1

January 4, 2016

Attn: U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room w12

- 140 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

MARK LINDEL’S REQUEST FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF
TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 45.23, 45.27(a), 61.23(a), (c), 61.101 (e)(4), (e)(5), 61.113(a), (b), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(c), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1), (a)(2), and 91.417(a), (b), FOR THE
COMM ERCIAL OPERATION OF THE DJI PHANTOM VISION 2+ UNMAN NED

AIRCRAFT SYSTEM PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUB LIC LAW 112

- 95)

Jason Melvin , Esq.
Counsel for Mark Lindel Texas Drone Lawyer
9111 Cochran Bluff Lane Dallas, Texas 75220
469

- 766

- 3502 jason@txdronelawyer.com2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

INTRODUCTI ON AND INTERESTS OF PETITIONER....................................................4

BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... .4

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

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PETITIONER.......................

............ ...................................... 7

THE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF 14 C.F.R. FROM WHICH LINDEL SEEKS

EX EMPTION........................................

.......................... .............. ................. ... ..... ......... ....... 7

THE EXTENT OF RELIEF AND THE REASON LINDEL SEEKS THE

R ELIEF...................

. .............. .................................................................. ..... ......... ........ . .. ... 10

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING LINDE L ’S REQUEST WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC
INTEREST.

....................... ............ ........... ......................... ....... ..... ............... .. ..................... ... .1 2

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING THE EXEMPTION TO LINDEL WOU LD NOT

ADVE RSELY AFFECT SAFETY.....

. .................................. ............................ ... .... . .... ..... .... 1 3

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

. . .......... .. . . .. 2 2

ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, VIEWS, OR ARGUMENTS A VAILABLE TO
SUPPORT LINDEL ’S R EQUEST...

... ...... ................. ............................... .. ..... ... . ........... . . ... 2 2

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................

. .... . .... . ... . . 2 3

APPENDICES...............................................................

. ............... . ......... ... 243 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS

AGL Above Ground Level
AOI Area of Interest
ATC Air Traffic Control
ATO Air Traffic Organization
AV Aerial Vehicle
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COA Certificate of Authorization
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulation
GCS Ground Control Station
GPS Global Positioning System
LOL Loss of Link
NAS National Airspace System
NOTAM Notice to Airman
PIC Pilot In Command
Section 333 FAA Modernizatio n and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA)
SO Safety Observer
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
UA Unmanned Aircraft
UAS Unmanned Aircraft System

, Speci fic ally the DJI Phantom 2 Vision +
VFR Visual Flight Rules
VLOS Visual Line of Site
VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions
VTOL Vertical Takeoff and Landing4 SUMMARY

Mark Lindel “Lindel” seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R §§ 45.23, 45.27(a), 61.23(a), (c), 61.101 (e)(4), (e)(5), 61.113(a), (b), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(c), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1)

, (a)(2), and 91.417(a)

, (b), to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System ( DJI Phantom 2 Vision + ) pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA). This exemption will permit Lindel to operate Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) for the commercial purpose of conducting aerial data
collection 1 o ver certain areas of the United States.

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONER

Lindel is a r ealtor based in Denver, Colorado. He d esires to utilize the DJI Phantom 2 Vision +

f or aerial data collection related to photography s ervices in accordance with current Federal Aviation Administration, state and local regulations and guidance as all may be amended from
time to time. The objective of Lindel is to use U nmanned Aircraft System aerial operations to provide a n affordable and safe alternative to traditional methods of aerial data collection operations

.

BACKGROUND

Unmanned Aircraft System : Phantom 2 Vision +

Lindel seeks exemption to operate Phantom 2 Vision + s ys tem s for compensation or hire within
the NAS. These aircraft are v ertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aircraft (UA) with a Ground Control Station (GCS) utilizing electronic tablet or smart phone systems. T hese aircraft have the following specifications:

1 Used throughout as defined by the FAA in Exemption No. 12820: “Aerial data collection includes any remote sensing and measuring by an instrument(s) aboard the UA. Examples include imagery (photography, video, infrared, etc.), electronic measurement (prec ision surveying, RF analysis, etc.), chemical measurement (particulate measurement, etc.), or any other gathering of data by instruments aboard the UA.”5

Phantom 2 Vision +

Max Gross Weight 1242 grams Max Tilt 35 degrees Max Flight Velocity 15 meters/second Diagonal Length 350mm (motor to motor) Lithium Polymer Battery
Four main rotors Flight time of approximately 15 minutes Inspire 1

