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 Operati on 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 20 12 and from certain rules of 14 C.F.R.

Dear Sir or Madam:

The followin g 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 be half of Jesse Harding

, for exemption from certain rules of 14 C.F.R. Jesse Harding requests Exemption in a n effort to be granted permission to operate small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (“sUAS”) c ommercially 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 F ederal Aviation Administration

. Additionally, all operations will adhere to str ict safety rules enforced by Jesse Harding within his

company

. These safety rules will be modeled after recommendations made by the FAA and com munity

based 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 fli ght 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 establ ished 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

c ommercially 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: jessehard ing31@gmail.com Petitioner Address: PO Box 357 Republic, WA

Document Preparer : DMZ Marketing, LLC. Contact Person: Zach Fiene Phone N umber: 608

- 370

- 2858 Email Address: dmzaerial@gmail.com Website: www.dmzaerial.com Address : 1501 Parkview Court Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 USAPETITIONER

– 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 reason ing 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.

A s has been established by the FAA ov er the last year, sUAS pilots are allowed to petition for ex emption from certain aircraft rules that may be inapplicable to sUAS craft or that may place an undue burden on a peti ti oner looking to turn their sUAS hobb y into a commercial business. Jesse Harding would like to
request ex emption 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, t hese commercial operations would only be conducted after a granted Secti on 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 wi ll 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

opera ting 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 ad dition 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 sUA S
in Clas s G Airspace, bel ow 400 feet Above Ground Level (“AGL”) , nationwide, or as otherw ise granted in a Certificate of Authorization (“COA”). To start, Jesse Harding will adhere to the blanket Certificate of Authorization that is granted to each e ntity 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 fo r 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 Petitio n 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

, Cinematogr aphy

, Environmental
Protection

, Fire

, Infrastructure

, Insurance

, Land Inspection

, Law Enforcement

, Real Estate

, and Search
and Rescue

.

In addition to the v ariety 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 w ill incorporate a v ariety 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 Ligh t Spectrum Imagery,PETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 3

Near Infrared ( “ NIR ” ) Imagery, Thermal Infrared Imagery, LIDAR, Se nsor Technologies , GPS Guidance, Photogrammetry, Semi

- Autonomous and Autonomous Flight Controllers (For safety), Object Avoidance Systems, and more. With the data collec ted 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 th e 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 decid e 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 alternativ e in many Infrastructure Industries.

 Insurance: High quality, high resolution imagery, coupled with advanced identification and measurement software, can help tu rn aerial data collected by a sUAS into actionable information for Insurance Agents and Ad justers 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 situati ons 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 pe rspective for an interested propert y buyer , thereby allowing real estate agents to develop a new way of marketing their listings

.

 Search and Rescue: High quality, high resolution imagery and aeria l 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 p etition obviously p rovide high quality data to a variety of interested parties in vari ous 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 ut ilized 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

opera ting 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 pro posed 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 o f Defense for example has u sed 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 hi gh degree of risk.  Dirty

- flights must be carri ed 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 r elating 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 menti oned above, Jesse Harding seeks exemption for the utilization of the DJI Phantom 3 Professional

, DJI Inspire 1

, and DJI Matrice 100

. All of these air craft ar e small Unmanned Aircraft Systems and are battery

- powered. Operations conducted by Jesse Harding with these sUAS will adherePETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 5

to the guidelines set forth by the Federal Aviation Administration and Community

- Based Orga nizations 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 o utlined 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 combus tion 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 grou nd is the greatest. Contrasting the two aircraft types, it is clear that a plastic, battery

- powered, unmanned vehicle operating at low altitudes, would be m uch safer than a multi

- thousand

- pound

, metal aircraft, powered by a combustion engine, and carrying a person at low altitudes.

