September 17, 2015

Exemption No. 12904

Regulatory Docket No. FAA−2015−2688

Mr. Charles J. Winiarski

19 Founders Way

Downington, PA 19335

Dear Mr. Winiarski:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

By letter dated June 4, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an 

exemption. You requested to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct aerial 

videography and cinematography.

See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations and 

the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner.

Airworthiness Certification

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is a DJI Phantom 3.
2

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products 

and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates. In accordance with the statutory criteria 

provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112−95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and in 

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

aircraft and its operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this aircraft 

meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds that the requested relief from 

14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness 

Certificates, and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, is 

not necessary.

The Basis for Our Decision

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial data collection1. The FAA has issued grants of 

exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. 

In Grants of Exemption Nos. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0352), 

11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC (see

Docket No. FAA−2014−0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (see Docket No. 

FAA−2014−0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned 

aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or 

crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in 

addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled 

by this exemption is in the public interest.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 They are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in Grant of 

Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213;

 The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 

11213 also apply to the situation you present; and 

 A grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, 

delegated to me by the Administrator, Mr. Charles J. Winiarski is granted an exemption from 

14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 

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

 

1 Aerial data collection includes any remote sensing and measuring by an instrument(s) aboard the UA. 

Examples include imagery (photography, video, infrared, etc.), electronic measurement (precision surveying, RF 

analysis, etc.), chemical measurement (particulate measurement, etc.), or any other gathering of data by 

instruments aboard the UA.
3

the extent necessary to allow the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection. 

This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of exemption, Mr. Charles J. Winiarski is hereafter referred to as the operator.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the DJI Phantom 3

when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. Proposed operations of any 

other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are 

not permitted. 

3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The 

exemption holder may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine 

compliance with the 87 knot speed restriction. In no case will the UA be operated at 

airspeeds greater than the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the 

aircraft manufacturer.

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

(AGL). Altitude must be reported 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, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate or

U.S. driver’s license.

6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within 

the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and VO at all times. 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 duties 

required of the VO.

7. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its 

operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of 

exemption, are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. The operating 

documents must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the 
4

Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and 

limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, 

the conditions and limitations herein 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 or any law enforcement official upon request. The 

operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension 

or amendment to this 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 an amendment to its 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.

8. 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 prior to conducting further operations under this exemption. 

Functional test flights may only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at 

least 500 feet from other people. The functional test flight must be conducted in such 

a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property.

9. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is 

in a condition for safe operation.

10. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre-flight inspection and determine the 

UAS is in a condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection must account for all 

potential discrepancies, e.g., inoperable components, items, or equipment. 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.

11. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul, 

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and 

aircraft components.

12. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer 

safety bulletins.

13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC must hold either an airline transport, 

commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. The PIC must also hold a 

current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a 

state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal 

government. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 

14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.
5

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the 

ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be 

operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and 

maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC 

qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 

14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs 

(training, proficiency, and experience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to 

safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated 

under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this 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 CFR § 91.119.

15. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All 

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

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

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point (ARP) as 

denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) or for airports not 

denoted with an ARP, the center of the airport symbol as denoted on the current 

FAA-published aeronautical chart, unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s 

management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption 

holder. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available 

to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

17. 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.

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a 

pre-determined location within the private or controlled-access property.

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

20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast 

weather conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the 

intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve 

power recommended by the manufacturer if greater.

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). All 

operations shall be conducted in accordance with an ATO-issued COA. The 

exemption holder may apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct 

operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the attached COA.
6

22. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial 

number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification 

(N−Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must 

be as large as practicable.

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and flight of the UAS and 

any documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the 

PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. 

These documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement 

official upon request.

24. The UA must remain clear and give way to all manned aviation operations and 

activities at all times. 

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

26. All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating 

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons 

from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure 

that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises 

where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of 

the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety 

of nonparticipating persons; and

b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission 

for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of 

the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not 

present an undue hazard.

The PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons are not considered 

nonparticipating persons under this exemption.

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

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. 

Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be 

obtained for each flight to be conducted.

28. 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.
7

If this exemption permits operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and 

television filming and production, the following additional conditions and limitations apply.

29. The operator must have a motion picture and television operations manual (MPTOM) 

as documented in this grant of exemption.

30. At least 3 days before aerial filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this 

exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO) with jurisdiction over the area of proposed filming. The 3-day 

notification may be waived with the concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities 

must include at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights;

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted 

under this grant of exemption;

c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on-scene operation of 

the UAS;

d. Make, model, and serial or N−Number of UAS to be used;

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the aerial filming;

f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners 

and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those 

who gave permission must be made available to the inspector upon request;

g. Signature of exemption holder or representative; and

h. A description of the flight activity, including maps or diagrams of any area, city, 

town, county, and/or state over which filming will be conducted and the altitudes 

essential to accomplish the operation.

31. Flight operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet from participating persons 

consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the 

exemption holder’s MPTOM.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS 

operations must comply with all applicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, 

parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.
8

This exemption terminates on September 30, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosures
Charles	J.	Winiarski,	Downingtown,	PA - Section	333	Exemption	Petition	

June	4,	2015	

U.	S.	Department	of	Transportation	Docket	Management	System

1200	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE	Washington,	DC	20590	

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

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

91.7(a);	91.9(b)	(2);	91.103(b);	91.109;	119.121;	91.151(a);	91.203(a)&(b);	

91.405(a);	91.407(a)	(1);	91.409(a)	(2);	91.417(a)&(b)	

Dear	Sir	or	Madam,	

I,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	am	writing	pursuant	to	the	FAA	Modernization	and	Reform	

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

Charles	J.	Winiarski,	an	owner	and	operator	of	small	unmanned	aircraft,	be	

exempted	from	the	Federal	Aviation	Regulations	(“FARs”)	listed	below	so	that	I,	

Charles	J.	Winiarski,	may	operate	my	small	ultra	light	weight	unmanned	aircraft	

system	(“UAS”)	commercially	in	airspace	regulated	by	the	Federal	Aviation	

Administration	(“FAA”).	

As	described	herein	I,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	is	a	very experienced	in	flying	hobby	

helicopters	for	recreational	purposes for	more	than	10	years.	I	have	added	a	hobby	

grade	quad-copter1	UAS	to	my	inventory,	a	DJI	Phantom	3,	 equipped	with	an

integrated	aerial	video	system with	intent	for	aerial	videography/cinematography	

for	commercial purposes	in	the	Pennsylvania	area.

I	have	flown	small	RC	electric	helicopters	for	over	ten	(10)	years	without	incident.	

Committed	to	safety	with	each	flight.	My,	Charles	J.	Winiarski's,	exemption	request	

would	permit	operation	of	ultra	light	weight,	unmanned	(piloted	by	remote	control)	

and	comparatively	inexpensive	UAS(s)	in	tightly	controlled	and	limited	airspace.

Predetermined	in	areas	away	from	general	public,	airports,	heliports	and	vehicular	

traffic	for	aerial	videography/cinematography	for	commercial	purposes.	Currently,	

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

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

Charles	J.	Winiarski,	will	continue	to	strictly	comply	with	safety	and	maintenance	

procedures	included	in	all	applicable	UAS	manufacturer’s	instructions	and	operating	

manuals	to	avoid	and	prevent	public	hazard,	as	well	as	manned	aircraft	

hazards/catastrophe.	This	will	act	to	further	safety	protocols	exclusive	to	

lightweight	UAS's	specific	to video	and	photography	usage	as	I,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	

record	flight	data	and	other	information	gained	through	permitted	flight	operations	

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

protocol	and	safety	regulation.	
Granting	my,	Charles	J.	Winiarski’s,	request	comports	with	the	Secretary	of	

Transportation’s	(FAA	Administrator’s)	responsibilities	and	authority	to	not	only	

integrate	UAS's	into	the	national	airspace	system,	but	to	“...establish	requirements	

for	the	safe	operation	of	such	aircraft	systems	[UAS's]	in	the	national	airspace	

system”	under	Section	333(c)	of	the	Reform	Act	specific	to	the	use	of	UAS's	for	real	

estate/Realtor	purposes.	Further	I,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	will	conduct	my	operations	

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

the	FAA.	

