PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 1

January 8, 2016

Manager, Flight Standards Service

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operation

West Building Ground Floor Room w-12-140

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Petition for Exemption

RE: Petition of Jesse Harding for an Exemption under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012 and from certain rules of 14 C.F.R.

Dear Sir or Madam:

The following is a Petition for Exemption relating to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012. Specifically, this Petition for exemption is filed by DMZ Marketing, LLC., on behalf of Jesse 

Harding, for exemption from certain rules of 14 C.F.R. Jesse Harding requests Exemption in an effort to 

be granted permission to operate small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“sUAS”) commercially in the United 

States of America. These operations would be subject to the current rules and regulations, not stated 

herein as rules requested for exemption under Section 333, under the jurisdiction of the Department of 

Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration. 

Additionally, all operations will adhere to strict safety rules enforced by Jesse Harding within his

company. These safety rules will be modeled after recommendations made by the FAA and communitybased organizations such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics. Specific conditions relating to the safe 

operations of sUAS by Jesse Harding will be covered in more detail in the documentation to come, 

however basic flight safety parameters often cited by organizations such as the Academy of Model 

Aeronautics will be closely followed, such as operations at low altitudes and adequate distances away 

from airports, heliports, and approach areas to name a few. 

As was established in Huerta v. Pirker, an aircraft is, “any” “device” that is “used for flight.”1 Clearly this 

broad definition encompasses the types of sUAS the petitioner, Jesse Harding, plans on flying 

commercially within the United States of America and as such, are governed by the rules of 14 C.F.R. 

Petitioner Name: Jesse Harding 

Petitioner Contact: Jesse Harding

Petitioner Phone Number: 509-207-9207

Petitioner Email Address: jesseharding31@gmail.com

Petitioner Address: PO Box 357

Republic, WA

Document Preparer: DMZ Marketing, LLC.

Contact Person: Zach Fiene

Phone Number: 608-370-2858

Email Address: dmzaerial@gmail.com

Website: www.dmzaerial.com

Address: 1501 Parkview Court

Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 USA
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 2

Due to this, in the following Petition for Exemption and associated documentation, Jesse Harding will 

establish clear reasoning as to why his particular commercial sUAS flights should be granted exemption 

and why his business should be exempt from certain parameters of 14 C.F.R. 

As has been established by the FAA over the last year, sUAS pilots are allowed to petition for exemption 

from certain aircraft rules that may be inapplicable to sUAS craft or that may place an undue burden on 

a petitioner looking to turn their sUAS hobby into a commercial business. Jesse Harding would like to 

request exemption from certain parameters contained in 14 C.F.R. The specific rules for which Jesse 

Harding requests exemption will be covered in further detail in the documentation to come, but, in 

summary, Jesse Harding looks to be exempt from the types of rules that may limit or otherwise prevent 

their intent of operating sUAS commercially within the United States.

Furthermore, these commercial operations would only be conducted after a granted Section 333 

Exemption and within the outlined conditions below or that may be otherwise highlighted by the 

Federal Aviation Administration in their Exemption Approval Letter. 

With the approval of this exemption, Jesse Harding will be allowed to commercially operate his sUAS 

within the United States of America. Specifically, Jesse Harding will be allowed to fly commercially with 

the DJI Phantom 3 Professional, DJI Inspire 1, and DJI Matrice 100. Furthermore, Jesse Harding will be 

operating his sUAS in furtherance of various applications within the following industries; Agriculture, 

Cinematography, Environmental Protection, Fire, Infrastructure, Insurance, Land Inspection, Law 

Enforcement, Real Estate, and Search and Rescue. Details of these flight crafts; their manuals, safety 

parameters, operational checklists and more, along with these sUAS flight applications, will be expanded 

upon in more detail below. 

In addition to Jesse Harding’s Petition for Exemption pertaining to the use of the aforementioned 

aircraft and use-cases, the granting of this Petition will also allow for the commercial operations of sUAS

in Class G Airspace, below 400 feet Above Ground Level (“AGL”), nationwide, or as otherwise granted in 

a Certificate of Authorization (“COA”). To start, Jesse Harding will adhere to the blanket Certificate of 

Authorization that is granted to each entity receiving an Exemption Number. This COA currently allows 

for flights nationwide, in Class G Airspace, below 200 feet AGL.2 Further flight areas sought by Jesse 

Harding will be applied for through the FAA’s COA Portal. Additionally, with the potential hazards and 

obstacles associated with low-altitude flight, Jesse Harding will adhere to the Visual Flight Rule (“VFR”) 

minimums which apply to this airspace. Further details on these operational minimums will be 

discussed in the documentation to come.

The Petition for Exemption below provides details relating to the proposed applications of commercial 

sUAS use by Jesse Harding. Specifically, Jesse Harding seeks exemption in an effort to conduct 

commercial operations within the following industries; Agriculture, Cinematography, Environmental 

Protection, Fire, Infrastructure, Insurance, Land Inspection, Law Enforcement, Real Estate, and Search 

and Rescue.

In addition to the variety of Industry applications highlighted above, this Petition for Exemption will also 

cover details on various methods of operation and sensor/imagery types for the various applications. 

Specifically, Jesse Harding will incorporate a variety of sensor payloads on his sUAS in an effort to 

capture necessary imagery or data types for each specific application or use-case. Examples of the 

payload technologies used on the sUAS include, but are not limited to; Visible Light Spectrum Imagery, 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 3

Near Infrared (“NIR”) Imagery, Thermal Infrared Imagery, LIDAR, Sensor Technologies, GPS Guidance, 

Photogrammetry, Semi-Autonomous and Autonomous Flight Controllers (For safety), Object Avoidance 

Systems, and more. With the data collected from these various sensor payloads, Jesse Harding will be 

able to provide high quality data for representatives from the below-highlighted industries. 

 Agriculture: High quality, actionable data can be utilized by farmers and their partner 

agronomists, crop consultants, field techs, and interns alike, to support their drive for 

higher yields and more efficient and effective farming practices.

 Cinematography: High resolution, aerial video can provide a new perspective for 

potential clients, thereby allowing clients to gain a new vantage point from which to 

observe an environment, product, service, landscape, event, or the like.

 Environmental Protection: High resolution video and imagery captured from the sky can 

provide various Environmental groups with more information on their area of study. 

Near Infrared imagery for example can be used to determine plant stress or 

deforestation.

 Fire: High resolution imagery captured from the air can help fire departments better 

assess ongoing fire situations. This could help the department more effecively fight an 

ongoing fire and in some situations help the department decide whether or not to 

approach a blaze that could present various hazards.

 Infrastructure: High quality, high resolution imagery, 3D modeling, and the like, 

provided to the Infrastructure industry can create a better Infrastructure Industry as a 

whole. Not only will the data they receive from an aerial inspection be actionable, but 

the method by which the data is collected (via sUAS) is much safer than the alternative 

in many Infrastructure Industries. 

 Insurance: High quality, high resolution imagery, coupled with advanced identification 

and measurement software, can help turn aerial data collected by a sUAS into 

actionable information for Insurance Agents and Adjusters alike.

 Land Inspection: High quality, high resolution imagery and 3D modeling can help land 

assessors, government agencies, surveyors, insurers, and the like utilize aerial data to 

ensure confidence in their operations and efficiency in their practices.

 Law Enforcement: High quality, high resolution imagery and aerial video can help law 

enforcment agencies in a wide array of applications, including searching for escapees, 

documenting accident scenes, and assessing ongoing situations from the air to name a 

few.
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 4

 Real Estate: High quality, high resolution imagery and aerial cinematography can 

provide a new perspective for an interested property buyer, thereby allowing real estate 

agents to develop a new way of marketing their listings.

 Search and Rescue: High quality, high resolution imagery and aerial video can provide 

an incredible vantage point from which search and rescue teams can more effectively 

scope out an area.

The applications highlighted in this petition obviously provide high quality data to a variety of interested 

parties in various industries. However, sUAS have more to provide than just interesting pictures and 

efficient operations. There is also the enhanced safety sUAS provide not only for the operators of these 

systems, but also, the people around them, communities as a whole, and the National Airspace System 

(“NAS”).

Within this Petition for Exemption you will find that the applications highlighted above along with the 

aircraft systems utilized by Jesse Harding, satisfy the conditions highlighted by the Federal Aviation 

Administration as requirements for a successful Section 333 Exemption Petition.

3

 Specifically, the sUAS

operating in furtherance of the industry applications above should;

1. Provide a benefit to the public as a whole, and;

2. Not adversely affect safety. 

To answer these requirements this Petition for Exemption will highlight the public benefits provided by 

the proposed sUAS operations as well as show the positive affect these operations will have on safety. 

Specifically, it will be shown that the commercial sUAS flights proposed in this Petition further the public 

interest by satisfying what is sometimes referred to as the 3D’s or 4D’s of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

(“UAV”) Intervention.

4

 Basically, the “D” list provides a description of situations in which an unmanned 

vehicle should be used in place of a manned aircraft, more clearly, those situations in which an aerial 

operation is going to be; Dull, Dirty, Dangerous, or Deep.

5

 This list is often associated with early military 

applications utilizing UAV’s. The UK Ministry of Defense for example has used this list in determining the 

role of Unmanned Aircraft, highlighting the importance of Unmanned Systems in times where the 

operation is;

5

 Dull - flights require persistence or repetition.

 Dangerous - flights carry a high degree of risk.

 Dirty - flights must be carried out in hazardous environments, or;

 Deep - flights are beyond the range of tactical-aircraft, manned platforms. 

 

In addition to the justification that will be provided in detail in the pages to come relating to the 4 D’s of 

UAV Intervention and safety attributes of the sUAS Operations proposed in this Petition for Exemption, 

it is also important to quickly consider the aircraft types utilized by Jesse Harding. 

As mentioned above, Jesse Harding seeks exemption for the utilization of the DJI Phantom 3 

Professional, DJI Inspire 1, and DJI Matrice 100. All of these aircraft are small Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems and are battery-powered. Operations conducted by Jesse Harding with these sUAS will adhere 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 5

to the guidelines set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration and Community-Based Organizations 

such as the Academy of Model Aeronautics (“AMA”). Through the adherence of these guidelines Jesse 

Harding will commercially operate his sUAS with an equivalent level of safety, if not superior level of 

safety, as outlined by the Federal Aviation Administration’s Section 333 Exemption Guidelines. 

Furthermore, the commercial sUAS operations being proposed by Jesse Harding in this Petition for 

Exemption, would produce far safer methods of data capture than currently-used collection methods in 

which manned aircraft are used. Consider that manned aircraft weigh thousands of pounds, are made 

of metal, are powered by a combustion engine, carry flammable fuel, and are carrying people. Plus, 

with the type of data-capture proposed in this Petition, a manned aircraft would have to operate in 

high-risk situations, including, in close proximity to the ground where the risk of an accident is highest 

and the risk to people and property on the ground is the greatest. Contrasting the two aircraft types, it 

is clear that a plastic, battery-powered, unmanned vehicle operating at low altitudes, would be much 

safer than a multi-thousand-pound, metal aircraft, powered by a combustion engine, and carrying a 

person at low altitudes. 

This fact is further bolstered by the operational and aircraft-specific parameters given by the FAA when 

deciding whether or not to grant Section 333 Exemptions.

6

 These directives include;

1. The size of the aircraft

2. The weight of the aircraft

3. The speed of the aircraft

4. The operational capability of the aircraft

5. The aircraft operation’s proximity to airports

6. The aircraft operation’s proximity to populated areas, and;

7. The aircraft operation’s adherence to Visual Line of Sight Rules

As highlighted above, it is clear that this Petition for Exemption and both the aircraft types and 

applications stated herein, strictly adhere to the operational and aircraft-specific parameters highlighted 

by the FAA for a successful Exemption Petition and thus, support the granting of this Exemption. A 

summary of the reasoning behind this statement can be found below as;

1. All proposed sUAS are Small

2. All proposed sUAS weigh below 55 lbs.

3. All proposed sUAS travel at less than 100 mph (87 Knots)

4. All proposed sUAS are capable flight systems and have been granted Exemptions 

previously

5. All proposed operations will take place at least 5 miles from an Airport

6. All proposed operations will take place in unpopulated areas (Unless prior approval 

is given {See Condition #34 [“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”] below})

7. All proposed operations will adhere to the Visual Line of Sight Rules

By adhering to the parameters published by the FAA and by promoting the public good through the 

various Industry applications to be highlighted below, this Petition for Exemption on behalf of Jesse 

Harding strongly supports approval.

We kindly ask for your consideration of this Petition for Exemption. Please see the table of contents 

below for all our documentation and for assistance in reviewing this Petition. Thank you for your efforts 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 6

in reviewing this document and we look forward to your response. If you have any questions while 

reviewing this document, please do not hesitate to ask. You can contact the Preparer of this document 

for all questions relating to this petition and they can be reached by email at dmzaerial@gmail.com. 

Further contact information can be found at the top of this Petition or on the following websites; 

www.dronefly.com or www.dmzaerial.com. Once again thank you for your efforts in reviewing this 

Petition for Exemption and we look forward to your reply.

Best Regards,

DMZ Marketing, LLC. (DMZ Aerial)

Contact Information

Document Preparer:

DMZ Marketing, LLC.

1501 Parkview Court

Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 USA

Contact: Zach Fiene

Phone: 608-370-2858

Email: dmzaerial@gmail.com

Website: www.dmzaerial.com

Petitioner:

Jesse Harding

PO Box 357

Republic, WA

Jesse Harding

509-207-9207

jesseharding31@gmail.com

Disclosure

The Petitioner for this exemption is Jesse Harding, a Freelance UAV operator focused on providing aerial 

shots to a variety of clients from various industries, including; Aerial Cinematography for film and 

television, Real Estate, Agriculture, Search and Rescue, and many more. Jesse Harding purchased 

document preparation services through Dronefly, Inc. for the purpose of petitioning the FAA to be 

allowed to fly his small Unmanned Aircraft Systems commercially within the United States. Dronefly 

Inc., contracts DMZ Marketing, LLC., also known as DMZ Aerial, to help formulate these documents and 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 7

work with the customer to help promote safe flying practices and appropriate operations. This is done 

through questionnaires, phone conversations, document preparation, training module creation, and 

more. If you have any questions relating to the Petitioner, Dronefly, Inc., or DMZ Marketing, LLC. (“DMZ 

Aerial”), please do not hesitate to contact us using the contact information provided above. 

Table of Contents

Petition for Exemption ............................................................................................................................ 1

Contact Information................................................................................................................................ 6

Disclosure................................................................................................................................................ 6

The Applicant........................................................................................................................................ 10

Commitment to Safety ...................................................................................................................... 10

Experience and Expertise................................................................................................................... 11

Privacy............................................................................................................................................... 11

Publishable Summary............................................................................................................................ 11

Petitioner’s Contact Information ........................................................................................................... 13

Proposed sUAS Operations.................................................................................................................... 13

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems..................................................................................................... 13

DJI Phantom 3 Professional............................................................................................................ 14

DJI Inspire 1 ................................................................................................................................... 14

DJI Matrice 100.............................................................................................................................. 15

Unmanned Flight Crew...................................................................................................................... 15

Unmanned Flight Conditions.............................................................................................................. 16

Unmanned Flight Operations............................................................................................................. 16

Aircraft and Equivalent Level of Safety................................................................................................... 17

National Security................................................................................................................................... 17

Proposed Conditions of the Exemption.................................................................................................. 18

Exemptions Requested & Applicable Conditions/Reasoning................................................................... 23

14 C.F.R 21(h): Airworthiness Certificates.......................................................................................... 23

14 C.F.R. 27: Airworthiness Standards - Normal Category Rotorcraft.................................................. 24

14 C.F.R. 43.7: Authorized Maintenance/Repair/Alteration Personnel ............................................... 24

14 C.F.R. 43.11: Dispositions of Records for Inspections..................................................................... 25

14 C.F.R. 45.11: Making of Products................................................................................................... 25

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b): Display of Marks; General..................................................................................... 25
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 8

14 C.F.R. 45.27: Marking of the Aircraft – Rotorcraft.......................................................................... 25

14 C.F.R. 45.29: Size of Marks............................................................................................................ 26

14 C.F.R. 61.3: Requirement for Certificates, Ratings, and Authorizations.......................................... 26

14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) and (c): Medical Certificates – Requirements and Duration.................................... 27

14 CFR 61.101(e) (4) and (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations......................................... 27

14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations – Pilot In Command.......................... 28

14 C.F.R. 61.315(a)(c): Privileges and Limits of Sport Pilot’s License ................................................... 29

14 C.F.R. 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness..................................................................................... 33

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual................................................................................. 33

14 C.F.R. 91.9(c): Civil Aircraft Marking, Placards ............................................................................... 33

14 C.F.R. 91.103: Preflight Action....................................................................................................... 34

14 C.F.R. 91.105: Flight Crewmembers at Stations............................................................................. 34

14 C.F.R. 91.109: Flight Instruction .................................................................................................... 35

14 C.F.R. 91.113(b): Right-of-Way Rules............................................................................................. 36

14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes ......................................................................................... 37

14 C.F.R. 91.121: Altimeter Settings................................................................................................... 38

14 C.F.R. 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for VFR Flight Conditions...................................................... 39

14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) and (b): Civil Aircraft – Certifications Required..................................................... 40

14 C.F.R. 215: ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use ..................................... 41

14 C.F.R. 91.403: General................................................................................................................... 42

14 C.F.R. 91.405(a): Maintenance Required....................................................................................... 43

14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1): Operation after Maintenance or Alteration .................................................... 43

14 C.F.R. 409(a)(1) and (2): Inspections.............................................................................................. 43

14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance Records............................................................................. 44

Privacy .................................................................................................................................................. 45

Public Interest and Safety...................................................................................................................... 45

Agriculture..................................................................................................................................... 47

Cinematography ............................................................................................................................ 50

Environmental Protection.............................................................................................................. 52

Fire................................................................................................................................................ 54

Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................ 56

Insurance....................................................................................................................................... 59

Land Inspection ............................................................................................................................. 61
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 9

Law Enforcement........................................................................................................................... 63

Real Estate..................................................................................................................................... 65

Search and Rescue......................................................................................................................... 66

Regulations Requested for Exemption ................................................................................................... 68

Appendix 1: Regulations Requested for Exemption – List................................................................... 68

Exhibit List............................................................................................................................................. 69

Exhibit 1: Jesse Harding Operations Manual....................................................................................... 69

Exhibit 2: Jesse Harding Logbook Example ......................................................................................... 69

Exhibit 3: Jesse Harding Visual Observer Training Procedures & Guide............................................... 69

Visual Observer Training Procedures.............................................................................................. 69

Visual Observer Training Guide ...................................................................................................... 70

Exhibit 4: Jesse Harding Pilot In Command Training Guide ................................................................. 70

Pilot In Command Training Procedures.......................................................................................... 70

Pilot in Command Training Guide................................................................................................... 70

Exhibit 5: DJI Phantom 3 Professional ................................................................................................ 70

Exhibit 6: DJI Phantom 3 Professional User Manual............................................................................ 70

Exhibit 7: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Quick Start Guide .................................................................... 70

Exhibit 8: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Features.................................................................................. 70

Exhibit 9: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Specifications.......................................................................... 71

Exhibit 10: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Flight Controller System ........................................................ 71

Exhibit 11: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Smart Battery Manual ........................................................... 71

Exhibit 12: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Safety/Preflight Checklist and Guidelines Training ................. 71

Exhibit 13: DJI Inspire 1...................................................................................................................... 71

Exhibit 14: DJI Inspire 1 User Manual................................................................................................. 71

Exhibit 15: DJI Inspire 1 Quick Start Guide.......................................................................................... 71

Exhibit 16: DJI Inspire 1 Features ....................................................................................................... 71

Exhibit 17: DJI Inspire 1 Specifications................................................................................................ 72

Exhibit 18: DJI Inspire 1 Flight Controller System................................................................................ 72

Exhibit 19: DJI Inspire 1 Smart Battery Manual................................................................................... 72

Exhibit 20: DJI Matrice 100 ................................................................................................................ 72

Exhibit 21: DJI Matrice 100 User Manual............................................................................................ 72

Exhibit 22: DJI Matrice 100 Features.................................................................................................. 72

Exhibit 23: DJI Matrice 100 Specifications.......................................................................................... 72
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 10

Exhibit 24: DJI Matrice 100 Smart Battery Manual ............................................................................. 72

References............................................................................................................................................ 73

Exemption References........................................................................................................................... 74

The Applicant

The Applicant seeking this Exemption is Jesse Harding, headquartered at; 

PO Box 357

Republic, WA

The applicant for this Petition for Exemption is Mr. Jesse Harding. As a freelance UAV operator, Mr. 

