Rupprecht Law P. A. 

324 Datura Street, Suite 200 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

P: (561) 222-6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com 

July 9, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for Exemption under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act and 

Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations from 14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) and (c); 61.101(e)(4) and 

(5); 61.113(a); 61.315(a); 91.7(a), 91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(a)(1); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 

91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) & (b).

PETITION FOR SUMMARY EXEMPTION

Dear Sir or Madam:

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

and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Flyspan Systems, Inc., an operator of Small Unmanned Aircraft (UA) hereby 

applies for an exemption from the listed Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs") to allow commercial 

operation of its UA.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. QUICK REFERENCE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 3

II. PETITIONER’S CONTACT INFO: ...................................................................................................... 3

III. THE REGULATIONS WHICH THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM........ 3

VI. THE EXTENT OF RELIEF THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING.......................................................... 4

IV. REASONS WHY THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REGULATIONS AND 

WHY THE EXEMPTION WOULD PROVIDE AN EQUIVALENT LEVEL OF SAFETY.................... 9

A. 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) & (c): Medical Certificates............................................................................. 9

B. 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) & (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations; 14 C.F.R. § 61.113 

(a): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations; and 14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a): Sport Pilot Limitations. ........ 9

C. 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a): Civil Aircraft Airworthiness.......................................................................... 10

D. 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c): Minimum Safe Altitudes ........................................................................... 10
2

E. 14 C.F.R. § 91.121: Altimeter Settings...........................................................................................11

F. 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions......................................11

G. 14 C.F.R. § 91.405 (a); § 91.407 (a) (1); § 91.409 (a) (2); § 91.417(a) & (b): Maintenance 

Inspections............................................................................................................................................. 12

V. REASONS WHY GRANTING THIS PETITION WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST........ 12

VII. THE PETITIONER REQUESTS THAT THE PUBLICATION AND COMMENT PROCEDURES 

BE WAIVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 14 C.F.R. § 11.87................................................................... 13

VIII. FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 14

IX. OPERATING DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................................ 15

X. STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO GRANT THIS PETITION ............................................................. 15

XI. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................... 16
3

I. QUICK REFERENCE SUMMARY

 Types of aircraft to be flown: 

o Phantom 2 (Previously granted in Exemption No. 11699)

 The operations will be for:

o Aerial data collection,1and

o Flight instruction and education on how to do aerial data collection.

 The petitioner will operate under the restrictions listed below and those in the manual which will 

be confidentially submitted.

 We already agree to all the restrictions listed in Exemption # 11284 which are listed below.

II. PETITIONER’S CONTACT INFO:

Flyspan Systems, Inc.

Brock Christoval

28 Knollglen Irvine, CA 92614

Legal Counsel for Petitioner

Rupprecht Law, P.A.

Jonathan Rupprecht

324 Datura Street, Suite 200, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

jon@jrupprechtlaw.com

III. THE REGULATIONS WHICH THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM

 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) and (c)

 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) and (5)

 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a)

 14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a)

 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a)

 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c)

 14 C.F.R. § 91.121

 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a)(1)

 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a)

 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(1)

 14 C.F.R. § 91.409(a)(1) & (2)

 14 C.F.R. § 91.417(a) & (b)

 

1

“Aerial data collection includes any remote sensing and measuring by an instrument(s) aboard the UA. Examples include 

imagery (photography, video, infrared, etc.), electronic measurement (precision surveying, RF analysis, etc.), chemical 

measurement (particulate measurement, etc.), or any other gathering of data by instruments aboard the UA.” Exemption No. 

11482
4

VI. THE EXTENT OF RELIEFTHE PETITIONER IS SEEKING

The Petitioner proposes these restrictions and believes that these limitations provide an 

equivalent level of safety, if not greater, as the regulations presently imposed upon the Petitioner. Each 

of the regulations above will be talked about in greater detail later in this petition.

These limitations and conditions are identical to Exemption # 11284 except for the difference in 

aircraft and closed-set operations. Flyspan Systems, Inc. agrees to be bound when conducting 

commercial UA operations. The list of limitations and conditions include the following:

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the, DJI Phantom 2 when 

weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. Proposed operations of any other aircraft 

will require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are not 

permitted.

3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The 

exemption holder may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine compliance 

with the 87 knot speed restriction. In no case will the UA be operated at airspeeds greater than 

the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the aircraft manufacturer.

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level (AGL). 

