Kevin Skorupa Petition for Section 333 Exemption

For Purposes of Operating Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

October 13, 2015

Name and Address of Petitioner: Filing for Petitioner:

Kevin Skorupa Aero One, LLC

1133 Country View Drive 2111 Oakview Rd SE

La Vernia, TX 78121 Atlanta, GA 30317
October 13, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition of Kevin Skorupa for an Exemption Request Pursuant to Section 333 of the

FAA Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations from 14 C.F.R. Part 21,

Subpart H; §§ 45.23 (b); 61.113(a) & (b); 91.109; 91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(a);

91.203(a) and (b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(l); 91.409(a)(1) and (2); and 91.417(a) & (b)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (the "Reform Act")

and 14 C.P.R. Part 11, Kevin Skorupa does hereby apply for an exemption from the Federal

Aviation Regulations ("FARs") identified below, to allow commercial use of small unmanned

aircraft systems ("sUAS") for the purpose of: real estate under certain conditions set forth in the

Kevin Skorupa confidential Flight Operations Manual and conditions set forth in the FAA-issued

"Exemption No. 11062", and related exemptions issued to operators for the same purpose.

Additionally, pursuant to 14 CFR § 11.87, we request the FAA not to delay action based on the

following:

1. This petition for exemption does not set precedent. Previous identical exemption

requests have been approved.

2. The requested relief is identical to exemptions granted previously, specifically,

Exemption(s) Nos. 11062 (Astraeus Aerial), 11066 (Aerial MOB), and 11065 (Helivideo).

3. A delay in action on this petition would adversely affect pending requests for aerial imaging

operations and result in lost opportunity and wages for participating crew, and a delay in

the public benefit of granting this petition. In addition, a competitive advantage for

unapproved commercial sUAS operators exists and continues to grow every day.

4. Kevin Skorupa has 24 years of experience as a military air traffic controller. He is an expert in 

the Federal Aviation Regulations and safe airspace operations. In addition, he has a bachelor’s 

degree in professional aeronautics and a master’s degree in aeronautical science, both from 

Embry Riddle Aeronautical University. He has been operating UASs for more than 3 years and 

practices safety-conscious behaviors at all times.

Notwithstanding the request not to publish this petition request in the Federal Register, Kevin 

Skorupa has submitted supporting materials including the confidential "Flight Operations

Manual" which are confidential documents pursuant to 14 CFR § 11.35(b) and are not available

to the public.
Pursuant to 14 CFR § 11.87:

1. This application is submitted on behalf of:

Kevin Skorupa

1133 Country View Drive

La Vernia, TX 78121

2. 14C.F.R.-- -Regulationsforwhich exemption isrequested:

1) 21, Subpart H

2) 45.23(b)

3) 61.113(a) and (b)

4) 91.109

5) 91.119(c)

6) 91.121

7) 91.151(a)

8) 91.203(a) and (b)

9) 91.405(a)

10) 91.407(a)(1)

11) 91.409(a)(1) and (2)

12) 91.417(a) and (b)

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs) operated by Kevin Skorupa weigh less than 55 pounds,

including all payload. They operate at speeds of less than 50 knots, can hover, and can

move in multiple directions. Kevin Skorupa will only operate its UASs in visual line of

sight (VLOS) and will operate only within the sterile environment described in the Flight 

Operations Manual (FOM). Such operations will insure that the UAS will not create a

hazard to users of the NAS or the public.

Given the small size of the UASs and the restricted area that they will be operated,

Kevin Skorupa’ UAS operations adhere to the Reform Act’s safety requirements.

Additionally, due to the size of the UASs and the limited area in which they will operate,

approval of this application presents no national safety concerns. Based on the substantial

level of safety surrounding the proposed operations, and the significant public benefit

(enhanced safety), reduction in environmental impacts in the outdoor setting these UASs

will operate leaving no trace of activity behind, the grant of the requested exemption is in

the public interest. Accordingly, Kevin Skorupa respectfully requests that the FAA grant the

requested exemption.

3. Aircraft And Equivalent Level Of Safety:

The operating limitations proposed by Kevin Skorupa provide for a higher level of safety because

operations further enhance safety of aerial photography and videography operations compared to 

using conventional aircraft.

