UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 

Regulatory Docket No. _______________

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION OF:

K & R AVIATION, LLC FOR AN EXEMPTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE 

REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

SECTIONS 61.23(a) & (c), 61.101(e)(4) & (e)(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) & (a)(2), AND 91.417(a) & (b)

CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF THE DJI PHANTOM 3

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA 

MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112-95)

Submitted on December 10, 2015

GREGORY S. WINTON, ESQ.

THE AVIATION LAW FIRM

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway

Suite 300

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Tel: (301) 294-8550

Fax: (866) 568-9886

Attorney for Petitioner
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................3

SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF PETITIONER .................................................4

BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................5

BASIS FOR THE PETITION..............................................................................................5

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER........................................................6

THE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF 14 C.F.R. FROM WHICH K & R AVIATION, LLC

SEEKS EXEMPTION ...................................................................................................6

THE EXTENT OF RELIEF K & R AVIATION SEEKS AND THE REASON K & R

AVIATION, LLC SEEKS THE RELIEF......................................................................7

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING THE EXEMPTION WOULD NOT 

ADVERSELY AFFECT SAFETY..............................................................................10

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING K & R AVIATION LLC 'S REQUEST 

WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST ...............................................................23

SUMMARY THAT CAN BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER..........26

ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, VIEWS, OR ARGUMENTS AVAILABLE 

TO SUPPORT K & R AVIATION LLC 'S REQUEST..............................................26

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................27
3

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS

AGL Above Ground Level

AOI Area of Interest

ATC Air Traffic Control

ATO Air Traffic Organization

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

COA Certificate of Authorization

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAR Federal Aviation Regulation

FCC Federal Communications Commission

GCS Ground Control Station

GPS Global Positioning System

NAS National Airspace System

NOTAM Notice to Airmen

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

PIC Pilot In Command

RTH Return To Home

Section 333 FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) Section 333

UA Unmanned Aircraft

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System

VFR Visual Flight Rules

VLOS Visual Line of Sight

VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions

VO Visual Observer

VTOL Vertical Takeoff and Landing 
4

SUMMARY

K & R AVIATION, LLC (hereinafter “K & R”) seeks exemption from the requirements 

of 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(a) & (c), 61.101(e)(4) & (e)(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) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b), to 

operate the DJI Phantom 3 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) pursuant to Section 333 of the 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA). This exemption will permit K & R to 

operate an Unmanned Aircraft System for the commercial purpose of aerial data collection.

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONER

K & R Aviation, LLC, founded in 2005, is a Washington, D.C. based FAA approved Part 

135 Air Carrier specializing in on demand, mission critical, 24-hour flight operations and does

business as OpenAir. K & R is additionally authorized by the FAA to accept, handle, and carry 

materials regulated as hazardous materials (Hazmat). K & R has experience in the public sector, 

working with the United States Navy Test Pilot School and Government Contractors ManTech 

International and Six3 Systems, as well as the private sector, flying high profile clients such as 

Governors and U.S. Senators, Professional Athletes, and the President of the National Business 

Aviation Association, with a specialization in being ready on short notice and with increased 

flexibility through access to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) as part of the 

D.C. Access Standard Security Program (DASSP). K & R also conducts emergency organ and 

tissue flights, aerial photo shoot missions, and can conduct flight training activities. K & R is a 

qualified small business with an unblemished safety record and has both a former NTSB safety 

inspector and current NASA AMES research contractor on staff.

K & R will utilize the DJI Phantom 3 to commercially provide professional geospatial 

data collection, aerial photography, infrastructure inspection services, and disaster area damage 
5

and debris assessments to their clients. Use of the DJI Phantom 3 will provide K & R a safe and 

efficient platform to perform its business operations and will help serve organizations in need of 

reliable, affordable unmanned systems in connection with intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance (ISR) missions, as well as for experimentation purposes. K & R has a long 

history of providing superior aviation services and seeks to extend that standard into the UAS 

industry.

