O'Conner Photography,

Anderson O'Conner .

36 Sun Mountain St Califon, NJ 07830

march 25th 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

RE: Exemption Request, under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, from 14 CFR Part 21; 14 CFR 61.113(a); 14 CFR 91.7(a); 14 CFR 91.9(b)(2); 14 CFR 91.105; 14 CFR 91.119(c); 14 CFR 91.121; 14 CFR 91.151(a)(1); 14 CFR 91.203(a)(1); 14 CFR 91.203(b); 14 CFR 91.405(a); 14 CFR 91.407(a)(1); 14 CFR 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2); 14 CFR 91.417(a) & (b).

Dear Sir or Madam:

I, Anderson O'Conner , am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

and the procedures contained within 14 CFR Part 11 to request that I, Anderson O'Conner , an owner and operator of a small unmanned aircraft system, be exempted from certain Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed in Table 1 in order to allow commercial operations of my small, unmanned aircraft system (sUAS)

for aerial imaging, photography, and videography of properties. Section [1] of this petition includes my contact information as the applicant. Section [2]

enumerates the regulations from which exemption is being requested in order to permit the operation of a small, lightweight sUAS under controlled conditions and in a predetermined and clearly bounded space for the purpose of aerial imaging, photography, and videography of properties. These regulations that pertain to the sUAS platform itself are further discussed in Section [3], along with additional measures to

maintain the current level of safety. Section [4] discusses exemptions pertaining to the operator, and how any potential risks are mitigated by limiting operation to a trained, certificated pilot-in-command (PIC) with a

visual observer (VO). Section [5] examines exemptions pertaining to flight operations and how safety

will be maintained at an equivalent or higher level than current approaches by implementation of
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). Finally, Sections [6] and [7] include a summary for the Federal Register andconcluding remarks, respectively. With the platform, personnel, and procedures contained herein in place, as well any additional guidance from the FAA in consideration of this exemption, it is my strong belief that these sUAS operations will meet and exceed the current level of safety and environmental impact of larger scale manned aircraft

that currently perform these functions. Approval of this exemption would thereby enhance safety,

reduce environmental impact, and fulfill the responsibility of the Secretary of Transportation (the FAA Administrator) to “...establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the

national airspace system” pursuant to Section 333(c) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012.



### [1] APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION The name, address, and additional contact information for the applicant is:
Anderson O'Conner O'Conner Photography,

36 Sun Mountain St

Califon NJ 07830

Email: ara9112003@yahoo.com 

### [2] REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN PARTS OF 14 CFR The applicant hereby petitions the Secretary of Transportation and Federal Aviation

Administration for exemption to the below referenced (in Table 1) and, in Sections [3] to [5] more fully described,

Federal Aviation Regulations that currently may apply to the commercial use of a small, unmanned aircraft system. Table 1 - List of Requested ExemptionsThis exemption request is expressly submitted to fulfill Congress’s goal in passing the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), Sections 333(a) through 333(c). This law directs the Secretary

of Transportation to consider whether certain UAS may operate safely in the national airspace system before completion of the rulemaking called for under Section 332 of the same Act. The Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 further states, if “the Secretary determines under [Section 333] that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.” The applicant interprets this provision to place the duty on the Secretary to not only process applications for exemptions under Section 333, but for the Secretary to affirmatively craft

conditions for the safe operation of sUAS, should it be decided that the conditions of this application do not fulfill the
statutory requirements for approval. Recently, the framework for precedent in this area has also been established with the granting

of several exemptions on the grounds of Section 333, whereby safety to the national airspace system has

been maintained. Some of these recent exemptions, which provide some obvious and apparent

similarities to the current exemption request, are Exemption 11138 (Douglas Trudeau), Exemption 11062 (Astraeus Aerial), Exemption 11109 (Clayco, Inc), and Exemption 11110 (Trimble Navigation Ltd). 

