Below is my request for a 333 exemption.

I have attached an operation manual pertaining to my request.

The company name is Just Aviation LLC.

I am requesting in addition to the 333 exemption is having my manual approved.

This manual hopefully shows how we will operate the drones in a safe and efficient manner.

We will operate with safety as our number one priority.

Section 333 Exemption

Requesting an exemption of the use of small drones for commercial use such as aerial photographic and 

property inspections. Seeking relief on AC91-57A limiting non-commercial operations and Part 91.119 as 

well as others listed below. I will likely want to fly the drone closer than 500 feet to structures, vehicles 

and persons. I will likely need to operate lower than 500 feet.

Requesting permission to operate a drone for aerial photography with some stipulations including 

limiting operations to daytime hours, at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level within 

line of sight and at a speed of no faster than 50 miles per hour.

Requesting use of drones such as the Blade Chroma, Blade 350 QX3, Yuneec Q500 Typhoon, Typhoon H, 

DJI Inspire 1 and DJI Phantom 3 series, weighing less than 50 pounds. 

I am looking to use these drone for business purposes for home inspections, property sale and 

advertising photos and videos for potential customers.

The reasons why granting the request would be in public interest is the UAS provide safer work 

conditions for company employees because the employees will not have to go into dangerous 

environment (not having to climb up and around structures for inspections and photographic 

documents of property and equipment). A UAS is safer than a helicopter or small plane because it is 

lighter and less combustible. A UAS is more environmentally friendly than helicopters or small planes 

because it reduces noise and air pollution. UAS use contributes to reduced airport congestion by 

reducing the commercial use of small planes and helicopters. There is less risk to life and property on 

the ground. UAS use is more economical for companies and contributes to the U.S. economy by allowing 

them to stay competitive. Allowing the petitioner to use a UAS would fulfill Congress’s goal under § 333 

of the FMRA by allowing UAS operation with significant safety precautions in a low risk environment 

before the publication of the rulemaking required under FMRA § 332.

Section 333 of the Modernization Act authorizes the FAA to exempt aircraft from the requirement for an 

airworthiness certificate based on a consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capability of 

the particular UAS, as well as its proximity to airports and populated areas. An analysis of these criteria 
demonstrates that the sUAS operated without an airworthiness certificate in the areas and under the 

conditions contemplated by DFAM will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed 

wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate without the conditions proposed in this 

request. The sUAS is less than 55 lbs. fully loaded, carries neither a pilot nor passenger, and operates 

exclusively within a secured area. Unlike other civil aircraft, operations under this exemption will be 

tightly controlled and monitored by the operator and observer. Operations will be conducted in 

compliance with the FAA and with local public safety requirements to provide security for the area of 

operation as is now done with conventional equipment, infrastructure, bridge and out building 

evaluation. These safety enhancements provide an expanded degree of safety to the inspectors over 

conventional operations. Lastly, application of these same criteria demonstrates that there is no credible 

threat to national security posed by the sUAS, due to its size, speed of operation, location of operation, 

lack of explosive materials and inability to carry a substantial external load. Given the size and limited 

operating area associated with the aircraft to be utilized by the Applicant, this meets the requirements 

of an equivalent level of safety under Part 11 and Section 333 of the Reform Act. The Federal Aviation 

Act (49 U.S.C.§44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act both authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft 

from the requirement for an airworthiness certificate, upon consideration of the size, weight, speed, 

operational capability, and proximity to airports and populated areas of the particular sUAS. In all cases, 

an analysis of these criteria demonstrates that the UAS operated without an airworthiness certificate, in 

the restricted environment and under the conditions proposed will be at least as safe, or safer, than a 

conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate without the 

restrictions and conditions proposed.

14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b) § 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

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

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

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

aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection 

with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

*****

DFAM anticipates initially using a cadre of specially trained staff to conduct the sUAS operations. While 

these individuals will not hold commercial pilot licenses. The sUAS will not carry property for 

compensation or hire since they will be used solely to assist in evaluation of the infrastructure, 

equipment, right-of-way, assets, bridges, tunnel sand out-buildings in furtherance of DFAM’s client’s 

primary business, the successful operation of a infrastructure; however, the employees’ operation of the 
sUAS will not be incidental to their employment with DFAM, and they will be compensated for such 

work.

Without an exemption, the pilot would be required to hold a commercial pilot certificate under §61.133. 

However, the risk associated with the contemplated operations is less than the risk posed by a 

traditional aircraft. The sUAS will fly at altitudes well below the permissible limits for other civil aircraft, 

eliminating the risk to other aircraft, and within a geographical envelope under the sole control of DFAM 

clients. Accordingly, the risk would be limited to DFAM personnel, who will be appropriately outfitted in 

safety gear, and DFAM client’s property on the ground. Requiring a commercial pilot certificate would 

provide no appreciable safety benefit and would needlessly impose additional cost on DFAM. Because 

the contemplated operations would not comply with §61.113(b) (1)and none of the other exceptions to 

paragraph (a) apply, relief is needed from both paragraphs (a) and (b).