This fact is furt her bolstered by the operational and aircraft

- specific parameters giv en by the FAA when deciding whether or not to grant Section 333 Exemptions

. 6 These directives include ;

1. T he 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 adhe rence to Visual Line of Sight Rules

As highlighted above, it is clear that this Petition for Exemption and both the aircraft types and applications state d herein, strictly adhere to the operational and aircraft

- specific parameters highlighted by the FAA f or 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 les s 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 area s (U nless 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 t he parameters published by the FA A and by promoting the public good through the various Industry applications to be highlighted below, this Pe tition for Exemption on behalf of Jesse Harding s trongly support s 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 effortsPETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 6

in reviewing this document and we look forward to your response. If you have any que stions 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.co m

. Further contact information can be found at th e top of this Petition or on the following website s; www.dronefly.com or www.dmzaerial.com . Once again thank you for your e fforts 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: dm zaerial@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 s mall Unmanned Aircraft Systems commercially within the United States. Dronefly Inc., contracts DMZ Marketing, L LC.

, also known as DMZ Aerial, to help formulate these documents andPETITIONER

– 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 c reation, 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 Operati ons

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 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 & Applic able 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 In spections

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

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 25
14 C.F.R. 45.23(b): Display of Marks; General

................................ ................................ ..................... 25PETITIONER

– 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): Mainte nance 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

Priva cy

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

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 45
Agriculture

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 47
Cinematography

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 50

Environmental Protection

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 52

Fire

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 54

Infrastructure

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 56

Insuran ce

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 59
Land Inspection

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 61PETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 9

Law Enforcement

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 63

Real Estate

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 65

Search and Rescue

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 66

Reg ulations 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

E xhibit 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 1 8: 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

................................ ................................ .......................... 72PETITIONER

– 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 high lighted 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 complia nce 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 fo llow 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,
in cluding; 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 Airspa ce 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.

Addit ionally, 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 variou s DJI Platforms. As a hobbyist

- pilot Mr. Harding has flown in a variety of landscapes and environments, allowing him to gain experienc e 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 u nderstanding 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 certifi cate 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 se cure 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, Se arch and Rescue, and many

more. Jesse Harding is seeking exemption from certain parameters of 14 C.F.R. in orde r 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: Air worthiness 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 MarksPETITIONER

– 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) an d (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 Rec ords

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 Adminis tration 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 platfo rms; the DJI Phantom 3 Professional

, DJI Inspire 1

, and
DJI Matrice 100

. Specifically, the commercial operations utilizing t hese unmanned aircraft would center around the following industry applications; Agriculture

, Cinematography

, Environmental Protection

, Fire

, Infrastructure

, Insurance

, Land Inspection

, Law Enforcement

, Real Es tate
, 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”) o r in airspace otherwise

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

Furthermore, this Petition for Exemption should be granted to Jesse Harding because th e 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 s afer when accomplished using a battery

- pow ered 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 seve n 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 support s the Petitioner’s

re quest for exemption relating to each operational and aircraft

- specific parameter . Specifically, the aircraft utilized by Jesse Harding ar e in the small

- size category, they are below the 55 lbs. weight cl ass, 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 permis sion by the FAA in a granted Certificate of Authorizatio n), and all flights will be
conducted within Visual Line of Sight.

In addition, the data collectio n flights provided by the sUAS highlighted in this Petition will promote safer operations for professional service provi ders 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 Oper ations

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 previousl y vetted by the FAA in previously granted Petitions for ExemptionPETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 14

under Sect ion 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 cr aft, 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 li sted Exemption;

 Jeffery Greer

– Berkshire Hathaway Home Services

– Exemption Number 11587/11587A



### DJI Inspire 1

The requested exemption will permit the Petiti oner 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 Abilit ies 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 ex hibits 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 11587/11587APETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 15

 Phillip Stiles

– GPS Developm ent, LLC dba SkyViewHD

– Exemption Number 11399/11399A



### DJI Matrice 100

The requested exemption will permit the Petitioner the right to use the DJI Matrice 10 0 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 batterie s. 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 exhibi ts 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 ope rating Jesse Harding flight crafts for purposes of commercial operations within the United States under this proposed Exe mption will consist of a Pilot I n Command (“PIC”) and a Visual Observer (“VO”).