### [ 3] RELATING TO THE SMALL, UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM [3.1] OVERVIEW AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION The applicant petitions herein to exempt operations with a Phantom 2 Vision + (the sUAS). The

Phantom 2 Vision + is a lightweight sUAS, carries no people or combustible fuel, and has several built-in safety features in the event of flight emergencies. Based on the physical and safety features of the Phantom 2 Vision +, along with previous findings in Exemption 11138 (Douglas Trudeau), it is believed that this platform falls under the purview of Section 333, is able to meet or exceed acceptable safety levels, and is appropriate for exemption. Lightweight, small UAS. The complete specifications and operating limits for the Phantom 2

Vision + can be found in the Phantom 2 Vision + User Manual, supplied as an attachment to this petition. However, it is instructive to highlight some of the more pertinent operational limits that bound the risk of usage

of the

Phantom 2 Vision +: Maximum dimension of the Phantom 2 Vision + is less than 23 inches, which counts the maximum diagonal distance including maximum swept area of the propellers.  Maximum weight for the Phantom 2 Vision + configurations flown under this petition are less than 3 lbs with imaging sensors onboard.  Maximum speed for the Phantom 2 Vision + is 30 mph. In practice, the Phantom 2 Vision + is never flown at maximum speeds for the requested application (see Section [5.1]) as it is contrary to the objective of sharp photographs or smooth video. For reference, even at maximum speed, the momentum of the Phantom is comparable to a kicked soccer ball.  Maximum flight time is limited to 30 minutes by available charge stored in the onboard battery.  Exceptional agility is provided by yaw rates up to 200°/sec and 20 ft/sec climb rates. This agility allows the Phantom 2 Vision + to be safely operated in smaller, less accessible spaces than could ever be imagined with conventional aircraft. Also, avoiding obstacles or responding to flight emergencies can be accomplished with significantly less standoff distance than is currently required for larger, manned aircraft. No occupants and benign cargo. A significant risk mitigation is provided by virtue of the fact that the

sUAS is inherently unmanned. Any risk of injury to people onboard the aircraft is completely

eliminated. This provides a significant safety upgrade over current operations that use manned helicopters to provide similar services. Low flying helicopters near tree lines not only endanger occupants of the helicopter, but also people on the ground. The sUAS avoids the risk to occupants completely. Additionally, as

the Phantom 2 Vision + is an electric sUAS, the absence of a combustible fuel is an important factor in reducing risk to people and property on the ground should an accident occur. Built-in safety features. The Phantom 2 Vision + has safety features to mitigate two of the most

common malfunctions for sUAS – loss of communication with the base station and low battery levels.  The Phantom 2 Vision + mitigates loss of communication (e.g., exceeding transmitter range, blocked RF signal, electrical malfunction) by incorporating GPS functionality. The Phantom 2 Vision + records the “home” GPS coordinates (set automatically on startup, verified during the preflight inspection). Then, if communication is lost during flight, the sUAS can hover in place to see if signal is restored or initiate a “Return to Home,” returning to the “home” GPS coordinates and executing a landing there.  If the battery reaches a critically low level, the “Return to Home” feature is also initiated. This feature returns the unit back to the “home” location and executes a landing before power is lost. This feature, and Standard Operating Procedures discussed in Section [5], mitigate one of the most tangible risks to sUAS – exhausting onboard battery charge that often leads to a crash.  The sUAS also features a programmable maximum altitude and horizontal range to prevent accidental flight boundary excursions (limits set to 400 feet and 2000 feet, respectively).  Finally, the sUAS includes software-defined “restricted areas” around airports where the Phantom 2 Vision + will not be able to operate. This is supplemented by Standard Operating Procedures which further reduce operating areas, as discussed later. [3.2] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR Part 21 AND 14 CFR §91.203(a)(1) Text of Cited Regulation:(a) Except as provided in § 91.715, no person may operate a civil aircraft unless it has within it

