April 17, 2015 

 Exemption No. 11371 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–0063 

Mr. Bruce Pogosaew 

FPV Catalog, LLC 

7432 East Placita Del Espiritu 

Tucson, AZ 85715 

Dear Mr. Pogosaew: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated January 9, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

for an exemption. The exemption would allow the petitioner to operate an unmanned aircraft 

system (UAS) to conduct aerial videography and cinematography to enhance academic 

community awareness for individuals and companies unfamiliar with the geographical layout 

of the metro Tucson and surrounding areas; augmentation of real estate listing videos; and the 

creation of visual and topography layout videos for Search and Rescue mission for state and 

local agencies, education, agricultural inspections and building and construction zone 

inspections. 

See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations and 

the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner. 
2 

Discussion of Public Comments: 

The FAA received one comment on the petition for exemption. The comment was submitted 

on behalf of Shadow Creek Enterprises, LLC (Shadow Creek) in support of the petition. 

Shadow Creek stated the petitioner proposes the use of widely available airframes in 

accordance with stringent standards to ensure safety of flight. Shadow Creek noted the 

petitioner’s proposed operating parameters would provide a level of safety greater than a 

manned aircraft performing the same functions. Shadow Creek opposed any requirement for 

the operator to hold an airman medical certificate. Additionally, the commenter objected to a 

requirement to obtain a Certificate of Authorization (COA) prior to operations. Shadow Creek 

stated the petition is in the public interest, and urged the FAA to grant the request for 

exemption. 

Airworthiness Certification 

The UAS proposed by the petitioner are the 3DR Plane and Bumblebee–S. 

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products 

and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates. In accordance with the statutory criteria 

provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112−95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and in 

consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the 

aircraft and its operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this aircraft 

meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds that the requested relief from 

14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness 

Certificates, and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, is 

not necessary. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial data collection. The FAA has issued grants of 

exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. 

In Grants of Exemption Nos. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0352), 

11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC (see

Docket No. FAA−2014−0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (see Docket No. 

FAA−2014−0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned 

aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or 

crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in 

addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled 

by this exemption is in the public interest. 
3 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 They are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in Grant of 

Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213; 

 The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 

11213 also apply to the situation you present; and 

 A grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, 

delegated to me by the Administrator, Mr. Bruce Pogosaew is granted an exemption from 

14 CFR §§ 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), and 91.417(a) and (b), to 

the extent necessary to allow the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection. 

This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

In this grant of exemption, Mr. Bruce Pogosaew is hereafter referred to as the operator. 

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption. 

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the 3DR and 

Bumblebee–S 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 
4 

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 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 (AFS-80) 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 
5 

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 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 experience-building) 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 FAApublished 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. 
6 

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 to a 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 (NNumber) 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. 

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 
7 

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. 

If this exemption permits operations 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; 

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. 
8 

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. 

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS 

operations must comply with all applicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, 

parts 45, 47, 61, and 91. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Director, Flight Standards Service 
Bruce Pogosaew, Tucson AZ - Section 333 Exemption Petition page 1 of 10 

January 9, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal Aviation Regulations from 14

C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a)&(b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b) (2); 91.103(b); 91.109;

119.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a)&(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a) (1); 91.409(a) (2); 91.417(a)&(b)

Dear Sir or Madam,

 I, Bruce Pogosaew, am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of

2012 and the procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, to request that I, Bruce 

Pogosaew,

an owner and operator of small unmanned aircraft, be exempted from the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed below so that I, Bruce Pogosaew, may operate my 

small ultra lightweight unmanned aircraft system (“UAS”) in commercially regulated 

airspace by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”).

As described herein I, Bruce Pogosaew, have experience in flying hobby helicopters 

and planes for recreational purposes for the past eighteen (18) years. I have flown small 

and large remote control (RC) gas and electric aircraft models for those eighteen (18) 

years without incident and pledge my continued commitment to safety on all future 

flights.