Harding is focused on providing aerial shots to a variety of clients. His main focus is on cinematography 

for film and television, but he will also be providing UAV services to a variety of industries, which will be 

highlighted in more detail below. 

Furthermore, Mr. Harding will hold a sport pilots license by February 20th, 2016 after completing an 

accelerated Sport Pilot Certification Program in Orlando, Florida. With this certification, Mr. Harding will 

be in compliance with the FAA Pilot Licensing rule relating to Pilot In Command duties for commercial 

UAV Flights. Additionally, Mr. Harding will also be registering all his UAV Aircraft for commercial use 

prior to any commercial flights. Finally, Mr. Harding will follow a strict safety and setup protocol before, 

during, and after every flight in order to remain in compliance with current FAA UAV rules and 

regulations. In particular, Mr. Harding will digitally log all of his flights and save pertinent flight data, 

including; flight time, flight path, altitude, speed, and more.

Commitment to Safety

A commitment to safety is key to any successful business. Mr. Harding is committed to operating within 

the National Airspace System safely and legally. It is for this reason that he has filed this Petition for 

Exemption in an effort to make his actions known and to be sure he is operating within the rules and 

regulations set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration. Mr. Harding is an experienced hobby-UAV 

pilot having accumulated many hours flying DJI Flight Platforms. Furthermore, in an effort to ensure the 

safety of his hobby-flights, Mr. Harding always adheres to the FAA's "Safety Checklist" before each flight.

Additionally, Mr. Harding's intent on completing his Sport Pilot Certificate prior to obtaining his 

exemption and providing commercial services, shows his commitment to safety. A certified pilot is not 

only required by current FAA rules but also provides for a heightened level of safety for the National 

Airspace because a pilot will have completed significant training in the NAS and be familiar with all 

Federal Aviation Rules. Plus, in addition to the Petitioner’s committment to becoming a certified pilot, 

he will also be following the conditions set forth within the Conditions of the Exemption Section below, 

which will provide an equivalent, if not superior, level of safety as is provided by current FAA rules.
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 11

Experience and Expertise

Mr. Harding is an experienced hobbyist-UAV Pilot, having accumulated flight hours on various DJI 

Platforms. As a hobbyist-pilot Mr. Harding has flown in a variety of landscapes and environments, 

allowing him to gain experience in various flight situations. Furthermore, relating to the actual 

industries for which Mr. Harding is hoping to provide services, Mr. Harding has experience working on 

film and television production sets. This experience has allowed him to develop an understanding of the 

regular operating procedures in this industry.

Additionally, Mr. Harding is currently studying for his Sport Pilot Certificate and will be taking an 

accelerated sport pilots course in Orlando, FL which will allow him to gain his certificate prior to the 

decision on this Exemption Petition.

Privacy

Privacy is important in any business, but especially one in which imagery is captured. For this reason, 

Mr. Harding will use commonly accepted practices in order to secure imagery. A few of the practices he 

will put into action include; obtaining proper permissions and consent, notifying authorities of any 

pending flights that may cause call-ins, keeping data on a secure computer system, and the like. 

Furthermore, he will also seek what is required by law to remain compliant and secure in terms of 

data/imagery privacy.

Publishable Summary

DMZ Marketing, LLC. files this petition for exemption on behalf of Jesse Harding, a Freelance UAV 

operator focused on providing aerial shots to a variety of clients from various industries, including; 

Aerial Cinematography for film and television, Real Estate, Agriculture, Search and Rescue, and many 

more. Jesse Harding is seeking exemption from certain parameters of 14 C.F.R. in order to commercially 

operate sUAS within the United States in the following industries; Agriculture, Cinematography, 

Environmental Protection, Fire, Infrastructure, Insurance, Land Inspection, Law Enforcement, Real 

Estate, and Search and Rescue.

Specifically, Jesse Harding requests exemption from the following Federal Aviation Administration rules;

1. 14 C.F.R 21(h): Airworthiness Certificates

2. 14 C.F.R. 27: Airworthiness Standards - Normal Category Rotorcraft

3. 14 C.F.R. 43.7: Authorized Maintenance/Repair/Alteration Personnel

4. 14 C.F.R. 43.11: Dispositions of Records for Inspections

5. 14 C.F.R. 45.11: Making of Products

6. 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b): Display of Marks; General

7. 14 C.F.R. 45.27: Marking of the Aircraft – Rotorcraft

8. 14 C.F.R. 45.29: Size of Marks
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 12

9. 14 CFR 61.3: Requirement for Certificates, Ratings, and Authorizations

10. 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c): Medical Certificates – Requirements and Duration

11. 14 CFR 61.101(e) (4) and (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations

12. 14 CFR 61.113(a) & (b): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations – Pilot In Command

13. 14 C.F.R. 61.315(a): Privileges and Limits of Sport Pilot’s License

14. 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

15. 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual

16. 14 C.F.R. 91.9(c): Civil Aircraft Marking, Placards 

17. 14 C.F.R. 91.103: Preflight Action

18. 14 C.F.R. 91.105: Flight Crewmembers at Stations

19. 14 C.F.R. 91.109: Flight Instruction

20. 14 C.F.R. 91.113(b): Right-of-Way Rules 

21. 14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes

22. 14 C.F.R. 91.121: Altimeter Settings

23. 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for VFR Flight Conditions

24. 14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) and (b): Civil Aircraft – Certifications Required 

25. 14 C.F.R. 215: ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use

26. 14 C.F.R. 91.403: General

27. 14 C.F.R. 91.405(a): Maintenance Required

28. 14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1): Operation after Maintenance or Alteration

29. 14 C.F.R. 409(a)(1) and (2): Inspections

30. 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance Records

The approval of this Petition for Exemption would allow for the commercial operation of small 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems by Jesse Harding. These commercial operations would strictly adhere to all 

Federal Aviation Administration rules and regulations not stated herein as rules requested for 

exemption. The commercial operations flown by Jesse Harding, if this Petition were granted, would be 

flown utilizing one of the following aircraft platforms; the DJI Phantom 3 Professional, DJI Inspire 1, and 

DJI Matrice 100. Specifically, the commercial operations utilizing these unmanned aircraft would center

around the following industry applications; Agriculture, Cinematography, Environmental Protection, 

Fire, Infrastructure, Insurance, Land Inspection, Law Enforcement, Real Estate, and Search and Rescue.

Additionally, all the industry applications highlighted above would include one or more of the unmanned 

aircraft noted above flying no more than 400 feet Above Ground Level (“AGL”) or in airspace otherwise 

specified in a granted Certificate of Authorization (“COA”). 

Furthermore, this Petition for Exemption should be granted to Jesse Harding because the operation of the 

listed sUAS above will provide for commercial operations while maintaining an equivalent level of safety 

as would be provided by the above-listed rules. Additionally, as will be highlighted below, the small 

Unmanned Aircraft utilized by Jesse Harding will provide methods of aerial data collection far safer than 

the alternative of manned aircraft collection of the same data sets. Low altitude data-collection flights, in 

close proximity to people and property, are far safer when accomplished using a battery-powered sUAS 

weighing less than 10 lbs., than with a combustion-engine-powered, multi-thousand-pound, manned 

aircraft, with flammable fuel onboard. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 13

Considering the seven factors highlighted by the FAA as parameters for successful Section 333 Exemption 

Petitions, including; Size, Weight, Speed, Operational Capability, Proximity to Airports, Proximity to 

Populated Areas, and Operations within Visual Line of Sight,

6

this Petition supports the Petitioner’s 

request for exemption relating to each operational and aircraft-specific parameter. Specifically, the 

aircraft utilized by Jesse Harding are in the small-size category, they are below the 55 lbs. weight class, 

they travel at less than 100 mph, they are proven flight platforms based on previously granted petitions, 

all operations will be conducted at least 5 miles from an airport and over unpopulated areas (unless 

otherwise granted permission by the FAA in a granted Certificate of Authorization), and all flights will be 

conducted within Visual Line of Sight. 

In addition, the data collection flights provided by the sUAS highlighted in this Petition will promote safer 

operations for professional service providers in the aforementioned industries. 

Petitioner’s Contact Information

Petitioner: 

Jesse Harding

PO Box 357

Republic, WA

509-207-9207

jesseharding31@gmail.com

Document Preparer:

DMZ Marketing, LLC.

1501 Parkview Court

Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 USA

Contact: Zach Fiene

Phone: 608-370-2858

Email: dmzaerial@gmail.com

Website: www.dmzaerial.com

Proposed sUAS Operations

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

This Petition for Exemption under Section 333 will permit the Petitioner to operate the DJI Phantom 3 

Professional, DJI Inspire 1, and DJI Matrice 100. Further operating characteristics, specifications, and 

other important craft-specific information on the DJI Phantom 3 Professional, DJI Inspire 1, and DJI 

Matrice 100 are covered in detail starting with Exhibit 5. Each of these documents are publically 

circulated and have been previously vetted by the FAA in previously granted Petitions for Exemption 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 14

under Section 333. In the aircraft summaries below, please see the references to previously granted 

petitions for the use of each specific aircraft type in commercial operations within the United States. 

DJI Phantom 3 Professional

The requested exemption will permit the Petitioner the right to use the DJI Phantom 3 Professional 

Quadcopter for commercial use within the United States of America and under the strict adherence of 

FAA Guidelines, ATO-Issued COA’s, and the like. The DJI Phantom 3 Professional has a weight of 1280 

grams including propellers and batteries. Furthermore, this quadcopter is capable of a max flight speed 

of 16 meters per second and has the following abilities; 

 Vertical Take-Off

 Vertical Landing

 Hover-Hold Position

 Simultaneous Vertical & Horizontal Movement

 Maximum Flight Speed Abilities in every lateral direction

For easy reviewing, please see the Phantom 3 Professional-Specific Exhibits below for more information 

on the DJI Phantom 3 Professional craft, its specifications, abilities, and more. Additionally, please 

consider the FAA’s previous review of these exhibits and granting of Petitions using these supporting 

documents for the commercial use of the DJI Phantom 3 Professional in the following listed Exemption;

 Jeffery Greer – Berkshire Hathaway Home Services – Exemption Number 11587/11587A

DJI Inspire 1

The requested exemption will permit the Petitioner the right to use the DJI Inspire 1 Quadcopter for 

commercial use within the United States of America and under the strict adherence of FAA Guidelines, 

ATO-Issued COA’s, and the like. The DJI Inspire 1 has a weight of 2935 grams including the battery 

payload. Furthermore, this quadcopter is capable of a max flight speed of 22 meters per second and has 

the following abilities; 

 Vertical Take-Off

 Vertical Landing

 Hover-Hold Position

 Simultaneous Vertical & Horizontal Movement

 Maximum Flight Speed Abilities in every lateral direction

For easy reviewing, please see the Inspire-Specific Exhibits below for more information on the DJI Inspire 

1 craft, its specifications, abilities, and more. Additionally, please consider the FAA’s previous review of 

these exhibits and granting of Petitions using these supporting documents for the commercial use of the 

DJI Inspire 1 in the following listed Exemptions;

 Jeffery Greer – Berkshire Hathaway Home Services – Exemption Number 11587/11587A
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 15

 Phillip Stiles – GPS Development, LLC dba SkyViewHD – Exemption Number 11399/11399A

DJI Matrice 100

The requested exemption will permit the Petitioner the right to use the DJI Matrice 100 Quadcopter for 

commercial use within the United States of America and under the strict adherence of FAA Guidelines, 

ATO-Issued COA’s, and the like. The DJI Matrice 100 has a maximum take-off weight of 3400 grams 

including technical payloads and batteries. Furthermore, this quadcopter is capable of a max flight 

speed of 22 meters per second and has the following abilities; 

 Vertical Take-Off

 Vertical Landing

 Hover-Hold Position

 Simultaneous Vertical & Horizontal Movement

 Maximum Flight Speed Abilities in every lateral direction

For easy reviewing, please see Matrice 100-Specific Exhibits below for more information on the DJI 

Matrice 100 craft, its specifications, abilities, and more. Additionally, please consider the FAA’s previous 

review of these exhibits and granting of Petitions using these supporting documents for the commercial 

use of the DJI Matrice 100 in the following listed Exemption;

 Dan Pham – Alert5 International, LLC. – Exemption Number 11814

Unmanned Flight Crew

The unmanned flight crew operating Jesse Harding flight crafts for purposes of commercial operations 

within the United States under this proposed Exemption will consist of a Pilot In Command (“PIC”) and a 

Visual Observer (“VO”). 

Adhering to current FAA guidelines and precedent established in previously granted Section 333 

Exemptions, the PIC will have, at minimum, a Recreational or Sport Pilot’s License and a Third Class 

Medical Certificate or a valid U.S. Driver’s License.

7

 Additionally, both the PIC and VO will be trained in 

the operation of sUAS prior to commercial operations. Furthermore, any new information surrounding 

the aircraft’s efficient, effective, or safe operations, will be disseminated by Jesse Harding to both the 

PIC and VO to ensure continued safe flights.

On top of the general sUAS training, the PIC will also have completed, at a minimum, 25 hours of sUAS 

flight training with the specific sUAS craft they are using for their commercial operation and will be 

required to receive annual continued education and training moving forward. A specific PIC Training 

Presentation is contained in the exhibits below and will accompany this Petition for Exemption.

The Visual Observer will also have completed specific training relating to their duties during an 

unmanned flight. The training procedures that will be used to educate VO’s are contained in Exhibits 1 

& 3 below. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 16

Unmanned Flight Conditions

As has been described above, the sUAS use proposed by the Petitioner in this Petition for Exemption 

under Section 333 revolves around the following industries; Agriculture, Cinematography, 

Environmental Protection, Fire, Infrastructure, Insurance, Land Inspection, Law Enforcement, Real 

Estate, and Search and Rescue. Each of these industry applications will be described in further detail 

below under the “Unmanned Flight Operations” Title. 

Moving on from the specific use cases, it should also be noted that all commercial sUAS flights proposed 

in this Petition for Exemption will be conducted below 400 feet AGL or as otherwise permitted in a 

granted Certificate of Authorization. Furthermore, all flights will be conducted within Visual Line of 

Sight, as is currently advised by the Federal Aviation Administration and Academy of Model 

Aeronautics.

6

 Additionally, the PIC will only operate the Petitioner’s sUAS if weather conditions permit 

safe operations. The judgement of “Safe Weather Conditions” will be determined based on several 

standing classifications developed by the Federal Aviation Administration. These include operations 

being conducted under the Visual Meteorological Conditions (“VMC”) rules. 

As stated previously in this Petition, Jesse Harding will strictly adhere to the FAA’s Visual Flight Rules, 

and obviously, to be following Visual Flight Rules, Jesse Harding will have to first satisfy the Visual 

Meteorological Conditions associated with VFR flights. In particular, the Petitioner will be cognizant of 

the boundary between Visual Meteorological Conditions, which allow for Visual Flight Rules, and 

Instrument Meteorological Conditions, which require Instrument use. Specifically, Jesse Harding will be 

considering the VMC Minima pertaining to Visibility, Cloud Ceilings, and Cloud Clearances associated 

with airspace below 400 feet AGL, where the Petitioner’s sUAS will be flying. Thus, the Petitioner will 

only operate when visibility is at least 3 statute miles from the PIC and at a minimum of 500 feet below 

and 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud.

8

In addition to the particular flight conditions stated above, it should also be noted that the flight crew 

will always make an assessment of the current situation for each, specific flight. This assessment will 

conclude with a determination of the relative safety of the flight and any risks or hazards that may be 

present. If this assessment finds that the flight will be too dangerous or that there are too many hazards 

or risks associated with the flight, the flight crew will not take off. Furthermore, in order to maintain the 

safety of the general public, flight operations utilizing the Petitioner’s sUAS will only take place after 

permission is granted to the Petitioner by the landowner, property owner, or other controlling 

representative. All current FAA regulations not covered within this petition will be followed as well as all 

local and state rules surrounding flights near or around people. Additional information on the 

parameters dictating flights near people can be found below in the “Proposed Conditions of the 

Exemption.”

Unmanned Flight Operations

When conducting commercial flight operations under the proposed applications in this Petition for 

Exemption, a commitment to safety will always be paramount. Additionally, with the goal of each flight 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 17

to accurately collect valuable aerial data in an efficient manner, it will be vital for all flights to be safe for 

several reasons, including;

 The safety of the Jesse Harding Flight Crew will be necessary for continued flights.

 The safety of the general public will be necessary for continued operations.

 The safety of the aircraft will be necessary for continued commercial endeavors.

Furthermore, in an effort to supply the Agriculture, Cinematography, Environmental Protection, Fire, 

Infrastructure, Insurance, Land Inspection, Law Enforcement, Real Estate, and Search and Rescue

industries with valuable data, it will be imperative for all Jesse Harding flights to be conducted in a safe 

and professional manner so as to not risk the safety of the flight crew, general public, or aircraft as well 

as to avoid damaging people or property operating in the National Airspace System or on the ground 

below. 

To ensure the safe and professional execution of each sUAS flight, all flights will be conducted utilizing at 

least a two-person flight crew. This flight crew will consist of an adequately-trained (“Unmanned Flight 

Crew”) PIC and VO. For specifics pertaining to the standard operating procedures utilized by the 

Petitioner under the proposed Petition for Exemption and for more details on training, please see 

Exhibits 1-4. 

Aircraft and Equivalent Level of Safety

As is stated in the FAA’s Section 333 Exemption Guidelines, Petitioners for Exemption must show that 

their proposed commercial, sUAS operations provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by 

the rule from which the Petitioner seeks an exemption.

6

 As will be highlighted below, the request for 

this Exemption by the Petitioner is fortified by its commitment to safety. Furthermore, the operation of 

sUAS by the Petitioner, using the previously stated flight crafts and operating within the above-stated 

use-cases under the rules, regulations, and limitations stated herein, should be permitted under the 

proposed exemption. Reasoning for this can be derived from the strict adherence to existing regulations 

from the Federal Aviation Administration as well as the adoption of the following conditions; each 

providing at least an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the existing rule.

National Security

 

In addition to the arguments supporting the Petitioner’s exemption from certain rules contained in 14 

C.F.R., it is also important to note that the granting of this petition and in turn, permission for the 

Petitioner to conduct commercial sUAS flights, will not present a national security threat. As has been 

stated in this Petition, and, as is precedent from the Federal Aviation Administration, the PIC of a sUAS

must hold, at minimum, a Recreational or Sport Pilot’s Certificate, meaning he or she has already been 

subject to a security screening by the Department of Homeland Security.9 

This provision, relating to the acquisition of a Recreational or Sport Pilot’s Certificate, points to checks 

already provided by the FAA and Department of Homeland Security in ensuring secure aircraft 

operations. As is stated by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the Transportation Security 

Administration (“TSA”) must assess information in order to identify individuals that may pose a threat to 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 18

transportation security and coordinate countermeasures with other Federal Agencies such as the FAA. 