the following: (1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. Each U.S. airworthiness certificate used to comply with this subparagraph (except a special flight permit, a copy of the applicable operations specifications issued under § 21.197(c) of this chapter, appropriate sections of the air carrier manual required by parts 121 and 135 of this chapter containing that portion of the operations specifications issued under § 21.197(c), or an authorization under § 91.611) must have on it the registration number assigned to the aircraft under part 47 of this chapter. However, the airworthiness certificate need not have on it an assigned special identification number before 10 days after that number is first affixed to the aircraft. A revised airworthiness certificate having on it an assigned special identification number, that has been affixed to an aircraft, may only be obtained upon application to an FAA Flight Standards district office. Reason for Exemption: 14 CFR Part 21, Subpart H, establishes the procedural requirements for the issuance of airworthiness certificates as required by 14 CFR §91.203(a)(1). Given the small size, modest maximum speed, and limited operating area associated with the sUAS to be used by the applicant, an exemption from Part 21 and §91.203(a)(1) meets the requirements of an equivalent level of safety under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. The Federal Aviation Act (49 USC §44701(f)) and Section 333 of the FMRA both authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft from the requirement of

an airworthiness certificate, upon consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight of the sUAS. In all cases, an analysis of these criteria demonstrates that the sUAS operated without an airworthiness certificate, in the

limited environment and conditions proposed herein, will be at least as safe, or safer, than a

conventional rotorcraft aircraft operating with an airworthiness certificate. The applicant respectfully requests confirmation that this sUAS does not require airworthiness certification, as allowed under

Section 333 of

the FMRA. Mitigation Basis: Safety of the general public and the national airspace will be preserved by the safety features of the sUAS platform described in [3.1], the training and certification of the operator

described in [4.1], and the additional operational limitations discussed in [5] and supplemented by the
Standard Operating Procedures attached to this petition. Previous clarification that, in relation to a similar sUAS, Part 21 Subpart H was not applicable,

and therefore the sUAS does not require an airworthiness certification, was granted in Exemption 11138 (Trudeau). [3.3] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.203(b)Text of Cited Regulation: (b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special flight authorization issued under § 91.715 is displayed at the cabin

or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew. Reason for Exemption: It is believed that, per the request for relief in [3.2] of this petition and

recent rulings by the FAA (cf., Exemptions 11138, 11062, and 11110), that an airworthiness certificate is

not required for this sUAS. The cited portion of § 91.203(b) seemingly does not allow for aircraft that

have been determined by the FAA to not need an airworthiness certificate. Thus, if this sUAS is

decided not to need an airworthiness certificate (either under 14 CFR § 91.203(a)(1) or § 91.715), a waiver to

14 CFR §91.203(b) is being requested. Mitigation Basis: Safety of the general public and the national airspace will be preserved by the safety features of the sUAS platform described in [3.1], the training and certification of the operator

described in [4.1], and the additional operational limitations discussed in [5] and supplemented by the
Standard Operating Procedures attached to this petition. Previous clarification that, in relation to a similar sUAS, Part 21 Subpart H was not applicable,

and therefore the sUAS does not require an Airworthiness certification, was granted in Exemption 11138 (Trudeau). [3.4] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.7(a) Text of Cited Regulation: (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. Reason for Exemption: This regulation requires that no person operate an aircraft unless it is in

an airworthy condition. However, should [3.2] of this exemption be granted, there will be no

airworthiness certificate issued to this aircraft. Therefore, no FAA regulatory standard will exist for determining airworthiness to fulfill this requirement. Therefore, relief from §91.7(a) is requested. Mitigation Basis: An equivalent level of safety will be provided by the conflation of several

factors. These factors include the low weight of the sUAS (cf., [3.1]), the modest maximum speed of the sUAS (cf., [3.1]), operation within the limits defined in [5.1] and the attached Standard Operation Procedures, and

the successful completion of a pre-flight checklist before every flight. The pre-flight checklist has

been crafted by the trained applicant specifically for this sUAS and has been iterated over the course of

dozens of recreational flights. The pre-flight checklist can be found as an attachment to this petition and

includespre-flight checks of weather, battery levels, propeller structural integrity, other traffic in the area,

and potential obstacles within the flight area (physical or electromagnetic). The rigorous pre-flight inspection is to allow the PIC to determine, before every flight, whether

the sUAS is in a condition safe for flight per §91.7(b). Relief from §91.7(b) is therefore not expected to be

necessary, nor is it being requested as part of this petition. Relief from §91.7(a) has previously been granted to similar petitions, for example Exemption