Altitude must be reported in feet AGL.

5. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC at all times. This 

requires the PIC to be able to use human vision unaided by any device other than corrective 

lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate or U.S. driver’s

license.

6. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). The UA must be operated within the visual 

line of sight (VLOS) of the PIC and VO at all times. The VO may be used to satisfy the VLOS 

requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The VO and PIC must be 

able to communicate verbally at all times; electronic messaging or texting is not permitted 

during flight operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his 

or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform 

the duties required of the VO.

7. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its operations in 

accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of exemption, are 

hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. The operating documents must be 

accessible during UAS operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a 

discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the 
5

procedures outlined in the operating documents, the conditions and limitations herein take 

precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as 

outlined in its operating documents. The operator may update or revise its operating 

documents. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and 

revised documents to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. The 

operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension or 

amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator determines that any update or revision 

would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then the operator must 

petition for an amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating 

documents.

8. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or 

flight characteristics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo a 

functional test flight prior to conducting further operations under this exemption. Functional 

test flights may only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at least 500 feet from 

other people. The functional test flight must be conducted in such a manner so as to not pose 

an undue hazard to persons and property.

9. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is in a 

condition for safe operation.

10. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre-flight inspection and determine the UAS is in 

a condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection must account for all potential 

discrepancies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment. If the inspection reveals a 

condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating 

until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a 

condition for safe flight.

11. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, 

inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and aircraft components.

12. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer safety 

bulletins.

13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC must hold either an airline transport, commercial, 

private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. The PIC must also hold a current FAA airman 

medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, the District of Colombia, 

Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal government. The PIC must also meet 

the flight review requirements specified in 14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is 

rated on his or her pilot certificate.

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the ability to 

safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this 

exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate 

distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours and 
6

currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the 

purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs (training, proficiency, and experiencebuilding) and determining the PIC’s ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent 

with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption are permitted under the terms of 

this exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted during dedicated 

training sessions. During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons 

not essential for flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate 

the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

15. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All 

operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights under 

special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point (ARP) as 

denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) or for airports not denoted with 

an ARP, the center of the airport symbol as denoted on the current FAA published 

aeronautical chart, unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained or 

otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption holder. The letter of agreement with 

the airport management must be made available to the Administrator or any law 

enforcement official upon request.

17. The UA may not be operated less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally 

from a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC.

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return t predetermined 

location within the private or controlled-access property.

19. The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies.

20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather 

conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the intended operation and 

to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve power recommended by the 

manufacturer if greater. 

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). All operations 

shall be conducted in accordance with an ATO-issued COA. The exemption holder may 

apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct operations that cannot be conducted 

under the terms of the attached COA.

22. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial number, 

registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification (N Number) markings 

in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and flight of the UAS and any 

documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the PIC at the 

Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. These documents must 

be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.
7

24. The UA must remain clear and give way to all manned aviation operations and activities at 

all times.

25. The UAS may not be operated by the PIC from any moving device or vehicle.

26. All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons, 

vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from 

the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure that 

nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises where 

nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight 

operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety of nonparticipating 

persons; and

b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission for 

operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of the risk of 

operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present an undue hazard.

The PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons are not considered nonparticipating persons 

under this exemption.

27. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with permission 

from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from property 

owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be 

conducted.

28. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical boundaries 

of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported to the FAA's UAS 

Integration Office (AFS-80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be reported to the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions contained on the NTSB Web site: 

www.ntsb.gov.

For the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming and production, the following 

additional conditions and limitations apply.

29. The operator must have a motion picture and television operations manual (MPTOM) as 

documented in this grant of exemption.

30. At least 3 days before aerial filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this exemption must 

submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) with 

jurisdiction over the area of proposed filming. The 3-day notification may be waived with the 

concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities must include at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights;

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted under 

this grant of exemption;
8

c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on-scene operation of the 

UAS;

d. Make, model, and serial or N-Number of UAS to be used;

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the aerial filming;

f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners and/or 

local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those who gave 

permission must be made available to the inspector upon request;

g. Signature of exemption holder or representative; and

h. A description of the flight activity, including maps or diagrams of any area, city, town, 

county, and/or state over which filming will be conducted and the altitudes essential to 

accomplish the operation.