Following exemption and approval by the FAA, I, Bruce Pogosaew, will primarily use my 

hobby grade quad-copter1 and fixed wing2 UAS equipped with cameras for the 

following applications: aerial videography/cinematography to enhance academic 

community awareness for individuals and companies unfamiliar with the geographical 

layout of the metro Tucson and surrounding areas; augmentation of real estate listing 

videos; and the creation of visual and topography layout videos for Search and Rescue 

(SAR) missions for state and local agency’s, education, agricultural inspections and 

building and construction zone inspections.

1

 Appendix A - Bixler 2 Operator Manual 2 Appendix B - Quad-Copter Operator Manual
Bruce Pogosaew, Tucson AZ - Section 333 Exemption Petition page 2 of 10

My, Bruce Pogosaew’s, exemption request would permit the operation of ultra 

lightweight, unmanned (i.e. piloted by remote control) UAS’s for the development of 

community and government use videos, permissible within property boundaries for 

individual homeowners and within in tightly controlled, limited airspaces predetermined 

in areas away from the general public, airports, heliports and vehicular traffic. Currently, 

similar lightweight, remote controlled UAS's are legally operated by unmonitored 

amateur hobbyists with no safety plan or controls in place to prevent catastrophe. With 

that in mind, I, Bruce Pogoaew, have personally installed safety protocols and controls6

to avoid and prevent public hazard, as well as any catastrophic manned aircraft 

hazard. Furthermore, it is my intent to assist future FAA safety protocols and 

regulations exclusive to lightweight UAS's for specific video and photography usage by 

sharing information with the FAA as I, Bruce Pogosaew, record flight data and other 

pertinent information gained through permitted flight operations.

In addition, granting my, Bruce Pogosaew’s, exemption request will comply with the 

Secretary of Transportation’s (FAA Administrator’s) instructions to not only integrate 

UAS's into the national airspace system, but to “...establish requirements for the safe 

operation of such aircraft systems [UAS's] in the national airspace system” under 

Section 333(c) of the Reform Act specific to the use of UAS's for real estate/Realtor 

purposes, educational videos, Search and Rescue, land/trusts inspections, and 

structure inspections, to aid state and local agency’s. Further I, Bruce Pogosaew, will 

conduct my operations in compliance with the protocols described herein or as 

otherwise established by the FAA.

For the reasons stated below, I, Bruce Pogosaew, respectfully request the grant of an

exemption allowing me to operate ultra lightweight, remote controlled UAS’s to aid

academic community awareness, to benefit/stimulate attraction to the metro Tucson

area and to enhance personal and public video feeds. A grant that will ultimately allow 

UAS’s to play a more positive role in our local community by increasing employment 

opportunities, heightening security measures and decreasing government expenditures 

by reducing the need for heavier manned aircraft, containing costly, combustible fuel- a 

potential public hazard in and of itself.

6 Appendix F - Personal Protocols and Controls 
Bruce Pogosaew, Tucson AZ - Section 333 Exemption Petition page 3 of 10 

I. Contact Information:

Bruce Pogosaew

FPV CATALOG, LLC 

7432 E Placita Del Espiritu

Tucson, AZ 85715

Office: (520) 495-4674

Mobile: (520) 271-9630

Email: service@FPVCATALOG.com

II. The Specific Sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations From

Which Bruce Pogosaew Requests Exemption are:

14 CFR 21;

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b);

14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 91, et seq.;

14 CFR 407 (a) (1);

14 CFR 409 (a) (2); and,

14 CFR 417 (a) & (b). 

III. The Extent of relief Bruce Pogosaew Seeks and the Reason He Seeks Such

Relief:

I, Bruce Pogosaew, submit this application in accordance with the Reform Act, 112 P.L.