For	the	reasons	stated	below	I,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	respectfully	request	the	grant	of	

an	exemption allowing	me	to	operate	ultra	light	weight,	remote	controlled	UAS’s	for	

aerial	videography/cinematography	for	commercial	purposes.

I	have	attached the	user	manual	for	the	Phantom	3	Professional	as	well	a	my	PreFlight	Procedures.

I.	Contact	Information:	

Charles	J.	Winiarski

19	Founders	Way

Downingtown,	PA	19335

Charles.winiarski@gmail.com

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

Which	Charles	J.	Winiarski Requests	Exemption	are:

14	CFR	21;

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

14	CFR	61.113	(a)	&	(b);	14	C.F.R.	91,	et	seq.;

14	CFR	407	(a)	(1);

14	CFR	409	(a)	(2);	and,	14	CFR	417	(a)	&	(b).	

III.	The	Extent	of	relief	Charles	J.	Winiarski seeks	and	the	Reason	He	Seeks	

Such	Relief:	

I,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	submit	this	application	in	accordance	with	the	Reform	Act,	

112	P.L.	95	§§	331-334,	seeking	relief	from	any	currently	applicable	FARs	operating	

to	prevent	me,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	contemplated commercial	cinematic	and	other	

flight	operations	within	the	national	airspace	system.	The	Reform	Act	in	Section	332	

provides	for	such	integration	of	civil	unmanned	aircraft	systems	into	our	national	

airspace	system	as	it	is	in	the	public’s	interest	to	do	so.	My,	Charles	J.	Winiarski’s,	

ultra	light	weight	UAS	meets	the	definition	of	“small	unmanned	aircraft”	as	defined	

in	Section	331	and	therefore	the	integration	of	my	ultra	light	weight	UAS	is	

expressly	contemplated	by	the	Reform	Act.	I	would	like	to	operate	my	ultra	light	

weight	UAS	prior	to	the	time	period	by	which	the	Reform	Act	requires	the	FAA	to	

promulgate	rules	governing	such	craft.	Thereby,	providing	direct	experience	and	

valuable	information	for	formal	regulation	that	can	be	administered	uniformly	to	all	
commercial related	UAS	aerial	video	and	photography.	The	Reform	Act	guides	the	

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

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

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

populated	areas;	and,	Whether	the	UAS	will	be	operated	by	line	of	sight.	112	P.L.	95	

§	333	(a).	Each	of	these	items	reflect	in	favor	of	an	exemption	for	me,	Charles	J.	

Winiarski.	My	UAS	utilizes	four	(4)	counter-rotating propellers	for	balance,	control	

and	stability.	My	UAS	is	equipped	with	GPS	and	auto	return	safety	technology.	

Weighing	less	than	five	(5)	pounds	(far	below	the	maximum	55	pound	limit);	

including	camera	with	gimbal.	

I,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	considers	safety	as	foremost	with	each	flight.	My	small	

unmanned	aircraft	is	designed	to	hover	in	place	via	GPS	and	operate	in	less	than	a	

24	knot	(15	mph)	wind.	For	safety,	stability	and	fear	of	financial	loss	I	will	not	fly	in	

winds	exceeding	16	kph	(10	mph).	Built	in	safety	systems	include	a	GPS	mode	that	

allows	my	UAS	to	hover	in	place	when	radio	controls	are	released.	With	three	modes	

to	choose	from,	I	utilize	the	Beginner	mode for	aerial	videography/photography.	

This	is	the	safest,	most	reliable	and	stable	mode	to prevent	accident	and	hazard.	