Max Gross Weight 6.5 lbs. Max Tilt 35 degrees Max Flight Velocity 72.2 fps Diagonal Length 22.9” Lithium Polymer Battery
Four main rotors

Petitioner is aware of the new regulations regarding registration and marking contained in 14

C

. F

. R

. Part 48; however, based on reading the FAA website FAQ’s, Petitioner believes that the upcoming web

- based registration s ystem does not initially support registration of UAS used for

comm ercial purposes. ( https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/ ). 2 Given this, Petitioner intends to register a ll UA S it operates in accordance with 14 C.F.R Part 47 ; however, Petitioner
seeks exemption from 14 C.F.R. 45.23

, 45.27(a), and 91.9(c) as they relate to marking. Given the physical size of the UAS, and the fact they have no cabin, cockpit or pilot station entrance,

e xemption is sought in accordance with past practice of the Administra tion in Exemption Nos. 8738, 10167 and 10700. Petition er will mark the UAS with identification numbers (N

- Numbers) that are as large as practicable. To the exten t that the web

- based system does eventually support registration of commercial operations , or as otherwise directed by the FAA , Petitioner will comply with Part 48.

BASIS FOR PETITION

Petitioner, Lindel

, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R. § 11.61) and the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), Se ction 333, Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems , hereby petitions the Administrator to commercially operate the DJI Phantom 2 Vision + UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS), and for an exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R §§ 45.23, 45.27(a), 61.23(a), (c), 61.101 (e)(4), (e)(5), 61.113(a), (b), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(c), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1)

, (a)(2), and 91.417(a)

, (b)

. In consideration of the speed, weight, size, and limited operating area associated with the unmanned aircraft and its operation, Lindel ’s o peration of the DJI Phantom 2 Vision + UAS meets the conditions of FMRA Section 333 and therefore, will not require an airworthiness certificate
in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H.

2 Q. Is the registration process different if you're a business versus a person?

A. The new system does not yet support registration of small UAS used in connection with a business. It will in the future. In the meantime, these entities must continue to register using the

paper

- based process.6

Accordingly, Lindel requests relief from Sections 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b), as these sections set forth requirements for maintenance that only apply to
aircraft with an airworthiness certificate.

Lindel submits that the requested relief is proper since an equivalent level of safety will be
ensured. Lindel will use experienc ed personnel or technicians to perform maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on the UAS using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the operating documents (i.e., Monthly Mainte nance Log and current Instruction Manual). Further more, Lindel will document and maintain all maintenance records for each
UAS.

Lindel also seeks r elief from certain requirements of Section s 61.23(a), (c), 61.101 (e)(4), (e)(5), 61.113(a)

, (b), and 61.315(a) regarding pilot certificates, privileges

, limi tations and medical
certificates

. Lindel seeks relief t o the extent necessary to allow a Pilot in Command (PIC) holding a sport, recreational, priva t e pilot or higher level certificate

, as well as an airman medical

certificate or valid U.S. driver’s license , and who has demonstr ated, by meeting minimum flight hour and currency requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and ma intaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and structures.

Lindel seeks relief from Section 91.7(a), entitled Civil A ircraft A irworthiness

, because the UAS
Lindel seeks to operate do not require an airworthiness certificate in accordan ce with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. As such, Lindel submits that he will ensure that each UAS is in an airworthy condition, prior to every flight, by determining that the UAS are in compliance with the operating documents (i.e., Monthly Maintenance Log and Instruction Manual), and that the aircraft are in a condition for safe flight.

Lindel also seeks an exemption from the requirements of Section s 91.119(c) and 91.121, entitled (respectively) Minimum safe altitudes: General and Altimeter Settings . Rel ief is needed with respect to minimum safe altitudes for those participating persons, vehicles and structures directly involved in the operations. Relief is needed as to altimeter settings because the UAS will not have a typical barometric altimeter onboa rd. However, altitude information of the UAS will be provided to the PIC via Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment and radio communications telemetry data link, which downlinks from the UA to the GCS for active monitoring of the flight path. This altit ude information, combined with Lindel ’s operation of the UAS within visual line of sight, at or below 4 00 feet AGL, will ens ure a level of safety equivalence

. Additionally, Lindel seeks an exemption from the requirements of Section 91.151(b), entitled Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions

. Lindel s ubmits that safety will not be affected by operation of the UAS during daylight hours in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) under visual flight rules (VFR), with enough battery power to fly for a total duration of approximately
15 minutes . Battery power indicators are also able to show exactly how much battery power is left, as well as how much time is needed to retu rn safely back to point of take

- off.

In accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 11.81, Lindel provides the following information in support of its petition for exemption:7

A. Name And Address Of The Petitioner.

The name and address of the Petitioner and point of contact is:

Mark Lindel
7175 West Jefferson Avenue Suite 4700 Lakewood, CO 80235

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

1. Lindel Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 61.23(a), (c), 61.101 (e)(4), (e)(5) 61.113(a)
, (b) and 61.315(a)

. Under current FAA guidance and regulations regarding Se ction 333 exemptions for unmanned aerial vehicles, the PIC is required to hold at least a sport pilot license with either a current FAA
airman medical certificate or a va lid U.S. driver’s license issued by a state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession or the Federal government. Petitioner’s PIC’s will be operating the UAS under the same conditions as stated in previous exemptions granted by
the FAA , thus Petitioner will ensur e an equivalent level of safety will be met.

2. Lindel Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.7(a).

Section 91.7, entitled Civil aircraft airworthiness , subsection (a), states the following:

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.

3. Lindel Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.119(c) and 91.121.

Section 91.119 (c) establishes safe altitudes for operation of civil aircraft over areas other than congested areas. Stating in part that

, n o aircraft may fly below: A n altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 fee t to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Section 91.121, entitled Altimeter settings , subsection (a), states the following, in part:

(a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or flight level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, when operating

--
(1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to

--
(i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route and within 100 nautical miles of the aircraft;

(ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the current reported altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or

(iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio, the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before depart ure.

4. Lindel Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.151(b).8

Section 91.151, entitled Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions , subsection(b), states the following:

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR condition s unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, t o fly after that for at least 15 minutes.

5. Lindel Seeks Exemption From The Requirement Of Section 91.405(a).

Section 91.405, entitled Maintenance required , subsection (a), states the following: Each owner or operator of an aircraft

—
(a) Shall have that aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall between required in spections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter[.]

6. Lindel Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.407(a)(1)

Section 91.407, entitled Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or
alteration

, subsection (a)(1), states the following:

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless

--
(1) It has been app roved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of this chapter[.]

7. Lindel Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Sections 91.409(a)(1) And 91.409(a)(2).

Section 91.409, entitled Inspections , subsection (a), states the following:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had

--
(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has been approved for

return to s ervice by a person authorized by § 43.7 of this chapter; or

(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.

8. Lindel Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Sections 91.417(a) And 91.417(b)

.
Section 91.417, entitled Maintenance records , subsections (a) and (b), state the following:

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§ 91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specif ied in paragraph (b) of this
section:

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100

- hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each9

aircraft (including the airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft.
The records must include

--
(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed;
and

(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for return to
service.

(2) Records containing the following information:

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propell er, and each rotor.

(ii) The current status of life

- limited parts of each airframe, engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance.

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a specified time basis.

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time since the last inspection required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained.

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness dir ectives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required.

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances.

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods prescribed:

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is performed.

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retain ed and transferred with
the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under § 43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return to service.

9

. Lindel Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of Section s 45.23 , 45.27(a), and 91.9(c)

. As noted within, 45.23 and 91.9(c) address aircraft marking requirements. Given the physical size of the UAS, and the fact they have no cabin, cockpit or pilot station entrance, exemption is sought in accordance with past practice of the Administration in Exemption Nos. 8738, 1016710

and 10700. Petitioner will mark the UAS with i dentification numbers (N

- Numbers) that are as large as practicable.

C. The Extent Of Relief Lindel Seeks And The Reason Lindel Seeks The Relief.

1. Extent Of Relief Lindel Seeks And The Reason Lindel Seeks Relief From Section 61.23(a), (c), 61.101 (e)( 4), (e)(5), 61.113(a)
, (b) and 61.315(a)

.

Relief from Section s 61.23(a), (c), 61.101(e) (4) , (e)(5), 61.113(a)

, (b) and 61.315(a) is requested to the extent necessary to allow a PIC holding a sport pilot or higher level certificate, as well as a current and valid airman medical certificate, or valid U.S. driver’s license, and who has met certain flight

- hour and currency requirements, to conduct the proposed UAS flight operations for compensation or h ire.

As set forth more fully below, Lindel submits that an equivalent level of safety will be maintained because no PIC will be allowed to operate the UAS unless that PIC has met certain flight

- hour and currency requirements, demonstrating that the PIC is able to safely operate either the UAS in a manner consistent with the operations specifications as described in this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers, as well as maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and stru ctures.