95 §§ 331-334, seeking relief from any currently applicable FARs operating to prevent

me, Bruce Pogosaew, contemplated commercial cinematic, academic and other flight

operations within the national airspace system. The Reform Act in Section 332 provides

for such integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into our national airspace system

as it is in the public’s interest to do so. My, Bruce Pogosaew’s, ultra lightweight UAS

meets the definition of “small unmanned aircraft” as defined in Section 331 and

therefore the integration of my ultra light weight UAS is expressly contemplated by the

Reform Act. I would like to operate my ultra lightweight UAS prior to the time period by

which the Reform Act requires the FAA to promulgate rules governing such craft.

Thereby, providing direct experience and valuable information for formal regulation that

can be administered uniformly to all related UAS aerial video and

photography. The Reform Act guides the Secretary in determining the types of UAS's

that may operate safely in our national airspace system. Considerations include: The

weight, size, speed and overall capabilities of the UAS's; Whether the UAS will be

operated near airports or heavily populated areas; and, Whether the UAS will be

operated by line of sight. 112 P.L. 95 § 333 (a). 
Bruce Pogosaew, Tucson AZ - Section 333 Exemption Petition page 4 of 10 

Each of these items reflect in favor of an exemption for me, Bruce Pogosaew.

My UAS’s utilize four (4) or less rotating propellers

for balance, control and stability.

My UAS’s are equipped with the following via video and data telemetry :

 1)Altimeter

 2) Attitude indicator

 3) Ground Speed indicator

 4) Magnetic compass

 5) Heading indicator

 6) Vertical speed indicator

 7) Course deviation indicator

 8) Radio magnetic indicator

 9) GPS location

 10) Fuel consumption and Fuel Left with approximate time.

 11) Loiter and circle mode.

 12) Auto safety or RTL ( Return To Launch)

 13) Auto landing technology.

Each UAS weighing less than seven (7) pounds (far below the maximum 55 pound 

limit);

Including camera(s) with or without gimbal (a camera stabilizer).

I, Bruce Pogosaew, considers safety as foremost with each flight. My small unmanned

aircraft is designed to hover in place, circle in a specific place or loiter( figure 8 flight) via 

GPS and can be operated in winds up to 17.379 knots (20mph) wind. For safety, 

stability and fear of financial loss I will not fly in winds exceeding 13 knots (15 mph). 

Built in safety systems include a GPS mode that allows my UAS to hover/circle in place 

or land when radio controls are released.

With six (6) modes to choose from, I will fly with the modes safest to complete the 

videos

for aerial videography/photography and have the ability to choose the safest, most

reliable and stable mode to prevent accident and hazard. When pilot communication is

lost, UAS is designed slowly descend to point of takeoff and or to land at point of 

launch.

With an onboard flight controller - APM2.5, it has the capabilities of geofencing4 which 

will prevent the craft from exceeding a set altitude or distance. No matter 

what causes the craft to breach those boundaries - the craft is forced back within the 

boundary limits via the on board controller and will take over the craft to keep it within 

those set boundary lines and allow the pilot to regain control once the craft is within 

those boundaries.

 I, Bruce Pogosaew, will not operate my UAS near airports, hospitals nor police 

heliports, and do not operate near areas where general public is within fifty to one 

hundred (50-100) yards depending on location, conditions and weather. I am constantly 

on alert for any manned aircraft (police/medical helicopters, etc.) and prepared to 

land/abort immediately to the nearest and safest ground point should a manned aircraft 

approach my location or I suspect manned aircraft may

4

 Appendix D - Computerized Control Boards
Bruce Pogosaew, Tucson AZ - Section 333 Exemption Petition page 5 of 10 

approach near my location. My UAS’s are capable of vertical and horizontal operations, and is 

flown only within my line of sight, as the remote control pilot. Utilizing battery power rather than 

combustible

I, Bruce Pogosaew, will not operate my UAS near airports, hospitals nor police heliports, and do 

not operate near areas where general public is within fifty to one hundred (50-100) yards 

depending on location, conditions and weather. I am constantly on alert for any manned aircraft 