BACKGROUND

Unmanned Aircraft System: DJI Phantom 3

K & R seeks an exemption to operate the DJI Phantom 3 UAS (Phantom 3), most 

recently approved for use pursuant to Section 333 under Grant of Exemption No. 12863, for 

compensation or hire within the NAS. The Phantom 3 is comprised of a vertical takeoff and 

landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aircraft (UA) and a Remote Controller capable of connecting to a 

Mobile Device. The Phantom 3 has a maximum gross weight, with payload, of approximately 

2.8 pounds; measures 13.8 in. x 13.8 in. x 13.8 in.; and has a maximum speed of approximately 

31 knots. The Phantom 3 UAS is equipped with four rotors mounted in a quad-copter 

configuration, each driven by a Lithium Polymer battery powered electric motor.

The Phantom 3 (also referred to as “the subject UAS”) that will be operated by K & R

will be registered in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 44103, Registration of Aircraft, as well as 14 

C.F.R. Part 47, Aircraft Registration, and marked in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 45, 

Identification and Registration Marking.

BASIS FOR THE PETITION

K & R, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. § 11.61) and the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, 
6

Section 333, Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems, hereby petitions the 

Administrator to operate the subject UAS within the National Airspace System (NAS), and for 

an exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(a) & (c), 61.101(e)(4) & (e)(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) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b). In consideration of its size, weight, speed, and 

limited operating area, K & R’s operation of the Phantom 3 UAS meets the conditions of FMRA 

Section 333.

A. Name And Address Of The Petitioner.

The name and address of the Petitioner is:

K & R Aviation, LLC d/b/a OpenAir

7940 Airpark Road, Suite O

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879

The point of contact for this Petition and specific contact information is as follows:

Gregory S. Winton, Esq.

The Aviation Law Firm

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway, Suite 300

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Tel: (301) 294-8550 | Fax: (866) 568-9886

Email: Greg@aviationlawexperts.com

B. The Specific Sections Of 14 C.F.R. From Which K & R Seeks Exemption.

K & R seeks exemption from the following sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations:

 61.23(a) & (c), entitled Medical certificates: Requirement and duration

 61.101(e)(4) & (e)(5), entitled Recreational pilot privileges and limitations

 61.113(a), entitled Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command

 61.315(a), entitled What are the privileges and limitations of my sport pilot 

certificate
7

 91.7(a), entitled Civil aircraft airworthiness

 91.119(c), entitled Minimum safe altitudes: (c) Over other than congested areas

 91.121, entitled Altimeter settings

 91.151(a)(1), entitled Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions

 91.405(a), entitled Maintenance required

 91.407(a)(1), entitled Operation after maintenance, preventative maintenance, 

rebuilding, or alteration

 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), entitled Inspections

 91.417(a) & (b), entitled Maintenance records

C. The Extent Of Relief K & R Seeks And The Reason K & R Seeks The Relief.

1. Extent of Relief K & R Seeks And The Reason K & R Seeks Relief From 

Section 61.23(a) & (c).

Relief from Sections 61.23(a) & (c) entitled Medical certificates: Requirement and 

duration, is requested to the extent necessary to allow an adequately certificated PIC holding an 

FAA-issued medical certificate or U.S. issued driver’s license, to conduct the proposed UAS 

flight operations for compensation or hire.

This relief is requested since the limitations set forth in Section 61.23(a) state that the 

holder of a recreational pilot, private pilot, commercial pilot, airline transport pilot certificate, or 

flight instructor certificate must also hold the appropriate FAA-issued medical certificate to 

exercise the privileges of the pilot certificate. The relief is further requested since the limitations 

set forth in Section 61.23(c) state that the holder of a sport pilot certificate must also hold a U.S. 

issued driver’s license when exercising the privileges of the certificate in a light sport aircraft.
8

2. Extent of Relief K & R Seeks And The Reason K & R Seeks Relief From 

Sections 61.101(e)(4) & (e)(5), 61.113(a), and 61.315(a).