Therefore, due to the fact it is a requirement for all PICs to be at least Recreational or Sport Pilot 

Certified, it can be assumed that adequate security checks by the TSA and FAA have taken place prior to 

a sUAS Pilot conducting commercial operations. 

Proposed Conditions of the Exemption

As is noted by the Federal Aviation Administration in their, “Section 333 Petition Guidance & Checklist”3

form, Section 333 Exemption Petitioners are strongly advised to, “Carefully review the Conditions and 

Limitations Section in the most recently granted exemptions.”

3

 Due to this, the following Conditions of 

the proposed Exemption closely follow this guidance and mirror many of the same conditions previously 

noted by other exemption petitioners. The following list will highlight these conditions and establish a 

framework from which the petitioner, Jesse Harding, will conduct their commercial sUAS operations 

under a granted petition for exemption. 

1. Proposed operations using small Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the United States under the 

granted form of this Petition for Exemption will be limited to the following aircraft, which all 

weigh less than 55 pounds including batteries and operational/technical payloads; DJI Phantom 

3 Professional, DJI Inspire 1, and DJI Matrice 100.

Furthermore, any aircraft outside of this comprehensive list for this Petition for Exemption will 

have to be added to an amended version of this petition or a new Petition for Exemption must 

be filed with the new flight platform(s).

2. The proposed use-cases/applications contained within this Petition for Exemption under Section 

333 are as follows; Agriculture, Cinematography, Environmental Protection, Fire, Infrastructure, 

Insurance, Land Inspection, Law Enforcement, Real Estate, and Search and Rescue.

All of these flights will take place below 400 feet AGL nationwide unless otherwise advised in an 

ATO-issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization. 

3. All flights conducted by Jesse Harding will be below 400 feet AGL, operated within Visual Line of 

Sight, and have a live, GPS-based, read-out of altitude during the flight. Furthermore, each flight 

will begin with a “Zero Altitude” start point, thus creating an accurate AGL calculation. 

4. All flights conducted by the Petitioner will be controlled by a trained flight crew consisting of a 

licensed (at minimum Recreational or Sport Pilot’s Certificate) PIC with a Medical Certificate or 

equivalent valid U.S.A. Driver’s license and a trained Visual Observer.

5. All flights conducted by the Petitioner will include aircraft that are flying below the 87 knot (100 

mph) airspeed maximum, highlighted by the FAA in their guidelines. 

6. All flights conducted by Jesse Harding will be conducted within Visual Line of Sight, during 

daytime flying hours, and adhere to Visual Flight Rules under the Visual Meteorological 

Conditions associated with 400 foot AGL airspace. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 19

7. The Petitioner will not allow any PIC to operate a sUAS unless the PIC meets the qualification 

standards set by the Federal Aviation Administration (i.e. Minimum - Sport Pilot’s Certificate and 

Medical or U.S.A. Driver’s License) and by the safety guidelines and operational capabilities 

relating to safe sUAS operations, such as;

a. Evasive Maneuvers

b. Emergency Actions

c. Fail-Safe Knowledge

d. Flight Skills

i. Maintaining adequate distances from;

1. People

2. Property

3. Structures

4. Etc.

8. PIC qualification flight hours will be logged in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. 61.51(b). 

Additionally, a record of the PIC training will be documented and made available upon request 

by the Administrator. 

9. Training operations will only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During training, 

all persons not essential for flight operations will be deemed nonparticipants, and thus, the PIC 

will operate the aircraft with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 

C.F.R. 91.119. 

10. As highlighted by the FAA, the Visual Observer’s duty is to visually observe the relevant airspace 

for aircraft, hazards, obstacles, structures, or the like. For this reason, the VO will not be 

allowed to operate the camera or other instruments on the sUAS during flight operations. 

Instead, a third person will have to serve as a camera operator if the flight crew seeks a 

dedicated pilot and dedicated camera operator. 

11. The PIC, for the duration of an unmanned flight, will be named prior to the flight. Due to this, 

once the PIC is named and a flight is begun, the PIC will not be able to transfer his/her 

designation as the PIC through the duration of the flight. Furthermore, the PIC is the Captain of 

the flight crew and will ensure that the Visual Observer is qualified to hold the VO position for 

the duration of the flight. 

12. Each commercial sUAS flight performed by Jesse Harding will be planned for ahead of the flight 

date. This will be to ensure adequate time for all participants to prepare and to obtain all the 

necessary permissions (landowners, homeowners, property owners, etc.) if any are needed. All 

flights will be preceded by a meeting at least one day before the flight at which all participants 

of the flight will be present. This is to ensure adequate knowledge and preparedness prior to 

the sUAS flight. 

13. Aircraft maintenance is obviously vital for any commercial sUAS operation. It ensures safety and 

is necessary prior to each flight to maintain safe, efficient, and effective flight operations. Once 

again, the PIC, as the captain of the flight crew, will take a leading role in inspecting the aircraft 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 20

prior to flight. The PIC will likely have the most experience of anyone on the flight crew and will 

be in tune with the specific maintenance needs of each specific flight craft. If the PIC were to 

find an error in the flight craft or any of the associated systems, including the Ground Control 

System for example, he/she would ground the flight until adequate maintenance is completed 

and the aircraft is once again safe to fly. All maintenance on flight crafts utilized by the 

Petitioner will be noted and logged to ensure the safety of all aircraft and the people operating 

them. 

14. Relating to the above Condition, anytime a flight-critical component is replaced or anytime 

there is mission-critical maintenance on the craft, the PIC will conduct a flight test of the system 

before completing the intended, commercial mission. Once again this flight test will be logged 

by the PIC. 

15. Routine maintenance and inspections of the sUAS will be logged by the PIC in accordance with 

the requirements and suggestions laid out by the aircraft manufacturer in terms of aircraft 

component maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limits, which are part of 

the supporting documents for each aircraft below in the aircraft-specific exhibits. The logging of 

these maintenance/inspection checks will be included in the aircraft records and include the 

total time of service and description of work. 

16. All sUAS flights will be conducted within Visual Line of Sight (“VLOS”) of both the PIC and VO at 

all times. Furthermore, VLOS means visual observance unaided by any device other than 

corrective lenses such as eye glasses or contacts. The use of telescopes, FPV systems (for 

purposes of VLOS flights), binoculars, and the like will not be permitted. Also, both the PIC and 

VO should be in constant, verbal communication range. The use of other devices to 

communicate out of verbal range are not permitted. These devices would include, cell phones, 

text messaging, walky-talkies, and the like. 

17. No commercial flight missions will be executed unless it can be determined that the flight crew 

can complete their mission from take-off through landing, with a reserve of 25% battery life. 

The Petitioner’s newest flight crafts have adaptive battery monitors and, for this reason, this 

condition will be an automated process as the Petitioner can set the default Advisory and 

Critical Battery warnings to 35% and 30% respectively, which will warn the PIC of the depleted 

battery and engage him/her to fly home and land with 25% remaining power. For all Jesse 

Harding systems without this automated feature, a watch will be used to monitor flight times to 

ensure a safe return home with adequate battery power. However, due to the revolving

adoption of the newest flight platforms and the current stock of new generation flight crafts, the 

overwhelming majority of sUAS flights after the granting of this exemption will utilize a Smart 

Battery System. 

18. In the case of an unexpected obstacle or in-flight issue, each sUAS the Petitioner operates will 

have the ability to abort a mission and take corrective actions. 

19. The sUAS utilized by Jesse Harding will be programmed so that if the sUAS loses signal with the 

PIC or Ground Control Station during flight, the system will return to a preprogrammed GPS 

location located within the operating area containing the flight crew. Furthermore, this failsafe 

can also be used in controlled situations, meaning the failsafe will be able to be engaged should 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 21

something happen on the ground that disallows the PIC from bringing the sUAS back in a normal 

fashion. Additionally, in both situations described above, where the failsafe is either a 

controlled action from the pilot or an uncontrolled situation, like radio-link signal loss, the unit 

will not only fly back to its preprogrammed home point, it also has the ability to land itself. This 

allows safe operations of the aircraft even in troublesome situations, such as signal loss, and 

prevents the unit from flying off uncontrollably or landing in an unknown location. 

20. The operating documents required under 14 C.F.R. 91.9 and 91.203 will be maintained and 

available to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the aircraft anytime the sUAS is operating. 

Furthermore, these documents will be available for review by the Administrator or other law 

enforcement officials upon request and are additionally contained in Exhibit 1, with appropriate 

links to the specific flight manuals of each flight craft requested in this Petition for Exemption. 

21. It is always important to specify precedent when determining operating practices. For this 

reason, if a discrepancy exists between the conditions laid out in this Petition for Exemption and 

the actual Granted Exemption, the conditions laid out in the finalized Granted Exemption will 

take precedent over the conditions laid out in this Petition. Furthermore, if there are no 

discrepancies between the Petition and Grant of Exemption, the Petitioner will follow the 

procedures outlined in the Operating Documentation below. Additionally, if any changes are 

made to the Operating Procedures and Documentation contained in this Petition for Exemption, 

the Petitioner will present the updated documents upon request from the Administrator. Also, 

should the Petitioner determine that an update or change to the procedures or documentation 

would affect the basis of the approved version of this Petition for Exemption, the Petitioner will 

either file for an amendment to the existing Exemption or create a new Petition with the 

revisions. 

22. As has been noted, the Petitioner will obtain written and/or oral permission from the 

landowners, farmers, property owners, or otherwise authorized agents for flights above their 

property. 

23. The Petitioner will also obtain all required permissions and permits from territorial, state, 

county or city jurisdictions, including;

a. Law Enforcement

b. Fire Departments

c. Municipal Agencies, or;

d. Other Appropriate Governmental Bodies 

24. The Petitioner will not conduct operations at night. Furthermore, all operations will be 

conducted under Visual Meteorological Conditions (“VMC”).

25. The Petitioner is aware of the need to obtain an Air Traffic Organization (“ATO”) issued 

Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (“COA”) prior to conducting operations under the grant of 

exemption. The Petitioner intends to fly under the Blanket COA provided by the FAA in March 

of 2015 for flights below 200 feet to all Section 333 Exemption holders or under a future ATOissued COA that will be applied for by the Petitioner after receiving their Section 333 Exemption. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 22

26. All sUAS flights conducted by the Petitioner will be done so in accordance with airspace 

requirements established by the FAA and/or an ATO-issued COA, including;

a. Class of Airspace

b. Altitude Level, and potential;

c. Transponder Requirements

27. As has been stated, the sUAS will not be operated within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference 

point as noted on a current FAA-published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with 

that airport’s Air Traffic Control is obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with 

a NOTAM as required by the Operator’s COA. 

28. As stated previously, the Petitioner will follow VMC guidelines for VFR flights and as such, will fly 

only when there is visibility equal to, or in excess of, 3 statute miles from the PIC, while 

maintaining an adequate distance of no less than 500 feet below, or less than 2,000 feet 

horizontally from a cloud.

29. All operations by the Petitioner will be conducted below 400 feet AGL, nationwide or as 

otherwise advised in an ATO-issued COA. 

30. All sUAS craft flown by the Petitioner will be marked and identifiable by a serial number which 

will be as large as practicable given the relatively small size of the aircraft. The FAA has 

previously stated that so long as the markings are as large as practicable given the size of a 

sUAS, an equivalent level of safety can be achieved. 

31. All aircraft utilized by the Petitioner operate via radio frequency, which is governed by the 

Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). For this reason, prior to commercial operations 

under a granted Section 333 Exemption, the Petitioner will ensure the radio frequency spectrum 

used to operate and control its sUAS complies with FCC or other appropriate government 

oversight agency rules and regulations. 

32. As is stated in the FAA guidelines, a sUAS is required to yield the right of way to all manned 

aircraft and aviation operations at all times. This rule will be strictly followed by the Petitioner. 

33. The concentration of a PIC is necessary for safe operations. It is for this reason that the 

Petitioner will not allow any sUAS operations while a PIC is in a moving device or vehicle. These 

vehicles would include things like;

a. Cars/Trucks/SUVs

b. Boats

c. Tractors

d. ATVs

34. All sUAS operations by the Petitioner will be conducted at least 500 feet from all 

nonparticipating people, vessels, vehicles, and structures, unless the following conditions apply;
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 23

a. Protective barriers are present that adequately protect nonparticipants from flying 

shrapnel or debris should there be an accident. Furthermore, should a nonparticipant 

leave this safe-zone, the PIC will end the flight. 

b. The Petitioner has been granted permission to operate near a vessel, vehicle, or 

structure by the owner/controller of these properties. In addition to permission, the PIC 

will also have to perform a risk assessment of the situation and potential obstacles/flight 

hazards and determine the safety of the flight. If it is determined that the hazards 

present no risk, the PIC can start the mission. 

35. The Petitioner will log and report to the UAS Integration Office within 24 hours of any incident, 

accident, or flight operation that occurred outside the horizontal and vertical boundaries of the 

operational area as defined by the COA under which the flight was operating. Furthermore, the 

Petitioner will report accidents to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

36. The Petitioner will provide additional flight training to PICs that may be towing objects in the 

event of an exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c) (18). In the event that the Petitioner is exempt, 

each PIC that is designated as being a potential candidate for flying a sUAS while towing an 

object will be required to undergo additional training, on top of their required training and 

certifications, that will consist of 10 hours of training flights while towing objects. These objects 

will be dummy banners that weigh no more than the max weight allowable to satisfy the max 

takeoff weight specifications as highlighted by the manufacturer for each flight craft. 

Furthermore, the 10 hours of training will be required for each aircraft type, thus giving the PIC 

adequate training time and experience while towing objects with specific flight crafts. This will 

be necessary to familiarize each PIC with each specific flight craft in order to learn how specific 

flight craft respond to towing objects, particularly with regard to downwash and wind. 

Additionally, of the 10 total flight hours required for training on towing objects, 5 of these hours 

must be in the max wind tolerances as specified by the manufacturer for each flight craft. 

Training in these conditions will hone the skills of each PIC and allow them to operate in the 

worst case scenario for towing objects, which is high wind. When conducting actual commercial 

flights while towing objects, the Petitioner will not conduct flights in conditions where sustained 

winds are more than 75% of the maximum wind tolerance of the aircraft or when there are wind 

gusts in excess of 75% of the maximum wind tolerance as specified by the manufacturer for 

each aircraft. 

Exemptions Requested & Applicable Conditions/Reasoning

14 C.F.R 21(h): Airworthiness Certificates

Subpart (h) of Part 21 from the Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, Chapter 1, prescribes procedural 

requirements for the issuance of Airworthiness Certificates. Proposed Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 24, 27, 

28, and 33 are all applicable to this particular Regulation and the FAA has found in favor of exempting 

previous Petitions #11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, and 11067 for this portion of 14 C.F.R. 

Furthermore, it is the belief of the Petitioner that a sUAS operating without an Airworthiness Certificate 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 24

but within the conditions stated above would provide an equivalent level of safety to an aircraft 

operating with an airworthiness certificate not subject to the above conditions or limitations.

Additionally, all the sUAS proposed within this Petition for Exemption are small, weigh less than 7.5 lbs, 

have a flight speed of less than 100 mph, carry no pilots or passengers, carry no flammable fuel, are 

electric-powered, are operated below 400 feet, are operated at least 5 miles from an airport, and are 

flown within unaided, visual line of sight of a trained and licensed Pilot In Command. Plus, with built-in 

fail-safes that include GPS Guidance technologies, Return to Home Features for lost signal and low 

battery emergencies, and for the ability to regain radio connection with the craft after a fail-safe is 

engaged, it is clear the proposed aircraft have safety features equivalent to and superior to conventional 

aircraft that hold airworthiness certificates. For these reasons it is the belief of the Petitioner that they 

be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 21(h). 

14 C.F.R. 27: Airworthiness Standards - Normal Category Rotorcraft

Title 14, Part 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations creates the procedural requirements for 

airworthiness certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft. Due to the fact that the proposed aircraft 

contained within this Petition for Exemption are multi-rotor aircraft, the Petitioner seeks exemption 

from 14 C.F.R 27 for the same reasons stated in the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 21(h).

14 C.F.R. 43.7: Authorized Maintenance/Repair/Alteration Personnel

Title 14, Part 43, Section 43.7 of the Code of Federal Regulations regulates personnel authorized to 

approve aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts for return to 

service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration. Proposed conditions 13 

and 14 are applicable to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemption 

#11208 pertaining to this rule. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Petitioner that the stated rule would 

create a burden as the Petitioner would have to find a regularly authorized conventional mechanic or 

otherwise licensed personnel to sign off on an unconventional flight craft’s maintenance. More clearly, 

it would be difficult to find a mechanic that specializes in Cessna Repair that is also an expert in small 

radio-controlled multi-rotors. 

Additionally, it is likely that the operator of the sUAS (the PIC) would be more knowledgeable on the 

interworking’s of their sUAS than a regular mechanic as they likely have past RC flying experience. 

Particularly, the PICs working for the Petitioner will always have at least 25 hours of RC craft experience, 

in which time they will likely have to repair a prop for example. Due to the relative ease of replacing 

props on a multirotor (screw the broken one off and replace with a new one) it is not necessary for a 

certified or authorized individual to sign off on the repair. Instead, the repair can easily be done by 

authorized personnel working for the Petitioner so long as the conditions and procedures stated above, 

are followed. For these reasons it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 43.7. 

 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 25

14 C.F.R. 43.11: Dispositions of Records for Inspections

Title 14, Part 43, Section 43.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations pertains to the disposition of Records 

for Inspections. Proposed condition number 13 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has 

found in favor of previous Exemption #11208 which contained this rule. For the reasons stated in 

Condition 13 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they 

be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 43.11.

14 C.F.R. 45.11: Making of Products

Title 14, Part 45, Section 45.11 of the Code of Federal Regulations pertains to the manufacturing of 

aircraft and major aircraft components, including, but not limited, aircraft bodies, aircraft engines, and 

aircraft propellers. This particular rule requires various procedures for marking each component with 

fireproof markings and, in a manner acceptable to the Federal Aviation Administration, for purposes of 

identification. Proposed Condition for Exemption #30 above, pertains to this particular regulation and 

the FAA has ruled on it in previous Exemption #11208. For the reasons stated in Condition #30 

(“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt 

from 14 C.F.R. 45.11. 

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b): Display of Marks; General

Title 14, Part 45, Section 45.23(b) of the Code of Federal Regulations states 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.”

In a previous grant of exemption (Exemption #11062) it was determined by the FAA that the exemption 

of sUAS operators from this provision was warranted so long as the aircraft, “have identification (NNumber) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R. 45 (c) if the markings are as large as practicable.” As is 

stated in Proposed Condition #30 above, the Petitioner will mark their aircraft with markings as large as 

practicable and therefore should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b). 

14 C.F.R. 45.27: Marking of the Aircraft – Rotorcraft

According to Title 14, Part 45, Section 45.27, of the Code of Federal Regulations, the operator of a 

rotorcraft;
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 26

 Must display on that rotorcraft horizontally on both surfaces of the cabin, fuselage, boom, 

or tail, the marks required by 14 C.F.R. 45.23.

For the same reasons stated in the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 45.23, the Petitioner believes it 

should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 45.27. More clearly, due to Condition #30 above, which states that the 

Petitioner will mark their aircraft with markings as large as practicable, the Petitioner respectfully asks 

for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 45.27. 

14 C.F.R. 45.29: Size of Marks

According to Title 14, Part 45, Section 45.29, of the Code of Federal Regulations, the operator of an 

aircraft;

 Must display on markings on the aircraft meeting the size requirements of this section

 2-12 inches high depending on the aircraft type

 Width 2/3s wide as the characters are high

 1/6th as thick as the characters are high

 Not less than 1/4th the character width

 Uniform

For the same reasons stated in the request for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 45.23, the Petitioner believes it 

should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 45.29. More clearly, due to Condition #30 above, which states that the 

Petitioner will mark their aircraft with markings as large as practicable, the Petitioner respectfully asks 

for exemption from 14 C.F.R. 45.29. 