Adhering to current FAA guidelines and precedent establish ed 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 an d 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 bot h 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 educatio n 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 trai n ing 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 Prote ction

, 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 u nder 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 40 0 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 t he 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 V isual F light R ule s,

an d obviously, to be following Vis ual Flight Rules, Jesse Harding will have to first satisfy the Visual Meteorological Conditions associated with VFR flights. In particular, the Petitioner will be cogniz ant 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 V MC 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 P IC 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 t he 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 t here 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 i s 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 pro posed applications in this Petition for Exemption , a commitment to safety will always be paramount. Additionally, with the goal of each flightPETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 17

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

, Envir onmental 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 Airspac e 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 t hat 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 o f 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 de rived 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 pro vided by the existing rule.


## National Security

In addition to the arguments supporting the Petitioner’s exemp tion 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 commercia l sUAS flights, will not present a national security threat. As has been stated in this Petition

, and

, as is precedent from the F ederal 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 Certi ficate, 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 i nformation in order to identify individuals that may pose a threat toPETITIONER

– 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 Recreation al 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 Administr ation 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 the se 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 s mall Unmanned Aircraft Sys tems 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

, Insura nce , 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 4 00 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 cond ucted 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. A ll 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 conducte d 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 t he 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. Ev asive 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 o f 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 non participants, 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 designati on 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 maintena nce 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 ro le in inspecting the aircraftPETITIONER

– 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
P etitioner 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 PI C 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 requir ements 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 exhibit s . 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 co mmercial 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 a nd

, 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 la nd 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 i n

- 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 o r 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 shouldPETITIONER

– 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 uncon trolled 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

p revents 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 G ranted 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 fol low 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 th e 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 propert y.

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 wil l 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 Authorizatio n (“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 ATO

issued CO A 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 agr eement 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 fl y 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 con ducted 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 ai rcraft. 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 gove rned 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 t he 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/Truck s/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 adequate ly 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 tak eoff 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 hour s 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 cas e 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 CertificatePETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 24

but within t he 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 unaide d, 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 : A uthorized 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

inte rworking’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 pr op 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 do ne 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 prev ious 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

Titl e 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 a nd 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, restr icted 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 inc hes 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 warr anted so long as the aircraft, “have identification (N

Number) 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 a s 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 d isplay 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 : Siz e 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 ty pe  Width 2/3s wide as the characters are high  1/6 th as thick as the characters are high  Not less than 1/4 th 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 exem pt 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 : Req uirement 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 th e 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 L icense 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 Pe titioner that they be exempt from this rule as the requirement of a Private Pilot’s license is unnecessary. Furthermore, it is sta ted as such on the FAA website. 7

“ The FAA also made two other changes to the Section 333 exe mption 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 ce rtificates 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 acco rding 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 Condi tions #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 poste d 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 oth er 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 pilo t 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 sati sfy 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 P ilot 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 agenc y 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, an d 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 conductin g commer cial 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 fl y 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 exem ption 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) th rough (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 o f 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 operatin g 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
th e expressed purpose of conducting commercial operations of s UAS 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 s UAS 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 Exemptio ns 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 s UAS 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 ma y be carried on a s UAS, including; Camera Systems, Digital Imagery,
Sensors , and the like.

For all these reasons

, the Petition er 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. Parag raph (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 s pecified 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 t han 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 reques ts 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 conta ined 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, 2 5, 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 i s an unnecessary burden on the Petitioner as;

1. They will not be carrying any pass e ngers 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 ha ppen when a Petitioner is carrying a device or measurement tool owned by another person for compensation. This may includ e an imaging sensor owned by a third party for example. If a third party company owns the actual sensor but wants the Petitioner to u tilize 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 perspecti ve achieved by the sensor on a s UAS that would otherwise be impossible to obtain if th e 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 par ty sensor for use on their own s UAS 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 s UAS 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 provi ded if exempt from this rule because of the extensive trai ning the PIC would have on the s UAS 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, th e PIC will have sufficient manned aircraft and unmanned aircraft
traini ng to successfully operate the s UAS without endangering the public. The training procedures and training materials for the PIC can b e 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 o f 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 bu siness” 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 t o 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 s U AS 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 maxim um 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 f ro m the “ Proposed Conditions of the Exemption ” above, highlights reasoning as to why the Petiti oner believes their commercial s UAS flights in which objects are towed, would provide an equivalent level of safety as i s 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 sens ors, it will be necessary for the Petitioner to be able to tow objects, such as tow

- behind sensors, in order to remain competitive withPETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 33

their competition. Tow

- behind sensors might measure air quality , capture imagery, or perform various other data collect ion 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 alter native 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 believe s they s hould 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 (“ Pro posed 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 Exemption s #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 ru le 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 pertain s 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 Exe mption ”) 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 th at 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 comm and 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 a ircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature.