Further, Lindel submits that all flights of the UAS , conducted by the PIC pursuant to the grant of
this Petition will not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

2. Extent Of Relief Lindel Seeks And The Reason Lindel Seeks Relief Fr om Section 91.7(a).

Relief from Section 91.7(a) entitled Civil aircraft airworthiness , is requested to the extent required to allow Lindel to determine that the UAS are in airworthy condition prior to every flight by ensuring that the UAS is in compliance with the operating documents (i.e., Monthly Maintenance Log and Instruction Manual).

Lindel seeks the requested relief because the UAS do not require an airworthine ss certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. Therefore, Lindel w ill ensure that the UAS are in airworthy condition based upon its compliance with the operating documents (i.e., Monthly Maintenance Log and Instruction Manual ) prior to eve ry flight, and further, determine that the aircraft are in condition for safe flight, as stated in the conditions and limitations below.

3. Extent Of Relief Lindel Seeks And The Reason Lindel Seeks Relief From Section 91.119 (c) and 91.121.

Relief from Se ction 91.119 (c) and 91.121 are required to allow flight operations of the UAS, which utilize a barometric pressure sensor, GPS equipment, and a radio communications telemetry data link to downlink altitude information from the UA to the PIC at the ground control station (GCS). Since th e FAA requires that any altitude information concerning UAS operations be reported to air traffic control (ATC) in feet above ground level (AGL), Lindel seeks the requested relief because the UAS altimeter may be set on the ground to zero feet AGL,
rather than the local barometric pressure or field altitude, before each flight.11

Considering the limited altitude of the proposed operations, relief from 14 CFR 91.121 is sought to the extent necessary to comply with the applicable conditions and limitations sta ted below. As more fully set forth herein, an equivalent level of safety will be maintained since the UAS are equipped with a barometric pressure sensor and GPS equipment, which automatically ensures that a ground level pressure setting will be established prior to each flight, and provides the PIC
with altitude information of the UA on the heads

- up display of the GCS.

Further, relief from 91.119 (c) is needed with respect to those participating persons, vehicles and structures directly involved in the oper ations. Relief from the section is warranted as operations
will be conducted with adequate safety provisions as outlined herein and as required by the FAA. An equivalent level of safety will be maintained, and the FAA has granted relief from this
section for previous exemptions.

4. Extent Of Relief Lindel Seeks And The Reason Lindel Seeks Relief From Section 91.151(b).

Relief from Section 91.151(b) entitled Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions , is requested to the extent required to allow fligh ts of the battery powered UAS during daylight hours in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), under visual flight rules (VFR), for a total

duration of approximately 15 minutes. Lindel seeks the requested relief because without an exemption from Section 91.151(b), the flight time duration of the battery powered UAS will severely constrain the practicality of any aerial video or still photo flight operations that Lindel proposes to conduc t pursuant to this Petition.

Significantly, as set forth below, the technical specifications of the UAS operating documents,
and Lindel ’ s proposed operating limitations, ensure that Lindel will safely operate the battery powered UAS during daylight hours in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), under visual flight rules (VFR), with enough battery power to fly for a total duration of approximately 15
minutes

.

5. Extent Of Relief Lindel Seeks And The Reason Lindel S eeks Relief From Sections 91.405( a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1), (a)(2), And 91.417(a), (b).

Since Sections 91.405( a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1), (a)(2), and 91.417(a), (b) only apply to
aircraft wi th an airworthiness certificate. Lindel requests relief from these Sections because the

UAS do not require airworthiness certificates. As set forth more fully below, the UAS meet the conditions of FMRA Section 333 for operation without an airworthiness certificate. Accordingly,
Lindel will use trained technicians to perform maintenance, alterati ons, or preventive
maintenance on the UAS using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the UAS operating documents (i.e., the Monthly Maintenance Log and Instruction Manual). Furthermore,
Lindel will document and maintain all maintenance reco rds for the UAS

.

6. Extent Of Relief Lindel Seeks And The Reason Lindel Seeks Relief From Sections 45.23 , 45.27(a), and 91.9(c)

.12

Petition er seeks relief to the extent necessary to mark the UAS with N

- Numbers that are as large as practicable given their physical size. Such relief has been granted by the Administration in Exemption Nos. 8738, 10167 and 10700.

D. The Reasons Why Granting Lindel ’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 Lindel to safely, efficiently, and economically perform aerial data collection acti vities over certain areas of the
United States.

