Page 1

September 21, 2015

Kyle Blake 

Blake Homes, LLC 

952 Old Mail Lane

Sanford, FL 32773 

352-504-6979

FamilyFirst@BlakeHomesFlorida.com 

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. §§ Part 21; 45.23(b); 61.113(a)&(b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b) (2); 91.103(b); 

91.109; 91.119; 91.151(a); 91.203(a)&(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a) (1); 91.409(a) (1) (2); 

91.417(a)&(b) 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

I, Kyle Blake, 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, Kyle Blake, an owner and operator 

of small unmanned aircrafts, be exempted from the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) 

listed below so that I, Kyle Blake, may operate my small light-weight unmanned aircraft system 

(“UAS”) commercially in airspace regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). 

I, Kyle Blake, have over 5 years of digital photography experience as well as over 10 years in the 

field of Information Technology (IT). Using the DJI Phantom 31, I, Kyle Blake, intend to provide 

Videography, cinematography and photography services in the areas of real estate, site surveys, 

aerial mapping, special events to include but not limited to weddings, private or public 

parties/events, outdoor recreational facilities and landscapes, waterway, flight training, 

demonstration flights.

I, Kyle Blake, am committed to safety with each flight. My, Kyle Blake’s, exemption request 

would permit operation of a UAS(s) in areas away from the general public, airports, heliports 

and vehicular traffic for community videos, and within property boundaries for individual 

homeowner real estate listing videos/photos. 

I. Contact Information: 

Kyle Blake, Owner 

Blake Homes, LLC 

952 Old Mail Lane

 

1

Attachment – DJI Phantom 3 Advanced Specifications 
Page 2

Sanford, FL 32773 

352-504-6979

FamilyFirst@BlakeHomesFlorida.com 

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

Blake Requests Exemption are: 

 14 CFR Part 21;

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

 14 CFR 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. 91.203(a) & (b);

 14 C.F.R. 91.151(a);

 14 C.F.R. 91.405(a);

 14 CFR 407(a) (1);

 14 CFR 409(a) (1) & (a) (2);

 14 CFR 417(a) & (b)

III. The Extent of Relief Kyle Blake Seeks and the Reason He Seeks Such Relief: 

I, Kyle Blake, 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, Kyle Blake, an owner and operator 

of small unmanned aircraft, be exempted from the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed 

below so that I may operate my small light weight unmanned aircraft system (“UAS”) 

commercially in airspace regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). 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, Kyle Blake’s, lightweight UAS meets the definition of “small unmanned aircraft” as defined in Section 331 and 

therefore the integration of my light-weight UAS is expressly contemplated by the Reform Act. 

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). Each of 

these items reflect in favor of an exemption for me, Kyle Blake. My UAS utilizes four (4) 

counter-rotating propellers for balance, control and stability and is equipped with a GPS and auto 

return safety technology. Weighing less than five (5) pounds (far below the maximum 55 pound 

limit); including camera with gimbal. 

I, Kyle Blake, will operate the Phantom 3 in a safe manner, using the following checklists as well 

as operating procedures to determine that the aircraft is physically and electronically ready for 

safe flight and that permission from the property owner/representative is received: 
Page 3

Pre-flight Checklist: 

 Survey the property for hazards, such as trees, utility poles and other elements that might

compromise the flight then make a judgment as to whether to proceed. 

 Check the weather for wind speed, cloud cover and any forecast changes that might adversely

affect flight safety and performance. 

 Examine the aircraft- looking at connections and searching for cracks and loose parts. 

 Determine that the electronic elements are performing correctly (receiving more than 6 GPS 

signals along with calibration of the magnetic compass). 

 Determine that the barometric altimeter reflects approximately 0 feet AGL.

 Following takeoff, hover at an altitude of approximately 10 feet to assure that the Home Point 

is solid. Then exercise all controls to confirm their functionality, if one of the controls is not 

functioning, the flight will be terminated immediately. 

 Not fly over dense traffic or crowds.

 Give right-of-way to any manned aircraft. 

 Stay clear of FAA controlled airspace at airports (generally a five nautical mile radius) as well

as restricted and prohibited zones. 

 Fly no higher than 400' and no further than 1000' from the Home Point, recognizing that the

primary responsibility is to safely keep the aircraft safely within VLOS. 