Proposed Conditions # 3, 6, 12, 1 6, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 28 pertain to this particular regulation and the
FAA has found i n 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 Preflig ht 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 StationsPETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 35

Title 14, Part 91, Section 91.105 of the Code of Federal Regulations states;

(a) During ta keoff and landing, and while en route, each required flight crewmember shall

—
(1) Be at the crewmember station unless the abse nce 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.

- register ed 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 exempt ion 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 b y 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 o f 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
instruct ion 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

t he 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 in structor 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 wit h 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 whe el, 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 st ates;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 aircraf t. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right

of

- 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 FA A 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 congeste d 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 parachute s, 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 wi th 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 : Altimet er 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 200PETITIONER

– 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 o f 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 base d 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 ope rating 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 Requirem ents 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; orPETITIONER

– 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 ap propriate 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, appropri ate 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 o n 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 with in 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 ce rtificate 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 regula tion 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) th rough (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 havin g 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 provi ded 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 airspa ce 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 belowPETITIONER

– 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 equippe d 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 operatio n of an aircraft with an operating transponder but without operating automatic pressure altitude repo rting equipment having a Mode C apability, the request may be made at any time.

(2) For operation of an aircraft with an inoperative transponder to the air port 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 con tained 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, S ection 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 perfo rm 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 maintenanc e 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 an d 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 follow ing 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) : Operati on 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 provid e 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 Co de 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 s tandards 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 r egistered 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 req uired 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) o f 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 tim e 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 reta in 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 specifi ed 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 sa fety 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 f o r this is clear as small U nmanned Ai rcraft, 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 le ss 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

respo nsibly 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 a lso 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 sub mit a request for exemption from a rule or set of rules contained in 14
C

. F

. R

. that the Petitioner believe s 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 Pet itioner is seeking a n 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 th is 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 app lications; Agriculture, Cinematography, Environmental Protection, Fire, Infrastructure, Insurance, Land Inspection, Law Enforcement, Rea l Estate, and Search and Rescue

. Furthermore, it wi ll be seen that the use of

s UAS 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 compa red to a manned, multi

- thousand

- pound, combustion

- en gine

- powered, flammable

- fuel

- carrying aircraft. Plus, with most sUAS data capture happening at low altitudes, because of the enhanced da ta resolution possible at low altitudes, customers of sUAS services are getting better, more accurate data, while at th e 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 commercia l 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 interest s, it should also b e noted that all the sUAS aircraft utilized by the Petitioner satisfy the directives passed to the Federal Aviation Administration by Congress in t he Reform Act of 2012 . Specifically, all of the Petitioner’s aircraft satisfy the size, weight, speed, opera ting 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 assur ed 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 P etition for Exemption provides strong justification for approval of commercial operations for the above

- stated sUAS in the above

- stated applications and use

cases 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 believ es 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 industry

specific examples below, it should also be considered t hat 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 r easons why the exemption would not adversely affect safe ty

.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 Vehic le 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 ne ed a doctor, a lawyer, a policeman, and a preacher, but every day, three ti mes 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 w ho 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 u se 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 farmer s 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 i n 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 estim ated 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 n ew 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 thePETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 48

farme r 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 Wisc onsin

Whitewater 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 p rovide more information to more farmers to make data

driven 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 fie ld 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 wit h 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 fa rmer 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 1,0 00 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% accordin g 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 b enefits 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 popularit y 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. Howev er, 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 managementPETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 49

practices. With a stitched orthomosaic, like the ones created using NIR & georeferenced Imagery, farmers can create managemen t zones in their fi elds 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 fe rtilizers 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 practi ces. 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 th at 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
uti lizing 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 ma nagement practices are acco mplished 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 o f 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 basic ally 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 fli ghts 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 far m 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 w ith 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 cr op 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 1 1110

o 11136

o 11167

o 11192

o 11222



### Cinematography

The Aerial Cinematography Industry is an industry t hat has been work ing 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 busines s 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 th e 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 indu stry. Some of these accidents have even lead t o 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.
The se 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 fl ammable 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 weig ht of the UAVs utilized by t he 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 cra sh. 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

p roximity 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. A dditionally, 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 i s 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 aircr aft. 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, th e 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 h and 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.