Additionally, use of the UAS will decrease congestion of the NAS, reduce pollution, and provide significant benefits to the economy. Notably, the benefits of Lindel ’s proposed operation of the
UAS will be realized without implicating any privacy issues.

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

The UAS are 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 of the U AS would reduce the amount of manned aircraft in the NAS, reduce noise and air pollution, as well
as 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 UAS do not require an airp ort to takeoff or land. Likewise, a reduction of manned aircraft conducting aerial video and photography 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.

2. The Public Will Benefit From The Safety And Efficiency Of The UAS.

Conducting aerial acquisitions with the UAS, instead of manned aircraft, will greatly benefit the public by drastically reducing the levels of air and noise pollut ion generated during traditional aerial video and still photography flight operations. By using battery power and electric motors,
the UAS produce no air pollution, and is the most viable environmentally conscious alternative to the cabin class, six cylind er internal combustion engine aircraft that are typically utilized for aerial video and photography, while burning approximately 20

- 30 gallons per hour of leaded
aviation fuel. The UAS , while reducing the carbon footprint of aerial acquisitions, also
elimi nates noise pollution, as the UAS are propelled by battery powered electric motors, rather than an internal combustion engine.

By using the UAS to perform aerial acquisitions, the substantial risk to life and property in the air and on the ground, which i s usually associated with traditional manned aircraft flight operations, will be substantially reduced or completely eliminated. Aside from the lack of flight
crew members located onboard the UAS have less physical potential for collateral damage to life and property on the ground, and in the air, compared to the manned aircraft that typically13

conduct similar operations (weighing approximately 6,000 pounds with a wingspan of approximately 42 feet, a le ngth of 34 feet, and a fuel capacity of 180 gallons).

3. Performing Aerial Data Collection Operations With The UAS Will Benefit The Economy.

In addition to being safe and efficient, the UAS are also an economical alternative to using
manned aircraft to c onduct similar aerial operations. As such, operation of the UAS will allow
Unit ed States based companies and individuals, like Lindel , to remain competitive and contribute to growth of the U.S. economy. Specifically, with the rising cost of aviation fuel a nd 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. Operating the battery powered UAS is one such t echnology 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 the UAS, individuals such as Lindel can re main 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 UAS, provides a stable workforce that increases consumer 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.

4. There Are No Privacy Issues.

Similar to the manned aerial acquisition flight operations that have been conducted for decades,
Lindel ’s proposed operation of the UAS will not implicate any privacy issues. Specifically, the

UAS will be operated only in compliance with operating documents (i.e., Monthly Maintenance Log and Instruction Manual) which requires property owner involvement as well as local law enforcement notification, and in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulat ions.

E. 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 Lindel Seeks Exemption.

1. Reasons Why UA S Meet The Conditions Of The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) Section 333.

In consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the unmanned aircraft and its operation, Lindel ’s operation of the UAS meet the conditions of

FMRA Section 333, and will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H.

Section 333 provides authority for a UAS to operate without airworthiness certification and sets forth requirements for considering whether a U AS will create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security. Specifically, FMRA Section 333 states the following, in part:14

(a) In General.

-- Notwithstanding any other requirement of this subtitle, and not late r than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall determine if certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system before completion of the plan and rulemaking required by sectio n 332 of this Act or the guidance required by section 334 of this Act.

(b) Assessment of Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

-- In making the determination under subsection (a), the Secretary shall determine, at a minimum

--
(1) which types of unmanned aircraft syst ems, if any, as a result of their size, weight, speed, operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose a
thre at to national security; and

(2) whether a certificate of waiver, certificate of authorization, or airworthiness certification under section 44704 of title 49, United States Code, is required for the operation of unmanned aircraft systems identified under paragraph (1).

(c) Requireme nts for Safe Operation.

-- If the Secretary determines under this section that certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system, the Secretary shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national airspace
system.

In seeking this exemption, Lindel submits that the UAS can operate safely in the NAS pursuant to FMRA Section 333, as demonstrated by: (a) the characteristics of the UAS ; (b) the pilot certification requirement; and (c) the specific operating limitations.

a. The Specifications Of The U AS Demonstrate Its Safe Characteristics.

The UAS do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security considering its size, weight, speed, and operational capability.

i. Technical Specifications Of The U AS

. The technical specifications of the UAS are set forth in the attached user manuals a tt ached hereto as Appendix A

.

ii. The UAS Global Positioning Modes Enable The UAS To Remain Within A Defined Operational Area.