14 C.F.R. 61.3: Requirement for Certificates, Ratings, and Authorizations

Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.3, of the Code of Federal Regulations pertains to the need for a Private 

Pilot’s license to operate an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. The Petitioner seeks exemption from this rule to 

the extent that this rule requires a sUAS operator to hold a Private Pilot’s License. Clearly, the goal of 

this particular rule is to ensure the skill of any Pilot In Command matches the operating area in which 

they are flying. However, it is the Petitioner’s belief that the measure of a Private Pilot’s License and 

the training that went into it is not necessarily connected to that Pilot’s ability to operate a small 

unmanned aircraft at low altitudes. Particularly, the requirement of a Private License yields potential 

PICs that have been trained in multi-thousand pound, manned aircraft, flying at high altitudes in 

comparison to 7.5 lbs. or less, battery-powered craft, operated at 400 feet AGL or below. For this 

reason, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from this rule as the requirement of a 

Private Pilot’s license is unnecessary. Furthermore, it is stated as such on the FAA website.7

“The FAA also made two other changes to the Section 333 exemption process last week:
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 27

 The agency now allows operations under these exemptions by people who hold a recreational 

or sport pilot certificate. Previously, Section 333 operators were required to have at least a 

private pilot certificate. The newly added certificates are easier to obtain, and therefore less 

costly, than a private pilot certificate.”

The authorization of Recreational and Sport Pilot Certificates as an alternative to a Private License points 

to a Private License as being a non-requirement according to the FAA’s integration office. This further 

evidence shows that the Petitioner should be exempt from the aforementioned regulation. Clearly, the 

Petitioner’s requirement of all PICs (Proposed Condition #4) to hold at least a Recreational or Sport

Pilot’s Certificate yields an authorized level of training according to the FAA’s own website and in turn, 

shows that such a requirement by the Petitioner offers an equivalent level of safety as is provided by 

existing rules. 

Furthermore, Proposed Conditions #4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, among others, show the Petitioner’s commitment 

to safety and arguments for exemption from this rule. 

14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) and (c): Medical Certificates – Requirements and Duration

According to Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.23 (a) & (c), of the Code of Federal Regulations, the operator of 

an aircraft is required to hold a Medical Certificate in various Pilot In Command Situations. As is stated 

in Proposed Condition #4 above, the Pilot in Command will have at least a Sport’s Pilot’s License and at 

least a valid U.S. Driver’s license, which has been ruled by the FAA in previously granted exemptions as a 

suitable alternative to a valid medical certificate for the authorized flights of unmanned systems. 

Furthermore, the FAA has posted on its website this new policy.7 Due to Condition #4 above and the 

current FAA Policy displayed below, the Petitioner believes it should be granted exemption from 14 

C.F.R. 61.23(a) and (c). 

“The FAA also made two other changes to the Section 333 exemption process last week:

 The agency now allows operations under these exemptions by people who hold a recreational or 

sport pilot certificate. Previously, Section 333 operators were required to have at least a private 

pilot certificate. The newly added certificates are easier to obtain, and therefore less costly, than 

a private pilot certificate.

 A third class medical certificate is no longer required. Now, a Section 333 operator only needs a 

valid driver’s license to satisfy the medical requirement. This change is consistent with the 

agency’s approach for sport pilot certificate holders, who may fly light sport aircraft with a 

driver’s license and no FAA medical certificate.”

14 CFR 61.101(e) (4) and (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations

In Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.101(e) (4) & (5), of the Code of Federal Regulations, the FAA states that;
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 28

Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (i) of this section, a recreational pilot may not act as pilot in 

command of an aircraft— for compensation or hire or in furtherance of a business. 

As can be seen on the FAA’s website (https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=82485);

“The FAA also made two other changes to the Section 333 exemption process last week:

 The agency now allows operations under these exemptions by people who hold a recreational 

or sport pilot certificate. Previously, Section 333 operators were required to have at least a 

private pilot certificate. The newly added certificates are easier to obtain, and therefore less 

costly, than a private pilot certificate.”

With the intention of Section 333 Exemptions being the integration of commercial unmanned systems 

into the National Airspace System, it is clear that the allowed pilot certificates now authorized by the 

FAA do not adhere to 14 C.F.R. 61.101 (e) (4) and (5) and thus, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they 

should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 61.101 (e) (4) and (5) because this Petition for Exemption is for the 

expressed purpose of conducting commercial operations of sUAS in an effort to earn compensation 

and/or further the business of the Petitioner. As is stated in Proposed Condition #4 above, it is the 

intention of the Petitioner to provide commercial sUAS flights to customers through the use of a flight 

crew, consisting of a Pilot In Command that holds at least a Recreational or Sport Pilot Certificate. 

Therefore, in all likelihood, many PICs employed by the Petitioner will have these specific Certificates 

and as such, will need to be able to fly for compensation. 

Furthermore, as is stated on the FAA’s own website and as is highlighted below;

“The FAA also made two other changes to the Section 333 exemption process last week:

 The agency now allows operations under these exemptions by people who hold a recreational or 

sport pilot certificate. Previously, Section 333 operators were required to have at least a private 

pilot certificate. The newly added certificates are easier to obtain, and therefore less costly, 

than a private pilot certificate.”

Therefore, it is highly likely that many potential PICs will have these Certificates as they are less costly 

and easier to obtain than a commercial Pilot’s License as an example. For these reasons, it is clear that 

the Petitioner should be granted an exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.101 (e) (4) and (5). 

14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations – Pilot In Command

Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.113 of the Code of Federal Regulations states that; 

Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot 

certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for 

compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an 

aircraft. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 29

Clearly this specific regulation conflicts with the Petitioner’s desire to provide commercial sUAS flights in 

the United States. Furthermore, some of the Petitioner’s PICs will have Private Pilot Licenses and as 

such they will be operating an aircraft (the sUAS) for compensation or hire under the proposed Petition 

for Exemption. 

With the intention of Section 333 Exemptions being the integration of commercial unmanned systems 

into the National Airspace System, it is clear that the allowed pilot certificates now authorized by the 

FAA, including a private pilot’s license, do not adhere to 14 C.F.R. 61.113 and thus, it is the belief of the 

Petitioner that they should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 61.113 because this Petition for Exemption is for 

the expressed purpose of conducting commercial operations of sUAS in an effort to earn compensation 

and/or further the business of the Petitioner. As is stated in Proposed Condition #4 above, it is the 

intention of the Petitioner to provide commercial sUAS flights to customers through the use of a flight 

crew, consisting of a Pilot In Command that holds at least a Recreational or Sport Pilot Certificate (but 

who may also hold a Private License). In addition, the FAA has granted over 800 Section 333 Exemptions 

to businesses and individuals looking to provide commercial/compensation-based sUAS flights. 

Furthermore, looking at 61.113 (b), which states; A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as 

pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: 

 The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and 

 The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. 

The Petitioner seeks exemption from these rules as it is the Petitioner’s goal to fly sUAS missions for 

compensation or hire. Additionally, the specific provision pertaining to not flying aircraft that carry 

property for compensation or hire is something the Petitioner would like to be exempt from as well. 

Various forms of property may be carried on a sUAS, including; Camera Systems, Digital Imagery, 

Sensors, and the like. 

For all these reasons, the Petitioner seeks exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.113 (a) and (b). 

14 C.F.R. 61.315(a)(c): Privileges and Limits of Sport Pilot’s License

In Title 14, Part 61, Section 61.315(a), of the Code of Federal Regulations, the FAA states that;

If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft, except as 

specified in paragraph (c) of this section. Paragraph (c) reads the following;

You may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft:

(1) That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire.

(2) For compensation or hire.
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 30

(3) In furtherance of a business.

(4) While carrying more than one passenger.

(5) At night.

(6) In Class A airspace.

(7) In Class B, C, and D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, and to, from, through, 

or at an airport having an operational control tower unless you have met the requirements specified in 

§61.325.

(8) Outside the United States, unless you have prior authorization from the country in which you seek to 

operate. Your sport pilot certificate carries the limit “Holder does not meet ICAO requirements.”

(9) To demonstrate the aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer if you are an aircraft salesperson.

(10) In a passenger-carrying airlift sponsored by a charitable organization.

(11) At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher.

(12) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles.

(13) Without visual reference to the surface.

(14) If the aircraft:

(i) Has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS, unless you have met the requirements of §61.327(b).

(ii) Has a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS, unless you have met the requirements of 

§61.327(a) or have logged flight time as pilot in command of an airplane with a VH less than or 

equal to 87 knots CAS before April 2, 2010.

(15) Contrary to any operating limitation placed on the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft being 

flown.

(16) Contrary to any limit on your pilot certificate or airman medical certificate, or any other limit or 

endorsement from an authorized instructor.

(17) Contrary to any restriction or limitation on your U.S. driver's license or any restriction or limitation 

imposed by judicial or administrative order when using your driver's license to satisfy a requirement of 

this part.

(18) While towing any object.

(19) As a pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more than one pilot is required by the type 

certificate of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 31

The Petitioner requests exemption from numerous provisions contained in 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c). 

Particularly, the Petitioner requests exemption from the following subparts of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c); 1, 2, 

3, 9, and 18. Furthermore, the Petitioner believes that the remaining subparts (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19) will be adhered to via proposed conditions contained in “Proposed Conditions 

of the Exemption” above. Specifically, subparts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19 are 

covered by Proposed Conditions 1, 6 & 24, 6, 6, 1, 1, 3, 6 & 28, 6 & 28, 5, 25, 25, and 4 respectively. 

Additionally, pertaining to subparts 1, 2, 3, 9, 18, and 19, the Petitioner seeks exemption due to both 

unnecessary burdens on the Petitioner as well as an equivalent level of safety as is provided by these 

existing subparts of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c). Arguments for each subpart are contained below.

Subpart (1) of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c) states that a Sport-Certified Pilot may not operate an aircraft if that 

aircraft is carrying passengers or property for hire/compensation. This is an unnecessary burden on the 

Petitioner as;

1. They will not be carrying any passengers as they are flying Unmanned Systems, and;

2. There will be situations in which the Petitioner carries property for compensation.

The most likely of these situations will happen when a Petitioner is carrying a device or measurement 

tool owned by another person for compensation. This may include an imaging sensor owned by a third 

party for example. If a third party company owns the actual sensor but wants the Petitioner to utilize 

the tool on the Petitioner’s aircraft, the Petitioner will be flying with property for compensation. This 

compensation is related to the risk of loss while the camera is operating on the Unmanned System as 

well as the aerial perspective achieved by the sensor on a sUAS that would otherwise be impossible to 

obtain if the partner company only had the sensor. This example is common in many industries in which 

ground tools (such as cameras) are utilized on unmanned systems. Without exemption from this rule 

the Petitioner would have to either purchase the 3rd party sensor for use on their own sUAS or forego 

the compensation opportunity because they cannot carry the client’s tool and thus, not get the 

information the client desires. For this reason, it would be a significant burden to utilize a sUAS 

commercially without the ability to carry multiple sensors that may not be personally owned by the 

Petitioner.

Furthermore, it is the belief of the Petitioner that an equivalent level of safety would be provided if 

exempt from this rule because of the extensive training the PIC would have on the sUAS prior to flying 

commercially. This training will be in excess of the existing requirement to have at least a Sport Pilot’s 

or Recreational Certificate. Thus, the PIC will have sufficient manned aircraft and unmanned aircraft 

training to successfully operate the sUAS without endangering the public. The training procedures and 

training materials for the PIC can be found in Exhibits 1 and 4 below. 

In addition to subpart (1) of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c), the Petitioner also requests exemption from subpart 

(2) which states that an operator with a Sport Pilot’s License may not operate an aircraft for 

compensation. As has been highlighted previously, the directive from Congress passed to the FAA via 

the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 was to integrate commercial UAV operations into the 

National Airspace System. Furthermore, in numerous previously filed and granted Petitions for 

Exemption under Section 333, it has been stated by the FAA that;
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 32

 The agency now allows operations under these exemptions by people who hold a 

recreational or sport pilot certificate. 

This statement, combined with the initiative behind Section 333 exemptions (the commercial 

integration of UAV operations in the National Airspace System) shows that the FAA has found in favor of 

the idea that commercial UAV operations can be conducted by people who hold a recreational or sport 

pilot certificate. Additionally, this same argument can be made in regard to subpart (3) of 14 C.F.R. 

61.315 (a)(c), which states that a Sport-Certified Pilot may not operate an aircraft in furtherance of a 

business. The FAA defines “Furtherance of a Business” as;

 A flight, even if incidental to your employment or the business you intend to conduct, and 

not required by your business or employment, would be considered “in furtherance of a 

business.”10

Clearly, based on this description, an aerial operation that is “in furtherance of a business” would be 

considered a lesser form of commercialization than flights for hire or compensation as these types of 

flights are incidental to a business as opposed to directly related to the business, which is what a flight 

for compensation would likely be. Therefore, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 

this rule for the same justification as is proposed regarding 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c) (1) and (2). 

On top of subparts (1), (2), & (3) of 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (a)(c), the Petitioner also seeks relief from subpart 

(9) which states that a Sport-Certified Pilot may not operate an aircraft to demonstrate that aircraft for 

sale. The Petitioner seeks exemption from this rule as they will be carrying an inventory/stock/fleet of 

UAV aircraft in an effort to operate a commercial service business. Furthermore, this 

inventory/stock/fleet will turnover from time to time as new aircraft are added and old aircraft are 

released by the company. In this event it will be important for the Petitioner to have the capability of 

showing off the aircraft to prospective buyers so that they can get the best price for their used systems. 

Plus, with PICs already being heavily trained and experienced with commercial flights, there is no added 

risk to allowing a qualified PIC to demonstrate the aircraft for sale to prospective buyers. The 

demonstration after all would be equivalent or less dangerous than a commercial flight that the PIC 

already performs on a frequent basis as part of their job as a commercial sUAS Pilot. 

The Petitioner also seeks exemption from 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c) (18) which states that a Sport-Certified 

Pilot may not operate an aircraft while towing an object. It is the belief of the Petitioner that they be 

exempt from this rule as the maximum takeoff weight of their aircraft will never exceed the max takeoff 

weight specifications highlighted by the manufacturer. These max takeoff weights are the maximum 

weight these aircraft can carry (including themselves) and still fly effectively. Thus, any object being 

towed by the aircraft will have to weigh equal to or less than the maximum allowable weight in order to 

maintain or come under the max takeoff weight specifications highlighted by the manufacturer. 

Additionally, Proposed Condition 36 from the “Proposed Conditions of the Exemption” above, highlights 

reasoning as to why the Petitioner believes their commercial sUAS flights in which objects are towed, 

would provide an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the existing rule. Particularly, the required 

and additional training necessary for a PIC to become an Object Towing PIC shows the skills that would 

be required to tow objects. 

Furthermore, with the continued innovation in the world of sensors, it will be necessary for the 

Petitioner to be able to tow objects, such as tow-behind sensors, in order to remain competitive with 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 33

their competition. Tow-behind sensors might measure air quality, capture imagery, or perform various 

other data collection methods. Competing vehicles for these tow-behind sensors would include ATVs, 

Motorcycles, Manned Aircraft, and the like. All of these potential alternatives are more expensive to 

operate, more dangerous to operate, and dirtier to operate. Each alternative would cost multiple 

thousands of dollars to purchase, are larger, powered by combustion engines, and carry flammable fuel. 

Additionally, they produce negative effects on the environment. For the reasons stated above, the 

Petitioner believes they should be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 61.315 (c) (18).

14 C.F.R. 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.7 (a) of the Code of Federal Regulations states; no person may operate a 

civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. Proposed Condition #13 pertains to this particular 

regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous Exemption #11062, 11063, and 11064, which 

contained this rule. For the reasons stated in Condition 13 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) 

above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.7 (a) and the proposed 

condition offers an equivalent level of safety as is currently provided by the existing rule.

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2): Civil Aircraft Flight Manual

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.9 (b) (2) of the Code of Federal Regulations states; 

No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft for which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual 

is not required by Part 21.5 of this chapter, 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. 

Proposed Condition #20 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous 

Exemptions #11062, 11063, and 11064, which contained a request for exemption from this rule. For the 

reasons stated in Condition 20 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the 

Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.9 (b) (2). Furthermore, the proposed condition offers 

an equivalent level of safety as is currently provided by the existing rule as the Operating manuals about 

which this rule pertains are available to the operator at all times on the ground, just as they would be if 

the aircraft was carrying the operator. Thus, any information the operator desires about the aircraft or 

its operating guidelines, can be found within documents within arm’s reach of the operator or on a 

digital device, such as a Smart Phone or tablet, easily accessible to the operator. 

14 C.F.R. 91.9(c): Civil Aircraft Marking, Placards 

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.9 (c) of the Code of Federal Regulations states; No person may operate a 

U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless that aircraft is identified in accordance with part 45 of this chapter. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 34

Proposed Condition #30 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous 

Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule. For the reasons stated in Condition 

30 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt 

from 14 C.F.R. 91.9 (c). Furthermore, the proposed condition offers an equivalent level of safety as is 

currently provided by the existing rule as the FAA has previously determined that exemption from these 

requirements is warranted provided that the aircraft “have identification (N-Number) markings in 

accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, Subpart c, if the markings are as large as practicable.”11 

14 C.F.R. 91.103: Preflight Action

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.103 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information 

concerning that flight. This information must 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

(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. 

Proposed Conditions # 3, 6, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 28 pertain to this particular regulation and the 

FAA has found in favor of previous Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule, 

including Exemptions #11062, 11063, and 11064. For the reasons stated in Conditions 3, 6, 12, 16, 17, 

20, 22, 23, 24, and 28 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner 

that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.103. Furthermore, the proposed conditions offer an equivalent 

level of safety as is currently provided by the existing rule as Preflight Planning is integral to the 

Petitioner’s sUAS flights and each mission will be carefully planned, taking into consideration weather, 

power requirements, aircraft operating guidelines, and more, as seen in the proposed conditions above. 

14 C.F.R. 91.105: Flight Crewmembers at Stations
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 35

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.105 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) During takeoff and landing, and while en route, each required flight crewmember shall—

(1) Be at the crewmember station unless the absence is necessary to perform duties in 

connection with the operation of the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs; and 

(2) Keep the safety belt fastened while at the crewmember station. 

(b) Each required flight crewmember of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft shall, during takeoff and landing, 

keep his or her shoulder harness fastened while at his or her assigned duty station. This paragraph does 

not apply if—

(1) The seat at the crewmember's station is not equipped with a shoulder harness; or 

(2) The crewmember would be unable to perform required duties with the shoulder harness 

fastened. 

Proposed Condition #4 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous 

Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule, including Exemption #11185. For 

the reason stated in Condition #4 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the 

Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.105. Furthermore, 14 C.F.R. 91.105 doesn’t really 

apply to the Petitioner’s aircraft as all the aircraft requested by the Petitioner weigh below 10 lbs. and 

do not carry a physical crew. As such, there is no cockpit or other operating area within the vehicle 

where a prospective crewmember would harness themselves in. Instead, all operations of the sUAS are 

executed from the ground from a designated operating area, in which, each crewmember has an 

assigned position at which they will stand during the operation. Generally, this standing area would be 

near the ground station for the PIC and in a pre-designated area (which is determined by the PIC) for the 

VO. Utilizing pre-determined standing areas for both the PIC and VO will ensure safe operating 

procedures of the Unmanned Vehicle. 