This	mode	includes	safe	circle	for	operation,	position	hold,	self-leveling,	altitude	

command,	GPS,	return	home	feature,	and	safety	control	to	return	home	or	land	in	

the	event	of	communication	interruption	between	RC	transmitter	and	UAS.

When	pilot	communication	is	lost	UAS	is	designed	slowly	descend	to	point	of	take	

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

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

yards	depending	on	location,	conditions	and	weather.	I	am	constantly	on	alert	for	

any	manned	aircraft	(Police/Medical	helicopters,	etc.)	and	prepared	to	land/abort	

immediately	to	the	nearest	and	safest	ground	point	should	a	manned	aircraft	

approach	my	location	or	I	suspect	manned	aircraft	may	approach	near	my	location.	

My	UAS	is	capable	of	vertical	and	horizontal	operations,	and	are	flown	only	within	

my	line	of	sight	of	me,	as	the	remote	control	pilot.	Utilizing	battery	power	rather	

than	combustible	fuels,	flights	generally	last	less	than	15	minutes,	with	an	altitude	

under	three	hundred	fifty	(300)	feet.	I,	Charles	Winiarski,	utilize	a	fresh	fully	

charged	battery	with	each	flight	as	a	safety	precaution;	full	flight	time	limit	for	each	

battery	is	fifteen	(15)	to	twenty-five	(25)	minutes	as	tested.	I	do	not	operate	my	UAS	

at	or	below	manufacture	recommend	minimum	charge	levels	for	operation;	

preferring	to	remain	well	within	a	safe	operating	range	to	insure	adequate	

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

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

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

may	cause	a	crash	that	could	create	hazard	to	the	public/property/manned	aircraft,	

and	have	no	desire	to	lose	an	investment.	I	have	clocked	numerous	practice	flights	

in	remote	areas	as	a	hobbyist	simulating	flights	for	future	commercial	use	to	gain	

familiarization	with	the	characteristics	of	this	specific	UAS's	performance	under	

different	temperature	and	weather	conditions.	I	also	practice	computerized	

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

sake	of	safety.	
I,	Charles	J.	Winiarski’s,	am	extremely	cautious	when	operating	of	my	UAS/ultra	

light	weight	unmanned	aircraft	and	will	not	“create	a	hazard	to	users	of	the	national	

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

of	my	UAS	it	falls	well	within	Congress’s	contemplated	safety	zone	when	it	

promulgated	the	Reform	Act	and	the	corresponding	directive	to	integrate	UAS's	into	

the	national	airspace	system.	Charles	J.	Winiarski’s	UAS,	used	in	hobby	flight,	has	a	

demonstrable	safety	record	and	does	not	pose	any	threat	to	the	general	public	or	

national	security.	

IV.	How	Charles	J.	Winiarski’s	Request	Will	Benefit	the	Public	As	A	Whole:	

Aerial	videography	and	photography	for	geographical	awareness for	commercial

marketing	has	been	around	for	a	long	time	through	manned	fixed	wing	aircraft	and	

helicopters.	For	small	budget	real	estate	companies	and	average	homeowners	the	

expense	of	such	aerial	videography	is	cost	prohibitive.	Only	large	companies	and	

high	end	Realtors	or	luxury	homeowners	can	afford	to	absorb	such	expense.	

Depriving	non-luxury	homeowners	and	lower	budget	Realtors	from	a	valuable	

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

catastrophic	crash	that	the	community	has	experienced	in	the	past.	Each	resulting	in	

loss	of	life.	Each	with	combustible	fuel	that	exploded	and	burned	on	impact.	Police	

helicopters	have	made	emergency	hard	landings	within	city	limits.	My,	Charles	J.	

Winiarski's,	UAS	pose	no	such	threat	since	size	and	lack	of	combustible	fuel	

alleviates	any	potential	threat	to	the	public.