11138 (Douglas Trudeau) and Exemption 11110 (Trimble Navigation Ltd). [3.5] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.9(b)(2) Text of Cited Regulation: (b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by § 21.5 of this chapter unless there is available in the aircraft a current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual or the manual provided for in § 121.141(b); and (2) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is not required by § 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. Reason for Exemption: As the sUAS will not be certificated under Part 21, a Flight Manual is not required by §21.5. Therefore, §91.9(b)(2) requires that there be available, in the aircraft, a “current approved Rotorcraft Flight Manual, approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any

combination thereof.” This exemption is requested for three reasons. The first reason derives from the fact that there

is no officially FAA-approved manual for this system, making the requirement inapplicable. Second,

the inherent small size of the platform makes stowage of such material impossible onboard the aircraft as required by §91.9(b)(2). Third, stowage of such a manual onboard the aircraft would not allow the PIC

access to it during flight, causing a potential safety concern. Therefore, relief is requested for §91.9(b)(2). Mitigation Basis: Safety of the general public and the national airspace will be preserved by best capturing the intent of the original regulation as it pertains to the sUAS at hand. The manufacturer’s User

Manual (attached) will be used in place of an approved Flight Manual. The manufacturer’s User Manual
captures pertinent information for safe flight and operation, including general performance data, proper takeoff/landing procedures, and procedures for emergency situations such as loss of a

communications link. Stowage of this manual onboard the aircraft is both impossible and believed to be contrary

to the intent of the regulation, as the PIC would not be able to access it during flight if it were onboard

theaircraft. Therefore, the manufacturer’s User Manual will be stored with the sUAS control station

such that it is available to the PIC, consistent with the findings from FAA Memorandum “Interpretation regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at an UA’s control station” dated 8 August

2014. [3.6] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.121 Text of Cited Regulation: (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 [table omitted] (c) To convert minimum altitude prescribed under §§ 91.119 and 91.177 to the minimum flight level, the pilot shall take the flight level equivalent of the minimum altitude in feet and add the appropriate number of feet specified below, according to the current reported altimeter setting. Reason for Exemption: This regulation requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set to the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure. The sUAS may not have a barometric altimeter, but

rather a GPS altitude readout from the flight system telemetry. Therefore, an exemption may be needed. Mitigation Basis: An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the operator by means of the Pre-flight
checklist which records the altitude readout at the launch site as shown on the GPS altitude

indicator before flight. This site altitude will be subtracted from subsequent GPS altitude readouts to

arrive at altitude AGL. This compensates for field-site barometric pressure variations when calculating altitude

AGL. All altitudes reported to ATC will be in feet AGL. Relief from §91.121 has previously been granted to similar petitions, for example Exemption

11062 (Astraeus Aerial) and Exemption 11138 (Douglas Trudeau). [3.7] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.405(a), §91.407(a)(1), §91.409(a)(1) & (2), §91.417(a) & (b) Text of Cited Regulation: (.405) Each owner or operator of an aircraft— (a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, havediscrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

***** (.407) (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

***** (.409) (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— (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.