14 C.F.R. 91.109: Flight Instruction

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.109 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) 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. However, instrument flight instruction 

may be given in an airplane that is equipped with a single, functioning throwover control wheel that 

controls the elevator and ailerons, in place of fixed, dual controls, when—

(1) The instructor has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and

(2) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with appropriate 

category and class ratings.
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 36

(b) An airplane equipped with a single, functioning throwover control wheel that controls the elevator 

and ailerons, in place of fixed, dual controls may be used for flight instruction to conduct a flight review 

required by§ 61.56 of this chapter, or to obtain recent flight experience or an instrument proficiency 

check required by § 61.57 when—

(1) The airplane is equipped with operable rudder pedals at both pilot stations;

(2) The pilot manipulating the controls is qualified to serve and serves as pilot in command 

during the entire flight;

(3) The instructor is current and qualified to serve as pilot in command of the airplane, meets 

the requirements of§ 61.195(b), and has logged at least 25 hours of pilot-in-command flight 

time in the make and model of airplane; and

(4) The pilot in command and the instructor have determined the flight can be conducted safely.

(c) No person may operate a civil aircraft in simulated instrument flight unless—

(1) The other control seat is occupied by a safety pilot who possesses at least a private pilot 

certificate with category and class ratings appropriate to the aircraft being flown.

(2) The safety pilot has adequate vision forward and to each side of the aircraft, or a competent 

observer in the aircraft adequately supplements the vision of the safety pilot; and

(3) Except in the case of lighter-than-air aircraft, that aircraft is equipped with fully functioning 

dual controls. However, simulated instrument flight may be conducted in a single-engine 

airplane, equipped with a single, functioning, throwover control wheel, in place of fixed, dual 

controls of the elevator and ailerons, when—

(i) The safety pilot has determined that the flight can be conducted safely; and

(ii) The person manipulating the controls has at least a private pilot certificate with 

appropriate category and class ratings.

(d) No person may operate a civil aircraft that is being used for a flight test for an airline transport pilot 

certificate or a class or type rating on that certificate, or for apart 121 proficiency flight test, unless the 

pilot seated at the controls, other than the pilot being checked, is fully qualified to act as pilot in 

command of the aircraft.

Proposed Conditions #4, 7, 8, and 9 pertain to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor 

of previous Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule, including Exemptions 

#11062, 11063, and 11064. For the reasons stated in Conditions #4, 7, 8, and 9 (“Proposed Conditions of 

the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.109. 

14 C.F.R. 91.113(b): Right-of-Way Rules

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.113(b) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 37

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under 

instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an 

aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the rightof-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well 

clear.

Proposed Conditions #6 and 32 pertain to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of 

previous Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule, including Exemption 

#11238. For the reasons stated in Conditions #6 and 32 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) 

above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.113(b). Due to the fact 

that all the Petitioner’s sUAS operations will take place under the guidance of a PIC and VO within Line 

of Sight of the aircraft, it is the belief of the Petitioner that their proposed operations offer an equivalent 

level of safety as is provided by the existing rule. 

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

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.119 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

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. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 38

Proposed Conditions #3, 6, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34 pertain to this particular regulation and the FAA has 

found in favor of previous Exemptions which contained a request for exemption from this rule. For the 

reasons stated in Conditions #3, 6, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 34 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) 

above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.119. 

Each of the Proposed Conditions above create sUAS operations with equivalent safety to what the 

typical manned mission under 14 C.F.R. 91.119 would provide. Remember, when comparing to manned 

operations with manned flight craft, a sUAS is much smaller and light-weight. Consider the fact that a 

manned aircraft weighs thousands of pounds, carries flammable fuel, and is powered by a combustion 

engine. Clearly, carrying out a mission utilizing a sUAS would provide for a safer operation than would a 

conventional aircraft under 14 C.F.R. 91.119.

14 C.F.R. 91.121: Altimeter Settings

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.121 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as 

the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, when operating—

(1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to—

(i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route and within 100 

nautical miles of the aircraft;

(ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, 

the current reported altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or

(iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio, the elevation of the departure 

airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure; or

(2) At or above 18,000 feet MSL, to 29.92′′ Hg.

(b) The lowest usable flight level is determined by the atmospheric pressure in the area of operation as 

shown in the following table:

Current altimeter setting Lowest usable flight level

29.92 (or higher) 180

29.91 through 29.42 185

29.41 through 28.92 190

28.91 through 28.42 195

28.41 through 27.92 200
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 39

Current altimeter setting Lowest usable flight level

27.91 through 27.42 205

27.41 through 26.92 210

(c) To convert minimum altitude prescribed under§§ 91.119 and 91.177 to the minimum flight level, the 

pilot shall take the flight level equivalent of the minimum altitude in feet and add the appropriate 

number of feet specified below, according to the current reported altimeter setting:

Current altimeter setting Adjustment factor

29.92 (or higher) None

29.91 through 29.42 500

29.41 through 28.92 1,000

28.91 through 28.42 1,500

28.41 through 27.92 2,000

27.91 through 27.42 2,500

27.41 through 26.92 3,000

Proposed Condition #3 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous 

Exemptions, particularly Astraeus Aerial, which contained a request for exemption from this rule based 

on the idea that an equivalent level of safety could be provided so long as the Unmanned Aircraft was 

operated below 400 feet AGL, within Visual Line of Sight, and operated with a live, GPS-based, Altitude 

read-out. For the reasons stated in Condition #3 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is 

the belief of the Petitioner that they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.121 because they are receiving a live, 

GPS-Altitude, read-out on each flight, they are operating below 400 feet AGL, and they are operating 

within Visual Line of Sight. Furthermore, as can be seen in Proposed Condition #3, each flight conducted 

by the Petitioner will begin with a zero-altitude start point. 

14 C.F.R. 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for VFR Flight Conditions

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.151(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) 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—

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 40

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes. 

Proposed Condition #17 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous 

Exemptions, particularly Astraeus Aerial, which contained a request for exemption from this rule based 

on an equivalent level of safety being provided by a sUAS when ending a flight with at least 25% battery 

life remaining. Clearly, a percent battery life remaining is a better measure for safety when using a sUAS 

because the current battery capacities achieved by these types of vehicles (including all the sUASs 

proposed in this Petition for Exemption) often do not allow for flight times of over 25 minutes, which is 

far less than even the reserve time limits mandated by 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a). For the reasons stated in 

Condition #17 (“Proposed Conditions of the Exemption”) above, it is the belief of the Petitioner that 

they be exempt from 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a) because they can achieve an equivalent level of safety by 

terminating their flights with 25% battery life remaining. 

14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) and (b): Civil Aircraft – Certifications Required

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.203(a) and (b) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) Except as provided in§ 91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has within it the 

following:

(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. Each U.S. airworthiness certificate used 

to comply with this subparagraph (except a special flight permit, a copy of the applicable 

operations specifications issued under§ 21.197(c) of this chapter, appropriate sections of the air 

carrier manual required by parts 121 and 135 of this chapter containing that portion of the 

operations specifications issued under § 21.197(c), or an authorization under § 91.611) must 

have on it the registration number assigned to the aircraft under part 47 of this chapter. 

However, the airworthiness certificate need not have on it an assigned special identification 

number before 10 days after that number is first affixed to the aircraft. A revised airworthiness 

certificate having on it an assigned special identification number that has been affixed to an 

aircraft may only be obtained upon application to an FAA Flight Standards district office.

(2) An effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the 

United States, the second copy of the Aircraft registration Application as provided for in§ 

47.31(c), or a registration certification issued under the laws of a foreign country.

(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) 

of this section or a special flight authorization issued under§ 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit 

entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.

Proposed Condition #20 pertains to this particular regulation and the FAA has found in favor of previous 

Exemptions, particularly Exemptions #11062, 11063, and 11064, which contained a request for 

exemption from this rule. Additionally, all required paperwork will be available to the PIC and VO on the 

ground as these are Unmanned Systems as opposed to manned aircraft. This paperwork may be in 

hard-copy form or available through a link on the internet, such as a Google Drive account for example. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 41

14 C.F.R. 215: ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.215 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not conducted under part 121 or 135 of this 

chapter, ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental 

requirements of any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude 

reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S).

(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in 

the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped 

with an operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096 code capability, 

replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC, or a Mode S capability, replying to 

Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC and intermode and Mode S interrogations in 

accordance with the applicable provisions specified in TSO C-112, and that aircraft is equipped with 

automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability that automatically replies 

to Mode C interrogations by transmitting pressure altitude information in 100-foot increments. This 

requirement applies—

(1) All aircraft. In Class A, Class B, and Class C airspace areas;

(2) All aircraft. In all airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 

of this part from the surface upward to 10,000 feet MSL;

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any aircraft which was not originally 

certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been 

certified with such a system installed, balloon or glider may conduct operations in the airspace 

within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part provided such 

operations are conducted—

(i) Outside any Class A, Class B, or Class C airspace area; and

(ii) Below the altitude of the ceiling of a Class B or Class C airspace area designated for 

an airport or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower; and

(4) All aircraft in all airspace above the ceiling and within the lateral boundaries of a Class B or 

Class C airspace area designated for an airport upward to 10,000 feet MSL; and

(5) All aircraft except any aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine-driven 

electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed, 

balloon, or glider—

(i) In all airspace of the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia at and above 

10,000 feet MSL, excluding the airspace at and below 2,500 feet above the surface; and

(ii) In the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL within a 10-nautical-mile radius 

of any airport listed in appendix D, section 2 of this part, excluding the airspace below 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 42

1,200 feet outside of the lateral boundaries of the surface area of the airspace 

designated for that airport.

(c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all 

controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder 

maintained in accordance with § 91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C 

equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.

(d) ATC authorized deviations. Requests for ATC authorized deviations must be made to the ATC facility 

having jurisdiction over the concerned airspace within the time periods specified as follows:

(1) For operation of an aircraft with an operating transponder but without operating automatic 

pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode Capability, the request may be made at 

any time.

(2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the airport of ultimate 

destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs 

can be made or both, the request may be made at any time.

(3) For operation of an aircraft that is not equipped with a transponder, the request must be 

made at least one hour before the proposed operation.

Proposed Conditions #3, 25, 26, and 27 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the 

aforementioned Proposed Conditions, and particularly all the reporting requirements contained in an 

ATO-Issued COA, the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the existing 

rule and ensure adequate compliance with reporting standards as set forth in the rule. 

14 C.F.R. 91.403: General

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.403 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) The owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining that aircraft in an 

airworthy condition, including compliance with part 39 of this chapter.

(b) No person may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on an aircraft other 

than as prescribed in this subpart and other applicable regulations, including part 43 of this chapter.

(c) No person may operate an aircraft for which a manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions 

for continued airworthiness has been issued that contains an airworthiness limitations section unless 

the mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified in that section 

or alternative inspection intervals and related procedures set forth in an operations specification 

approved by the Administrator underpart 121 or 135 of this chapter or in accordance with an inspection 

program approved under § 91.409(e) have been complied with.

(d) A person must not alter an aircraft based on a supplemental type certificate unless the owner or 

operator of the aircraft is the holder of the supplemental type certificate, or has written permission 

from the holder.
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 43

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the 

aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is 

provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth 

in the rule. 

14 C.F.R. 91.405(a): Maintenance Required

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.405(a) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

Each owner or operator of an aircraft—

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required 

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

prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the 

aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is 

provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth 

in the rule. 

14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1): Operation after Maintenance or Alteration

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.407(a)(1) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

rebuilding, or alteration unless—

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under§ 43.7 of this 

chapter.

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the 

aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is 

provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth 

in the rule. 

14 C.F.R. 409(a)(1) and (2): Inspections

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.409(a)(1) and (2) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within 

the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had—
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 44

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for 

return to service by a person authorized by § 43.7 of this chapter; or

(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of 

this chapter.

No inspection performed under paragraph (b) of this section may be substituted for any inspection 

required by this paragraph unless it is performed by a person authorized to perform annual inspections 

and is entered as an “annual” inspection in the required maintenance records.

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the 

aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is 

provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth 

in the rule. 

14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance Records

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.417(a) and (b) of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with§§ 91.411 and 91.413, 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.
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 45

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

including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and 

revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date 

when the next action is required.

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

to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is 

repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is performed.

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred 

with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under§ 43.11 of this chapter 

shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return to service.

Proposed Conditions #13, 14, and 15 pertain to this particular regulation. Clearly, by following the 

aforementioned Proposed Conditions the Petitioner can provide an equivalent level of safety as is 

provided by the existing rule and ensure adequate compliance with maintenance standards as set forth 

in the rule. 

Privacy

When discussing the use of Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, the question of privacy frequently comes 

up. The reason for this is clear as small Unmanned Aircraft, despite their incredible uses as a tool, also 

have the potential to be used for nefarious activities, such as spying for example. This presents a risk to 

the personal privacy of individuals. Furthermore, in less extreme cases of invasion of privacy, a small 

unmanned craft might accidently capture imagery that would comprise someone’s privacy. Due to 

these potential privacy risks it is imperative for operators of small unmanned craft to use their aircraft 

responsibly and focus on mitigating any of the potential privacy risks their aircraft creates. The 

Petitioner is particularly aware of the privacy concerns of individuals and due to this is extremely 

focused on providing privacy not only for individuals, but also for customers. 

Public Interest and Safety

According to the Federal Aviation Administration Guidelines for Section 333 Exemptions there are three 

main criteria a successful Petition for Exemption under Section 333 should have;

1. The Petitioner must submit a request for exemption from a rule or set of rules contained in 14 

C.F.R. that the Petitioner believes will be a burden for their operations.
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 46

2. The Petitioner must provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from 

which the Petitioner is seeking an exemption, and;

3. The Petitioner’s request must be in the Public Interest.

To satisfy these main guidelines, the following information will cover the justification of the proposed 

commercial operations under Section 333 requested by this Petition. More clearly, the following 

arguments will show how each of the proposed applications/use-cases are in the public interest and 

promote safety.

Specifically, the sUAS flights proposed in this petition will increase safety for the following applications;

Agriculture, Cinematography, Environmental Protection, Fire, Infrastructure, Insurance, Land Inspection, 

Law Enforcement, Real Estate, and Search and Rescue. Furthermore, it will be seen that the use of 

sUAS by the Petitioner will also promote safety and reduce negative environmental impacts. This will be 

achieved because of the lower risks associated with a small, plastic, battery-powered sUAS, as compared 

to a manned, multi-thousand-pound, combustion-engine-powered, flammable-fuel-carrying aircraft. 

Plus, with most sUAS data capture happening at low altitudes, because of the enhanced data resolution 

possible at low altitudes, customers of sUAS services are getting better, more accurate data, while at the 

same time the public is avoiding the potentially hazardous practice of ultra-low-flying manned aircraft. 

Clearly, the combination of better, more accurate data, coupled with the enhanced safety of a sUAS 

over manned aircraft, produces a viable commercial operation that promotes the public interest. 

Evidence of this can be found in the industry-specific examples below. 

In addition to the aforementioned safety benefits and promotion of public interests, it should also be 

noted that all the sUAS aircraft utilized by the Petitioner satisfy the directives passed to the Federal 

Aviation Administration by Congress in the Reform Act of 2012. Specifically, all of the Petitioner’s 

aircraft satisfy the size, weight, speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports, proximity to 

populated areas, and visual line of sight rules and requirements laid out by Congress. Furthermore, due 

to the FAA precedent of requiring, at minimum, a Sport Pilot’s Certificate, the FAA can be assured that 

all commercial flights proposed in this Petition do not pose a threat to National Security as all PIC’s will 

have already been vetted by the Department of Homeland Security. For these reasons and for the 

numerous arguments contained herein, this Petition for Exemption provides strong justification for 

approval of commercial operations for the above-stated sUAS in the above-stated applications and usecases under Section 333, pursuant to the operating procedures and requirements described herein. 

Furthermore, contained in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 was Congress’ clear initiative 

to integrate commercial sUAS flights into the National Airspace System. With this initiative it is 

definitive that Congress believes that the integration of commercial sUAS into the National Airspace 

System is within the Public Interest as they are, obviously, elected representatives of the public assigned 

with the duty of driving policy that promotes the Public Interest. Thus, in addition to the industryspecific examples below, it should also be considered that the integration of all sUAS, pursuant to their 

safe integration to the NAS and providing of at least an equivalent level of safety as is provided by the 

current FAA rules, is inherently within the public interest. 

Please look below to find more detailed descriptions as to why each of the applications highlighted 

above can provide a benefit to the public as a whole and reasons why the exemption would not 

adversely affect safety.
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 47

Agriculture

Precision Agriculture is an industry that has seen a significant influx of sUAS use over the past few years. 

With this influx of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Technologies, farmers and their Ag partners have become 

more efficient and effective in making various Ag-related management decisions. 

There is an adage that points to the importance of agriculture to the public that reads, “...once in your 

life you need a doctor, a lawyer, a policeman, and a preacher, but every day, three times a day, you 

need a farmer.”13 This adage really highlights the importance of agriculture to the public as a whole, as 

the Ag industry, and particularly farmers, are the people who provide the general public with one of 

their three essential needs, food.

What sUAS provide to the Ag Industry are a method by which to collect information and make 

management decisions that are more data-driven and thus, more effective. Consider the use of sUAS to 

provide targeted scouting and aerial imaging/mapping to farmers and their Ag partners (Agronomists, 

Crop Consultants, Seed Dealers, etc.). 

Every year millions of acres of farmland are scouted by a variety of people, whether it is the farmers 

themselves, or an Ag partner of theirs, such as a Cooperative Agronomist, Crop Consultant, Field Intern, 

or other third party Ag partner. The idea behind scouting is to collect in-season information about the 

crops and fields in question. As an example, a typical crop scouting intern will get a set of field maps 

from their boss at the Coop every morning. These field maps will be for a variety of fields and crop types 

around the area and owned by a variety of farmers. The task of these interns is to go out in those fields 

and collect information relating to; Nutrient Deficiencies, Insect Pressure, Plant Diseases, Compaction, 

Plant Populations, and the like. They then take this information and report back to their agronomist or 

directly to the farmer. The farmer then takes this information and makes management decisions based 

on it. 

As an example, the scout might take a tissue sample while in the field, send it to the lab, and receive the 

results. The results of the field in question may be low on a variety of nutrients (ex. Macro Nutrients –

Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium; Micro Nutrients – Boron, Sulfur, Manganese, Zinc, etc.). The farm 

will then take this information and realize that they are low on Nitrogen and Boron and that they should 

make a fertilizer application of these two nutrients to improve their crop. 

The example above really highlights how a Precision-focused farmer utilizes information to make a 

management decision and thus, increase yields and grow more food. This is obviously in the public 

interest as it is estimated by the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (“FAO”) that by the year 2050 

Global Food Production will have to increase by 70% of where it is today in order to feed a population 

that is estimated to grow to over 9 billion.14

Where sUAS come into play is that they provide even more efficiency and data-driven decision-making 

than we even use today. Why is this? It is because a sUAS can provide a new perspective to look at 

agricultural crops and in turn, provide a new data-set from which information can be derived and 

decisions can be made. Consider the same example as we highlighted above, with the crop scout 

walking a set of fields, taking a tissue sample, and returning the lab data to the farmer so that the 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 48

farmer can make an In-Season management decision. Now consider this example if that crop scout 

were equipped with the same types of sUAS utilized by the Petitioner.

First of all, the scout would be much more efficient. A recent study at the University of WisconsinWhitewater showed that scouting with a sUAS was up to 80% more efficient than walking an entire 

field.15 Considering this efficiency fact alone, a scout is going to be much more efficient each day, which 

allows him/her to scout more acres and thus provide more information to more farmers to make datadriven decisions and produce more food as a whole. However, efficiency is not the only benefit. 