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

commercially	flown	UAS's	into	the	national	airspace	system,	hence	the	passing	of	

the	Reform	Act.	Granting	my,	Charles	J.	Winiarski’s,	exemption	request	furthers	the	

public	interest	through	academic/visual	awareness	of	the	geographical	benefits	in	

and	around	the	metro	Tucson	area.	My	ultra	light	weight	UAS	is	battery	powered	

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

ultra	light	weight	UAS	crashing	is	far	less	than	a	full	size	helicopter	or	fixed	wing	

aircraft;	which	are	heavy,	contain	combustible	fuel	and	can	cause	catastrophic	

devastation	to	the	public.	

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

permitting	aerial	video/photo	capture	through	my	battery	operated	ultra	light	

weight	UAS's.	Permitting	me,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	to	immediately	fly	within	national	

air	space	furthers	economic	growth.	Granting	my	exemption	request	substantially	

furthers	the	economic	impact	for	the	Pennsylvania	area.

V.	Reasons	Why	Charles	J.	Winiarski’s	Exemption	Will	Not	Adversely	Affect	

Safety	Or	How	The	Exemption	Will	Provide	a	Level	of	Safety	At	Least	Equal	To	

Existing	Rule:	
My,	Charles	J.	Winiarski’s,	exemption	will	not	adversely	affect	safety.	Quite	the	

contrary,	for	the	reasons	stated	permitting	me,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	to	log	more	

flight	time	in	FAA	controlled	airspace,	with	communication	with	the	FAA,	will	allow	

me	to	contribute	to	the	innovation	and	implementation	of	new	and	novel,	as	of	yet	

undiscovered	safety	protocols	for	commercial	operators that	can	be	embraced	by	

the	NAR6,	AAR7,	and	TAR8	for	development	in	cooperation	with	the	FAA.	In	

addition	I,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	submit	the	following	representations	of	

enhancements	to	current	aerial	videography and	photography	for	commercial	

purposes:	

My	UAS	weighs	less	than	5	pounds	complete	with	an	integrated	video	system:

• I	only	operate	my	UAS	below	300	feet	(well	within	the	400	foot	permissible	

ceiling	set	by	the	FAA	Modernization	and	Reform	Act	of	2012)	

• My	UAS	will	only	operate	for	up	to	15	minutes	per	flight

• I	land	my	UAS	prior	to	manufacturer	recommended minimum	level	of	battery	

power

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

• My	UAS	has	GPS	a	flight	safety	feature	whereby	it	hovers	and	then	slowly	

lands	if	communication	with	the	remote	control	pilot	is	lost

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

update	and	enhance	safety	protocols

• I	only	operate	in	reasonably	safe environment	that	are	strictly	controlled,	are	

away	from	power	lines,	elevated	lights,	airports	and	actively	populated	areas

• I	conduct	extensive	pre-flight	inspections	and	protocol,	during	which	safety	

carries	primary	importance;

• I	always	obtains	all	necessary	permissions	prior	to	operation

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

potential	danger.	

My,	Charles	J.	Winiarski’s,	safety	protocols	provide	a	level	of	safety	equal	to	or	

exceeding	existing	rules.	It	is	important	to	note	that	absent	the	integration	of	

commercial	UAS	into	our	national	airspace	system,	helicopters	are	the	primary	

means	of	aerial	video	and	photography	for	commercial	purposes.	While	the	safety	

record	of	such	helicopters	is	remarkably	astounding, there	has	been	local	incident	
involving	loss	of	life	as	well	as	extensive	property	damage;	it	is	far	safer	to	operate	a	

battery	powered	ultra	light	weight	UAS.

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

and	I	only	operates	my	UAS	in	specific	areas	away	from	mass	populations.	Second,	

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

diminished.	

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

pilot	away	from	and	avoid	hazards	quickly	and	safely.		Lastly,	given	its	small	size	

and	weight,	even	when	close	enough	to	capture	amazing	images,	my	UAS	need	not	

be	so	close	to	the	objects	they	are	focused	on	through	the	technology	and	use	of	post	

editing	software	allowing	pan	and	zoom.	 Accordingly,	my	UAS	has	been	

experimentally	operated	for	familiarization/competency	and	will	continue	to	

operate	at	and	above	current	safety	levels.	