31. Flight operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet from participating persons 

consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the 

exemption holder’s MPTOM.

Flyspan Systems, Inc.’s UA are rotorcraft, weighing 55 lbs. or less including payload. They will 

operate only within VLOS and only within the restrictions above and inside the confidentially submitted 

manual. Such operations will insure that the UA will "not create a hazard to users of the national 

airspace system or the public."2

Given the small size of the UA involved and the restricted environment within which they will 

operate, the applicant falls squarely within that zone of safety (an equivalent level of safety) in which 

Congress envisioned that the FAA must, by exemption, allow commercial operations of UA to 

commence immediately. Also, due to the size of the UA and the restricted areas in which the relevant 

UA will operate, approval of the application presents no national security issue. 

Since the UA fully loaded weighs no more than 55 lbs. and is operated without an onboard pilot, 

there is no ability or place to carry certification and registration documents or to display them on the 

unmanned aircraft. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by keeping these documents at the 

ground control point where the pilot flying the UA will have immediate access to them. Also, given the 

size of the unmanned aircraft, the FAA registration number will be displayed on the airframe in as large 

a font as possible.

 

2 Reform Act Section 333(b).
9

IV. REASONS WHY THE PETITIONER IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REGULATIONS

AND WHY THE EXEMPTION WOULD PROVIDE AN EQUIVALENT LEVELOF SAFETY

A. 14 C.F.R. § 61.23(a) & (c): Medical Certificates

The reason why the Petitioner is seeking relief from 61.23(a) & (c) is because Exemption # 

11221, # 11284, and many others have determined that a U.S. driver’s license being used in lieu of a

medical certificate provides an equivalent level of safety as sub-sections (a) and (c).

Therefore, since the proposed restrictions have already been determined by the FAA to 

provide an equivalent level of safety, the Petitioner is seeking the same exact restrictions as other 

previously granted exemptions to allow for commercial operations using at a minimum either a third 

class medical or a driver’s license with an airman certificate.

B. 14 C.F.R. § 61.101(e)(4) & (5): Recreational Pilot Privileges and Limitations; 14 C.F.R. § 

61.113 (a): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations; and 14 C.F.R. § 61.315(a): Sport Pilot 

Limitations. 

The reason for this petition is that the regulations applying to these three pilot certificates all 

limit the commercial activities of the pilots; thus, commercial activities would be almost completely 

prohibited leaving the only alternative to be the pilots obtaining an extremely burdensome 

alternative of a commercial pilot certificate.

Regarding private pilots, sub-section 61.113(a) limits private pilots to non-commercial 

operations; “[h]owever, in Grant of Exemption No. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus), the FAA 

determined that a PIC with a private pilot certificate operating . . . [a] UAS would not adversely 

affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property on the ground” in conducting 

commercial operations. “[M]anned airmanship experience of a commercially certificated pilot would 

not correlate to the airmanship skills necessary for” commercial drone operations. Additionally, in 

Exemption # 11221, # 11284, and many others the FAA has declared that requiring the PIC to “hold 

either an airline transport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate” provides an 

equivalent level of safety as the regulations.
10

Since the FAA has numerously determined that a minimum of a sport pilot certificate be 

required for commercial operations, Flyspan Systems, Inc. is asking for the PIC to be required to 

have at a minimum a sport pilot certificate when conducting commercial operations. This 

requirement also alleviates any security concerns as the TSA would have already done a background

check on the individual possessing the pilot certificate.

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

The reason the Petitioner is requesting relief from this regulation is because the FAA does not 

need to issue an airworthiness certificate for this unmanned aircraft, no FAA regulatory standard will 

exist for determining airworthiness of the unmanned aircraft, and the requirements contained in the 

confidentially submitted manual will be sufficient for determining the airworthiness of the aircraft.

The restrictions already agreed to will require the PIC to conduct a pre-flight check to 

determine airworthiness and the operator to be “responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS 

to ensure that it is in a condition for safe operation.” The manuals and restrictions obligating the PIC 

and operator to check and ensure the UA have been previously determined by the FAA to be a 

“sufficient means for determining an airworthy condition in accordance with § 91.7(a).” Clayco 

Exemption No. 11109 at 13. Therefore, the Petitioner seeks relief to operate under the proposed 

restrictions and confidentially submitted manual. 