The UAS may be operated either by manual or global positioning flight modes. A comp lete description of the flight and navigational modes of the UAS are provided in the user manuals

att ached hereto as Appendix A

.

iii. The UAS Are Designed For Automatic Return To Home Point Or Hover & Descend In The Event Of Loss Of The Control Link Or Navigation.15

When the communication with the GCS is lost, the UAS will rem ain stationary in flight and either descend slowly and land, or return to the launch position and land. A complete description
of the UA S are set forth in the user manuals attached hereto as Appendix A.

iv. The UAS GCS And Its Operation.

A complete description of the operation and specifications of the UAS in the user manuals attached hereto as Appendix A.

b. Flight Operations Of The UAS Is Limited To The Line Of Sight Of A Certificated Pilot in Command With A Safety Observer.

Lindel ’s staff will be the only person s to act as a pilot in command (PIC) of the UAS

. Additionally, a safety observer will assist him at all times during flight time.

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

In seeking this exemption, Lindel proposes to commercially operate the UAS for the special purpose of conducting aerial data collection o ver certain a reas of United States, pursuant to the following specific operating limitations , subject to modification in the grant of exemption or as otherwise directed by the FAA

. 1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption will be limited to the following aircraft described in the operating documents, rotorcraft UAS weighing less than 55 pounds maximum gross weight: DJI Phantom 2 Vision + Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this grant.

2. UAS operations under this exemption will be limited to conducting operations for the purpose
of aerial data collection

.

3. The UA S may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 20 knots.

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 4 00 feet above ground level (AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operating documents unless a special request is made and approved by ATC. Al l altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL.

5. The UAS 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.

6 . All operations must utilize a safety observer (SO). The SO may be used to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The SO and PIC must be able
to communicate v erbally at all times. Electronic messaging or texting is not permitted during flight operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the SO can per form the functions prescribed in the operating documents.16

7 . The SO must not perform any other duties beyond assisting the PIC with seeing and avoiding other air traffic and other ground based obstacles/obstructions and is not permitted to operate the

cam era or other instruments.

8 . The operating documents and the grant of exemption must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between
the conditions and limitations contained in the grant of exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, the conditions and limitations contained in the grant of exemption take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operat ing 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 upon request. The operator must also present updated and

re vised documents if it petitions for extension or amendment to the grant of exemption. If the operator determines that any update or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted the exemption, then the operator must petition for amendment to i ts 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.

9 . Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for sa fe flight. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of the UAS, the aircraft is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The Ground Control Station must be included in the preflight inspection. All maintenance and alterations must be properly documented in the aircraft
records.

10 . Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation or flight characteris tics, e.g. replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo a functional test flight. The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an entry in the aircraft
records.

1 1 . The pre

- flight inspection must account for all potential discrepa ncies, e.g. inoperable components, items, or equipment, not already covered in the relevant sections of the operating
documents.

12 . The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and li fe limit requirements.

13 . The operator must carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping requirements, in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, inspection, alterations, and status of replacement/overhaul component parts must be noted in the aircraft records, including total time in service, description of work accomplished, and the signature of the authorized person returning the UAS to service.

14 . Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer Safety
Bulletins.17

15 . The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective action taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections.

1 6 . The PIC must possess at least a sport pilot certificate and a valid U.S. driver’s license.

17 . The operator may not permit any PIC to o perate unless the PIC meets the operator’s qualification criteria and demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated under the exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC qualification flight hours must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs are permitted under the terms of the exemption. However, training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During traini ng, proficiency, and experience

- building flights, all persons not essential for flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 91.119.

18 . 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). If flight at night is required, a special request will be made at the FAA office closest to propose d area of operations. Flights under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

19

. Unless otherwise provided by the FAA, or in the grant of exemption, t he UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point as denoted on a current FAA

- published aeronautical chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained, and the operation is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by the operator’s COA. The letter of agreement with the airport managem ent must be made available to the Administrator upon request.

20 . 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.

2 1 . If the UA loses comm unications or loses its GPS s ignal, it must return to a pre

- determined location within the planned operating area and land or be recovered in accordance with the operating documents.

2 2 . The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies in accordance with the operating documents.

23 . The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the intended landing point
and land the UA with 25% battery power remaining.

2 4 . The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations that fall outside the grant of exemption.

A ll operations s hall be conducted in accordance with airspace requirements in the ATO issued COA including class of airspace, altitude level and potential transponder requirements.18

2 5 . All aircraft operated in accordance with the exemption must be identified by serial nu mber, registered in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 47, and have identification (N

- Number) markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as practicable.

