May 29, 2015

Hon. Michael Huerta

Administrator

Federal Aviation Administration

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re:​Exemption Request under Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations from certain parts of the FARs.

Dear Administrator Huerta:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the Reform Act)

and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Brendan Stewart is a licensed pilot and skilled UAV operator, hereby

applies for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) to allow him to

operate a small Unmanned Aircraft System (“sUAS”) under the conditions and limitations set

forth in this petition.

The requested exemption would permit the commercial operation of small, unmanned sUAS

under controlled conditions in airspace that is limited and predetermined for aerial imaging for

safety, monitoring, inspecting and/or recording secured and controlled environment and

photography for marketing media. Approval of this exemption would thereby enhance safety and

fulfill the FAA Administrator’s responsibilities to “...establish requirements for the safe operation

of such aircraft systems in the national airspace system.” Section 333(c) of the Reform Act.

The name and address of the applicant is:

Brendan Stewart

1985 Spruce Ave.

Highland Park, IL. 60035

847­826­0449

Techfreak5000@comcast.net

Regulations from which the exemption is requested:

14 CFR Part 21

14 C.F.R. § 45.23(b)

14 CFR § 61.3

14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (a)

14 CFR § 91.9 (b) (2)

14 C.F.R. § 91.103
14 C.F.R. § 91.109

14 C.F. R. § 91.119

14 C.F.R. § 91.121

14 CFR § 91.151 (a)

14 CFR § 91.203 (a) & (b)

14 CFR § 91.205(b)

14 CFR § 91.215

14 CFR § 91.405 (a)

14 CFR § 407 (a) (1)

14 CFR § 409 (a) (2)

14 CFR § 417 (a) & (b) 3

The Appendix describes the FARs from which an exemption is requested and summarizes the

justification for each requested exemption.

The petition is submitted to fulfill Congress’ goal under Section 333(a) through (c) of the Reform

Act, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to consider whether certain unmanned aircraft

systems may operate safely in the national airspace system (NAS) before completion of the

rulemaking required under Section 332 of the Reform Act. In making this determination, the

Administrator must determine which types of UASs do not create a hazard to users of the NAS

or the public or pose a threat to national security in light of the following:

● The UAS’s size, weight, speed, and operational capability;

● Operation of the UAS in close proximity to airports and populated areas; and

● Operation of the UAS within visual line of sight of the operator.

Reform Act § 333 (a).

If the Administrator determines that such vehicles “may operate safely in the national airspace

system, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft in the

national airspace system.” Id. § 333(c) (emphasis added).

The Secretary has delegated his aviation authority to the Administrator of the FAA.

The Federal Aviation Act expressly grants the FAA the authority to grant exemptions from its

regulatory requirements for civil aircraft, a term defined under §40101 of the Act, which includes

sUASs. The Administrator may grant an exemption from a requirement of a regulation

prescribed under subsection (a) or (b) of this section or any sections 44702­44716 of the

Federal Aviation Act if Administrator finds the exemption in the public interest. 49 U.S.C. §

44701(f) See also 49 USC § 44711(a); 49 USC § 44704; 14 CFR §91.203 (a) (1).

The petitioner is a professional videographer who earns his living developing creative marketing

media using a variety of professional video equipment. He gathers video images and video

photography data for construction companies, municipalities and charitable organizations.
The wide availability of small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, also known as “microdrones,”

capable of carrying high­quality video cameras and priced at affordable levels intrigued the

petitioner. His entire professional career has involved exploring new technologies and adapting

them to capture good imagery to inform the public. In october 2009, he built an Xaircraft 650,

installed a three axis gimbal and a GoPro camera and has flown it and numerous other aircraft

systems for total of 350 hours over remote wooded areas northern Illinois and southern

Wisconsin for recreational purposes, exploring the potential and the limitations of its video

subsystem. He has also traveled internationally and operated the system in Norway, Sweden

and Denmark. Since then the petitioner has built and flown numerous UAV systems and

conducted extensive testing in remote locations in northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin.

The petitioner is pleased with the quality of the imagery captured and has edited it into a

number of photographic vignettes that meet his high standards for technical quality and artistic

merit.

Now, a number of people, some professional colleagues and some strangers, have heard about

petitioner’s activities and have seen the results and are pressing petitioner to undertake

additional microdrone photography for compensation.

Petitioner has been advised by counsel that this is not now permissible unless he obtains

special permission from the FAA. Many competitors of petitioner are actively flying sUAS to

conduct aerial photography for commercial purposes, notwithstanding the FAA’s stated

prohibition. He also notes and has read the congressional mandate in sections 332 and 333 of

the FAA Revitalization and Reform Act of 2012 that the FAA move quickly to accommodate the

economic and societal benefits that can result from widespread deployment of sUAS

technology. Accordingly, petitioner applies for authorization under the Federal Aviation Act, and

the FARs rules to undertake the following activities for commercial purposes. Unless the Petition

is granted, petitioner will be at a significant competitive advantage if he, as he prefers, complies

with FAA policy.

Vehicle

The petitioner will fly a Sky Hero coaxial quadrotor equipped with a semi­autonomous autopilot,

dual redundant flight control system, dual redundant power system and interchangeable

mapping and survey sensors.