Relief from Sections 61.101(e)(4) & (e)(5), entitled Recreational pilot privileges and

limitations; Section 61.113(a), entitled Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in 

command; and Section 61.315(a), entitled What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot 

certificate, is requested to the extent necessary to allow a PIC holding a sport pilot, recreational 

pilot, or private pilot certificate, as well as an airman medical certificate or U.S. issued driver’s 

license, and who has met certain flight-hour and currency requirements, to conduct the proposed 

UAS flight operations for compensation or hire, subject to the conditions and limitations below.

This relief is requested since the limitations set forth in Sections 61.101(e)(4) & (e)(5) 

state that no person who holds a recreational pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an 

aircraft for compensation or hire or in furtherance of a business. Relief is requested from 

61.113(a) since the limitations set forth in that section state that no person who holds a private 

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

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

of an aircraft. Relief is requested from 61.315(a) since the limitations set forth in that section

only allow a person who holds a sport pilot certificate to act as pilot in command of a light-sport 

aircraft.

3. Extent of Relief K & R Seeks And The Reason K & R Seeks Relief From 

Section 91.7(a).

Relief from Section 91.7(a), entitled Civil aircraft airworthiness, is requested to the 

extent required to allow K & R to determine that the subject UAS is in an airworthy condition

prior to every flight by ensuring that the subject UAS is in compliance with its operating 

documents.
9

K & R seeks the requested relief because the subject UAS does not require an airworthiness 

certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. 

4. Extent of Relief K & R Seeks And The Reason K & R Seeks Relief From 

Section 91.119(c).

Relief from Section 91.119(c), entitled Minimum safe altitudes: (c) Over other than 

congested areas, is required because all proposed operations of the subject UAS will take place 

at an altitude at or below 400 feet AGL. This relief is requested since the limitations set forth in 

Section 91.119(c) state that no person may operate an aircraft below 500 feet above the surface. 

Additionally, relief from Section 91.119(c) is requested to the extent necessary to allow 

operations to be conducted closer than 500 feet to persons, vessels, vehicles, or structures, under 

certain conditions. This relief is requested since the limitations set forth in Section 91.119(c)

prohibit operating an aircraft closer than 500 feet to a person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. 

5. Extent Of Relief K & R Seeks And The Reason K & R Seeks Relief From 

Section 91.121.

Relief from Section 91.121, entitled Altimeter settings, may be required to allow flight 

operations of the subject UAS, because the subject UAS’ altitude reporting equipment may be 

set on the ground to zero feet AGL, rather than local barometric pressure or field altitude, before 

each flight. Considering the limited altitude of the proposed operations, relief from 14 C.F.R. § 

91.121 is sought to the extent necessary to comply with the applicable conditions and limitations 

stated below. 

6. Extent Of Relief K & R Seeks And The Reason K & R Seeks Relief From 

Section 91.151(a)(1).

Relief from Section 91.151(a)(1), entitled Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, 

is requested to the extent required to allow flights of the battery powered subject UAS during 

daylight hours in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), under visual flight rules (VFR) . 
10

K & R seeks the requested relief because without an exemption from Section 91.151(a)(1), the

flight time duration of the subject UAS will severely constrain the practicality of any aerial 

acquisition and research flight operations that K & R proposes to conduct pursuant to this 

Petition.

7. Extent Of Relief K & R Seeks And The Reason K & R Seeks Relief From 

Sections 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), And 91.417(a) & (b).

K & R requests relief from Sections 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and

91.417(a) & (b) to the extent necessary to allow the proposed operations in accordance with the 

conditions and limitations set forth below. Since the aforementioned Sections only apply to 

aircraft with an airworthiness certificate, K & R requests relief from these Sections because the 

subject UAS does not require an airworthiness certificate. 

D. The Reasons Why Granting The Exemption Would Not Adversely Affect Safety, Or 

How The Exemption Would Provide A Level Of Safety At Least Equal To That 

Provided By The Rule From Which K & R Seeks Exemption.

1. Reasons Why The Subject UAS Meets The Conditions Of The FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) Section 333.

