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 

COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF THE DJI PHANTOM VISION 2+ UNMANNED 

AIRCRAFT SYSTEM PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF

THE FAA MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC 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.com
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

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

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

INTRODUCTION 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 

EXEMPTION.........................................................................................................................7

THE EXTENT OF RELIEF AND THE REASON LINDEL SEEKS THE 

RELIEF................................................................................................................................10

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING LINDEL’S REQUEST WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC 

INTEREST..............................................................................................................................12

THE REASONS WHY GRANTING THE EXEMPTION TO LINDEL WOULD NOT 

ADVERSELY AFFECT SAFETY.........................................................................................13

SUMMARY THAT CAN BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.....................22

ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, VIEWS, OR ARGUMENTS AVAILABLE TO 

SUPPORT LINDEL’S REQUEST.......................................................................................22

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................23

APPENDICES............................................................................................24
3

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 Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) 

SO Safety Observer

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

UA Unmanned Aircraft

UAS Unmanned Aircraft System,

 Specifically the DJI Phantom 2 Vision +

VFR Visual Flight Rules

VLOS Visual Line of Site

VMC Visual Meteorological Conditions

VTOL Vertical Takeoff and Landing
4

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 

collection1over certain areas of the United States. 

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONER

Lindel is a realtor based in Denver, Colorado. He desires to utilize the DJI Phantom 2 Vision + 

for aerial data collection related to photography services 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 Unmanned Aircraft System aerial operations to 

provide an 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 + systems for compensation or hire within 

the NAS. These aircraft are vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aircraft (UA) with a 

Ground Control Station (GCS) utilizing electronic tablet or smart phone systems. These 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 (precision 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 system does not initially support registration of UAS used for 

commercial purposes. (https://www.faa.gov/uas/registration/faqs/). 2 Given this, Petitioner 

intends to register all UAS 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, 

exemption is sought in accordance with past practice of the Administration in Exemption Nos. 

8738, 10167 and 10700. Petitioner will mark the UAS with identification numbers (N-Numbers) 

that are as large as practicable. To the extent 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), Section 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 operation 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 experienced 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 Maintenance Log and current Instruction 

Manual). Furthermore, Lindel will document and maintain all maintenance records for each 

UAS. 

Lindel also seeks relief from certain requirements of Sections 61.23(a), (c), 61.101 (e)(4), (e)(5),

61.113(a), (b), and 61.315(a) regarding pilot certificates, privileges, limitations and medical 

certificates. Lindel seeks relief to the extent necessary to allow a Pilot in Command (PIC) 

holding a sport, recreational, private pilot or higher level certificate, as well as an airman medical 

certificate or valid U.S. driver’s license, and who has demonstrated, 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 maintaining 

appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and structures.

Lindel seeks relief from Section 91.7(a), entitled Civil Aircraft Airworthiness, because the UAS 

Lindel seeks to operate do not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance 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 Sections 91.119(c) and 91.121, entitled

(respectively) Minimum safe altitudes: General and Altimeter Settings. Relief 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 onboard. 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 altitude information, combined with Lindel’s operation of the UAS within visual line 

of sight, at or below 400 feet AGL, will ensure 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 submits 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 return 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 Section 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 valid 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 ensure 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, no aircraft may fly below: An 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 feet 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 departure. 

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 conditions 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, to 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 inspections, 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 approved 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 service 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 specified 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 each 
9

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 propeller, 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 directives (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 retained 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 Sections 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, 10167 
10

and 10700. Petitioner will mark the UAS with identification 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 Sections 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 hire. 

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 structures.

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 From 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 airworthiness certificate in 

accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. Therefore, Lindel will 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 every 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 Section 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 the 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 stated 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 operations. 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 flights 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 conduct 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 Seeks 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 with 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, alterations, 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 records 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

Petitioner 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 activities 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 UAS 

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 airport 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 pollution 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 cylinder 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 

eliminates 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 is 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 typically 
13

conduct similar operations (weighing approximately 6,000 pounds with a wingspan of 

approximately 42 feet, a length 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 conduct similar aerial operations. As such, operation of the UAS will allow 

United 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 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. Operating the battery powered UAS 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 the UAS, individuals such as Lindel 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 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 Regulations. 

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 UAS 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 UAS 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 later 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 section 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 systems, 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 

threat 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) Requirements 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 UAS 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 UAS. 

The technical specifications of the UAS are set forth in the attached user manuals attached 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 complete 

description of the flight and navigational modes of the UAS are provided in the user manuals 

attached 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 remain stationary in flight and 

either descend slowly and land, or return to the launch position and land. A complete description 

of the UAS 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 persons 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 over certain areas 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 UAS may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 20 knots.

4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 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. All 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 verbally at all times. Electronic messaging or texting is not permitted during 

flight operations. The PIC must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or her 

designation for the duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the SO can perform 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 

camera 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 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 upon request. The operator must also present updated and 

revised 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 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. 

9. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure that it is in a condition for safe 

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 characteristics, 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. 

11. The pre-flight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, 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 life 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. 

16. 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 operate 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 training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential 

for flight operations are considered nonparticipants, and the PIC must operate the UA with 

appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 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 proposed 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, the 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 management 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. 

21. If the UA loses communications or loses its GPS signal, it must return to a pre-determined 

location within the planned operating area and land or be recovered in accordance with the 

operating documents. 

22. 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. 

24. 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. 

All operations shall be conducted in accordance with airspace requirements in the ATO issued 

COA including class of airspace, altitude level and potential transponder requirements. 
18

25. 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 (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 used for operation and control of 

the UA must comply with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or other appropriate 

government oversight agency requirements. 

27. 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 remain 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 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 

and/or; 

b. The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where 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; 

31. All operations 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 conducted.

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) Would 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 currency requirements, that the PIC is able 

to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with the exemption, including evasive and 
19

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 to 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 relief 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, 11159, 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 consistent with this exemption, including evasive and 

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

structures. 

The PIC must 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 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 Lindel’s proposed operations. The Administrator has held that prior documented flight 

experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable regulations 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-hour 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. 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, Lindel will 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 91.119(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 provided 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 within visual line of sight, and with a visual observer, will ensure a level of 

safety equivalency. 

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 limitations 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 UAS during 

daylight hours in VFR conditions, with enough battery power to fly for 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 safety 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 Nos. 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, 11064, 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 trained 
21

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 

Maintenance 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 established by Sections 91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1), and 91.409(a)(2). 

The 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, alterations 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 

91.417(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, 11153, 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. Such 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 

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 §§ 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). Such special conditions will permit safe operation of the 

UAS for the limited purpose of conducting aerial video and photography over certain areas of the 
22

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 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 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 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 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), 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 Summary That Can Be Published In The Federal Register, stating: The Rules From 

Lindel Seeks Exemption: 

Mark Lindel seeks exemption 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 over certain areas of the 

United States.

Any Additional 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 

operate 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 airworthiness 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 Lindel 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 limited 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 

advancing 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

469-766-3502
24

Appendix A:

Attached copy of DJI Phantom 2 Vision + User Manual