***** (.417) (a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§ 91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of

this

section: (1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of

an aircraft. The records must include— (i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed; and (ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and (iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for

return to service. (2) Records containing the following information: (i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each

rotor. (ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance. (iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis. (iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained. (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(a) of this chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances. (.417) (b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed: (1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is performed. (2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred

with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under § 43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for

return to service. Reason for Exemption: These sections reference the procedures and protocols under 14 CFR Part 43, which applies only to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. Given that the sUAS will not have

an airworthiness certificate, these sections will not apply to the applicant. Mitigation Basis: Maintenance (including routine maintenance and repair to correct functionality issues) will be conducted by the operator. Any sUAS maintenance or alterations that affect operations or flight characteristics (e.g., replacement of a motor or electronic speed controller, but not replacement

of the battery), will undergo a functional flight test before being returned to service. Such maintenance, inspection, or alterations will be noted in the aircraft logbook, to include total flight hours, description of work, and the signature of the person returning the sUAS to service. As required in §91.7(b), the

PIC also completes a pre-flight checklist to ensure the sUAS is safe for flight before every flight. An equivalent level of safety is therefore achieved by documentation of any maintenance or repair work done on the sUAS, functional flight tests after certain maintenance, and pre-flight checkouts to ensure all systems

are safe for flight. Relief from §91.405(a), §91.407(a)(1), §91.409(a)(1) & (2), and §91.417(a) & (b) has previously been granted to similar petitions, for example Exemption 11062 (Astraeus Aerial), Exemption 11138 (Douglas Trudeau), and Exemption 11110 (Trimble Navigation Ltd). 

### [4] RELATING TO PILOT IN COMMAND [4.1] OVERVIEW AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION The applicant, Anderson O'Conner , would be the pilot-in-command (PIC) for all sUAS operations under this exemption request. Anderson O'Conner ’s commitment to safety, technical expertise in
aerospace systems, flight training and certification, and experience with similar systems all enable operation of the
sUAS while meeting or exceeding the safety levels currently seen in manned platforms that perform similar

missions. Technical Expertise. Anderson O'Conner , has been flying small, electric RC helicopters and other small, unmanned aircraft systems recreationally for over 8 years. Anderson O'Conner has over 25 hours of flight time on small, electric rotorcraft in recreational settings. Moreover, Anderson O'Conner has over 10 hours of flight time on multi-rotor sUAS, and well over the 5 hours of logged flight time on the exact make and

model of thisexemption.



### [5] RELATING TO THE sUAS OPERATIONS [5.1] OVERVIEW AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION The sUAS under this petition is equipped with an imaging sensor (e.g., GoPro video camera)

and is to beoperated for aerial imaging, photography, and videography of property in a limited and welldefined boundary. Some examples of aerial imaging include photographs or videos of structures (e.g., roofs, solar panels, etc.) for subsequent, post-flight visual inspection. Typical examples of aerial photography include the capture of photos of properties for post-flight use in marketing or advertising materials. Finally, some examples of aerial videography are short video clips (limited to 2 minutes in duration) of property for later composition and marketing, advertising, or other uses. All commercial operations are to take place on property with the permission of the property owner, owner’s authorized representative, or cognizant local

official. The proposed operations serve many needs of homeowners, Realtors, and others in a way that

is more cost effective and safer than traditional approaches. One example pertains to a homeowner or

Realtor who wishes to have an aerial view of a property for advertising, marketing, or reasons of general

interest. Traditional methods include the use of a helicopter, posing additional risks due to the persons

onboard the platforms, significant weight (several tons), carriage of combustible Jet A fuel (over 100 gallons),

and the relative lack of maneuverability/agility of such platforms. This is all compounded by additional

harmful impacts to nearby persons who are then exposed to additional noise pollution in excess of 100 dB, causing non-active participant safety concerns. Conducting this operation with the sUAS greatly reduces (or in some cases, eliminates) these risks. Safe operation of the sUAS will be ensured by a thorough set of Standard Operating Procedures. A
separate document has been attached to this petition with the fully detailed SOP; however, these topically