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

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

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

for	procurement	of	necessary	airworthiness	certificates	in	relation	to	FAR	§	

91.203(a)(1).	The size,	weight	and	enclosed	operational	area	of	my,	Charles	J.	

Winiarski’s,	UAS	permits	exemption	from	Part	21	because	my	UAS	meets	(and	

exceeds)	an	equivalent	level	of	safety	pursuant	to	Section	333	of	the	Reform	Act.	The	

FAA	is	authorized	to	exempt	aircraft	from	the	airworthiness	certificate	requirement	

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

pieces	of	legislation	permit	the	FAA	to	exempt	UAS's	from	the	airworthiness	

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

and	proximity	to	areas	such	as	airports	and	dense	populations.	My,	Charles	J.	

Winiarski’s,	current	and	projected	UAS's	meet	or	exceed	each	of	the	elements.	

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

certificate.	As	no	such	certificate	will	be	applicable	in	the	form	contemplated	by	the	

FARs,	this	Regulation	is	inapplicable.	

14	C.F.R.	§	91.9	(b)	(2)	requires	an	aircraft	flight	manual	in	the	aircraft.	As	there	are	

no	on	board	pilots or	passengers,	and	given	the	size	of	the	UAS's,	this	Regulation	is	

inapplicable.	An	equivalent	level	of	safety	will	be	achieved	by	maintaining	a	

safety/flight	manual	delineating	areas	of	where	safety	can	be	defined.10	The	FAA	

has	previously	issued	exemptions	to	this	regulation	in	Exemption	Nos.	8607,	8737,	

8738,	9299,	9299A,	9565,	9565B,	10167,	10167A,	10602,	10700	and	32827.	

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

utilizes	electronic	global	positioning	systems	with	a	barometric	sensor.	

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

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

equivalent	level	of	safety	will	be	achieved	by	maintaining	any	such	required	

certifications	and	registrations	by	me,	Charles	J.	Winiarski.	
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.	My	UAS	are,	by	definition,	unmanned.	They	therefore	do	not	

have	a	cabin,	cockpit	or	pilot	station	on	which	to	mark	certain	words	or	phrases.	

Further,	two- inch	lettering	is	difficult	to	place	on	such	small	aircraft	with	

dimensions	smaller	that	minimal	lettering	requirement. Regardless,	I	will	mark	its	

UASs	in	the	largest	possible	lettering	by	placing	the	word	“EXPERIMENTAL”	on	its	

fuselage	as	required	by	14	C.F.R.	§45.29	(f)	so	that	I	the	pilot,	or	anyone	assisting	me	

as	a	spotter	with	the	UAV	will	see	the	markings.	The	FAA	has	previously	issued	

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

10700.	

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	non	-

commercial	operations.	I,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	can	achieve	an	equivalent	level	of	

safety	as	achieved	by	current	Regulations	because	my	UAS	does	not	carry	any	pilots	

or	passengers.	Further,	while	helpful,	a	pilot	license	will	not	ensure	remote	control	

piloting	skills.	The	risks	attended	to	the	operation	of	my	UAS	is	far	less	than	the	risk	

levels	inherent	in	the	commercial	activities	outlined	in	14	C.F.R.	§	61,	et	seq.	Thus,	

allowing	me,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	to	operate	my	UAS	meet	and	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.	My	UAS	

will	never	operate	at	an	altitude	greater	than	300	AGL;	safely	below	the	standard	of	

400	AGL.	I,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	will	however	operate	my	UAS	in	safe	areas	away	

from	public	and	traffic,	providing	a	level	of	safety	at	least	equivalent	to	or	below	

those	in	relation	to	minimum	safe	altitudes.	Given	the	size,	weight,	maneuverability	

and	speed	of	my	UAS,	an	equivalent	or	higher	level	of	safety	will	be	achieved.	

