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 gran ted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you th e 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 th e petitioner to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct aerial videography and cinematography to enhance academic community awareness for individuals and comp anies unfamiliar with the geographical layout of the metro Tucson and surrounding areas; augmenta tion of real estate listing videos; and the creation of visual and topogra phy layout videos for Search an d Rescue mission for state and local agencies, education, agricultural insp ections 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 s upport 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 pa rameters would provide a leve l of safety greater than a manned aircraft performing the same functions . Shadow Creek opposed any requirement for the operator to hold an airman medical certific ate. Additionally, the commenter objected to a requirement to obtain a Certific ate of Authorization (COA) prio r 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, a nd limited operating area associated with the aircraft and its operation, the S ecretary of Transportation has de termined that this aircraft

meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, th e FAA finds that the re quested 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 da ta collection. The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all materi al respects to those pr esented in your petition. In Grants of Exemption No s. 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 specifica tions described by the petition er and carrying no passengers or crew, rather than a manned aircraft of signi ficantly greater proporti ons, carrying crew in addition to flammable fuel, gi ves the FAA good cause to find th at the UAS operation enabled by this exemption is in the public interest.3

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

 They are similar in all material respects to relief previously re quested 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 situ ation you present; and

 A grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a gr ant 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) an d (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 an d 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 restricti on. 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 than4

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 a nd 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 communicat e verbally at all times; electronic messaging or texting is not permitted duri ng flight operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot tran sfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the du ties 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 discrepa ncy exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and the pro cedures outlined in the operating documents,

the conditions and limitations herein ta ke precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the pr ocedures as outlined in its operating documents. The operator may update or revi se its operating documents. It is the operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and pr esent updated and revised documents to the Administrator or any la w enforcement official upon request. The operator must also present updated and revise d 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 contacte d if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operating documents.

8. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that aff ect the UAS operation or flight characteristics, e .g. replacement of a flight cr itical component, must undergo a functional test flight prio r to conducting further opera tions 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 functi onal 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 a nd 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. Th e 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 is5

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 manu facturer’s maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requ irements for the aircraft and aircraft

components.

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

bulletins.

13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC mu st hold either an airline transport, commercial, private, recreational, or sport pi lot 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 PI C is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to ope rate unless the PIC demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a ma nner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distan ces from persons, vessels, vehi cles 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 e xperience-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 dur ing dedicated training sessions. During training, proficiency, and expe rience-building flights, al l persons not essential for flight operations are considered nonpartic ipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparti cipants 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 conditi ons (VMC). Flights under special visual flight rule s (SVFR) are not authorized.

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical mile s of an airport reference point (ARP) as denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facil ity Directory (AFD) or for airports not

denoted with an ARP, the center of the ai rport symbol as denoted on the current FAApublished aeronautical chart, unless a lett er 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 ai rport 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 it s GPS signal, the UA must return to a predetermined location within the priv ate or controlled-access property.

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

20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a f light 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 fo r at least five minutes or with the reserve power recommended by the manufacturer if greater.

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Author ization (COA). All operations shall be conducted in accorda nce 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 unde r the terms of the attached COA.

22. All aircraft operated in accord ance 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 CF R part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure th e 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 th e Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

24. The UA must remain clear and give wa y 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 pr otect 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 struct ures has granted permission for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of7

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

The PIC, VO, operator trainees or es sential persons are not considered nonparticipating persons under this exemption.

27. All operations shall be conducted over priv ate or controlled-access property with permission from the property owner/cont roller 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 Sa fety Board (NTSB) per instructions

contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov

.

If this exemption permits operations for th e 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 ove r the area of proposed filming. The 3-day notification may be waived w ith 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 res ponsible for the on-s cene operation of

the UAS;

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

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

f. A statement that the operator has obtain ed permission from property owners

and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those who gave permission must be made av ailable to the inspector upon request;

g. Signature of exemption holde r or representative; and

h. A description of the flight activity, includi ng maps or diagrams of any area, city, town, county, and/or state over which film ing will be conducted and the altitudes essential to accomplish the operation.8