include:  Operation limited to visual, line-of-sight (VLOS)  Operation limited to daytime activities; no night operations  Use of a visual observer (VO) for all flights, who is in direct verbal contact with PIC  Operation limited to a maximum altitude of 400 feet AGL  Operational minimum standoff distances for nonparticipating persons  Operational minimum standoff distances for nonparticipating vehicles/structures  Operation with minimum standoff distances to clouds No sUAS operations within 5 miles of a Class B, C, or D airport without ATC consent  Comprehensive Pre-Flight inspection by the PIC to determine safe-for-flight  Flight duration limited to 30 minutes in length or 30% battery remaining Each of the above are listed in the attached SOP and are further elaborated upon in subsequent

sections that discuss relief to specific FARs and how the portion of the SOP mitigates any risk that may

be encountered by exemption from that particular FAR. [5.2] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.105 Text of Cited Regulation: (a) During takeoff and landing, and while en route, each required flight crewmember shall— (1) Be at the crewmember station unless the absence is necessary to perform duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft or in connection with physiological needs; and (2) Keep the safety belt fastened while at the crewmember station. (b) Each required flight crewmember of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft shall, during takeoff and landing, keep his or her shoulder harness fastened while at his or her assigned duty station.

This paragraph does not apply if— (1) The seat at the crewmember's station is not equipped with a shoulder harness; or (2) The crewmember would be unable to perform required duties with the shoulder

harness fastened. Reason for Exemption: The regulation requires crew members (which may include the PIC and VO) to keep a safety belt fastened while at their crewmember stations. As the sUAS has no occupants, this regulation is not applicable as it would be detrimental to flight safety to require the operator and visual

observer on the ground to remain with a safety belt fastened. Therefore, exemption from §90.105 is requested. Mitigation Basis: Due to the unusual nature of the sUAS operation (remotely from ground, with

no onboard crew), the safety of the general public, pilot in command, visual observer, and national airspace system is adversely affected under the interpretation of this requirement that the pilot in

command and the visual observer on the ground must have a safety belt fastened at a designated station. [5.3] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.119(c) Text of Cited Regulation: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) [omitted as not relevant to request for relief] (b) [omitted as not relevant to request for relief] (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. (d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.Reason for Exemption: The regulation requires minimum standoff distances to persons and objects (in other than congested areas) of no less than 500 feet. Due to the altitude limitation of the sUAS (of 400 feet maximum) as well as the intended mission of aerial imaging/photography/videography, it will be

necessary to operate closer than 500 feet to essential persons, structures, vehicles, and vessels. Therefore, an exemption is requested. Mitigation Basis: The applicant has no intentions to operate the sUAS over congested areas. However, there is no clear definition as to what metrics constitute a congested area (as expressed in Exemption 11110). While “yellow” areas on sectional charts are a good means to alerting operators to potentially congested areas, these alone only indicate the general area is populated and is not sufficient to prescribe congestion (consistent with the findings of Exemption 11138), nor should they be used for such.

The level of congestion should seemingly be determined relative to the aircraft being operated in the

candidate Area of Operation. To ensure safety in the event of an emergency, the aircraft would ideally be

afforded sufficient space to land without collision due to the density of nearby persons or structures. Clearly, the characteristic length scale (and, therefore, allowable density) for safe landing would vary substantially between an aircraft requiring hundreds of feet to make an emergency landing versus a sUAS that requires only several feet. The pilot in command will therefore use best judgment on whether a particular
sUAS Area of Operation, which is spatially limited, is congested before commencing any flight

activities. Such a judgment will take into consideration:  The candidate Area of Operation will not be found acceptable if it includes an open air assembly of persons  The candidate Area of Operation will be judged based on the expected flight boundaries. That is, a large open space in a heavily settled area would be judged based on the open space and not the surrounding area if operations are to be limited to safely within the open