In consideration of the size, weight, speed, and operating limitations associated with the 

unmanned aircraft and their operation, K & R’s operation of the subject UAS meets the 

conditions of FMRA Section 333, and will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance 

with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. In seeking this exemption, K & R submits that Phantom 3 

UAS can operate safely in the NAS pursuant to FMRA Section 333, as demonstrated by: (a) the 

characteristics of the Phantom 3 UAS; (b) the pilot certification requirement; and (c) the specific 

operating limitations. Additionally, the UAS and proposed operations requested in this petition 

are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in Grant of Exemption Nos. 
11

11062, 11109, 11112, 11213, and 11977, and the reasons stated by the FAA for granting those 

Exemptions also apply to the present situation.

a. The Subject UAS Is Safe For Use Based Upon Its Size, Weight, Speed, 

And Operational Limitations.

The Phantom 3 UAS has previously been deemed safe for operation by the FAA under 

Section 333 based upon its size, weight, speed, and operational limitations, most recently 

approved for use in Grant of Exemption No. 12863. 

b. Flight Operations Of The Subject UAS Are Limited To The Line Of 

Sight Of A Certificated Pilot In Command With A Safety Observer.

K & R will only utilize certificated pilots who possess a current and valid FAA issued 

airman medical certificate or valid U.S. issued driver’s license to act as a pilot in command (PIC)

of the subject UAS. Additionally, a safety observer will assist all pilots during flight operations.

c. Flights Of The Subject UAS Will Be Conducted Pursuant To Specific 

Operating Limitations.

In seeking this exemption, K & R proposes to commercially operate the subject UAS for

the special purpose of conducting aerial acquisitions within the NAS, pursuant to the following 

specific operating limitations:

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the DJI Phantom 3

Unmanned Aircraft System 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 grant. 

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.
12

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

(AGL). Altitude must be reported in feet AGL. 

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

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

corrective lenses, as specified on the PIC’s FAA-issued airman medical certificate or 

U.S. driver’s license. 

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

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

satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The 

VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times. Electronic messaging or 

texting is not permitted during flight operations. The PIC must be designated before the 

flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC 

must also 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 flight test 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 or 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 
13

inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is 

prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the 

UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight.

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

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements for the aircraft and aircraft 

components. 

12. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with the 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 Columbia, 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 in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

15. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 C.F.R. § 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 on a current FAA Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) or for airports not denoted 

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

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

obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption holder. The letter of 

agreement with the airport management must be made available to the Administrator or 

any law enforcement official upon request. 

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

horizontally from a cloud or when visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC. 
14

18. If the UA 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 power for the UA to conduct the intended operation 

and to operate after that for at least five minutes or within 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 the exemption must be identified by serial 

number, registered in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 47, and have identification (NNumber) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R. 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 the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it 

does not present an undue hazard.
15

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 the land 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 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.

31. Flight operation 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.
16

2. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Sections 61.23(a) & 

(c) Would Not Adversely Affect Safety.

K & R submits that an equivalent level of safety established by Sections 61.23(a) & (c) 

will be maintained because no PIC will be allowed to operate the subject UAS unless that PIC 

holds either a valid FAA-issued medical certificate or a valid U.S. issued driver’s license. 

Additionally, no PIC will be allowed to operate the subject UAS unless that PIC has 

demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight-hour and currency requirements, that the PIC is able 

to safely operate the subject UAS in a manner consistent with the exemption, including evasive 

and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles, 

and structures.

Considering K & R’s proposed area of operations, the relatively small size of the subject

UAS, and the operating limitations set forth in this Petition, as well as the parallel nature of sport 

pilot, recreational pilot, and private pilot medical requirements, relating to the proposed 

operations, K & R submits the additional requirements of at least a third-class airman medical 

certificate would not correlate to K & R’s proposed operations.

3. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Sections 

61.101(e)(4) & (e)(5), 61.113(a), and 61.315(a) Would Not Adversely Affect 

Safety.