D. 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(c): Minimum Safe Altitudes

Section 91.119, sub-section (c) requires the petitioner to operate at “[a]n 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.” This regulation 

is burdensome because it would require the Petitioner to operate at 500ft above the ground for many 

operations. This is a burdensome problem because the objects that need photographing will all be 

around 500ft away.

The Petitioner proposes to operate within the restrictions given in the Clayco Exemption

which the FAA has previously determined will provide an equivalent level of safety. “[A]ll persons 

not essential to flight operations (nonparticipating persons) must remain at appropriate distances. In 
11

open areas this requires the UA to remain 500 feet from all persons other than essential flight 

personnel (i.e. the PIC and VO). . . . If barriers or structures are present that can sufficiently protect 

nonparticipating persons from debris in the event of an accident then the UA may operate closer than 

500 feet to persons afforded such protection. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons 

remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such 

protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately. . . . 

[O]perations may be conducted closer than 500 feet to vessels, vehicles and structures when the land 

owner/controller grants such permission and the PIC makes a safety assessment of the risk of 

operating closer to those objects.” Clayco Exemption No. 11109 at 15.

E. 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." Many UA do not have an altimeter but use GPS to determine height.

An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the operator, pursuant to following the 

confidentially submitted manual and operating under the proposed restriction. Furthermore, the Clayco

petition and many other petitions have been granted allowing GPS to be used in lieu of an altimeter.

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

Section 91.151 (a) prohibits an individual from beginning "a flight in an airplane under VFR 

conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the 

first point of intended landing, and, assuming normal cruising speed - (1) During the day, to fly after that 

for at least 30 minutes; or (2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes." Most unmanned aircraft 

cannot fly longer than 30 minutes; therefore, most would always be violating this regulation if they took 

off.

The Petitioner believes that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved by restricting 

operations to “the intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve 

power recommended by the manufacturer if greater.” Exemption # 11284, at page 5.
12

G. 14 C.F.R. § 91.405 (a); § 91.407 (a) (1); § 91.409 (a) (2); § 91.417(a) & (b): Maintenance 

Inspections

These regulations require that an aircraft operator or owner "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"3and 

others shall inspect or maintain the aircraft in compliance with Part 43. Given that these sections and 

Part 43 apply only to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate, these sections will not apply to the 

applicant. 

An equivalent level of safety will be achieved because these small UAS’s are very limited in size 

and will carry a small payload and operate only in restricted areas for limited periods of time. Moreover, 

the operator is the person most familiar with the aircraft and best suited to maintain the aircraft in an 

airworthy condition to provide the equivalent level of safety. Lastly, the petitioner will operate in 

accordance with the confidentially submitted manual which will provide an equivalent level of safety as 

the burdensome regulations.

V. REASONS WHY GRANTING THIS PETITION WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The Petitioner intends to produce picture and video content. If the petitioner does not have the 

option of using the Petitioner’s UA, the only other way to obtain the aerial footage is by using manned 

aircraft which pose a danger to the pilot as well as individuals on the ground. There are no pilots on 

board the UA and due to the small size of the UA, there is less risk posed to the public on the ground in 

case of an emergency. Additionally, the UA has multiple motors while most manned aircraft have only 

one engine; thus, there is some motor redundancy for some UA in case of a motor malfunction.

Manned airplanes and helicopters produce great amounts of noise pollution disrupting the quiet 

enjoyment of private property of the public on the ground. UA are much quieter and will not disrupt the 

public as much as manned aircraft; thus, the public will benefit from a reduction in noise pollution.

 

3

14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a).
13

In addition to the noise pollution reduction, engine or turbine powered aircraft produce exhaust 

which affects the environment while the UA of the petitioner are electric and do not produce any 

emission. The byproduct of 100LL emissions is lead entering the air the public breaths while electric 

motors produce none. The environment and the public are benefited by the use of UA.

UA use batteries for power which are not as flammable and explosive as 100LL or Jet A. If there 

was an emergency where the UA crashed, there is less chance of individuals being injured from an 

explosion or fire. UA also use smaller propellers than manned helicopters which will cause far less 

damage in the case of a crash than the “grenading” that typically happens during a manned helicopter 

crash.

Lastly, the UA will be operated at lower altitudes than manned aircraft. Thus, the public benefits 

because the danger of a mid-air collision is lessened.

VII. THE PETITIONER REQUESTS THAT THE PUBLICATION AND COMMENT

PROCEDURES BE WAIVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 14 C.F.R. § 11.87.