31. Flight operations may be conducted closer th an 500 feet from pa rticipating 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 al l 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 St andards ServiceBruce 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 ex empted from the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed below so that I, Bruce Pogosaew, may operate my small ultra lightweight unm anned 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 purpo ses for the past eighteen (18) years. I have flown small and large remote control (RC) gas and electr ic aircraft models for those eighteen (18) years without incident and pledge my conti nued commitment to safety on all future flights. Following exemption and approval by the FAA, I, Bruce Pogosaew, will primarily use my hobby grade quad-copter 1 and fixed wing 2 UAS equipped with cameras for the following applications: aerial videogr aphy/cinematography to enhance academic community awareness for individuals and co mpanies unfamiliar with the geographical layout of the metro Tucson and surrounding ar eas; augmentation of real estate listing videos; and the creation of visual and topogr aphy 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 ManualBruce Pogosaew, Tucson AZ - Section 333 Exemption Petition page 2 of 10

My, Bruce Pogosaew’s, exem ption 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, per missible within property boundaries for individual homeowners and within in tightly c ontrolled, limited airspaces predetermined in areas away from the general public, airpor ts, heliports and vehicula r 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 Pogoa ew, have personally installed safety protocols and controls 6 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 light weight UAS's for specific video and photography usage by sharing information with the FAA as I, Bruc e Pogosaew, record flight data and other pertinent information gained throu gh 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 nat ional 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 loca l 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 oper ate ultra lightweight, remote controlled UAS’s to aid academic community awareness, to benefit/sti mulate attraction to the metro Tucson area and to enhance personal and public video f eeds. 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 hazar d in and of itself.

6 Appendix F - Personal Protocols and ControlsBruce 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 Pogosa ew 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 airc raft 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. Consider ations include: The weight, size, speed and overall capabilities of the UAS's; Whether the UAS will be operated near airports or heavily populat ed 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 follo wing 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 fore most 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 fl y with the modes safest to complete the

videos for aerial videography/photography and have t he ability to choose the safest, most reliable and stable mode to prevent acci dent 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 geofencing 4 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 wil l 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 w here general public is within fifty to one hundred (50-100) yards depending on location, c onditions and weather. I am constantly on alert for any manned airc raft (police/medical helicopt ers, etc.) and prepared to land/abort immediately to t he nearest and safest ground point should a manned aircraft approach my location or I suspect manned aircraft may

4 Appendix D - Computerized Control BoardsBruce 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 re mote 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 lowe r 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-C opter Operator Manual 3 Appendix C - Transmitter Control ler ManualBruce 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 nationa l 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 feat ure 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 ma in 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, el evated lights, airports and actively populated areas; I conduct extensive preflight inspecti ons 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 flight s in the event of safety breaches or potential danger. My, Bruce Pogosaew’s, safety protocols provi de a level of safety e qual to or exceeding existing rules. It is important to note that absent the integration of commercial UAS into our national airspace system, helicopters ar e the primary means of aerial video and photography for community awareness real estate, structured inspections, land management and search and rescue While the sa fety record of such helicopters is remarkably astounding, there has been local incid ent involving loss of life as well as extensive property damage; it is far safer to operate a battery power ed ultra lightweight UAS. First, the potential lo ss 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, t he small size and extreme maneuv erability 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 clos e to the objects they are focused on through the technology and use of post editing software allo wing pan and zoom. Accordingly, my UAS has been experimentally operated for familiarization/competency and will continue to operate at a nd above current safety levels. VI. A Summary The FAA May Pub lish in the Federal Register:

A. 14 C.F.R. 21 and 14 C.F.R. 91: Airworth iness Certificates, Manuals and The Like. 14 C.F.R. 21, Subpart H, entitled Airworthiness Certificat es, sets forth requirements for procurement of necessary airworthiness cert ificates 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 exem pt aircraft from the airworth iness certificate requirement under both the Act (49 U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit t he FAA to exempt UAS's from the airworthiness certificate requirement in consideration of the weigh t, size, speed, maneuverab ility and proximity to areas such as airports and dense populations. My, Bruce Pogos aew’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 bar ometric 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 “EXPERIMENTA L” 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 leas t 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, Ma nuals 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 f light manual in the ai rcraft. 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 toBruce 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 pot entially 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 F AA grant my exemption request and am willing to cooperate in sharing information to benef it 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