In addition to efficiency, a scout can also be more targeted, meaning they can pinpoint areas of the field 

most in need of a thorough walk-through and go straight to those spots as opposed to walking randomly 

through the field (which is the standard practice for many scouts). By gaining an aerial perspective with 

a sUAS, scouts can view the entire field in a video or picture quickly and in turn, see blotches of 

discoloration or diseased crop instantly. Using the internal GPS Guidance System onboard the aircraft, 

this scout can also georeference their imagery, meaning each picture they take can be tagged with a 

Geo-coordinate (Latitude and Longitude). This allows them to pinpoint an area of distress in the field, 

get the geo-tag, input it into their Smart Phone or Tablet, and walk straight to that area of distress. This 

is both efficient and vital to the farmer and his crop. While a typical crop scout might completely miss a 

distressed area of a field (due to the lack of an aerial perspective), a targeted scout with a sUAS is going 

to have the opportunity to point out all the issues in the field and in turn manage those areas to 

minimize the damage (yield loss). 

The same University of Wisconsin-Whitewater study that found the increased efficiency statistics 

associated with sUAS use for crop scouting, also found that when sUAS crop scouting is coupled with the 

recommended management applications, farmers see, on average, a 7-10 bushel increase in production 

(corn).15 This is important for a variety of reasons. First, 7-10 bushels turns into a huge number when it 

is extrapolated across corn acres. On a 1,000 acre corn farm, a 7-10 bushel increase is an extra 7,000-

10,000 bu., which significantly drives down per-bushel input costs. Additionally, at today’s corn price of 

about $3.70, that 7-10 bushels is roughly a $26,000-$37,000 revenue boost for the farm. 

With the majority of farms in America (87% according to the EPA’s 2007 Ag Census)16 being individually 

or family owned, those revenue increases and cost savings are putting more money into the pocket of 

the American farmer. 

In addition to the basic benefits provided by a sUAS in terms of efficiency and targeted scouting of 

problem areas, there is also the benefit of using more advanced payloads to pull even more information 

from an aerial assessment utilizing a sUAS. Consider the increasing popularity of Near-Infrared and 

Thermal Infrared Imaging payloads. Both these payload types provide information to the farmer that 

can help in management decisions and management practices. 

A Near Infrared Imaging Payload, like the Tetracam ADC Snap or Micasense RedEdge for example, can 

provide information relating to the Near Infrared light reflectance bouncing off an Agricultural crop. 

This data is not viewable to the naked eye and is not “capturable” by a standard visible-light spectrum 

digital camera. However, this data can be extremely important and suggest crop stress within a field. 

By utilizing a sUAS, an operator like the Petitioner could provide a new data layer to farmers and 

agronomists that could help them determine plant stress within their fields and map it according to the 

georeferenced, stitched imagery. Additionally, this type of imagery could also assist in management 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 49

practices. With a stitched orthomosaic, like the ones created using NIR & georeferenced Imagery, 

farmers can create management zones in their fields using Ag software and create georeferenced 

prescription maps, which are utilized to variable-rate fertilizers and chemicals onto fields. 

Using this type of data and software minimizes over and under application of chemicals and fertilizers 

and ensures the right amount of product is applied to each acre of the field. This will serve the public 

interest by creating a healthier environment with less runoff and water contamination as well as provide 

for more sustainable farming practices. Plus, all of this is done by making data-driven chemical and 

fertilizer applications derived from sUAS Imagery, which in turn saves the farmer money by using the 

correct amount of product and ensures maximum yields by optimizing the application so that each acre 

of farmland receives exactly the amount of product it needs based on plant stress.

The above example mostly pertains to Precision Agriculture, however it should be noted that there are a 

variety of applications in agriculture outside Precision Agriculture that can also be positively impacted by 

sUAS use. Cattle operations as an example can monitor the health of their cattle by flying over their 

herds with thermal cameras. Plant operators can monitor the temperature of their grain piles by 

utilizing these same thermal cameras in much the same way. So clearly, there are many applications in 

the Ag Space that could utilize sUAS. 

Furthermore, it should also be considered that these steps forward in efficiency and management 

practices are accomplished while utilizing a safe and effective sUAS Tool that is not only maintaining the 

safety of the National Airspace, but also taking into consideration customer and public privacy as well as 

eliminating the risks associated with the alternative form of imagery capture using a manned aircraft. 

Referring back to the 4-D analysis of UAV use, it is clear that the agricultural applications of data capture 

point to the use of UAV systems over manned aircraft because;

 Dull – Ag flights require repetition as crop stress and/or animal health needs to be checked 

frequently. In some applications, daily or even hourly flights may be necessary. Due to this 

requirement of high repetition, a sUAS is well suited for the job over a manned aircraft, 

which would basically require a full time pilot on-call 24 hours a day.

 Dangerous – Ag flights have the potential to carry a high degree of risk, especially when 

flying low over crops or cattle. Really, any low altitude flight in a manned aircraft is more 

dangerous than a high altitude flight because of the increase in obstacles and less margin for 

error. It is for this reason that Crop Dusting is a dangerous industry as pilots are operating 

manned aircraft at altitudes much lower than their Private and Commercial Pilot

counterparts. Furthermore, utilizing a sUAS fly-over in agriculture can produce safer 

operations when compared to the alternative. Consider flying over cattle for example. 

Flying over a cattle operation with a sUAS can be a much safer cattle management practice 

than actually having a human monitoring or checking the animals while in the herd. Human 

interaction in a large herd could potentially cause a stampede or more likely, an aggressive 

animal bucking or otherwise injuring a human. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 50

 Dirty – Ag flights have the potential to be carried out in hazardous environments. As stated 

above, operating within a cattle herd with several aggressive bulls is a hazardous 

environment and an environment which is better navigated by a non-human, such as a 

sUAS. 

 Deep – Ag flights can sometimes be beyond the range of manned platforms. First, sUAS 

have the ability to fly at lower altitudes and thus capture higher resolution data than what a 

manned aircraft could do. Additionally, flights around structures on a farm or near a farm 

(such as silos, barns, radio towers, etc.) could potentially be hazardous for a manned aircraft 

while a micro-drone has a lot more maneuverability in tight spaces. 

Therefore, the promotion of the public interest described above coupled with the enhanced safety 

provided by sUAS flights in Agriculture, strongly supports the granting of this petition. Furthermore, 

permission should be granted to the Petitioner to provide commercial services to the Ag Industry to 

assist with tasks such as crop scouting, cattle management, equipment inspections, and the like.

Additionally, the following previously granted exemptions point to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in 

the Agriculture Industry as being within the public interest.

 Exemption Numbers:

o 11110 

o 11136 

o 11167

o 11192 

o 11222

Cinematography

The Aerial Cinematography Industry is an industry that has been working for many years to capture

cinema-quality footage from low altitudes. Initially, this type of cinematography was captured using 

fixed wings and helicopters, but in more recent years, the business has started to utilize UAVs. The 

reason the industry has transitioned to these small aircraft is because newer UAV systems have been 

able to capture the quality video the industry is looking for but at a much lower cost and with 

significantly lower risks. 

One of the reasons manned-aircraft cinematography is so expensive is because of the dangers 

associated with flying a 6,000 pound aircraft, filled with flammable fuel, powered by a combustion 

engine, at low altitudes and over people. The insurance costs alone for these types of activities are high 

and accidents have happened in the industry. Some of these accidents have even lead to casualties. 

Recently, 10 people died when two helicopters crashed while filming the French Realty Show, 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 51

“Dropped.”17 Whenever you have manned aircraft operating at low altitudes there are added risks. 

These risks include ground structures, confined spaces, and more. Additionally, when you have manned 

aircraft, any accidents are much more catastrophic than if you had the same situation with unmanned 

aircraft. Once again, this is because of the size and flammable fuel carried on-board manned aircraft. A 

small Unmanned Aircraft does not have these attributes, plus, because there are no people on board, 

the chances of causalities is lower because there is no pilot. 

It is important to remember that the weight of the UAVs utilized by the Petitioner will not exceed 10

pounds and contain no crew, flammable fuel, or combustion engine. This limited weight and size will 

significantly reduce the potential for casualties or mass property damage in the case of a crash. 

Furthermore, the use of electric power by the Petitioner’s UAVs is much more environmentally-friendly 

than that of a manned aircraft, which is carrying a significant amount of unnecessary weight using 

carbon-based fuel sources. Therefore, in addition to the increased safety obtained by a UAV performing 

aerial cinematography, there is also the added public benefit of a healthier environment. 

Furthermore, while traditional aerial cinematography utilizing conventional aircraft can perform in close 

proximity to people and property, it should be pointed out that a UAV is even safer than the traditional 

methods because of the limited size, weight, speed, operating conditions, and safety features included 

on the proposed aircraft within this petition. Additionally, as is highlighted in the FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012, the integration of UAS into the National Airspace System is inherently in the 

public interest so long as it can be accomplished with at least an equivalent level of safety as is currently 

provided by existing FAA rules and regulations. 

On top of this, the utilization of sUAS in the Aerial Cinematography Industry falls in line with the 4D’s of 

UAS Intervention, which points to the Public Interest of using UAVs over manned aircraft. The reasoning 

for this can be seen below;

 Dull – Aerial Cinematography is an industry that requires repetitive flights. There are often 

multiple takes of the same scene in order to get the perfect shot with the perfect lighting. For 

this reason, the same flight has to occur several times in a short time period. This isn’t 

necessarily efficient for a manned aircraft because it needs to stay aloft during filming and due 

to this, wastes time and fuel waiting for successive shots. A UAV on the other hand can land in 

between shots and use significantly less power. Plus, because of the inherent risks of flying at 

low altitudes for manned aircraft (structures, people, obstacles, etc.), repetitive shots require 

repetitive risky flight operations. 

 Dangerous – Aerial Cinematography is almost always done at very low altitudes, which is very 

dangerous airspace for large, manned aircraft. There are more obstacles to consider at low 

altitudes and less margin for error. Therefore, aerial cinematography flights using manned 

aircraft are more dangerous than if the same manned aircraft were operating at higher altitudes 

with less obstacles and more space. Thus, an unmanned craft is a safer alternative as it is more 

maneuverable in confined spaces and less damaging in the case of a crash. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 52

 Dirty – Some aerial cinematography is extreme in nature and may include things like airborne 

obstacles. While the Petitioner’s UAV system would be maintaining a safe distance from this 

hazardous environment and remaining within line of sight, it is important to consider that 

unpredictable accidents can happen in which a bird might fly into a prop as an example. In this 

situation it would obviously be better to have a small unmanned craft than a large, manned 

aircraft, carrying a pilot and flammable fuel. As was seen in the Miracle on the Hudson Incident, 

birds can have a devastating effect on an aircraft if they damage a prop or get sucked into an 

engine. 

 Deep – Some aerial cinematography might require capabilities that only an unmanned aircraft 

can perform, such as flying in extremely close proximity to structures or other obstacles at low 

speeds. This type of application would be impossible for most manned aircraft and if not 

impossible, fairly dangerous. For this reason an unmanned aircraft would be required. 

Additionally, the following previously granted exemptions point to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in 

the Aerial Cinematography Industry as being within the public interest. 

 Exemption Numbers:

o 11540

o 11153

o 12031

Environmental Protection

Environmental Protection and Conservation are a vital component of a healthy planet. Throughout the 

years many conservation efforts have been made based on environmental research captured from the 

air. Imaging from these elevated altitudes gives researchers on the ground a different vantage point 

which allows for more detailed information of a broader area. Much like aerial imagery experts in the 

Agricultural Industry, conservationists use many of the same aerial imaging techniques, including, 

multispectral imagery, visible light spectrum imagery, image stitching, 3D mapping, and more. The data 

sets that can be captured using these various techniques allows for researchers to develop action plans 

on how to best address potential environmental concerns. It is for this reason that the Petitioner seeks 

an exemption under Section 333 in an effort to provide services to the Conservation Industry. Clearly, 

the use of any aerial imagery device is helpful in the fight to protect the environment, but especially 

when that device is inexpensive, efficient to operate, rapidly deployable, safe to operate, and produces 

a low carbon footprint. 

All of these attributes are associated with the types of small Unmanned Aircraft utilized by the 

Petitioner. Due to this, it is the Petitioner’s view that the utilization of sUAS in the Conservation Industry 

is within the Public Interest, as it provides the public good of a healthier planet. Additionally, it is the 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 53

belief of the Petitioner that the use of sUAS in the Conservation Industry would also provide an 

equivalent level of safety as is provided by current rules governing manned aircraft. 

For many years manned aircraft have been utilized to execute a variety of tasks in the Conservation 

landscape, including, taking population counts of species, examining environmental disasters such as oil 

spills, taking multispectral imagery to observe invasive species growth, and much more. These types of 

applications typically require a vehicle that can fly, a couple humans to operate the craft and manage 

the sensors, and some sort of sensor payload that may include devices such as visible and multispectral 

cameras as an example. This is clearly a large operation and potentially a very expensive one in terms of 

time and money. Consider the fact that to own or rent a manned aircraft is highly expensive for the 

average conservationist. Additionally, consider that many of the types of businesses that operate in this 

space are non-profits who may not have the budgets to fund a full-scale flyover with an actual plane. 

Plus, with many of these businesses being donation-based, their budgets may fluctuate from year to 

year based on the economy. This could potentially make it very difficult to perform multi-year studies in 

which multiple flights over multiple years must be flown. 

A small Unmanned Aircraft, such as the one flown by the Petitioner, avoids many of the pitfalls 

mentioned above relating to manned aircraft. From a monetary perspective, consider the fact that 

UAVs have very low running costs (as they are battery-powered). This is a huge advantage for the 

personal conservationist or the non-profit. Additionally, from a time standpoint, a sUAS is rapidly 

deployable, meaning a user can take it out of its case and literally be imaging an area of interest in a 

couple minutes. This helps in many situations, but especially those situations that are fast moving. In 

the case of an environmental disaster as an example, the Petitioner may want to capture the immediate 

aftermath which is likely not possible for a manned aircraft as you have to rent planes ahead of time. 

Also, in any situation where animals are involved, a rapidly deployable system is key. 

From a safety standpoint as well, sUAS provide a safe means of image capture. First, a sUAS is 

unmanned, meaning if there is a loss of the aircraft due to some sort of accident, only the aircraft is 

damaged and not the pilot and crew inside, as is the case with manned aircraft. Additionally, because 

the sUAS is small and battery-powered, it poses a lesser risk to people and property on the ground than 

does a manned aircraft that weighs thousands of pounds and carries flammable fuel. Furthermore, the 

type of imagery sought by the Petitioner is imagery that is relatively close to the ground (always below 

400 feet AGL). This is a potentially hazardous environment for any aircraft as the chances of collision 

with a ground-based object, feature, or structure are significantly increased. Due to this, it is the belief 

of the Petitioner that it would be safer to have a small unmanned aircraft operating in this sort of 

environment as it is smaller and has superior maneuverability when compared to a manned aircraft. 

Finally, it should be noted that the type of small unmanned aircraft utilized by the Petitioner is electric 

powered, meaning it has a lower carbon footprint than a manned aircraft.

On top of this, the utilization of sUAS in the Environmental Protection/Conservation Industry falls in line 

with the 4D’s of UAS Intervention, which points to the Public Interest of using UAVs over manned 

aircraft. The reasoning for this can be seen below;

 Dull – The Environmental Protection/Conservation Industry is an industry that requires 

repetitive flights. Often, as is the case in other industries that capture research-based imagery, 

multiple flights must be performed of the same area with multiple sensor payloads. This could 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 54

be performed by a manned aircraft, however, it may be more advantageous to utilize a UAV, 

especially in situations where a flight with a manned aircraft may be risky due to hazards at lowaltitudes. Although one flight in a manned aircraft over the area might be possible, multiple 

flights repeatedly expose that aircraft and the pilot to ground-based threats, which over time 

expose the aircraft to increase chances of an accident. A UAV on the other hand, is a bit more 

automated, meaning flight routes can be preprogrammed and users have a computer backup.

 

 Dangerous – Aerial Conservation Imagery is often captured at low altitudes, which is very 

dangerous airspace for large, manned aircraft. There are more obstacles to consider at low 

altitudes and less margin for error. Therefore, Conservation flights using manned aircraft are 

more dangerous than if the same manned aircraft were operating at higher altitudes with less 

obstacles and more space. Thus, an unmanned craft is a safer alternative as it is more 

maneuverable in confined spaces and less damaging in the case of a crash. 

 Dirty – Some Conservation Imagery is captured in potentially hazardous environments. While 

the Petitioner’s UAV system would be maintaining a safe distance from these potential hazards 

and remaining within line of sight, it is important to consider that mistakes can happen in 

unpredictable situations. A flock of birds for example might quickly change directions and come 

into contact with the aircraft. Usually this isn’t a big deal, however, larger birds, such as geese 

or cranes, could significantly damage a manned aircraft by breaking a prop, damaging a window, 

or being sucked into an engine. Each of these situations is dangerous for the crew onboard. 

Therefore, it is the belief of the Petitioner that this same type of impact with a small UAV would 

be safer than a manned aircraft because in the worst case scenario there isn’t the loss of human 

life or significant damage to property on the ground as the sUAS weighs below ten pounds and 

doesn’t carry flammable fuel. 

 Deep – Some Aerial Conservation Imaging might require capabilities that only an unmanned 

aircraft can perform, such as flying in close proximity to natural features or other obstacles at 

low speeds. This type of application would be impossible for most manned aircraft and if not 

impossible, fairly dangerous. For this reason an unmanned aircraft would be required. 

Additionally, the following previously granted exemption points to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in 

the Environmental Protection/Conservation Industry as being within the public interest. 

 Exemption Number:

o 13677

Fire
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 55

The Fire Fighting and Fire Response Industries are industries in which small unmanned aircraft will play a 

vital role moving forward and will offer support services. These industries are known for their rapid 

response times which are needed in order to save lives and property. Furthermore, the situations and 

environments common in these industries require constant visual observance to monitor real-time 

changes in a fire’s progression. Currently, much of this is done, especially in forestry fires, using aerial 

imaging from a manned aircraft flying a safe distance away. The imagery captured on these flights is 

vital for the successful outing of the fire but also for the safety of the people on the ground. A fire can 

move quickly and change directions on a dime. Due to this it is important for firefighters on the ground 

to have a constant, real-time assessment of what is happening around them. In many cases, a firefighter 

may not be able to see everything that is happening around them because they have an inferior vantage 

point on the ground as compared to the vantage point an aircraft can capture from the sky.

The Petitioner seeks exemption under Section 333 in an effort to gain the right to provide services to the 

Fire Industry in order to help them in situations where a fire needs to be viewed from the air quickly. 

Where a manned aircraft may take a while to get to the scene and expose pilots to a hazardous 

environment, the type of sUAS utilized by the Petitioner is rapidly deployable, meaning it can be in the 

air sending a real time feed to a fire captain in minutes. With that information the captain can 

communicate with his guys on the ground to make sure they don’t get trapped or caught in a difficult 

situation. This is clearly in the Public Interest as this type of technology keeps firefighters on the ground 

safe. Forest fires especially, are situations in which firefighters can get trapped if they cannot see where 

the flames are moving in real time. Back in 2013, 19 elite firefighters were killed in Arizona battling a 

forest fire that turned around on them due to a wind change.

18

 Although any aircraft is difficult to fly in 

a smoke-filled situation and the Petitioner will always maintain visual line of sight, an aerial perspective, 

even from a distance, can be helpful to those on the ground.

While an aerial perspective of a blaze is helpful, the Petitioner understands the value manned aircraft 

can provide to a fire situation and will not fly the sUAS unless given permission by the proper authorities 

and after ensuring they will not be interfering with any manned aircraft efforts. 

In addition to providing the public good of keeping firefighters safe, it should also be noted that the use 

of a small unmanned aircraft also provides a low-cost alternative to manned aircraft. This would in turn 

drive down the costs to a fire department for manned aircraft surveillance and potentially help lower 

the burden on the public who fund the fire departments through taxes. 

Furthermore, a UAV is a safer alternative to a manned aircraft in many firefighting situations. This is the 

case because often these flights will happen at low altitudes where the risk of collision with groundbased features, obstacles, or the like are greatest. A manned aircraft is not as well suited for these flying 

environments because they are bigger than sUAS, they carry a crew, they are not as maneuverable, and 

they carry flammable fuel. When you couple this with their higher costs to operate, it is clear that an 

unmanned craft can provide value in terms of cost savings and enhanced safety. 