K & R submits that an equivalent level of safety established by Sections 61.101(e)(4) & 

(e)(5), 61.113(a), and 61.315(a) will be maintained because no PIC will be allowed to operate the 

subject UAS unless that PIC has demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight-hour and currency

requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the subject UAS in a manner consistent with 

the exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate 

distances from people, vessels, vehicles, and structures.
17

Specifically, the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 

C.F.R. § 61.51(b), 25 hours of total time as a UAS pilot (with a minimum of 5 hours of those

hours as a UAS pilot operating the same make and model of UAS to be used for operations under 

the exemption). In addition to the hour requirements, the PIC must accomplish 3 take-offs and 

landings in the preceding 90 days (for currency purposes).

Considering K & R’s proposed area of operations, and the operating limitations set forth

above; the parallel nature of sport pilot, recreational pilot, and private pilot aeronautical 

knowledge requirements, with respect to the proposed operations, to those of commercial pilot 

requirements (See Exemption Nos. 11062 and 11213); and the airmanship skills necessary to 

safely operate the subject UAS, K & R submits that the additional manned airmanship 

experience of a commercially certificated pilot would not correlate to the airmanship skills 

necessary for K & R’s specific proposed flight operations.

As in Exemption Nos. 11062, 11138, and 11153, prior documented flight experience that 

was obtained in compliance with applicable regulations will ensure an equivalent level of safety 

during K & R’s proposed operations. The Administrator has held that prior documented flight 

experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable regulations would ensure safe

operations, stating as follows:

In Exemption No. 11062, the FAA required that prior to conducting operations for the 

purpose of motion picture filming (or similar operations), the PIC must have accumulated 

and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR 61.51(b), 25 hours of total time as a 

UAS rotorcraft pilot including at least 10 hours logged as a UAS pilot with a multi-rotor 

UAS. Prior to operations under Exemption No. 11062, the PIC must also have 

accumulated and logged a minimum of 5 hours as a UAS pilot operating the same make 

and model of UAS to be used for operations under the exemption. For clarification, the 

FAA considers these minimum hour requirements to be inclusive rather than additive; i.e. 

5 hours make and model time may be included in the 10 hours of multi-rotor time and the 

10 hours may be included in the total 25 hours of UAS rotorcraft time. In addition to the 

hour requirements, the PIC must accomplish 3 take-offs and landings in the preceding 90 

days (for currency purposes). The FAA finds that at a minimum, the flight-hour 
18

requirements in Exemption No. 11062 are appropriate to practice and build proficiency in 

the skills necessary to safely conduct K & R’s proposed operations. The FAA also finds 

that prior documented flight experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable 

regulations would satisfy this requirement. Training, proficiency, and experiencebuilding flights can also be conducted under the grant of exemption to accomplish the 

required flight time. During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights the PIC 

is required to operate the UA with appropriate distances in accordance with 14 C.F.R 

91.119.

Exemption No. 11138 at page 15.

Accordingly, K & R will ensure safe operations by not allowing any PIC to operate the 

subject UAS unless that PIC has demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight-hour and currency 

requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the subject UAS in a manner consistent with 

the exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate 

distances from people, vessels, vehicles and structures. 

4. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.7(a)

Would Not Adversely Affect Safety.

The equivalent level of safety established by Section 91.7(a) will be maintained because 

prior to every flight, K & R will ensure that the subject UAS is in an airworthy condition based 

upon the subject UAS’ compliance with its relevant operating documents, and as stated in the 

conditions and limitations herein.

5. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.119(c) 

Would Not Adversely Affect Safety.

The equivalent level of safety established by Section 91.119(c) will be maintained 

because in any operation to be conducted closer than 500 feet from any nonparticipating persons, 

barriers or structures will be present to sufficiently protect any nonparticipating persons from 

debris in the event of an accident during operation of the subject UAS, which weigh less than 

three (3) pounds and will be operated below an altitude of 400 feet AGL. The nonparticipating 

persons will be required to remain in the area of protection, and if any nonparticipating person
19

leaves the area of protection and is within 500 feet of the subject UAS, flight operations will

cease immediately.