space.  The candidate Area of Operation must provide sufficient free space away from persons and structures to allow typical takeoff, landing, and flight without presenting an undue hazard to nearby persons or structures.  The candidate Area of Operation must provide sufficient free space to allow emergency landing procedures without presenting an undue hazard to nearby persons or structures.  The candidate Area of Operation must allow the flight operations to adhere to the minimum standoff distances that would otherwise be required of an area other than a congested area.If the Area of Operation is determined by the pilot in command to be congested, no flight operations shall occur. If the Area of Operation is determined by the pilot in command to be other than a congested area, the following limitations on flight operations will be imposed, based on the light weight of the sUAS (3 lbs) and the findings of previous FAA analyses:  Minimum standoff distances to non-participating persons is nominally 500 feet.  If barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently protect non-participating persons from the sUAS or debris in the event of an accident, then the sUAS may operate closer than 500 feet to non-participating persons afforded such protection. o If a situation arises where non-participating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the sUAS, flight operations must cease as soon as is practicable and in a manner to ensure the safety of the non-participating person as the primary

concern.  Minimum standoff distances may be less than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles, and structures when the owner/controller of any such vessel, vehicle, or structure grants permission and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determines that it does not present an undue hazard.  Minimum distance to clouds will be 500 feet below any clouds and 2000 feet horizontally from any clouds to ensure the PIC and VO have VLOS with the sUAS throughout the flight. It is noted that, currently, full-scale helicopters are permitted under §91.119(d) to operate in

similar missions with potentially less restrictive requirements. It is believed that the proposed limitations

will maintain the safety of the general public on the ground at levels that exceed current safety

levels of conventional helicopters performing similar missions. Relief from §91.119(c) has previously been granted to similar petitions, for example Exemption

11138 (Douglas Trudeau) and Exemption 11110 (Trimble Navigation Ltd). [5.4] REQUESTED EXEMPTION FROM 14 CFR §91.151(a)(1) Text of Cited Regulation: (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 Reason for Exemption: The sUAS in this petition does not carry any fuel and, therefore, this regulation is not well-posed for this sUAS. The sUAS is battery powered with a total flight duration that is

limited to approximately 30 minutes. Therefore, requiring enough battery power to fly to the first destination plus an

additional 30 minutes is not feasible. Mitigation Basis: The proposed operations of the sUAS are limited to a defined area, typically a single property, with the property owner/controller’s consent. Due to this, it is believed that not being able to flyfor an additional 30 minutes does not engender the types of risks that §91.151(a)(1) was

intended toalleviate given the sUAS is small, relatively low speed, and will not be flown over nonparticipating structures. An equivalent level of safety can be achieved by limiting flights to 30 minutes or 30% remaining battery power (manufacturer-recommended low battery limit), whichever occurs first. This is

more than adequate to return the sUAS to the intended landing area and execute a normal landing procedure. Relief from §91.151(a)(1) has previously been granted to similar petitions, for example Exemption 11062 (Astraeus Aerial), Exemption 11138 (Douglas Trudeau), and Exemption 11110 (Trimble Navigation Ltd). [5.5] PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF TYPICAL SECTION 333 EXEMPTION CONDITION -

NOTAMS Text of Cited Typical Exemption Condition: The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or

Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of exemption. This COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to Airman (NOTAM) not more than 72 hours in advance, but not

less than 48 hours prior to the operation. Feedback on Condition: Due to the nature of the assignments/missions, the starting day/time of

the sUAS operations in this petition may not always be known three days in advance, and it would not be unexpected to be asked to support missions the next day (within 24 hours). Furthermore, weather conditions

in the Northeast are variable with meteorological forecasts often changing when made several days in

advance. It is therefore respectfully requested that the above typical exemption condition be modified to require the operator to request a NOTAM not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 12 hours prior to the operation. Mitigation Basis: It is believed that this will not adversely affect national airspace safety as
NOTAMs are checked before flights and may be checked during flights. Allowing NOTAMs to be requested

closer to the actual flight operations (when weather conditions are more accurately predicted) will greatly

increase the fidelity of the NOTAM process and airman awareness by producing fewer false-alarms, and, as

a consequence, leading to greater vigilance to those receiving the NOTAM. 