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	my,	Charles	J.	Winiarski's,	UAS.	However,	as	a	safety	

precaution	I	inspect	my	UAS	before	and	after	each	flight.	

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

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

entitled	Airworthiness	Certificates,	sets	forth	requirements	for	procurement	of	

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

weight	and	enclosed	operational	area	of	my	UAS	permits	exemption	from	Part	21	

because	my,	Charles	J.	Winiarski’s,	UAS	meets	an	equivalent	level	of	safety	pursuant	

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

airworthiness	certificate	requirement	under	both	the	Act	(49	U.S.C.	§	44701	(f))	and	
Section	333	of	the	Reform	Act.	Both	pieces	of	legislation	permit	the	FAA	to	exempt	

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

size,	speed,	maneuverability	and	proximity	to	areas	such	as	airports	and	dense	

populations.	My	UAS	meets	or	exceeds	each	of	the	elements.	14	C.F.R.	91.7(a)	

prohibits	the	operation	of	an	aircraft	without	an	airworthiness	certificate.	As	no	

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

Regulation	is	inapplicable.	14	C.F.R.	§	91.9	(b)	(2)	requires	an	aircraft	flight	manual	

in	the	aircraft.	As	there	are	no	pilots	or	passengers,	and	given	the	size	of	the	UAS's,	

this	Regulation	is	inapplicable.	An	equivalent	level	of	safety	will	be	achieved	by	

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

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

maintenance	program	that	involves	regular	software	updates	and	curative	

measures	for	any	damaged	hardware.	Therefore,	an	equivalent	level	of	safety	will	be	

achieved.	

In	summary,	Charles	J.	Winiarski seeks	an	exemption	from	the	following	

Regulations:

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

91.7	(a);	14	C.F.R.	§	91.9	(b)(2);	14	C.F.R.	§	91.103(b);	14	C.F.R.	§	91.109;	14	C.F.R.	§	

91.119;	14	C.F.R.	§	91.121;	14	C.F.R.	§	91.151(a);	14	C.F.R.	§§	91.203(a)	and	(b);	14	

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

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

Charles	J.	Winiarski's,	small	unmanned	vehicle/lightweight	unmanned	aircraft	

vehicle	in	community	awareness	and	real	estate	operations,	and	to	develop	

economic	platforms	for	real	estate	to	enhance	the	experience	of	those	seeking	to	

relocate	to	the	metro	Tucson	area.	Currently,	area	awareness	and	real	estate	aerial	

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

combustible	fuel.	Posing	potential	risk	to	the	public.	Granting	my,	Charles	J.	

Winiarski’s,	request	for	exemption	will	reduce	current	risk	levels	and	thereby	

enhance	safety.	My	UAS	craft	do	not	contain	potentially	explosive	fuel,	is	smaller,	

lighter	and	more	maneuverable	than	conventional	real	estate	video	and	

photographic	aircraft	with	much	less	flight	time.	Further,	I	operate	at	lower	

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

from	established	air	fields.	I,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	have	been	informally	analyzing	

flight	information	and	will	compile	safety	protocols	and	the	implementation	of	a	

flight	operations	manual	for	real	estate	usage	that	exceeds	currently	accepted	

means	and	methods	for	safe	flight.	Formal	collection	of	information	shared	with	the	

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

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

board	my,	Charles	J.	Winiarski’s,	UAS	and	therefore	the	likelihood	of	death	or	

serious	bodily	injury	is	significantly	diminished.	My,	Charles	J.	Winiarski’s,	operation	

of	my	UAS,	weighing	less	than	5	pounds	and	travelling	at	lower	speeds	within	

limited	areas	will	provide	an	equivalent	level	of	safety	as	that	achieved	under	

current	FARs.	Accordingly	I,	Charles	J.	Winiarski,	respectfully	request	that	the	FAA	
grant	my	exemption	request	and	am	willing	to	cooperate	in	sharing	information	to	

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

Respectfully	submitted,

Charles	J.	Winiarski

19	Founders	Way

Downingtown,	PA	19335

charles.winiarski@gmail.com