Additionally, any operation to be conducted closer than 500 feet from persons, vessels, 

vehicles, and structures would first require the permission of the land owner/controller and a 

safety assessment of the risk of operating closer to those objects by the PIC.

6. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.121

Would Not Adversely Affect Safety.

The equivalent level of safety established by Section 91.121 will be maintained because 

the altitude of the subject UAS will be reported to air traffic control (ATC) in feet above ground 

level (AGL), and K & R will operate the subject UAS within visual line of sight, at or below 400

feet AGL. Furthermore, the altitude information of the Phantom 3 UA will be provided to the 

PIC via a barometric pressure sensor, GPS equipment, a Visual Positioning System using 

ultrasonic and image data, and a radio communications telemetry data link, which downlinks 

from the UA to the Remote Controller for active monitoring of the flight path and altitude. Prior 

to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point is automatically established by the UAS at ground 

level. 

7. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 

91.151(a)(1) Would Not Adversely Affect Safety.

A grant of this exemption would ensure an equivalent level of safety established by 14

C.F.R. Section 91.151(a)(1) as a result of (1) the technical specifications of the subject UAS; (2)

the limitations on the proposed flight operations; and (3) the location of the proposed flight

operations. Accordingly, K & R will ensure that it will safely operate the battery powered 

subject UAS during daylight hours in visual metrological conditions (VMC) under visual flight 
20

rules (VFR), with enough battery power for the subject UAS to fly after the first point of 

intended landing for at least five (5) minutes.

In addition to the level of safety established by the technical specifications of the UAS; 

the limitations on the proposed flight operations; and the location of the proposed operations, the 

subject UAS provides audible and visual warnings to the PIC at the Remote Controller when the 

UA has low battery power remaining. Together, these factors will ensure an equivalent level of 

safety established by 14 C.F.R. Section 91.151(a)(1).

Previous exemptions granted by the FAA concerning Section 91.151, establish that safety 

is not adversely affected when the technical characteristics and operating limitations of the

subject UAS are considered. Relief has also been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less 

than the minimums prescribed in Section 91.151, including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 

10650. 

8. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Sections 91.405(a), 

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), And 91.417(a) & (b) Would Not Adversely 

Affect Safety.

In seeking this exemption, K & R submits that the equivalent level of safety with regard 

to the regulatory maintenance and alteration requirements established by Sections 91.405(a), 

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) will be met because all maintenance, 

alterations, and preventive maintenance of the subject UAS performed by K & R will be in 

accordance with the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the operating documents. 

Furthermore, only the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or qualified OEM maintainers 

will perform higher level inspections and maintenance per the operating documents and OEM 

standards. K & R will document and maintain all maintenance records for the subject UAS. 

Since the subject UAS will be inspected as prescribed by the operating documents, 
21

K & R will maintain the equivalent level of safety established by Sections 91.405(a),

91.409(a)(1), and 91.409(a)(2). Additionally, an equivalent level of safety established by 

Sections 91.407 (a)(1), 91.417(a), and 91.417(b) will be maintained because K & R will 

document and maintain all of the maintenance records for the subject UAS. 

 9. The FAA May Prescribe Any Other Conditions For Safe Operation.

In accordance with Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

(FMRA) and 14 C.F.R. § 21.16 entitled Special Conditions, K & R requests that the FAA

prescribe special conditions for the intended operation of the subject UAS, which contain such 

safety standards that the Administrator finds necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to 

that established by 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, and 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.23(a) & (c), 61.101(e)(4) 

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

91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), AND 91.417(a) & (b). Such special conditions will permit safe operation 

of the subject UAS for the limited purpose of conducting aerial acquisitions within the NAS for 

compensation or hire. FMRA Section 333 sets forth the requirements for considering whether a 

UAS will create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national 

security; and further, provides the authority for such UAS to operate without airworthiness 

certification in accordance with any requirements that must be established for the safe operation 

of the UAS in the NAS. 

Likewise, the Administrator may prescribe special conditions pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

§ 21.16, for operation of the Phantom 3 UAS, since the airworthiness regulations of 14 C.F.R. 