26 . Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum u sed for operation and control of the UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government oversight agency requirements.

2 7 . The documents required by 14 C.F.R. 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the UAS is operating. These documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

28 . The UA must remai n clear and yield the right of way to all manned aviation operations and
activities at all times.

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

30 . Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet fro m all nonparticipa ting 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 and/or;

b. The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures w here the owner/controller of such vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission 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, and;

3 1 . All operat ions shall be conducted over private or controlled

- access property with permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from land owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be conduc ted.

32 . 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.

2. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 61.23(a), (c), 61.101(e)(4), (e)5, 61.113(a)
, (b) and 61.315(a) Wou ld Not Adversely Affect Safety.

Lindel submits that the equivalent level of safety established by these Sections will be maintained because no PIC will be allowed to operate the UAS unless that PIC has demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight

- hour and curre ncy requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with the exemption, including evasive and19

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

structures.

Considering Lindel ’s proposed area of operations, and the operating limitations set forth

- above; the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those of commercial pilot requirements ( See Exemption No. 11062); and the airmanship skills necessary t o safely operate the UAS, Lindel submits that the additional manned airmanship experience of a commercially certificated pilot would not correlate to the airmanship skills necessary for
Lindel ’s specific proposed flight operations.

The FAA has previously granted such r elief in circumstances similar, in all material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11112, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11158, 11 159, 11160, 11161).

Lindel will not allow any PIC to operate the UAS unless that PIC has demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight

- hour requirements or UAS training and currency requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner consis tent with this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and

structures.

T he PIC m ust have accumulated and logged in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(b),
sufficient flight time as a UAS pilot in type, and make

- and

- model

, of the UAS to be used under this exemption. In addition to the hour requirements, the PIC must accomplish 3 takeoffs and landings in the preceding 90 days (for currency purposes).

As in Exemption No s. 11062, 11138, and 11153, prior documented flight experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable regulations will ensure an equivalent level of safety during Lindel ’s proposed operations. The Administrator has held that prior documented fligh t experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable regulatio ns would ensure safe operations.

Accordingly, Lindel will ensure safe operations by not allowing any PIC to operate the UAS unless that PIC has demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight

- h our and currency requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with the exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and structures.

3. Reas ons 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, Lindel w ill ensure that the UAS is in an airworthy condition based upon the UAS’s compliance with its operating documents and as stated in the conditions and limitations herein.

Additionally, the FAA has previously granted relief from Section 91.7(a) specific to UAS, in circumstances similar, in all material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos.20

11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11112, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11159, 11160, 11161).

4. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.11 9 (c) and 91.121 Would Not Adversely Affect Safety.

The equivalent level of safety established by Section 91.119 (c) and 91.121 will be maintained
because the altitude information of the UAS will be pro vided to the PIC via GPS equipment and a radio communications telemetry data link, which downlinks from the UA to the GCS for active monitoring of the flight path and altitude. This altitude information, combined with The Lindel ’s operation of the UAS with in visual line of sight

, and with a visual observer , will ensure a level of safety equivale ncy

. The FAA has previously granted such relief in circumstances similar, in all material respects, to those presented herein

. 5. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Section 91.151(b) 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(b) as a result of (1) the technical specifications of the UAS ; (2) the limita tions on the proposed flight operations; and (3) the location of the proposed flight operations. Accordingly, Lindel will ensure that it will safely operate the battery powered U AS during daylight hours in VFR conditions, with enough battery power to fly f or a total duration of approximately 15 minutes.

Here, as in Exemption No. 11109, the technical specifications of the UAS ; the limitations on the proposed flight operations; and the location of the proposed operations, will ensure an equivalent
level of s afety established by 14 C.F.R. Section 91.151(b). Furthermore, safety will be ensured as
the UAS will descend and land automatically if an emergency occurs

. Significantly, previous exemptions granted by the FAA concerning Section 91.151 (b) establish
that safety is not adversely affected when the technical characteristics and operating limitations of the UAS are considered. Relief has been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less than the minimums prescribed in Section 91.151 (b) , including Exemption N os. 2689, 5745, and 10650. Moreover, the FAA has previously granted relief from Section 91.151 specific to UAS, in circumstances similar, in all material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos. 8811, 10808, 10673, 11042, 11062, 11063, 1106 4, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11159, 11160, 11161).

