed in p art 4 3 of th is c hapter . . . .”

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 extensiveU.S. Dept of Transp.

July 8 , 2015

Page 7 of 7

maintenance program th at involves regu lar software updates an d curative measures fo r 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 seek s an exemption from the following Regulations : 14 C.F.R. 21, sub part H; 14 C.F.R.

45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. § § 61.113 (a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (a); 1 4 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b )(2); 14 C.F.R. §

91.103(b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.109; 1 4 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 e conomic 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 i s significantly limited. CA ’s operation of its UASs, weighting less than 5 5 pounds and traveling at

speeds lower than 50 k nots 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

2 0 Clara Street

North Haledon, NJ 07508

(201) 961-2977

cinemarchitects@gmail.com