This vehicle has built in capability to limit the height it flies above the ground, to limit the radius

of the distance it flies from the operator, and to automatically exclude it from a five mile

perimeter around class B, C, and D airspace. The vehicle also has the built­in capability to

return to the launching point if the wireless control link is interrupted or if the operator attempts

to exceed any of the height, radius, or airspace limitations programmed into it.

The vehicle weighs about five pounds empty and has a maximum gross weight of approximately

35 pounds. It has a top speed of about 20 knots. It has eight coaxial, redundantly driven fixed
pitch rotors, thrust from which is varied by changing motor RPM. It is powered by a lithium

polymer battery.

Flight profiles

The petitioner will program the onboard Pixhawk Autopilot so that it will not fly above 400 feet

above ground level, or more than 1500 feet away from him. He will carefully preflight the vehicle

before each mission to assure that its compass, accelerometer and GPS system are properly

calibrated and that the return­to­home feature, altitude, and radius limitations work.

The petitioner will operate it on aerial photography, mapping, inspection, and survey missions

only with the expressed consent of the hiring party, as well as other incidental parties within the

vicinity. He will operate it only over largely unpopulated areas where the potential of

uncontrolled descent to cause injury or damage is low. He will not operate it in controlled

airspace. In the unlikely event that a manned aircraft flies below 400 feet AGL where the

petitioners operating his coaxial octorotor, he will keep both the vehicle and manned aircraft in

sight and avoid the manned aircraft.

More particularly, the Petitioner will fly the octorotor only over the following types of areas with a

human spotter with visual contact on the octorotor for all flights. The petitioner would use the

light weight UAS in the following areas of commerce:

● Farm/Crop property to provide valuable information to farmers on crop condition,

irrigation proficiency

● Over lines of railroad and rail classification yards for the purpose of safety inspections

● Over lakes, outward of the shoreline to determine shore erosion

● Utility inspections for power lines, chimneys and structural defects

● Site development to create high resolution scalable overhead photography of a property

for us by engineers, architects, designers and landscape architects in evaluating the

best use for developing properties for remodeling or renovation especially commercial

buildings were equipment is located on the roof would also benefit from HD photos that

document the equipment and its location. Currently Google Maps are useful for such

endeavors but only with a very low resolution overhead photo of such properties

● Development and construction sites to record construction defect investigations,

progress of large developments and to observe and document job site safety

● Over nonresidential and noncommercial large­scale industrial areas

● Over private property when he has been commissioned by the person in legal

possession of the property to do so

● There are many other areas that sUAS would be a safer, accurate and less expensive

alternative to current commercial services but the petitioner would be specifically

interested in the areas mentioned above
Petitioner will only operate the octorotor under a current private or sport pilots license, during

Visual Meteorological Conditions Only, and after receiving the expressed consent of all parties

incidental to the occurring operation.

Petitioner will, during all UAV flight operations monitor local manned air traffic radio

communications frequencies to maintain situational awareness of traffic in the NAS.

The petitioner's proposed operations satisfy the criteria provided in Section 333 of the Reform

Act relating to size, weight, speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports and populated

areas and operation within visual line of sight and national security. The Petition justifies grant of

the requested exemptions allow the Petitioner to obtain aerial photography with his microdrone.

Respectfully submitted

Brendan Stewart

1985 Spruce Ave.

Highland Park, IL. 60035

847­826­0449

Techfreak5000@comcast.net
Appendix

FAR section Subject Justification

14 CFR Part 21 Aircraft certification

requirements and procedures

Designed for manned aircraft;

not suitable for off­the­shelf

sUAS

14 CFR § 45.23(b) Requirement to display

registration number on vehicle

Insufficient space on vehicle

14 CFR § 61.3 Requirement for pilot

certificate

Part 61 requirements designed

for manned aircraft, not sUAS;

petition describes training for

sUAS operator

14 CFR § 91.7 (a) Airworthiness requirement Designed for manned aircraft;

not suitable for off­the­shelf

sUAS

14 CFR § 91.9 (b) (2) Requirement for manual to be

available in the cockpit

No one aboard to read manual

14 CFR § 91.103(b) Requirement for crew

members to be onboard

Unmanned vehicle

14 CFR § 91.109 Requirement for dual controls

during flight instruction

No one aboard to operate

controls

14 CFR § 91.119 Minimum altitudes for safe

flight

Safety requires operation below

these altitudes

14 CFR § 91.121 Altimeter settings No one aboard to read altimeter

14 CFR § 91.151(a) Fuel requirements Vehicle does not use fuel

14 CFR § 91.203 (a) & (b) Requirement for registration

and airworthiness certificates

to be onboard

No one aboard to read

certificates

14 CFR § 91.205(b) Cockpit instruments

requirement

No one aboard to read

instruments

14 CFR § 91.215 Transponder requirement Vehicle has insufficient useful

load; will be operated below

ATC radar coverage
14 CFR § 91.405 (a) Inspection requirements Designed for manned aircraft;

not suitable for off­the­shelf

sUAS

14 CFR § 91.407(a) (1) Inspection approval

requirements

Designed for manned aircraft;

not suitable for off­the­shelf

sUAS

14 CFR § 91.409 (a) (2) Airworthiness inspection Designed for manned aircraft;

not suitable for off­the­shelf

sUAS

14 CFR § 91.417 (a) & (b) Maintenance records

requirements

Designed for manned aircraft;

not suitable for off­the­shelf

sUAS