 Stay clear of clouds and fog (500' vertically and 2,000' horizontally).

Post-flight Checklist: 

 Inspect the Phantom 3 to determine its physical and electronic condition.

 Examine the aircraft- looking at connections and searching for cracks and loose parts.

IV. How Kyle Blake’s Request Will Benefit the Public as A Whole: 

Aerial videography and photography has been around for a long time through manned fixed wing 

aircraft and helicopters. For small budget companies and individuals, the expense of such aerial 

videography and photography is cost prohibitive. Only large companies and high-income 

individuals can afford to absorb such expense. Manned aircraft pose a threat to the public 

through potential catastrophic crashes resulting in a potential loss of life. My, Kyle Blake’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’ into the national airspace system, hence the passing of the Reform 

Act. My, Kyle Blake, light- weight UAS is battery powered and creates no emissions that can 

harm the environment. 

V. Reasons Why Kyle Blake’s Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect Safety 

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

Rule: 

My, Kyle Blake’s, exemption will not adversely affect safety. 

• My UAS weighs less than 5 pounds complete with a small light- weight high definition (HD) 

camera. 

• I only operate my UAS below 400 feet (well within the 400 foot permissible ceiling set by the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012). 

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

• I pilot my UAS through remote control/FPV only by line of sight. 
Page 4

• My UAS has GPS with a flight safety feature whereby it hovers and then slowly lands if 

communication with the remote control pilot is lost. 

• I only operate in reasonably safe environments that are strictly controlled, are away from power 

lines, elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas. 

• I conduct extensive pre-flight inspections and protocol, during which safety carries primary

importance. 

• I always obtain all necessary permissions prior to operation. 

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

A. 14 C.F.R. § 21, 14 C.F.R. § 91 and 91.151: 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, Kyle Blake’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, Kyle Blake’s, current and projected UAS’ meet or 

exceed 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 on board 

pilots or passengers, and given the size of the UAS, 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.

14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) with the condition that the PIC does not begin a flight unless (considering 

wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough power to fly to the first point of intended 

landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, land the UA with 30% battery power remaining. 

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, Kyle Blake. 

B. 14 C.F.R. § 45.23: Marking of the Aircraft 
Page 5

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

specifications. My, Kyle Blake, UAS is, by definition, unmanned. Therefore does 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, Kyle Blake, will mark the UAS 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, Kyle Blake, the pilot, 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, Kyle Blake, 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, Kyle Blake, to operate my UAS in a manner that meets and 

exceeds 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 400 AGL; safely below the standard of 400 AGL. I, Kyle Blake, 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. 

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

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, Kyle Blake’s, UAS. However, as a safety precaution, I, Kyle Blake, 

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 permit exemption from Part 21 because my, Kyle Blake’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’ 

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 
Page 6

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’, 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, Kyle Blake 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. § 91.119; 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) (1); and, 14 C.F.R. § 91.417 (a) & (b) 

I, Kyle Blake, am requesting this exemption for the purposes of aerial photography, 

cinematography, videography, inspections and other flight operations. The reason for such a 

general and broad based request is that I, Kyle Blake, wish to utilize a business strategy that 

capitalizes on opportunities as they may arise in the future. My, Kyle Blake’s, business model is 

based on the idea of offering ad hoc small UAS services to individuals or companies who wish to 

employ these services as a safe, effective, and legal option to enhance their business or hobby. 

Granting my, Kyle Blake’s, request for exemption will reduce current risk levels and thereby

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

more maneuverable than conventional video and photographic aircraft. Further, I operate at 

lower altitudes and in controlled airspace eliminating potential public risk flying to and from 

established air fields. There are no personnel on board my, Kyle Blake’s, UAS and therefore the 

likelihood of death or serious bodily injury is significantly diminished. My, Kyle Blake’s, 

operation of my UAS, weighing less than 5 pounds and travelling at lower speeds within limited 

areas will provide an equivalent level of safety as that achieved under current FARs. 

Accordingly I, Kyle Blake, respectfully request that the FAA grant my exemption.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kyle Blake, Owner

Blake Homes, LLC

952 Old Mail Lane

Sanford, FL 32773

Attachment:

DJI Phantom 3 Advanced Specifications