On top of this, the utilization of sUAS in the Firefighting/Fire Response Industry falls in line with the 4D’s 

of UAS Intervention, which points to the Public Interest of using UAVs over manned aircraft. The 

reasoning for this can be seen below;

 Dull – The Fire Industry is an industry that requires repetitive flights. Often, especially with 

fixed-wing aircraft, a pilot must fly his plane over a specific area in which the blaze is occurring. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 56

Due to the fact that planes cannot effectively hover, the pilot must perform the same approach 

and flyover over and over again in order to keep a constant eye on the situation. The sUAS used 

by the Petitioner however, has the ability to hover in one spot, giving it the ability to maintain 

constant visual contact over the area of interest. When the pilot of a plane performs the same 

dull flight over and over, they may overlook an obstacle they have previously avoided. This can 

cause accidents. A UAV on the other hand is a bit more automated, meaning it can hover in 

place and use its onboard flight controller to automatically adjust for wind and maintain its 

position. 

 Dangerous – Aerial Fire Imagery is often captured at low altitudes, which is very dangerous 

airspace for large, manned aircraft. There are more obstacles to consider at low altitudes and 

less margin for error. Therefore, Fire flights using manned aircraft are more dangerous than if 

the same manned aircraft were operating at higher altitudes with less obstacles and more 

space. Thus, an unmanned craft is a safer alternative as it is more maneuverable in confined 

spaces and less damaging in the case of a crash as it weighs significantly less and doesn’t carry a 

crew or flammable fuel. 

 Dirty – Most Aerial Fire Imagery is captured in hazardous environments. While the Petitioner’s 

UAV system would be maintaining a safe distance from these potential hazards and remaining 

within line of sight, it is important to consider that mistakes can happen in unpredictable 

situations. If for instance, the wind were to change direction, blowing smoke into the flight 

path, the pilot of a UAV has automated fail-safes that will bring the aircraft home automatically. 

A manned aircraft on the other hand is going to have to rely on a human to get it back safely. 

 Deep – Some Fire Imaging might require capabilities that only an unmanned aircraft can 

perform, such as flying in close proximity to natural features or other obstacles at low speeds. 

This type of application would be impossible for most manned aircraft and if not impossible, 

fairly dangerous. For this reason an unmanned aircraft would be required. 

Additionally, the following previously granted exemption points to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in 

the Fire Support Industry as being within the public interest. 

 Exemption Number:

o 13677

Infrastructure

Contained in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 was Congress’ clear initiative to integrate 

commercial sUAS flights into the National Airspace System. With this initiative it is definitive that 

Congress believes that the integration of sUAS into the National Airspace System is within the Public 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 57

Interest as they are, obviously, elected representatives of the public assigned with the duty of driving 

policy that promotes the Public Interest. Furthermore, as it pertains to Infrastructure Inspection 

specifically, it should be noted that the utilization of sUAS is perfectly in line with Dull, Dirty, Dangerous, 

and Deep operations that the 4 D's of UAV Intervention have highlighted as suitable for Unmanned 

Aerial Systems. In particular, it can be seen that sUAS operations in the Industrial Inspection Industry 

are often;

 Dull – Flights in the Inspection business are repetitive in nature, which means multiple flights 

and flight operations will have to be conducted in close proximity to obstacles, such as industrial 

structures. The necessity of repeated inspections requires an on-demand flight craft that can be 

called upon instantly to provide a visual inspection. It is for this reason that a sUAS is perfectly 

designed for such operations and why manned aircraft are not.

 Dangerous – Obviously, visual inspections of infrastructure are inherently dangerous operations. 

This is the case because industrial inspections are generally of standing structures, such as water 

towers, bridges, cell towers, poles, power lines, etc. All of these industrial structures are 

standing obstacles that provide a hazard to low flying aircraft, and particularly to large, manned, 

low-flying aircraft. Therefore, it is better to use a small unmanned aircraft because operations 

are less risky due to the smaller size of the aircraft which increases a Pilot's margin for error. 

 Dirty – Industrial areas can often times be hazardous environments that pose potential health 

and safety threats to people and aircraft. For this reason it is much better to send in a small, 

unmanned aircraft than a large, manned aircraft. Consider a hazardous materials plant. 

Obviously it would be much better to have a robot flying over the plant than an aircraft carrying 

a person who could potential breath in fumes. 

 Deep – For some industrial inspections, the inspection flight might only be able to be carried out 

by an unmanned aircraft due to the technology and maneuverability requirements of the flight. 

Consider an industrial inspection of a wind turbine as an example. Wind Turbine Inspections 

take place in extremely hazardous areas for manned aircraft due to the many obstacles (all the 

turbines) in a confined airspace. In order to get a good look at the Turbine and its blades, a 

close-proximity flight would be required, which would take extreme maneuverability in small 

spaces, which just isn’t possible with most manned aircraft. Additionally, it would be beneficial 

to have some sort of object avoidance technology in an environment like a wind turbine 

inspection situation. However, manned aircraft do not have this precise technology in most 

aircraft and instead, most flights are manually piloted. Unmanned craft do have this technology 

however and one of the Petitioner’s listed aircraft, the DJI Matrice 100, has this option available 

through Guidance technology, developed by DJI. This makes close-quarter flights much safer. 

Thus, the use of this type of technology coupled with a UAV’s superior maneuverability, make a 

sUAS the perfect tool for industrial inspections. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 58

Furthermore, it is important to look at the current alternatives for Industrial Inspections when judging 

the relative safety provided by a sUAS inspection. The most common of these various alternatives are 

ground-based inspections, which are limited in effectiveness, crane-lift inspections, which are highly 

dangerous and have a limited reach, physical climbing of the structure, which is dangerous and slow, 

and inspections conducted by manned aircraft, which are typically flammable-fuel-filled, combustionengine, helicopters. A sUAS inspection is superior to each of these alternatives as it is at least as safe and 

in most cases, more safe than the aforementioned alternatives and it doesn’t fall victim to the various 

shortcomings of each of these substitute options. 

Take ground-based inspections as an example. One of the current inspection strategies used on 

turbines is the use of a telescope to find scorch marks on the turbine blades. Clearly, this would be a 

less effective strategy than utilizing an unmanned aerial vehicle. Consider the resolution you’d have 

looking though a telescope at a wind turbine blade a couple hundred feet away as compared to a 

4000x3000 pixel Ultra-HD image from several feet away using a UAV. Plus, a 4K image can be zoomed in 

on and remain in high resolution, meaning you could literally zoom in on your images from the UAV as if 

you were only a few inches away from the actual scorch mark. 

Furthermore, consider the significant safety issues that are brought about by some of the other 

alternatives of infrastructure inspection. Using a lift for example exposes inspectors to electrocution 

risks, tipping risks, and more. Plus, with the limited reach achievable by a lift, you often can’t lift an 

inspector high enough to inspect an entire structure. This is true of radio towers as an example. Many 

of the lifts available on the market cannot reach more than half way up most radio towers, which means 

much of the tower cannot be inspected. A study from the Electronic Library of Construction 

Occupational Safety and Health found that, on average, 26 construction workers die each year resulting

from the use of aerial lifts.19 Causes of death include, electrocution, boom collapse, falls, and more. In 

total, aerial-lift-related deaths account for 2-3% of construction related deaths each year.19

Another dangerous strategy used for inspections is the physical climbing of infrastructure. This is 

typically done with ropes and straps. This is obviously dangerous as you have humans dangling high 

above the ground, where they are at risk of serious, if not fatal, injuries in the case of a fall. Plus, any 

poor weather that blows in during one of these climbs exposes these inspectors to various risks, 

including electrocution. Clearly, the use of an unmanned aircraft would be much safer than someone 

hanging off the side of a cell tower, water tower, or wind turbine as an example. In fact, OSHA, just this 

past year (2014) started reclassifying and reevaluating how it investigates worker injuries and deaths in 

the tower climbing industry, which has been dubbed the most dangerous job in America. In August of 

2013, four tower climbers died in a two week span across the United States.20 When you consider that 

the entire industry is made up of about 10,000 people, you can see the dangers associated with this 

industry and why the use of unmanned systems is needed.20

Finally, when looking at the inspection strategy of using manned aircraft (typically helicopters) you can 

see the risks. First, the goal of most infrastructure inspections is to get a close-proximity view of a 

structure. This goal in and of itself is dangerous for a manned aircraft as it requires a close flyby to a 

structure. Additionally, many of the flights in the infrastructure industry require close proximity to more 

than one structure. Consider the practice of power line inspection and the use of helicopters. Not only 

do these aircraft have to stay focused on the power pole they are next to, they must also pay attention 

to all the other poles and lines in their vicinity. Unfortunately, sometimes mistakes are made and 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 59

typically the results are catastrophic, with fatalities and complete loss of the aircraft. The book 

Helicopter Crash Litigation by Gary C. Robb highlights the problem of helicopter accidents and the 

relatively frequent rate at which accidents occur. Specifically, it was found that, “from 2001 to 2005, the 

accident rate for civil helicopter use per 100,000 flight hours was forty percent (40%) higher than that 

for general aviation fixed-wing aircraft.21 The helicopter industry itself has acknowledged that the 

current helicopter accident rate is "excessive and unsustainable.”21 Considering this fact, it should be 

noted that helicopters, which are already statistically more prone to accidents than fixed wings, are the 

vehicle of choice in the utility industry. It should also be noted that the environments presented by the 

utility industry are even more dangerous than general helicopter airspace due to the increase in 

obstacles and close proximity to infrastructure. 

Taking all of this into consideration, it is clear that the use of unmanned aircraft for the purpose of 

infrastructure inspection provides a public service while maintaining, and most often exceeding, the 

current safety achieved by the present rules and regulations governing the infrastructure inspection 

industry.

Accordingly, the Petitioner respectfully asks for exemption in order to commercially operate sUAS 

aircraft in the Infrastructure Inspection Industry. 

Furthermore, it should also be noted that the following previously granted exemptions point to the 

FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in the Infrastructure Inspection Industry as being within the public 

interest. 

 Exemption Numbers:

o 11865

o 11813

o 11721

Insurance

Another industry that is going to see huge potential in the next couple years through the utilization of 

sUAS aircraft is the insurance industry. One of the reasons for this is the obvious benefit an aerial 

perspective can be when assessing an insurance situation, be it a car accident, crop damage, building 

collapse, or the like. The ability to get above the insured asset allows for a clearer perspective of the 

situation and provides a bird’s eye view of what happened. This allows for more accurate insurance 

estimates and in turn, more accurate payouts. 

Using the example of crop insurance, it is clear to see the public benefit of utilizing sUAS aircraft for the 

purposes of insurance. 

The crop insurance industry is a big business. Every year acres of a variety of crops are insured from loss 

with large crop insurance agents throughout rural America. In the situation of a large thunderstorm or 

Tornado coming through an area, consider the amount of damage that can be done to a corn crop. If 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 60

the corn is laid flat from high winds or is damaged significantly from hail, the farmer is going to 

experience some type of yield loss. The payout that farmer receives is going to be dependent on the 

extent of his yield loss as is determined by an insurance adjuster. To determine the farmer’s loss an 

adjuster might use a variety of strategies, including; remaining population counts, standard deviation 

calculations, and the like. However, when a large swath of area is damaged by a storm, insurance 

adjusters are spread thin trying to get accurate estimates for every field in the area. This can lead to 

overestimates, underestimates, and in general, incorrect or otherwise errored payouts. This can lead to 

losses for the insurance company, losses for the farmer, and premiums that are based on payouts that 

may be inaccurate. 

However, by utilizing sUAS aircraft, this could change, as the use of UAVs and software could allow for 

more efficient, automated practices. As an example, a software program that can use counting 

programs or image recognition technology to estimate losses would be much more automated and 

potentially more accurate than a team of adjusters who all might have slightly different biases when 

making assessments. Furthermore, the estimates and payouts as a whole across an entire insurance 

company would be much more consistent, as the same software is reading all the imagery captured and 

thus, automation allows for consistency and confidence in operations. 

The crop insurance example is just one example of how the insurance industry can benefit from the use 

of sUAS aircraft, however, this same principle can be see across a variety of applications in the broader 

insurance industry. The public benefit of this is clear, as having more accurate and consistent payouts 

makes insurance companies more efficient and thus, premiums are more accurate. 

Furthermore, the insurance industry is another industry that sUAS should be used for according to the 4 

D’s. 

 Dull – The insurance industry is another industry that may require repeated flights of the same 

area or on-demand flights. Consider crop insurance. In the situation where a small pocket of a 

country received straight line winds, only a couple farms or even a couple farm fields are 

actually affected. Therefore, only one or two fields may need to be flown that day. It would be 

much better to have a UAV in the adjuster’s vehicle so he can fly on-demand that day only 

where there are issues, as opposed to hiring a manned aircraft to fly over and maybe only take a 

picture of one or a few fields. Furthermore, weather events may be sporadic, meaning as the 

adjuster goes from farm to farm, he isn’t sure if there is extensive damage and therefore, it 

would be an expensive gamble to send a plane up when there isn’t a certainty that there is 

extensive damage to film. 

 Dangerous – Commercial sUAS Insurance flights might also be dangerous. Consider a damaged 

building or structure. It may be better to fly that dangerous structure with a small unmanned 

craft just in case that structure is threatening to collapse. 

 Dirty – Consider a hazardous spill that came as a result of a derailed train or overturned semitrailer. This example is an insurance event in which an adjuster is going to want to assess the 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 61

damage while avoiding a dangerous environment. Noxious fumes may be in the area and as 

such, the adjuster might want to fly the area with a sUAS. 

 Deep – Once again, sUAS allow for operators to capture high resolution data at low altitudes. 

This is true in the Insurance Industry as well and low altitude flight can be especially dangerous 

for manned aircraft. In particular, any high resolution data collection at low altitudes and in 

confined areas, may be impossible for manned aircraft as their maneuverability is such that the 

confined area is too small for safe flight. Consider a grain facility that is damaged in a tornado. 

That facility should be inspected at low altitudes, but there are a variety of obstacles, such as 

grain towers and cables, that would pose a threat to a manned aircraft. 

Additionally, the following previously granted exemptions point to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in 

the Insurance Industry as being within the public interest. 

 Exemption Numbers:

o 11293

o 11857

Land Inspection 

The Land Information Industry is an industry poised to gain a lot from the utilization of sUAS aircraft. 

The aerial perspective these units can provide to a land surveyor or developer, is enormous. Land 

Information covers a broad range of land evaluation applications. One of the main applications that is 

currently being used is stitched, 3D mapping, which allows for operators to visualize a landscape in 

highly accurate 3D form. This allows for accuracy in the centimeter range, which can help land 

managers determine tile lines in agriculture, engineers develop drainage ditches for streams, planning 

commissions create plat maps for new developments, and architects design new building construction.

All of these applications are within the public interest. A land manager putting in tile lines in his 

agricultural fields helps quell runoff and erosion issues, which leads to higher yields, a healthier 

environment, and less pollution in our waterways. Additionally, the engineer who is developing 

drainage paths and ditches based on 3D mapping from a sUAS is going to prevent large-scale flooding, 

which reduces damages to surrounding communities and, in turn, lowers insurance premiums for the 

country as a whole. In much the same way, planning commissions creating maps and running lines into 

a new development helps foster community growth and ensures the right amount of infrastructure for 

the community. Finally, the architect designing a new building will be better able to place that building 

on solid ground and allow it to better fit in the surrounding landscape. This helps ensure the safety of 

the building while also ensuring the community looks nice.

Referring back to the 4-D analysis of UAV use, it is clear that the Land Information Services Industry has 

many applications of data capture that point to the use of UAV systems over manned aircraft because;
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 62

 Dull – Land Information Flights may require a lot of repetition and/or rapid deployment of a data 

capture device to ensure data is captured at the right time. A government agency looking to 

quell runoff issues into local lakes and streams from agricultural fertilizers may want to examine 

3D maps and drainage maps that are captured when it is raining or after a heavy rain. The 

characteristics of these specific flight times will better show the results of water flowage as the 

flowage is happening or right after it happened. This allows for more accurate mapping and a 

better idea of the real world drainage issues in an area. Having this information leads to better 

engineering, which in turn leads to a healthier environment and community. 

 

 Dangerous – As the example above shows, the rapid deployment of a sUAS in a rain storm or 

right after a rain storm could be dangerous for a manned aircraft. Most private pilots who 

would be flying to take imagery like this would want to avoid weather so as to not have to be 

instrument rated or have to operate in non-visual conditions. Cloud cover may be low during 

these rain events as well, which may make imagery from a manned aircraft impossible to 

capture. However, with a sUAS operating below the clouds, you could capture this imagery so 

long as you have the ability to follow VFR requirements. With weather often changing in an 

instant, a small opening in the clouds in one area might be all you need to fly a sUAS on a 

mapping mission while manned aircraft is grounded due to the overall weather in the 

surrounding area. 

 Dirty – Land Information flights by nature may occur in hazardous environments. A lot of the 3D 

mapping missions conducted in this industry are done in areas of high topography, which can be 

hazardous for manned aircraft at low altitudes. 

 Deep – Once again, sUAS allow for operators to capture high resolution data at low altitudes. 

This is true in the Land Information Industry as well and low altitude flight can be especially 

dangerous for manned aircraft. In particular, any high resolution data collection at low altitudes 

and in confined areas can be impossible for manned aircraft as their maneuverability is such 

that the confined area is too small for safe flight. 

Therefore, the promotion of the public interest described above, coupled with the enhanced safety 

provided by sUAS flights in the Land Information Industry, strongly supports the granting of this petition. 

Furthermore, the following previously granted exemptions point to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in 

Land Information/Management Industry as being within the public interest.

 Exemption Numbers:

o 11109

o 11204 

o 11286
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 63

Law Enforcement

The Law Enforcement Industry is an industry in which small unmanned aircraft will play a vital role 

moving forward. This industry is known for its rapid response times which are needed in order to save 

lives and property. Furthermore, the environments common in this industry require constant visual 

observance to monitor real-time changes in a situation. Currently, much of this is done through the use 

of helicopters which can provide an aerial vantage point in instances of running criminals, hostage 

situations, traffic situations, and more. The imagery captured on these flights is vital in order to 

communicate with officers on the ground on how to best handle the situation. In many policing 

activities you want to be on the high-ground or have an elevated vantage point from which to assess the 

conditions below. A UAV can provide this vantage point quickly, inexpensively, and effectively.

The Petitioner seeks exemption under Section 333 in an effort to gain the right to provide services to the 

Law Enforcement Industry in order to help them in situations where conditions on the ground need to 

be viewed from the air quickly. Where a manned aircraft may take a while to get to the scene and 

expose pilots to a hazardous environment, the type of sUAS utilized by the Petitioner is rapidly 

deployable, meaning it can be in the air sending a real-time feed to the police in minutes. With the 

information captured during these flights, support personnel can relay information to officers on the 

ground in order to make sure they don’t get caught in a difficult situation. This is clearly in the Public 

Interest as this type of technology keeps police officers on the ground safe. 

While an aerial perspective of a police situation is valuable, the Petitioner understands the value 

manned aircraft can provide to a situation as well and will not fly the sUAS unless given permission by 

the proper authorities and after ensuring they will not be interfering with any manned aircraft efforts. 

In addition to providing the public good of keeping police officers safe, it should also be noted that the 

use of a small unmanned aircraft also provides a low-cost alternative to manned aircraft. This would 

drive down the costs to a police department for manned aircraft surveillance and potentially help lower 

the burden on the public who fund the police departments through taxes. 