(police/medical helicopters, etc.) and prepared to land/abort immediately to the nearest and 

safest ground point should a manned aircraft approach my location or I suspect manned aircraft 

may approach near my location. My UAS’s are capable of vertical and horizontal operations, 

and is flown only within my line of sight, as the remote control pilot. Utilizing battery power rather 

than combustible fuels, flights generally last between three (3) to fifteen (15) minutes, with an 

altitude under one hundred fifty (150) feet. Six (6 )Smart Mode includes safe circle for operation, 

position hold, self-leveling, altitude command, GPS, return home feature, and safety control to 

return home or land in the event of communication interruption between RC transmitter and 

UAS.See Appendix A, and C -Operator Manual. 

 I, Bruce Pogosaew, utilize a fresh fully charged battery with each flight as a safety 

precaution; full flight time limit for each battery is eight (8) to twelve (30) minutes as tested. I do 

not operate my UAS at or below manufacture recommend minimum charge levels for

operation; preferring to remain well within a safe operating range to insure adequate

communication between radio control and UAS to eliminate potential for crash, loss of

control or hazard. Reserve batteries are at hand with each exercise to insure

replacement for sufficient safe level of operation. I do not believe in taking risk that may

cause a crash, that could create hazard to the public/property/manned aircraft, and

have no desire to lose an investment. I have clocked numerous practice flights in

remote areas as a hobbyist simulating flights for future commercial use to gain

familiarization with the characteristics of this specific UAS's performance under different

temperature and weather conditions. I also practice computerized simulated flights to

maintain adequate skills and response reflex time. All for the sake of safety. I, Bruce Pogosaew, 

am extremely cautious when operating of my UAS/ultra light weight unmanned aircraft and will 

not “create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public.” 112 P.L. 95 § 333 

(b). Given the small size and weight of my UAS it falls well within Congress’s contemplated 

safety zone when it promulgated the Reform Act and the corresponding directive to integrate 

UAS's into the national airspace system. Bruce Pogosaew’s UAS, used in hobby flight, has a 

demonstrable safety record and does not pose any threat to the general public or national 

security.

IV. How Bruce Pogosaew’s Request Will Benefit the Public As A Whole:

Aerial videography for geographical awareness, education, search and rescue, land 

management, structure inspections and for real estate marketing has been around for a long 

time through manned fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. For small budget companies, average 

homeowners and property owners the expense of such aerial videography is cost prohibitive. 

Only large companies and high end Realtors or luxury homeowners can afford to absorb such 

expense. Depriving non-luxury owners and lower budget companies from a valuable marketing 

tool. Manned aircraft pose a threat to the public through potential catastrophic crash that the 

Tucson community has experienced in the past with military aircraft and medical helicopter 

crashes within the city of Tucson. Each resulting in loss of life.

1 Appendix A - Bixler 2 Operator Manual 2 Appendix B - Quad-Copter Operator Manual 3 Appendix C - Transmitter Controller Manual
Bruce Pogosaew, Tucson AZ - Section 333 Exemption Petition page 

6 of 10

Each with combustible fuel that exploded and burned on impact. Police helicopters have 

made emergency hard landings within city limits. My, Bruce Pogosaew's, UAS poses no 

such threat since size and lack of combustible fuel alleviates any potential threat to the 

public. Congress has already proclaimed that it is in the public’s interest to integrate 

commercially flown UAS's into the national airspace system, hence the passing of the 

Reform Act. Granting my, Bruce Pogosaew’s, exemption request furthers the public interest 

through academic/visual awareness of the geographical benefits in and around the metro 

Tucson area. My ultra light weight UAS is battery powered and creates no emissions that 

can harm the environment. The consequence of my ultra light weight UAS crashing is far 

less than a full size helicopter or fixed wing aircraft; which are heavy, contain combustible 

fuel and can cause catastrophic devastation to the public. The public’s interest is furthered 

by minimizing ecological and crash threat by permitting aerial video/photo capture through 

my battery operated ultra lightweight UAS's.