6. 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, Lindel 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 Lindel will use trained21

technicians to perform maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on the UAS using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the operating documents (i.e., the Monthly

M aintenance Log and Instruction Manual). Furthermore, Lindel will document and maintain all
maintenance records for the UAS.

Since the UAS will be inspected as prescribed by the operating documents, Lindel will maintain the equivalent level of safety estab lished by Sections 91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1), and 91.409(a)(2).

T he User Manuals are attached hereto as Appendix A.

Likewise, the exemption sought will not adversely affect safety because Lindel will use trained technicians to perform maintenance, alteratio ns or preventive maintenance on the UAS using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed by the operating documents.

Furthermore, the exemption sought would maintain an equivalent level of safety established by Sections 91.407, 91.417(a) and 91.417 (b), because all maintenance of the UAS will be performed by trained technicians. Maintenance will be documented and maintained utilizing the monthly maintenance log.

Significantly, previous exemptions granted by the FAA concerning Sections 91.405( a),
91. 407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1), (a)(2), and 91.417(a)

, (b) establish that safety is not adversely affected when the technical characteristics and operating limitations of the UAS are considered.

In consideration of Lindel ’s proposed operating limitations, the operating documents, and the technical aspects of the UAS

, Lindel submits that safety will not be adversely affected by granting exemption from 14 C.F.R. Sections 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1)

, (a)(2), 91.409(a)(2), and
91.41 7(a)

, (b). The FAA has previously granted relief specific to UAS in circumstances similar, in all material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11112, 11136, 11138, 11150, 1 1153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11159, 11160, 11161).

7. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of Sections
45.23
, 45.27(a), and 91.9(c) Would Not Adversely Affect Safety

.

Because Petitioner will mark the UAS with N

- Numbers that are as large as practicable, an equivalent level of safety will be maintained. S uch relief has been granted by the Administration in Exemption Nos. 8738, 10167 and 10700.

8 . 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

, Lindel requests that the FAA prescribe special conditions for the intended operation of the UAS , which contain such safety standards that the
Administra tor 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 §§ 45.23, 61.23(a), (c), 61.101 (e)(4), (e)(5), 61.113(a), (b), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(c), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.40 5(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

UAS for the limited purpose of conducting aerial video and photography over certain areas of the22

United States 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 airwor thiness 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 UAS , since th e 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 because of a novel or unusual design feature of the aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller, he prescribe s 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 establi sh 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 Lindel ’s intended operation of the 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 45.23, 61.23(a), (c), 61.101 (e)(4), (e)(5), 61.113(a), (b), 6 1.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(c), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1)

, (a)(2), and 91.417(a)

, (b)

A Summary That Can Be Published In The Federal Register, stating: The Rules From
Lindel Seeks Exemption:

Mark Lindel seeks exempti on from the requirements of 14 C.F.R Sections 45.23, 61.23(a), (c), 61.101 (e)(4), (e)(5), 61.113(a), (b), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(c), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(b), 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 Lindel Seeks:

This exemption will permit Mark Lindel to commercially operate an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) for the purpose of conducting aerial data collection operations o ver certain areas of the
United States.

Any Additio nal Information, Views, Or Arguments Available To Support Lindel ’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

o perate safely in the NAS. As such, Mark Lindel seeks request for exemption pursuant to the authority of FMRA Section 333 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, as set forth above.23

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 airworth iness certification.

As discussed in detail above, Mark Lindel will operate the 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, Mark Lin del 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 DJI Phantom 2 Vision + UAS commercially, without an airworthiness certificate,
for the limi ted purpose of conducting aerial data collection operations over certain areas of the United States. By granting this Petition, the FAA Administrator will be fulfilling the Congressional mandate of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, while also

a dvancing the interests of the public, by allowing Lindel to safely, efficiently, and economically operate the DJI Phantom 2 Vision + UAS commercially within the NAS.

WHEREFORE , in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations and the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 333, Mark Lindel respectfully requests that the Administrator grant this Petition for an exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R Sections

45 .23, 45.27(a), 61.23(a), (c), 61.101 (e)(4), (e)(5), 61.113(a), (b), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(c), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1)

, (a)(2), and 91.417(a)

, (b) and permit it to operate the DJI Phantom 2 Vision + commercially for the purpose of conducting
aerial data collection operations over certain areas of the United States.

Dated: January 4, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

Jason Melvin , Esq.
Counsel for Mark Lindel
9111 Cochran Bluff Lane Dallas, Texas 75220 jason@txdronelawyer.com
469

- 766

- 350224 Appendix A :

Attached copy of DJI Phantom 2 Vision + User Manual