 Dang erous

– 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 flig hts 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 dama ging 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, ca rrying 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 t hat 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 ma ny 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. Mu ch 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 b e 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 servic es 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 lo w carbon footprint.

All of these attributes are associated with the types o f small Unmanned A ircraft 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 Inte rest, as it provides the public good of a healthier planet. Additionally, it is thePETITIONER

– 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 manne d 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. Addi tionally, 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 A ircraft, such as the one flown by the Petitioner, avoids many of the pitfalls mentioned above relating to manned aircraft. From a monetary perspectiv e, 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 t hat 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 wh ere 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 airc raft 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 thousa nds 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 an d 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 p ayloads. This couldPETITIONER

– 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 low

altitudes. Although one flight in a manned air craft 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, meanin g 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 alter native 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 distanc e 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. Usu ally 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.
Th erefore, 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 sU AS 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



### FirePETITIONER

– 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 aeri al 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 di me. 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 in ferior vantage point on the ground as compared to the vantage point an a ircraft 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 situ ations 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 a s 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 aroun d 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 dista nce, 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 alternativ e 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 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 provi de 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 aircr aft. 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 a nd over, they may overlook an obstacle they have previously avoided. This can
cause accidents. A UAV on the othe r 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 wit h 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 t o 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 appli cation 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 P ublicPETITIONER

– 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 uti lization 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 Inspec tion 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 repe ated 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, vis ual 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 stru ctures 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 a ircraft 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 i nspections, 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 Inspectio ns 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 ext reme 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 a ircraft 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 imp ortant 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

- lif t 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, combustion

engine, 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
4000x 3000 pixel Ultra

- HD image from several feet away using a UAV. Plus, a 4K image can be zoomed in on and remain in high re solution, 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 i nfrastructure 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 Saf ety 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 constr uc tion 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, w here 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 w ould 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 s ee 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 i nspections 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 proximit y 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 andPETITIONER

– 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 ai rcraf t. 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 tha n 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 th e 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
situa tion 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

pur poses 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 throug h an area, consider the amount of damage that can be done to a corn crop. IfPETITIONER

– 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 p ayouts. 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 sli ghtly 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 co nsistency 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
insura nce 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 lin e 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 sur e if there is extensive dam age 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
craf t just in case that structure i s threatening to collapse.

 Dirty

– Consider a hazardous spill that came as a result of a derailed train or overturned semi

trailer. This exampl e is an insurance event in which an adjuster is going to want to assess thePETITIONER

– 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 a nd 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 w ithin the public interest.

 Exemption Numbers:

o 11293

o 11857



### Land Inspection

The Land Information Industry is an industry poised to gain a lot fr om 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 d itches for streams, planning commissions create plat maps for new developments, and architects design new building construction.

All of these applications are with in the public interest. A land manager putting in tile lines in his agricultural fields help s 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 larg e

- 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 ensur e 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 ove r 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 a nd 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
flow age 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 com munity.

 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 be low 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 top ography, 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 esp ecially 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 11286PETITIONER

– 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 prop erty. 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 instan ces 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 en vironment, the type of sUAS utilized by the Petitioner is rapidly deployable, meaning it c an 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 of ficers 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 v aluable, 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 manne d aircraft. This would drive down the costs to a police department fo r 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 flig hts 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 bu t do not warrant the price of higher ing 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 wi th 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, especiall y 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 c ould 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 Enforcemen t 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 w eighs 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 man ned 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 ai rcraft 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 11419PETITIONER

– 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 aroun d 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 low

budget sellers and agents if it were available.