As set forth in the FOM, the limitations and conditions include:

• The UASs will weigh less than 55 pounds
• Flights will be operated within line of sight of a pilot and observer

• Maximum flight time for each flight will be 30 minutes or at 25% of battery power

reserve, whichever comes first.

• Flights will be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet AGL as indicated by

onboard GPS system.

• Minimum crew for each operation will consist of the UAS pilot and an observer.

• A UAS pilot will be Pilot in Command (PIC).

• A UAS pilot will be an FAA licensed airman with at least a sport pilot’s certificate.

• The UAS will only operate within a confined “sterile area” as defined in the FOM.

• The FOM requires the establishment of a “Security Perimeter” for the flight

operations area.

• A briefing will be conducted for planned UAS operations prior to each day’s flight.

• All personnel performing duties within the boundaries of the safety perimeter are required

to attend.

• The operator will file a FAA Form 7711-1 or its equivalent, as modified in light of the

requested exemption, with the appropriate Flight Standards District Office (FSDO).

• The operator will obtain consent of all persons involved in the flight operation and

ensure that only consenting persons will be allowed within 100 feet of the flight

operation.

• The operator will submit a written plan of activities to the FSDO three days before the

proposed shoot as required in the FOM.

• The pilot and observer must be trained in UA operations and received current

information on the particular UAS to be operated as required by the FOM.

• The observer and pilot will at all times be able to communicate by voice.

• Written and/or oral permission from the relevant property holders will be

obtained.

• All required permissions and permits will be obtained from territorial, state, county, or

city jurisdictions, including local law enforcement, fire or other managing governmental 

agencies.

• The UAS will operate clear of clouds.

• If the UAS loses communications, the UAS will and does have the capability to return to

a pre-determined location within the Security Perimeter and land safely.

• The UAS will have the capability to abort a flight in case of unpredicted obstacles or

emergencies.

Section 21, Subpart H: Airworthiness Certificates

Subpart H, entitled Airworthiness Certificates, establishes the procedural requirements for the 

issuance of airworthiness certificates as required by FAR §91.203 (a) (1). Given the size and 

limited operating area associated with the aircraft to be utilized by the Applicant, an exemption 

from Part 21 Subpart H meets the requirements of an equivalent level of safety under Part 11 

and Section 333 of the Reform Act. The Federal Aviation Act (49 U.S.C.§44701 (f)) and Section 

333 of the Reform Act both authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft from the requirement for an 

airworthiness certificate, upon consideration of the size, weight, speed, operational capability, 

and proximity to airports and populated areas of the particular sUAS. In all cases, an analysis of 

these criteria demonstrates that the sUAS operated without an airworthiness certificate, in the 

limited environment and under the conditions proposed will be at least as safe, or safer, than a 
conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate 

without the restrictions and conditions proposed.

The sUAS to be operated hereunder is less than 55 Ibs. fully loaded, carries neither a pilot nor 

passenger, carries no explosive materials or flammable liquid fuels, and operates within a 

relatively small area. Unlike other civil aircraft, operations under this exemption will be tightly 

controlled and monitored by the Pilot/"Operator" and the visual observer. These safety 

enhancements, which already apply to civil aircraft operated to conduct aerial videography and 

photography services, provide a greater degree of safety to the public and property owners than 

conventional operations conducted with airworthiness certificates issued under 14 C.F.R. Part 

21, Subpart H. Lastly, application of these same criteria demonstrates that there is no threat to 

national security posed by the sUAS, due to its size, speed of operation, limited operational area, 

lack of explosive materials or flammable liquid fuels, and inability to carry a substantial external 

load.

Section 45.23(b): Marking of the Aircraft

The regulation requires:

When marks include only the Roman capital letter "N" and the registration number is

displayed on limited, restricted or light-- -sport category aircraft or experimental or

provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near each

entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more than

6 inches high, the words "limited," "restricted," "light-- -sport," "experimental," or

"provisional," as applicable.

Even though the UAS will have no airworthiness certificate, an exemption may be needed

as the UAS will have no entrance to the cabin, cockpit or pilot station on which the word

“Experimental” can be placed. Given the size of the sUAV, two-inch lettering will be

impossible.