Permitting me, Bruce Pogosaew, to immediately fly within national air space furthers 

economic growth. Granting my exemption request substantially furthers the economic 

impact for the metro Tucson and surrounding community for companies looking to relocate 

or build around the Tucson metro area as well as individuals looking to relocate for career 

advancement through academic and geographical awareness. Both of which serve as a 

stimulus to the community.

V. Reasons Why Bruce Pogosaew’s Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect Safety

Or How The Exemption Will Provide a Level of Safety At Least Equal To Existing

Rule:

My, Bruce Pogosaew’s, exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the contrary,

for the reasons stated permitting me, Bruce Pogosaew, to log more flight time in FAA

controlled airspace, with communication with the FAA, will allow me to contribute to the

innovation and implementation of new and novel, as of yet undiscovered safety protocols for 

Realtors, land and structured owners. For development in cooperation with the FAA.

In addition I, Bruce Pogosaew, submit the following representations of enhancements to 

current aerial videography and photography:

My UAS’s weigh less than seven (7) pounds complete with a small ultra-light weight high

quality GoPro 3+ Black camera; Mobius camera or similar;

I only operate my UAS below 200 feet (well within the 400 foot permissible

ceiling set by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012);

My UAS only operate for 3-15 minutes per flight;

I land my UAS prior to manufacturer recommended minimum level of battery

power;

I pilot my UAS through remote control only by line of sight; and have live video feed for a 

secondary pilot to monitor video recording; 
Bruce Pogosaew, Tucson AZ - Section 333 Exemption Petition page 7 of 10

My UAS’s have a GPS controlled main frame- a flight safety feature whereby it hovers 

or circles and then lands at the GPS takeoff point if communication with the remote 

control pilot is lost;

I actively record and analyze flight data through the APM main frame and other sources 

of information to constantly

update and enhance safety protocols;

I only operate in reasonably safe environment that are strictly controlled, are

away from power lines, elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas;

I conduct extensive preflight inspections and protocol, during which safety

carries primary importance;

I always obtain all necessary permissions prior to operation; and,

I have procedures in place to abort flights in the event of safety breaches or

potential danger.

My, Bruce Pogosaew’s, safety protocols provide a level of safety equal to or exceeding

existing rules. It is important to note that absent the integration of commercial UAS into

our national airspace system, helicopters are the primary means of aerial video and

photography for community awareness real estate, structured inspections, land 

management and search and rescue While the safety record of such helicopters is 

remarkably astounding, there has been local incident involving loss of life as well as 

extensive property damage; it is far safer to operate a battery powered ultra lightweight 

UAS. First, the potential loss of life is diminished because UAS's carry no people on 

board and I only operates my UAS in specific areas away from mass populations. 

Second, there is no fuel on board a UAS and thus the potential for fire or explosions is 

greatly diminished. Third, the small size and extreme maneuverability of my UAS allow 

me to remotely pilot away from and avoid hazards quickly and safely. Lastly, given its 

small size and weight, even when close enough to capture

amazing images, my UAS need not be so close to the objects they are focused on 

through the technology and use of post editing software allowing pan and zoom.

Accordingly, my UAS has been experimentally operated for familiarization/competency 

and will continue to operate at and above current safety levels.

VI. A Summary The FAA May Publish in the Federal Register:

A. 14 C.F.R. 21 and 14 C.F.R. 91: Airworthiness Certificates, Manuals and The Like.

14 C.F.R. 21, Subpart H, entitled Airworthiness Certificates, sets forth requirements for 

procurement of necessary airworthiness certificates in relation to FAR §91.203(a)(1). 