### [6] PUBLIC INTEREST The proposed exemption under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

is within thepublic interest. This petition for imaging, photography, and videography of property would allow

access to aerial imaging to those who would previously have been excluded from the market by the cost of using a larger, manned aircraft. The impact to the public is multifaceted, including greater access to

aerial capabilities, increased levels of safety over conventional manned systems to perform the same duty, and reduced impact to nearby persons or ecological sites due to noise or burned hydrocarbon

emissions. One example is a homeowner who suspects possible roof damage, perhaps as a result of a

recent storm. To determine if damage has occurred, the homeowner may wish to inspect the roof before calling a
carpenter or repairperson. This may lead to an unprepared homeowner in peril on an icy or slippery roof. By comparison, the sUAS can quickly be used to image the suspect area and those images can subsequently be visually inspected by the homeowner, greatly reducing the risk to persons. A second example pertains to a homeowner or Realtor who wishes to have an aerial view of a property for advertising, marketing, or reasons of general interest. Traditional methods include the use of a helicopter, posing additional risks due to the persons onboard the platforms, significant weight (several tons), carriage of combustible Jet A fuel (over 100 gallons), and the relative lack of maneuverability/agility of

such platforms. This is all compounded by additional harmful impacts to nearby persons who are then exposed to additional noise pollution. Typical decibel noise level for a Bell helicopter at 100 feet is approximately 100 dB. By contrast, the sUAS at less than 10 feet is approximately 80 dB, leading to a 4X

reduction in noise pollution, even when 10X closer. 

### [7] SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER, IF NEEDED Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the Federal Register, should it be determined that publication is needed: Applicant seeks an exemption from the following rules: 14 CFR Part 21, Subpart H; 14 CFR §61.113(a); 14 CFR §91.7(a); 14 CFR §91.9(b)(2); 14 CFR §91.105; 14 CFR §91.119(c); 14 CFR §91.121; 14 CFR §91.151(a)(1); 14 CFR §91.203(a)(1); 14 CFR §91.203(b); 14 CFR §91.405(a); 14 CFR §91.407(a)(1); 14 CFR §91.409(a)(1); 14 CFR §91.409(a)(2); 14

CFR §91.417(a); 14 CFR §91.417(b) to operate a small, unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) weighing

less than 3 lbs in commercial aerial imaging, photography, and videography operations. 

### [8] CONCLUDING REMARKSIt is believed that the criteria presented in this petition, including size, weight, operational parameters, pilot qualifications and training, and Standard Operating Procedures, provide a very high level of safety, at or above current levels, during the proposed sUAS use. This level of safety, the interest to the public, and the commission of the FAA to integrate sUAS into the national airspace provide more than adequate justification for the grant of the requested exemptions allowing commercial operation of the applicant’s
sUAS. The attached Standard Operating Procedures, Pre-Flight Checklist, and Emergency Procedures

have been developed by efforts of O'Conner Photography, . However, this material is permitted to be

shared and posted without specific protections to facilitate safe and thoughtful flight operations across the community. The applicant is very passionate and active in the field of sUAS. Should any supplemental

information be helpful in the adjudication of this exemption petition, please do not hesitate to get in contact. Moreover, if it provides any value now or in the future, the applicant would be pleased to offer feedback on

the exemption process or offer input (either procedural or technical) on future implementations to satisfy Sections 332 or 334 of the FMRA. The applicant is actively engaged in teaching short courses to high school students on the topic of sUAS and would be a willing advocate on awareness of proper protocols in integrating sUAS into the national airspace as this field continues to emerge. Respectfully submitted,

Anderson O'Conner , O'Conner Photography,

36 Sun Mountain St Califon Nj 07830

ENC:

- O'Conner Photography sUAS Standard Operating Procedures

- O'Conner Photography sUAS Pre-Flight Checklist

- O'Conner Photography Emergency Procedures

-DJI Phantom 3 Professional User Manual -Intelligent_Flight_Battery_Safety_Guideline-2