The FAA has issued the following exemptions to this regulation to Exemptions Nos. 10700,

8738, 10167 and 10167A.

Section 61.113(a) and (b): Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations: Pilot in Command.

Kevin Skorupa is seeking relief from this regulation, as the requirement for a

Commercial Pilot License with a second class medical would be an unnecessary burden

on the operator with regard to obtaining and certifying UA pilots.

The UAS will not carry a pilot or passengers, and the proposed operations can achieve the

equivalent level of safety by requiring the pilot to possess a private pilot's license only. This

level of knowledge and skill combined with the proposed operating procedures described in

the Flight Operations Manual (VLOS only, closed-set requirements, etc.) will more than

adequately allow safe operation within the national airspace system, and with regard to

persons or property on the ground. The additional knowledge and skill requirements for a

Commercial Pilot's license do not add any level of safety with respect to closed-- -set small

UAS operations in the same manner they do with full scale, passenger-- -carrying aircraft.

An equivalent or greater level of safety is achieved by requiring UA pilots to have a
minimum number of hours logged, flight sequences, knowledge and experience testing, etc.

as described in the Flight Operations Manual.

Section 91.109: Flight Instruction

Section 91.103 provides that no person may operate a civil aircraft (except a manned free 

balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning dual 

controls.

sUASs and remotely piloted aircraft, by their design do not have fully functional dual controls. 

Flight control is accomplished through the use of a control box that communicates with the 

aircraft via radio communication. The FAA has approved exemptions for flight training without 

fully functional dual controls for a number of aircraft and for flight instruction in experimental 

aircraft. See Exemption Nos. 5778K & 9862A. The equivalent level of safety is provided by the 

fact that neither a pilot nor passengers will be carried in the aircraft and by the size and speed of 

the aircraft.

Section 91.119(c): Minimum Safe Altitudes.

Section 91.119 establishes safe altitudes for operation of civil aircraft. Section 91.119 (d)

allows helicopters to be operated at less than the minimums prescribed, provided the person

operating the helicopter complies with any route or altitudes prescribed for helicopters by

the FAA. As this exemption is for a sUAS that is a helicopter and the exemption requests

authority to operate at altitudes up to 400 Above Ground Level (AGL,) or not more than

200 above an elevated platform from which filming is planned, an exemption may be

needed to allow such operations. As set forth herein, except for the limited conditions stated

in the Flight Operations Manual, the UAS will not operate at higher than 400 AGL. It will

however be operated in a restricted area with security perimeter, where buildings and people

will not be exposed to operations without their pre-obtained notification and consent when

required.

An equivalent level of safety will be achieved given the size, weight, and speed of the UAS

as well as the location where it is operated. No flight will be made without the permission

of the property owner or local officials. Because of the advance notice to the property

owner and participants in the flight activity, all affected individuals will be aware of the

planned flight operations as set forth in the FOM. Compared to flight operations with

aircraft or rotorcraft weighing far more than the maximum 55 lbs. proposed herein and 

carrying flammable fuel, any risk associated with these operations is far less than those

presently presented with conventional aircraft operating at or below 500 AGL. In addition,

the low-altitude operations and horizontal separation from airports will ensure separation

between these sUAS operations and the operations of conventional aircraft that must comply

with Section 91.119.

Section 91.121 : Altimeter Settings

Kevin Skorupa is seeking relief from this regulation, as the UA will not have a

barometric altimeter.

Section 91.121 requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising altitude by
reference to an altimeter that is set “... to an elevation of the departure airport or an

appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.” As a UAS may not have a

barometric altimeter, but instead a GPS altitude, an exemption is needed. An equivalent level

of safety will be achieved by the operator, pursuant to the FOM, confirming the altitude of

the launch site shown on the GPS altitude indicator before flight.

Section 91.151(a): Fuel Requirements for Flight in VFR Conditions

Kevin Skorupa is seeking relief from the fuel requirements of this FAR as current battery

technology allows the UA to fly for approximately 15-30 minutes in normal conditions. As

91.151(a) requires a 30-minute reserve AFTER reaching the point of intended landing, there

is no practical flight possible under this regulation.