The size, weight and enclosed operational area of my, Bruce Pogosaew’s, UAS permits 

exemption from Part 21 because my UAS meets (and exceeds) an equivalent level of 

safety pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act.

The FAA is authorized to exempt aircraft from the airworthiness certificate requirement 

under both the Act (49 U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act. Both 

pieces of legislation permit the FAA to exempt UAS's from the airworthiness certificate 

requirement in consideration of the weight, size, speed, maneuverability and proximity 

to areas such as airports and dense populations. My, Bruce Pogosaew’s, current and 

projected UAS's meet or exceed each of the elements.
Bruce Pogosaew, Tucson AZ - Section 333 Exemption Petition page 8 of 10

14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an airworthiness

certificate. As no such certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated by the

FARs, this Regulation is inapplicable. 

14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. As there are

no on board pilots or passengers, and given the size of the UAS's, this Regulation is

inapplicable. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by maintaining a

safety/flight manual delineating areas of where safety can be defined.

The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this regulation in Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737,

8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167, 10167A, 10602, 10700 and 32827.

14 C.F.R. § 91.121 regarding altimeter settings is inapplicable insofar as my UAS utilizes

electronic global positioning systems with a barometric sensor or controled GPS “geofencing”

14 C.F.R. § 91.203 (a) and (b) provides for the carrying of civil aircraft certifications and

registrations. They are inapplicable for the same reasons described above. The equivalent

level of safety will be achieved by maintaining any such required certifications and

registrations by me, Bruce Pogosaew.

B. 14 C.F.R. § 45.23: Marking of The Aircraft.

Applicable Codes of Federal Regulation require aircraft to be marked according to

certain specifications. My UAS are, by definition, unmanned. They therefore do not

have a cabin, cockpit or pilot station on which to mark certain words or phrases. Further,

two-inch lettering is difficult to place on such small aircraft with dimensions smaller that

minimal lettering requirement. Regardless, I will mark its UASs in the largest possible

lettering by placing the word “EXPERIMENTAL” on its fuselage as required by 14 C.F.R.

§45.29 (f) so that I the pilot, or anyone assisting me as a spotter with the UAV will see

the markings. The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this regulation through

Exemptions Nos. 8738, 10167, 10167A and 10700.

C. 14 C.F.R. § 61.113: Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: PIC.

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) & (b), private pilots are limited to non-commercial

operations. I, Bruce Pogosaew, can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by

current Regulations because my UAS does not carry any pilots or passengers. Further,

while helpful, a pilot license will not ensure remote control piloting skills. The risks

attended to the operation of my UAS is far less than the risk levels inherent in the

commercial activities outlined in 14 C.F.R. § 61, et seq. Thus, allowing me, Douglas

Trudeau, to operate my UAS meet and exceed current safety levels in relation to 14

C.F.R. §61.113 (a) & (b). 

D. 14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes.

14 C.F.R. § 91.119 prescribes safe altitudes for the operation of civil aircraft. It allows

helicopters to be operated at lower altitudes in certain conditions. My UAS will never

operate at an altitude greater than 200 AGL; safely below the standard of 400 AGL. I,

Bruce Pogosaew, will however operate my UAS in safe areas away from public and

traffic, providing a level of safety at least equivalent to or below those in relation to

minimum safe altitudes. Given the size, weight, maneuverability and speed of my UAS,

an equivalent or higher level of safety will be achieved.
Bruce Pogosaew, Tucson AZ - Section 333 Exemption Petition page 9 of 10

E. 14 C.F.R. 91.405 (a); 407 (a) (1); 409 (a) (2); 417(a) & (b): Maintenance Inspections.

 10 Appendix E - Safety/Flight Manual 

The above-cited Regulations require, amongst other things, aircraft owners and operators to 

“have [the] 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. . . .”These Regulations only 

apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. They will not, therefore, apply to my, Bruce 

Pogosaew's, UAS. However, as a safety precaution I inspect my UAS before and after each 

flight.