Furthermore, a UAV is a safer alternative to a manned aircraft in many situations. This is the case 

because often these flights will happen at low altitudes where the risk of collision with ground-based 

features, obstacles, or the like, are greatest. A manned aircraft is not as well suited for these flying 

environments because they are bigger than sUAS, they carry a crew, they are not as maneuverable, and 

they carry flammable fuel. When you couple this with their higher costs to operate, it is clear that an 

unmanned craft can provide value in terms of cost savings and enhanced safety.

Furthermore, aerial data may be collected more by a Police Department if that department had a low 

cost solution. This is valuable to the public as more data can lead to better policing which keeps 

communities safer. Additionally, situations that would be nice to have an aerial vantage point but do 

not warrant the price of highering a helicopter or plane, may be imaged with a UAV. For example, 

consider a car accident. It would be nice to have an aerial perspective after the accident has happened. 

Based on the imagery the officers could study the skid marks and determine what exactly happened. 

Plus, all of the data is then in digital form and can be saved for any future litigation or insurance claims. 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 64

On top of this, the utilization of sUAS in the Law Enforcement Industry falls in line with the 4D’s of UAS 

Intervention, which points to the Public Interest of using UAVs over manned aircraft. The reasoning for 

this can be seen below;

 Dull – The Law Enforcement Industry is an industry that requires potentially dull flights. Often, 

especially with helicopters, a pilot must maneuver their helicopter into position and then hover. 

Once the pilot begins to hover the actual flying can become dull as the situation on the ground is 

more interesting. This may take away the pilot’s attention which could lead to accidents if the 

helicopter drifts into a ground-based obstacle, such as a powerline for example. The sUAS used 

by the Petitioner however has the ability to hover in one spot without human controls, giving it 

the ability to maintain constant visual contact over the area of interest. This automated 

function means the UAV can hover in place and use its onboard flight controller to automatically 

adjust for wind and maintain its GPS position within a few feet. 

 Dangerous – Aerial Law Enforcement Imagery is often captured at low altitudes, which is very 

dangerous airspace for large, manned aircraft. There are more obstacles to consider at low 

altitudes and less margin for error. Therefore, Law Enforcement flights using manned aircraft 

are more dangerous than if the same manned aircraft were operating at higher altitudes with 

less obstacles and more space. Thus, an unmanned craft is a safer alternative as it is more 

maneuverable in confined spaces and less damaging in the case of a crash as it weighs 

significantly less and doesn’t carry a crew or flammable fuel. 

 Dirty – Most Aerial Law Enforcement Imagery is captured in hazardous environments. While the 

Petitioner’s UAV system would be maintaining a safe distance from these potential hazards and 

remaining within line of sight, it is important to consider that mistakes can happen in 

unpredictable situations. If for instance, a criminal were to shoot at the aircraft, the results 

would be much less dangerous with an unmanned aircraft than a manned aircraft because there 

is no crew to get injured and if the UAV were to crash, the damage would be minimal due to its 

small size in comparison to a manned aircraft. 

 Deep – Some Aerial Law Enforcement Imaging might require capabilities that only an unmanned 

aircraft can perform, such as flying in close proximity to structures or other obstacles at low 

speeds. This type of application would be impossible for most manned aircraft and if not 

impossible, fairly dangerous. For this reason an unmanned aircraft would be required. 

Additionally, the following previously granted exemption points to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in 

the Law Enforcement Industry as being within the public interest. 

 Exemption Number

o 11419
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 65

Real Estate

The Real Estate Industry was one of the first industries to be granted an Exemption under Section 333. 

One of the reasons for this is the obvious benefit the utilization of a small unmanned aircraft can 

provide for the purposes of property and home sales. The ability to gain an aerial perspective of a 

property or house allows potential buyers a way of seeing the property in its entirety. When thinking 

about traditional real estate listings, there are often a series of photographs of the house or property, 

and its surroundings. However, these pictures are not necessarily congruent, meaning, you, as a buyer, 

can’t put one picture with the next picture and get a walk around of the property.

Furthermore, aerial cinematography for real estate has existed for many years, however it has 

previously been accomplished using manned fixed wing or helicopter aircraft. The expense of utilizing 

this form of cinematography is extremely costly and prices many realtors and homeowners out of this 

form of marketing. However, this form of marketing is very valuable and would likely be used by lowbudget sellers and agents if it were available. 

Additionally, utilizing manned aircraft to capture the type of aerial marketing possible with a sUAS poses 

significant threats and problems to a community. Obviously, a low flying plane or helicopter would 

supply significant noise and annoyance among neighbors of a home being videoed from a plane or

helicopter. It is for this reason that there are noise ordinances across the country pertaining to manned 

aircraft. Obviously, a light-weight sUAS will produce much less noise than a helicopter or plane 

operating at low altitudes. Furthermore, there is also substantially less risk associated with a sUAS 

performing a low-altitude real estate flight, especially in populated neighborhoods. This is the case 

because if a manned aircraft goes down in a populated neighborhood there will likely be fatalities or 

significant damage to the plane and crash site. A sUAS on the other hand would likely cause little 

damage in the case of a catastrophic crash. Plus, because the sUAS proposed in this petition do not 

carry combustible fuel, the after-effect damage is far less as well because there isn’t a risk of a fuel tank 

exploding or starting on fire. 

Furthermore, when looking back at the 4D’s of UAV Use, it is clear that Real Estate photography and 

cinematography using small unmanned aircraft fits the 4D’s. 

 Dull – Real Estate flights for aerial cinematography are a sUAS use-case marked by repetition 

and on-demand access. More clearly, homes may need to be flown multiple times and ondemand. The key to a good real estate video is that it nicely highlights the features of the real 

estate being filmed and does so in good lighting conditions. Lighting conditions change 

constantly and it is best if you can adapt to the lighting and fly at the perfect time in the perfect 

weather to get the best footage. This may mean waiting for 5 or 10 minutes for a cloud to pass 

through. With a manned aircraft this is expensive to do. Plus, with many private pilots renting 

their aircraft, it would be hard to anticipate what time to rent the plane in order to have it in 

position at the perfect time. 

 

 Dangerous – Real Estate flights using manned aircraft would be highly dangerous in comparison 

to unmanned aircraft. The reason for this is because most flights take place low to the ground, 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 66

right above houses and many times above highly populated neighborhoods. An accident with a 

manned aircraft in these conditions could be catastrophic, with potentially many casualties and 

a lot of property damage. An unmanned craft, like the ones described in this petition, would 

cause much less damage in the case of an accident, as they are small, battery-powered, and 

weigh under 10 lbs. 

 Dirty – Commercial UAV flights in the real estate industry can also be dirty, in that they can take 

place in potentially hazardous environments. Commercial real estate in particular, in which 

large factories or plants may be being sold, could pose hazardous environments that are best 

filmed by sUAS aircraft so as to not expose humans to hazardous waste, gases, or materials for 

example. Furthermore, decrepit or abandoned buildings that are dangerous to walk through or 

near, may be best flown using an unmanned aircraft.

 Deep – Once again, sUAS allow for operators to capture high resolution data at low altitudes. 

This is true in the Real Estate Industry as well and low altitude flight can be especially dangerous 

for manned aircraft. In particular, any high resolution data collection at low altitudes and in 

confined areas, such as in neighborhoods as an example, can be impossible for manned aircraft 

as their maneuverability is such that the confined area is too small for safe flight. 

Finally, because the proposed sUAS contained in this Petition are battery-powered, they do not release 

environmentally hazardous emissions. Thus, utilizing these micro-UAVs in place of manned aircraft 

benefits the public by promoting a healthier environment. 

By granting this Petition for Exemption and allowing commercial sUAS flights in the Real Estate Industry, 

the FAA will be contributing to economic growth by supporting the housing industry and commercial 

real estate industry, thereby strengthening the economy. Furthermore, all of this can be done by 

maintaining the safety of the National Airspace and people & property on the ground. 

Additionally, the following previously granted exemptions point to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in 

the Real Estate Industry as being within the public interest. 

 Exemption Numbers:

o 11062

o 11109

o 11112

o 11213

o 11364

Search and Rescue
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 67

The Search and Rescue Industry is an industry in which small unmanned aircraft will play a vital role 

moving forward. This industry is known for its rapid response times which are needed in order to save 

lives. Furthermore, the situations and environments common in this industry require documented 

visual observance over broad areas. Currently, much of this is done using aerial imaging from a manned 

aircraft. The imagery captured on these flights is vital not only when it comes to finding lost people but 

also in documenting areas that have already been searched. In a searching effort this is important 

because searchers don’t want to waste time looking in areas that have already been searched. Utilizing 

a UAV allows for searchers to get an aerial vantage point as well as document areas that have been 

searched accurately. For instance, a search crew could map the areas of interest using their UAV, 

stitching the images they get from the camera and have a georeferenced map of the area in question. In 

most cases this map is laid over Google Earth and can clearly mark an area that has already been 

searched. Additionally, because the map is georeferenced, the user can pinpoint locations or objects of 

interest and pull a latitude and longitude for a more detailed search. This is a highly valuable attribute 

of stitched imagery from a UAV. 

In addition, a UAV can provide a superior vantage point for searchers operating on the ground. The UAV 

utilized by the Petitioner offers long-range, high-definition FPV which can be used by a team leader to 

relay to his ground searchers where to move next and if he sees anything of interest from the air. 

The Petitioner seeks exemption under Section 333 in an effort to gain the right to provide services to the 

Search and Rescue Industry in order to help in situations where a visual inspection from the air is 

necessary. The Petitioner seeks this exemption because they believe the use of unmanned aircraft in 

this industry will provide a public good while maintaining the safety of the National Airspace System. 

The Petitioner’s UAV is rapidly deployable meaning it can help in time-sensitive rescue efforts. 

Additionally, with its ability to take high-definition video and pictures while georeferencing all of its 

images, the Petitioner’s UAV can be a valuable asset to a Search and Rescue Team. Plus, with the aerial 

perspective this type of UAV can provide, the chances of finding a lost or periled individual increase. 

Clearly, finding and saving lost people is a public good and one that can be bolstered through the use of 

a UAV. 

Furthermore, utilizing a UAV for this type of work is a safer alternative when compared to manned 

aircraft. This is the case because often these flights will happen at low altitudes where the risk of 

collision with ground-based features, obstacles, or the like are greatest. A manned aircraft is not as well 

suited for these flying environments because they are bigger than sUAS, they carry a crew, they are not 

as maneuverable, and they carry flammable fuel. When you couple this with their higher costs to 

operate, it is clear that an unmanned craft can provide value in terms of cost savings and enhanced 

safety to the Search and Rescue Industry. 

On top of this, the utilization of sUAS in the Search and Rescue Industry falls in line with the 4D’s of UAS 

Intervention, which points to the Public Interest of using UAVs over manned aircraft. The reasoning for 

this can be seen below;

 Dull – The Search and Rescue Industry is an industry that requires dull flights. Often, especially 

with fixed-wing aircraft, a pilot must fly his plane over a specific area of interest in a very specific 

and straight line pattern. This is to ensure complete coverage of the search zone. This causes 

the pilot to fly the same straight line routes, one next to the other, over and over. The 
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 68

“dullness” of this flight might cause a pilot’s mind to wander which can lead to accidents. The 

sUAS used by the Petitioner however, has the ability to utilize preprogrammed flight routes, 

which can automate the process and allow for safer operations. 

 Dangerous – Aerial Search and Rescue Imagery is often captured at low altitudes, which is very 

dangerous airspace for large, manned aircraft. There are more obstacles to consider at low 

altitudes and less margin for error. Therefore, Search and Rescue flights using manned aircraft 

are more dangerous than if the same manned aircraft were operating at higher altitudes with 

less obstacles and more space. Thus, an unmanned craft is a safer alternative as it is more 

maneuverable in confined spaces and less damaging in the case of a crash as it weighs 

significantly less and doesn’t carry a crew or flammable fuel. 

 Dirty – Aerial Search and Rescue Imagery is sometimes captured in hazardous environments. 

While the Petitioner’s UAV system would be maintaining a safe distance from these potential 

hazards and remaining within line of sight, it is important to consider that mistakes can happen 

in unpredictable situations. For instance, if a UAV is being used to provide a live-feed view of a 

rescue situation, there may be a host of unpredictable hazards such as rock-falls, crashing 

waves, avalanches, or the like. In each of these situations it would be better to have an 

expendable UAV system rather than a manned aircraft with lives onboard. 

 Deep – Some Search and Rescue imaging may require capabilities that only an unmanned 

aircraft can perform, such as flying in close proximity to natural features or other obstacles at 

low speeds. This type of application would be impossible for most manned aircraft and if not 

impossible, fairly dangerous. For this reason an unmanned aircraft would be required. 

Additionally, the following previously granted exemption points to the FAA’s acceptance of sUAS use in 

the Search and Rescue Industry as being within the public interest. 

 Exemption Number:

o 11419

Regulations Requested for Exemption

Appendix 1: Regulations Requested for Exemption – List

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMajc4dHA2bjE4bjg/view?usp=sharing
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 69

Exhibit List

Exhibit 1: Jesse Harding Operations Manual

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMQWRXbTN2b2NhSHc/view?usp=sharing

Exhibit 2: Jesse Harding Logbook Example

Below is a logbook example from the app that is running the Flight Logs for the Petitioner’s aircraft. The 

specific flight logs pictured are just an example and not specific to the Petitioner’s prior flights. In 

addition to the logbook, please see the linked video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4afE-rd6xoY) 

that shows how the flight logs can be played back utilizing the same logging app for each flight.

Exhibit 3: Jesse Harding Visual Observer Training Procedures & Guide

Visual Observer Training Procedures

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMNFllQVJZdHVsQ0E/view?usp=sharing
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 70

Visual Observer Training Guide

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMbElBZTcwUi02aHM/view?usp=sharing

Exhibit 4: Jesse Harding Pilot In Command Training Guide

Pilot In Command Training Procedures

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMNFllQVJZdHVsQ0E/view?usp=sharing

Pilot in Command Training Guide

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMREF0OHZLZ25Jc2M/view?usp=sharing

Exhibit 5: DJI Phantom 3 Professional

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3

Exhibit 6: DJI Phantom 3 Professional User Manual

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_User_Manual_v1.2_en.pdf

Exhibit 7: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Quick Start Guide

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Phantom_3_Professional_Quick_Start_Guide_en.pdf

Exhibit 8: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Features

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3/feature
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 71

Exhibit 9: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Specifications

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3/spec

Exhibit 10: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Flight Controller System

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-3/flight-system

Exhibit 11: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Smart Battery Manual

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf

Exhibit 12: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Safety/Preflight Checklist and Guidelines Training

http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Safety_Guidelines_Disclaimer_en.pdf

Exhibit 13: DJI Inspire 1 

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1

Exhibit 14: DJI Inspire 1 User Manual

http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_User_Manual_v1.2_en.pdf

Exhibit 15: DJI Inspire 1 Quick Start Guide

http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_Quick_Start_Guide_en.pdf

Exhibit 16: DJI Inspire 1 Features

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1/feature
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 72

Exhibit 17: DJI Inspire 1 Specifications

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1/spec

Exhibit 18: DJI Inspire 1 Flight Controller System

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1/flight-control

Exhibit 19: DJI Inspire 1 Smart Battery Manual

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf

Exhibit 20: DJI Matrice 100 

http://dev.dji.com/en/products/flying-platforms/matrice-100

Exhibit 21: DJI Matrice 100 User Manual

http://download.dji-innovations.com/downloads/dev/Matrice/en/M100_User_Manual_v1.0_en.pdf

Exhibit 22: DJI Matrice 100 Features

http://dev.dji.com/en/products/flying-platforms/matrice-100/features

Exhibit 23: DJI Matrice 100 Specifications

http://dev.dji.com/en/products/flying-platforms/matrice-100/specs

Exhibit 24: DJI Matrice 100 Smart Battery Manual
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 73

http://download.djiinnovations.com/downloads/dev/Matrice/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf

References

1.) NTSB. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration v. Raphael

Pirker. Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, 17 Nov. 2014.

PDF. Aircraft Definition.

2.) Administration, Federal Aviation. "FAA Streamlines UAS COAs for Section 333." FAA.gov.

Federal Aviation Administration, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

3.) Administration, Federal Aviation. "Section 333 Petition Guidance & Checklist." (n.d.): n.

pag. FAA.gov. Federal Aviation Administration. Web. Conditions for a successful

Exemption.

4.) Watts, Adam C., Vincent G. Ambrosia, and Everett A. Hinkley. Unmanned Aircraft

Systems in Remote Sensing and Scientific Research: Classification and

Consideration of Use. Basel, Switzerland:

www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing, 8 June 2012. PDF. "D's" of Unmanned

Aircraft Use.

5.) SKYbrary. "Unmanned Aircraft Systems." - SKYbrary Aviation Safety. N.p., n.d. Web.

20 July 2015.

6.) Administration, Federal Aviation. "Public Guidance for Petitions for Exemption under

Section 333." FAA.gov. Federal Aviation Administration, n.d. Web.

7.) "FAA Summary Grants Speed UAS Exemptions." FAA Summary Grants Speed UAS

Exemptions. Federal Aviation Administration, n.d. Web. 20 July 2015. Permitting

Recreational and Sport Pilot Certificates. 

8.) FAR Part 91 - Basic VFR Weather Minimums, Code of Federal Regulations § 91.155

(2004). Print.

9.) Administration, Transportation Security. "Vetting of Airmen Certificates and General

Aviation Airport Access and Security Procedures." Department of Homeland

Security. Office of Inspector General, 7 July 2011. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

10.) MacPherson, Rebecca B. "U.S. DOT / FAA - Office of the Chief Counsel." Letter to Mr.

Timothy John Gilbert. 25 Feb. 2011. MS. 800 Independence Ave. S.W.,
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 74

Washington, DC, Maryland. Clarification on "Furtherance of a business."

11.) Federal Aviation Administration. "Exemption No. 11062A Regulatory Docket No. FAA2014-0352." Department of Transportation, 23 July 2015. PDF.

12.) Jensen, Warren, PhD. Ground-Based Visual Observer/Crewmember Training for UAS.

New York, NY: Slideserve.com, 9 July 2008. PPT. Visual Observer and Pilot In

Command Training Guidance and Format.

13.) Schoepp, Brenda. "Brenda Schoepp - International Mentor. Inspirational Speaker.

Creative Writer." Brenda Schoepp. Brenda Schoepp, 2012. Web. 20 July 2015.

Quote. 

14.) Organization, Food And Agricultural. Global Agriculture Towards 2050. Rome, Italy:

Agricultural Development Economics Division, 13 Oct. 2009. PDF. UN Projections

Global Food Demand in 2050. 

15.) “University of Wisconsin – Whitewater 2014 Annual Report.” Enactus Scouting Forward.

Whitewater, WI: UW-Whitewater Enactus, Feb. 2014. PRINT.

16.) Vilsak, Tom. 2012 Census of Agriculture. Rep. Washington, D.C.: United States

Department of Agriculture, 2014. PDF.

17.) "Olympic Medalists among 10 Dead as Reality TV Choppers Collide." NBC News. NBC,

n.d. Web. 20 July 2015.

18.) “19 Firefighters Killed in Arizona Blaze; ‘Our Entire Crew was Lost’ – CNN.com.” CNN.

Cable News Network, 2 July 2013. Web. 27 Nov. 2015.

19.) "Deaths From Aerial Lifts." ELCOSH :. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 July 2015.

20.) Day, Liz. "Feds to Look Harder at Cell Carriers When Tower Climbers Die." Top Stories

RSS. Propublica, 01 Apr. 2014. Web. 20 July 2015. 

21.) Robb, Gary C. Helicopter Crash Litigation. Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Pub., 2010. 

Print.

Exemption References

Exemption # 11467

Exemption # 11905

Exemption # 11797
PETITIONER – Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER – DMZ Marketing, LLC. 75

Exemption # 12031

Exemption # 11865

Exemption # 11364

Exemption # 11587

Exemption # 11857

Exemption # 11293

Exemption # 11814

Exemption # 11540

Exemption # 11345