§ 11.87 Are there circumstances in which FAA may decide not to publish a summary of my 

petition for exemption?

The FAA may not publish a summary of your petition for exemption and request comments if 

you present or we find good cause why we should not delay action on your petition. The factors 

we consider in deciding not to request comment include:

(a) Whether granting your petition would set a precedent. 

(b) Whether the relief requested is identical to exemptions granted previously. 

(c) Whether our delaying action on your petition would affect you adversely. 

(d) Whether you filed your petition in a timely manner.

Corresponding to the above sub-sections, the Petitioner has good cause to request the FAA to 

waive the comment period and not delay action on the petition because:

(a) Flyspan Systems, Inc. would not set any precedent. Flyspan Systems, Inc. agrees to the SAME

exact limitations as Exemption # 11284. Furthermore, the Phantom 2 has already been evaluated 

under previous petitions. 
14

(b) Flyspan Systems, Inc. agrees to the SAME exact limitations as Exemption # 11284.

(c) Delaying the granting of this petition would adversely affect the public, the FAA, and Flyspan 

Systems, Inc. The public, as well as the FAA, would be better served by the FAA quickly 

granting this petition and thereby freeing up limited FAA resources and allowing FAA inspectors 

to dedicate their time and attention to much higher priorities. Moreover, Flyspan Systems, Inc. is 

adversely affected by the above listed regulations.

(d) The petition has been filed in a timely manner.

VIII. FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 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 C.F.R. 61.23(a) and (c); 61.101(e)(4) and (5); 61.113(a); 61.315(a); 91.7(a); 91.119(c); 

91.121; 91.151(a)(1); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) & (b) to operate 

commercially a small unmanned vehicle (55 lbs. or less) for for aerial data gathering using a DJI 

Phantom 2.

This exemption will allow commercial operations of UA’s which will enhance safety by 

reducing risk. The alternative to using a UA is to use a jet or piston power aircraft carrying large

amounts of jet A or other fuel. Not only is the operation dangerous at the location, the aircraft 

must fly to the location and back to the home airport. Our UA will weigh less than 55 lbs. and 

powered by batteries which eliminates most of the risk because no highly flammable fuel will be 

involved. The UA will carry no passengers or crew; thus, eliminating most of the risk to the pilot 

and personnel. The operations of the UA listed under the restrictions proposed herein will 

provide an equivalent level of safety as the Federal Aviation Regulations.
15

IX. OPERATING DOCUMENTS

Flyspan Systems, Inc. will operate only within the limitations above and the limitations listed in

the confidentially submitted manual. The limitations above, from the previously granted exemption, will 

be followed if there is a conflict with the manual.

X. STATUTORYAUTHORITY TO GRANT THIS PETITION

The Federal Aviation Act expressly grants the FAA the authority to issue exemptions. This 

statutory authority by its terms includes exempting civil aircraft, as the term is defined under § 40101 of 

the Act that includes UAS’s, from the requirement that all civil aircraft must have a current 

airworthiness certificate. “The Administrator may grant an exemption from a requirement of a regulation 

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

Administrator finds the exemption in the public interest.” 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f). See also 49 U.S.C. §

44711(b).

This exemption petition is expressly submitted to fulfill Congress' goal in passing Section 333(a) 

through (c) of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. This law 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 FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act. In making this determination, the Secretary is required to determine 

which types of UA 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 UA’s size, weight, speed, and operational capability;

 Operation of the UA in close proximity to airports and populated areas; and,

 Operation of the UA within visual line of sight of the operator (VLOS).4

If the Secretary 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 

 

4

 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 at § 333(a).
16

airspace system." Id. § 333(c) (emphasis added).5The FAA has already established requirements for 

summary grants which will be further discussed below.

XI. CONCLUSION

The operation of Flyspan Systems, Inc. using a small UAS, weighing less than 55 lbs., conducted 

under the proposed restrictions outlined above, will provide an equivalent level of safety supporting the 

grant of the exemptions requested herein. 

If I can be of any assistance to further expedite this petition, please do not hesitate to contact me 

at (561)222-6979 or at my email jon@jrupprechtlaw.com

Sincerely yours,

_____________________

Jonathan Rupprecht, Esq.

 

5 Applicant interprets this provision to place the duty on the Administrator to not only process applications for exemptions 

under section 333, but for the Administrator to craft conditions for the safe operation of the UAS, if it should be determined 

that the conditions set forth herein do not fulfill the statutory requirements for approval.