 A Summary The FAA May Publish in the Federal Register: A. 14 C.F.R. 21 and 14

C.F.R. 91: Airworthiness Certificates, Manuals and The Like. 14 C.F.R. 21, Subpart H,

entitled Airworthiness Certificates, sets forth requirements for procurement of necessary

airworthiness certificates in relation to FAR § 91.203(a)(1). The size, weight and

enclosed operational area of my UAS permits exemption from Part 21 because my,

Bruce Pogosaew’s, UAS meets an equivalent level of safety pursuant to Section 333 of

the Reform Act. The FAA is authorized to exempt aircraft from the airworthiness

certificate requirement under both the Act (49 U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) and Section 333 of

the Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit the FAA to exempt UAS's from the

airworthiness certificate requirement in consideration of the weight, size, speed,

maneuverability and proximity to areas such as airports and dense populations. My

UAS meets or exceeds each of the elements. 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation

of an aircraft without an airworthiness certificate. As no such certificate will be

applicable in the form contemplated by the FARs, this Regulation is inapplicable. 14

C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. As there are no

pilots or passengers, and given the size of the UAS's, this Regulation is inapplicable. An

equivalent level of safety will be achieved by maintaining a manual. The FAA has

previously issued exemptions to this regulation in Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 8738,

9299, 9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167, maintenance program that involves regular software

updates and curative measures for any damaged hardware. Therefore, an equivalent

level of safety will be achieved.

In summary, Bruce Pogosaew seeks an exemption from the following

Regulations:14 C.F.R. 21, subpart H; 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) & (b); 14 

C.F.R. §91.7 (a); 14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b)(2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.103(b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.109; 14 

C.F.R. §91.119; 14 C.F.R. § 91.121; 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a); 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.203(a) and (b); 

14 C.F.R. § 91.405 (a); 14 C.F.R. § 91.407 (a)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 91.409 (a)(2); 14 C.F.R. §

91.409 (a ) (2); and, 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.417 (a) & (b) 

to commercially operate my, Bruce Pogosaew's, small unmanned vehicle/lightweight 

unmanned aircraft vehicle in community awareness, education, structural inspection land 

management, search and rescue and real estate operations, and to develop economic 

platforms for the aforementioned to 
Bruce Pogosaew, Tucson AZ - Section 333 Exemption Petition page 10 of 10

enhance the experience of those seeking to relocate, rebuild, reevaluate and to find in the 

metro Tucson area.

Currently, the aforementioned aerial videography/photography relies primarily on the use of 

larger aircraft running on combustible fuel. Posing potential risk to the public. Granting my, 

Bruce Pogosaew’s, request for exemption will reduce current risk levels and thereby 

enhance safety. My UAS craft do not contain potentially explosive fuel, is smaller, lighter 

and more maneuverable than conventional video and photographic aircraft with much less 

flight time.

Further, I operate at lower altitudes and in controlled airspace eliminating potential public 

risk flying to and from established airfields. I, Bruce Pogosaew, have been informally 

analyzing and recording flight

information and will compile safety protocols and the implementation of a flight

operations manual for usage that exceeds currently accepted means and

methods for safe flight. Formal collection of information shared with the FAA will

enhance the FAA's internal efforts to establish protocols for complying with the FAA

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. There are no personnel on board my, Bruce

Pogosaew’s, UAS and therefore the likelihood of death or serious bodily injury is

significantly diminished. My, Bruce Pogosaew’s, operation of my UAS, weighing less

than seven (7) pounds and travelling at lower speeds within limited areas will provide an

equivalent level of safety as that achieved under current FARs. Accordingly I, Bruce 

Pogosaew, respectfully request that the FAA grant my exemption request and am willing

to cooperate in sharing information to benefit the FAA, safety of manned aircraft, and

the general public at large.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce Pogosaew

FPV Catalog, LLC

7432 E Placita Del Espiritu

Tucson, AZ 85715