Part 21 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards, due to the novel or unusual 

design features of the aircraft. Section 21.16, entitled Special Conditions, states the following:

If the FAA finds that the airworthiness regulations of this subchapter do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards for an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller 
22

because of a novel or unusual design feature of the aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller, 

he prescribes special conditions and amendments thereto for the product. The special 

conditions are issued in accordance with Part 11 of this chapter and contain such safety 

standards for the aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller as the FAA finds necessary to 

establish a level of safety equivalent to that established in the regulations.

See 14 C.F.R. § 21.16.

Therefore, in accordance with FMRA Section 333 and 14 C.F.R. § 21.16, the FAA may

prescribe special conditions for K & R’s intended operation of the subject UAS, which contain 

such safety standards that the Administrator finds necessary to establish a level of safety 

equivalent to that established by 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, and 14 C.F.R Sections 61.23(a) & 

(c), 61.101(e)(4) & (e)(5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b).

E. The Reasons Why Granting K & R’s Request Would Be In The Public Interest; 

That Is, How It Would Benefit The Public As A Whole.

Granting the present Petition will further the public interest by allowing K & R to safely, 

efficiently, and economically provide professional geospatial data collection, aerial photography, 

infrastructure inspection services, and disaster area damage and debris assessments to clients in 

both the public and private sectors. Additionally, use of the subject UAS will decrease 

congestion of the NAS, reduce pollution, and provide significant benefits to the economy. 

Notably, the benefits of K & R’s proposed operation of the subject UAS will be realized without 

implicating any privacy issues. 

2. The Public Will Benefit From Decreased Congestion Of The NAS.

The subject UAS is battery powered and serve as a safe, efficient, and economical 

alternative to the manned aircraft traditionally utilized to obtain aerial imagery. By reducing the 

amount of manned aircraft needed to perform aerial acquisitions, an exemption allowing the use 
23

of the subject UAS would reduce the amount of manned aircraft in the NAS, reduce noise and air 

pollution, and increase the safety of life and property in the air and on the ground. 

Furthermore, by reducing the number of manned aircraft operating in the NAS, 

congestion around airports caused by arriving and departing aircraft will be reduced. The subject 

UAS does not require an airport to takeoff or land. Likewise, a reduction of manned aircraft 

conducting aerial survey missions would result in fewer aircraft that must be handled by air 

traffic control during the ground, takeoff, departure, arrival, and landing phases of flight 

operations. 

3. The Public Will Benefit From The Safety And Efficiency Of The Subject 

UAS.

Conducting aerial acquisitions with the subject UAS, instead of manned aircraft, will 

greatly benefit the public by drastically reducing the levels of air and noise pollution generated 

during traditional aerial survey flight operations. By using battery power and electric motors, the 

subject UAS produces no air pollution, and is the most viable environmentally conscious 

alternative to the cabin class, six cylinder internal combustion twin engine aircraft that are 

typically utilized for aerial acquisitions, and burn approximately 20-30 gallons per hour of leaded 

aviation fuel. The subject UAS, while reducing the carbon footprint of aerial acquisitions, also 

reduces noise pollution, as it is propelled by battery powered electric motors, rather than internal 

combustion engines.

By using the subject UAS to perform aerial acquisitions, the substantial risk to life and 

property in the air and on the ground, which is usually associated with traditional manned aircraft 

flight operations, will be substantially reduced or completely eliminated. Aside from the lack of 

flightcrew members located onboard the aircraft, the subject UAS, has less physical potential for 

collateral damage to life and property on the ground, and in the air, compared to the manned 
24

aircraft that typically conduct aerial acquisitions (weighing approximately 6,500 pounds with a 

wingspan of approximately 40 feet, a length of 34 feet, and a fuel capacity of 180 gallons).

Additionally, using the subject UAS to perform aerial acquisitions will increase the level 

of safety and efficiency for K & R’s employees, associated contractors, and public employees by 

minimizing exposure to a number of hazards typically encountered in a field environment, such as 

bridges, wetland areas, and steep terrain, as well as lowering the number of incidents and 

associated costs, such as maintaining a certain level of insurance, that normally coincide with 

operations in a hazardous field environment. 