An equivalent or greater level of safety exists as the exact battery level remaining is

transmitted to the pilot via radio telemetry, and given that the operating area for the UA is in

close proximity to the pilot (VLOS), an unsafe condition where the UA is unable to return for

landing due to low battery condition is easily avoidable. Additionally, should a defective

battery prematurely deplete, the UA is configured to auto land above the point at which the

flight controller detects low voltage. And, as part of the Kevin Skorupa FOM, it is a

requirement that any flight be terminated if telemetry is lost. Otherwise, a flight limit of 30

minutes or 25% battery remaining is prescribed.

Section 91.203(a) and (b): Carrying Civil Aircraft Certification and Registration

The regulation requires that an airworthiness certificate be displayed in the cabin.

The UAS fully loaded weighs no more than 55 lbs. and is operated without an onboard pilot.

As such, there is no ability to place or carry certification and registration documents or to

display them on the sUAS. Each sUAS operated by Kevin Skorupa will be registered with

the FAA and all documentation carried by the PIC.

An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by keeping these documents at the ground

control point where the pilot flying the sUAS will have immediate access to them, to the

extent they are applicable to the sUAS. The FAA has issued numerous exemptions to this

regulation. A representative sample of other exceptions includes exemption nos. 9565, 9665,

9789, 9789A, 9797, 9797A, 9816A, and 10700.

Section 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2); 91.417(a) and (b): Maintenance Inspections

Kevin Skorupa is seeking relief from the above stated FAR's as the UA will not have an

airworthiness certificate. Therefore there is no requirement to perform an inspection in order

to maintain airworthiness as stated in Appendix D to Part 43 for 100 hr. and annual

inspections.

An equivalent or greater level of safety exists as the Kevin Skorupa Flight Operations

Manual does prescribe regular maintenance and inspections, compliance with manufacturer's

service bulletins, test flights after maintenance, technician training, and so forth, in the spirit

of the scope and detail of Appendix D to Part 43. In addition, while mechanical failures are

not out of the question, a crash resulting from a catastrophic failure has a very small amount
of risk of injury when compared to a failure in a passenger-carrying full-size aircraft, for

which this regulation was intended.

4. Public Interest:

Kevin Skorupa believes that allowing commercial use of small, unmanned aircraft will

enhance the safety of operations by reducing the risk associated with low altitude full-size

aircraft operations. A manned, turbine powered helicopter operating in close proximity to

personnel on the ground has a far greater risk of injury than a small, lightweight UA carrying

no combustible fuel, especially when the UA is operating within the parameters of the Kevin 

Skorupa FOM. Additionally, the safe integration of sUAS within the national airspace is a

growing concern amongst pilots, the FAA, and general public. This exemption would provide

a safe stepping-stone to a more robust set of future sUAS rules.

5. Level of Safety:

An equivalent level of safety is provided for as outlined for each of the FAR's above for which

relief is sought.

6. Summary:

Kevin Skorupa seeks exemption from the following rules for the commercial operation of a

small unmanned aerial system in order to conduct operations for the purpose of real estate

below an altitude of 400' AGL and within a limited operating area: 14 C.P.R. Part 21, Subpart 

H; 45.23(b); 61.113(a) & (b); 91.109; 91.119(c); 91.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a) and (b); 

91.405(a); 91.407(a)(l); 91.409(a)(1) and (2); 91.417(a) & (b). This exemption will enhance the 

level of safety currently obtainable using full-sized, manned helicopters for the same type of

work.

7. Privacy:

All flights will occur over private or controlled access property with the property owner’s or 

controlling authority’s prior consent and knowledge. Photography and videography will be of

people who have consented to being filmed or otherwise have agreed to be in the area where

filming will take place.

Satisfaction of the criteria provided in Section 333 of the Reform Act of 2012-size, weight,

speed, operating capabilities, proximity to airports and populated areas, operation within

visual line of sight, and national security - provide more than adequate justification for the

grant of the requested exemptions allowing commercial operation of applicant’s sUAS in 

accordance with the Flight Operations Manual appended hereto.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact the undersigned at 770-

681-9985 or at aeroone@aeroone.net.

On behalf of Kevin Skorupa,

/s/

Owen Carroll

Founder and Owner

Aero One, LLC