14 C.F.R. 91.119(c) § 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following 

altitudes:

(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.

*****

DFAM submits that the only relief it requires from §91.119 is from the minimum altitudes listed in 

paragraph (c). Relief is required from paragraph (c) for fixed wing operations because asset evaluation 

conducted at 500 feet or higher is insufficiently distinct to be meaningful. Since operations at this 

altitude also pose a heightened risk of collision with another aircraft, safety can only be assured through 

the grant of an exemption. The anticipated rotorcraft operations should be adequately addressed by 

paragraph (d) (1). Additionally, relief should not be needed from paragraph (a) because an emergency 

landing of the aircraft due to a power failure will not create an undue hazard to persons or property on 

the surface. As noted in the explanation of why an exemption will not adversely affect safety, DFAM 

clients has exclusive use of the land over which the sUAS will be operated, and public access is 

restricted. It also has exclusive use of significant portions of land adjacent to the infrastructure and 

structures that will be the objects of evaluation and analysis. DFAM’s Clients tightly control access to 

land and have the ability to assure that no individuals unassociated with the planned operations are on 

the affected land. As such, the risk of injury is minimal. DFAM does not contemplate conducting 

operations over congested areas, so relief is not requested from paragraph (b).
14 C.F.R. 91.121

14 C.F.R. §91.121 Altimeter Settings

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.”

*****

As the sUAS may not have a barometric altimeter, but instead a GPS altitude readout, an exemption may 

be needed. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the operator, pursuant to the Manual and 

Safety Check list, confirming the altitude of the launch site shown on the GPS altitude indicator before 

flight. Altitude information will be provided to the sUAS pilot via a digitally encoded telemetric data 

feed, which downlinks from the aircraft to a ground-based on-screen display. This altitude information 

will be generated by equipment installed on board the aircraft, using GPS triangulation, or digitally 

encoded barometric altimeter, or radio altimeter, or any combination thereof. Prior to each flight, a zero 

altitude initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the pilot.

14 C.F.R. 91.151

§91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

(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.

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft 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, to fly after that for at least 20 minutes.

*****

Operating the sUAS in a pre-defined area with less than 30 minutes of reserve fuel does not raise the 

type of risk contemplated by §91.151, i.e., that an aircraft could run out of fuel in the event it has to be 

flown to an alternate airport or circle the planned airport in the event of unanticipated conditions. 

DFAM does not intend to use the sUAS or point-to-point flights and will not operate the sUAS beyond 

visual line of sight. Nor will the sUAS require an airport in order to land. Rather, DFAM will operate the 

sUAS using pre-planned flight paths (taking into account weather conditions) designed to allow the sUAS 

to fly to the point of intended landing. As such, there is no need for a time based excess fuel 

requirement. Rather it should be sufficient to require only as much additional excess flight capacity as 

necessary to safely land the sUAS. We believe that a 25% battery reserve is more than sufficient to meet 

this objective.
14 C.F.R. 91.405(a), 91.407(a) (1), 14 C.F.R. 91.409(a) (1) & (2) and 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) & (b)§91.405 

Maintenance required.

Each owner or operator of an aircraft –

(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required 

inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as 

prescribed in part 43 of this chapter;

*****

§91.407 Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless 

–

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under§43.7 of this chapter;

*****

§91.409 Inspections.

(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.

*****

§91.417 (a) & (b)

*****

DFAM believes that an exemption from these three maintenance requirements is appropriate because 

the FAA has not developed maintenance standards that would allow an operator to meet the part 91 

maintenance requirements. In particular, there are no individuals authorized by the FAA to approve a 

sUAS for return to service under

§91.407(a) or to conduct the initial airworthiness and annual return to service inspections required by 

§91.409(a). DFAM will maintain the aircraft as instructed in the owner’s manual and ASTM F2909, where 
applicable, and will not operate the aircraft until it has reasonably determined that any needed repairs 

have been made. However, because of the technical impossibility of meeting the requirements of 

§§91.405(a), 407(a), 409(a) and 417(a) & (b), we believe an exemption from these provisions is 

appropriate.

With my extensive background in both aviation as a ATP pilot with 11,000 hours and being involved in 

the model radio control hobby for 25 plus years I feel I can use the knowledge I have create a business 

to provide a safe and efficient operation of these drones,

I will have rules in place to assure the public will be protected and safe. Offering these services will 

provide fast and efficient ways to perform these requests avoiding people to climb up to dangerous 

heights.

I feel this business will provide a service that until now the technology has not allowed. Because of the 

advancements in the aerial drones equipment and components this can be done safe and in a very 

controlled manner.

Understanding the airspace rule and regulations is extremely important along with having the proper 

operating rules in place will assure safe operations.

If you grant me approval I will provide the model and S/N of my drone to be used in the business so I can 

receive a registration number to attach to it.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number or via the e-mail address provided above 

should you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Timothy P Lehman

Just Aviation LLC