4. Performing Aerial Acquisition Operations With The Subject UAS Will 

Benefit The Economy. 

In addition to being safe and efficient, the subject UAS is also an economical alternative 

to using manned aircraft to conduct aerial acquisitions. As such, operation of the subject UAS

will allow United States based companies, like K & R, to remain competitive and contribute to 

growth of the U.S. economy. Specifically, with the rising cost of aviation fuel and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regulatory actions phasing out leaded aviation fuels, 

U.S. owned and operated companies must adopt new and alternative technology in order to 

remain competitive. Operation of UAS such as the one in this petition is one such technology 

that not only allows companies greater operational flexibility compared to manned aircraft, but 

provides such flexibility without the high operational cost of a traditional manned aircraft. 

By operating UAS, companies such as K & R, can remain competitive and profitable, and 

therefore, provide greater job stability to employees and contractors, which will ultimately 

contribute to growth of the U.S. economy. Improved financial performance of U.S. companies, 

through commercial use of the subject UAS, provides a stable workforce that increases consumer 
25

spending; improves local, state, and federal tax revenues; and allows companies to invest in 

research and development in order to remain competitive both in the United States and abroad. 

5. There Are No Privacy Issues.

Similar to the manned aerial acquisition flight operations that have been conducted for 

decades, K & R’s proposed operation of the subject UAS will not implicate any privacy issues. 

Specifically, the subject UAS will only be operated pursuant to the specific conditions and 

limitations set forth herein, and in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations, including 

the minimum altitude requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. Most significantly, the subject UAS

will not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure, that is not 

directly involved in the operation unless specific conditions are met.

F. A Summary That Can Be Published In The Federal Register, stating:

The Rules From Which K & R Seeks Exemption:

K & R Aviation, LLC seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. Sections 

61.23(a) & (c), 61.101(e)(4) & (e)(5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 

91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b).

A Brief Description Of The Nature Of The Exemption K & R Seeks:

This exemption will permit K & R Aviation, LLC to commercially operate an Unmanned 

Aircraft System (UAS) for the purpose of conducting aerial acquisitions within the

National Airspace System (NAS).

G. Any Additional Information, Views, Or Arguments Available To Support K & R’s

Request.

This Petition is made pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

(FMRA) Section 333, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to determine if certain UAS

may operate safely in the NAS. As such, K & R’s request for exemption may be granted 

pursuant to the authority of FMRA Section 333 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, as set forth above.
26

FMRA Section 333 sets forth the requirements for considering whether a UAS will create 

a hazard to users of the NAS or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security; and 

further, provides the authority for such UAS to operate without airworthiness certification. 

As discussed in detail above, K & R will operate the subject UAS safely in the NAS,

without creating a hazard to users of the NAS, or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to 

national security.

CONCLUSION

As set forth herein, K & R Aviation, LLC seeks an exemption pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 

11.61 and Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), which will 

permit safe operation of the Phantom 3 UAS commercially, without an airworthiness certificate,

for the limited purpose of conducting aerial acquisitions within the National Airspace System

(NAS). By granting this Petition, the FAA Administrator will be fulfilling the Congressional 

mandate of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, while also advancing the interests 

of the public, by allowing K & R to safely, efficiently, and economically operate the subject

UAS commercially within the NAS.

WHEREFORE, in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations and the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 333, K & R Aviation, LLC respectfully requests

that the Administrator grant this Petition for an exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R 

Sections 61.23(a) & (c), 61.101(e)(4) & (e)(5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 

91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b), and permit 

K & R Aviation, LLC to operate the DJI Phantom 3 UAS commercially for the purpose of 

conducting aerial acquisitions within the NAS.
27

Dated: December 10, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

The Aviation Law Firm

/s/ Gregory S. Winton

____________________________

Gregory S. Winton, Esq.

1997 Annapolis Exchange Parkway

Suite 300

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Tel: (301) 294-8550

Fax: (866) 568-9886

Attorney for Petitioner