Additionally, utilizing manned aircraft to ca pture 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 o r 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 fa r 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 on

demand. The key to a good real estate video is that it nicely highlights the fea tures 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 abov e 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 l ess damage in the case of an accid ent, 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. Comme rcial 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, dec repit 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 t heir 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

- U AVs 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 suppor ting 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 p reviously 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 an d RescuePETITIONER

– 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 searc hed. 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 cam era 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 obj ects 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
uti lized by the Pet itioner 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
th is 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 increa se. 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 o ften 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 carr y 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 Ind ustry.

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 cov erage of the search zone. This causes the pilot to fly the same straight line routes, one next to the other, over and over. ThePETITIONER

– 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 h owever , 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 ca n 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 situa tions 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 t o 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 pre viously 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

Ap pendix 1: Regulations Requested for Exemption

– List

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMajc4dHA2bjE4bjg/view?usp=sharingPETITIONER

– 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 fl ights. 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 e ach flight.



### Exhibit 3: Jesse Harding Visual Observer Training Procedures & Guide

Visual Observer Training Procedures

https://dr ive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMNFllQVJZdHVsQ0E/view?usp=sharingPETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 70



### Visual Observer Training Guide

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8sknt2zpxhMbElBZTcwUi02a HM/view?usp=sharing



### Exhibit 4: Jesse Harding Pilot In Command Training Guide

Pilot In Command Training Procedures

https://driv e.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



### Exh ibit 6: DJI Phantom 3 Professional User Manual

http://download.dji

innovations.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.dji

innovations.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/featurePETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 71



### Exhibit 9: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Specifications

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

- 3/s pec



### Exhibit 1 0: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Flight Controller System

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom

- 3/flight

- system



### Exhibit 1 1: DJI Phantom 3 Professional Smart Battery Manual

http://download.dji

innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf



### Exhibit 1 2: DJI Phant om 3 Professional Safety/Preflight Checklist and Guidelines Training

http://download.dji

- innovations.com/downloads/phantom_3/en/Safety_Guidelines _Disclaimer_en.pdf



### Exhibit 1 3: DJI Inspire 1

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire

- 1



### Exhibit 1 4: DJI Inspire 1 User Manual

http://download.dji

- innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_User_Manual_v1.2_en.pdf



### Exhibit 1 5: DJI Inspire 1 Quick Start Guide

http://download.dji

- innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Inspire_1_Quick_Start_Guide_en.pdf



### Exhibit 1 6: DJI Inspire 1 Features

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire

- 1/fe aturePETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 72



### Exhibit 1 7: DJI Inspire 1 Specifications

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire

- 1/spec



### Exhibit 1 8: DJI Inspire 1 Flight Controller System

http://www.dji.com/product/inspire

- 1/flight

- control



### Exhibit 1 9: DJI Inspire 1 Smart Battery Manual

http://downl oad.dji

innovations.com/downloads/inspire_1/en/Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guidelines_en.pdf



### Exhibit 2 0: DJI Matrice 100

http://dev.dji.com/en/products/flying

- platforms/ma trice

- 100



### Exhibit 2 1: DJI Matrice 100 User Manual

http://download.dji

- innovations.com/downloads/dev/Matrice/en/M100_User_Manual_v1.0_en.pdf



### Exhib it 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 ManualPETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 73

http://download.dji

innovations.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. U nmanned Aircraft

Systems in Remote Sensing and Scientific Research: Classification and Consideration of Use . Basel, Switzerland:

w ww.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 Av iation 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.) 

### Administra tion, 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 / F AA

- 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. FAA

2014

- 0352." Department of T ransportation, 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 Gui dance 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 . R ome, Italy:

Agricultural Development Economics Division, 13 Oct. 2009. PDF. UN Projections Global Food Demand in 2050.

15.) 

### “ University of Wisconsin

– Whitewater 2014 A n nual 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 Li tigation . Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Pub., 2010.

Print.


## Exemption References

Exemption # 11467

Exemption # 11905

Exemption # 11797PETITIONER

– Jesse Harding DOCUMENT PREPARER

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. 75



### Exemption # 12031

Exemption # 11865

Exemption # 11364

Exemption # 11587

Exemption # 11857

Exemption # 11293

E xemption # 11814

Exemption # 11540

Exemption # 11345