June 29, 2015

Exemption No. 11934

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–1354

Mr. Dan Johnson

DSJ, LLC

5244 Cottondale Street Southwest

Wyoming, MI 49519

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

By letter dated April 20, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of DSJ, LLC (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an exemption. The petitioner

requested to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct aerial photography and 

videography.

See Appendix A for the petition submitted to the FAA describing the proposed operations and 

the regulations that the petitioner seeks an exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner.

Airworthiness Certification

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is a DJI Phantom 2 Vision+.

The petitioner requested relief from 14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products 

and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness Certificates. In accordance with the statutory criteria 

provided in Section 333 of Public Law 112−95 in reference to 49 U.S.C. § 44704, and in 

consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the 
2

aircraft and its operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this aircraft 

meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, the FAA finds that the requested relief from 

14 CFR part 21, Certification procedures for products and parts, Subpart H—Airworthiness 

Certificates, and any associated noise certification and testing requirements of part 36, is 

not necessary.

The Basis for Our Decision

You have requested to use a UAS for aerial data collection1. The FAA has issued grants of 

exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. 

In Grants of Exemption Nos. 11062 to Astraeus Aerial (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0352), 

11109 to Clayco, Inc. (see Docket No. FAA−2014−0507), 11112 to VDOS Global, LLC (see

Docket No. FAA−2014−0382), and 11213 to Aeryon Labs, Inc. (see Docket No. 

FAA−2014−0642), the FAA found that the enhanced safety achieved using an unmanned 

aircraft (UA) with the specifications described by the petitioner and carrying no passengers or 

crew, rather than a manned aircraft of significantly greater proportions, carrying crew in 

addition to flammable fuel, gives the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operation enabled 

by this exemption is in the public interest.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 They are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in Grant of 

Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 11213;

 The reasons stated by the FAA for granting Exemption Nos. 11062, 11109, 11112, and 

11213 also apply to the situation you present; and 

 A grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, 

delegated to me by the Administrator, DSJ, LLC is granted an exemption from 14 CFR 

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

91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the 

extent necessary to allow the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection.

This exemption is subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

 

1 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.
3

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of exemption, DSJ, LLC is hereafter referred to as the operator.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be 

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the DJI Phantom 2 

Vision+ when weighing less than 55 pounds including payload. Proposed operations 

of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a petition to amend this exemption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and television filming are 

not permitted. 

3. The UA may not be operated at a speed exceeding 87 knots (100 miles per hour). The 

exemption holder may use either groundspeed or calibrated airspeed to determine 

compliance with the 87 knot speed restriction. In no case will the UA be operated at 

airspeeds greater than the maximum UA operating airspeed recommended by the 

aircraft manufacturer.

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. driver’s license.

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

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

to satisfy the VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS 

capability. The VO and PIC must be able to communicate verbally at all times; 

electronic messaging or texting is not permitted during flight operations. The PIC 

must be designated before the flight and cannot transfer his or her designation for the 

duration of the flight. The PIC must ensure that the VO can perform the duties 

required of the VO.

7. This exemption and all documents needed to operate the UAS and conduct its 

operations in accordance with the conditions and limitations stated in this grant of 

exemption, are hereinafter referred to as the operating documents. The operating 

documents must be accessible during UAS operations and made available to the 

Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between the conditions and 

limitations in this exemption and the procedures outlined in the operating documents, 

the conditions and limitations herein take precedence and must be followed. 
4

Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as outlined in its operating 

documents. The operator may update or revise its operating documents. It is the 

operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised 

documents to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. The 

operator must also present updated and revised documents if it petitions for extension 

or amendment to this grant of exemption. If the operator determines that any update 

or revision would affect the basis upon which the FAA granted this exemption, then 

the operator must petition for an amendment to its grant of exemption. The FAA’s 

UAS Integration Office (AFS−80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding 

updates or revisions to the operating documents.

8. Any UAS that has undergone maintenance or alterations that affect the UAS operation 

or flight characteristics, e.g., replacement of a flight critical component, must undergo 

a functional test flight prior to conducting further operations under this exemption. 

Functional test flights may only be conducted by a PIC with a VO and must remain at 

least 500 feet from other people. The functional test flight must be conducted in such 

a manner so as to not pose an undue hazard to persons and property.

9. The operator is responsible for maintaining and inspecting the UAS to ensure that it is 

in a condition for safe operation.

10. Prior to each flight, the PIC must conduct a pre-flight inspection and determine the 

UAS is in a condition for safe flight. The pre-flight inspection must account for all 

potential discrepancies, e.g., inoperable components, items, or equipment. If the 

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

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

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

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

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

aircraft components.

12. Each UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all manufacturer 

safety bulletins.

13. Under this grant of exemption, a PIC must hold either an airline transport, 

commercial, private, recreational, or sport pilot certificate. The PIC must also hold a 

current FAA airman medical certificate or a valid U.S. driver’s license issued by a 

state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a territory, a possession, or the Federal 

government. The PIC must also meet the flight review requirements specified in 

14 CFR § 61.56 in an aircraft in which the PIC is rated on his or her pilot certificate.

14. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC demonstrates the 

ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be 
5

operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and 

maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC 

qualification flight hours and currency must be logged in a manner consistent with 

14 CFR § 61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs and VOs 

(training, proficiency, and experience-building) and determining the PIC’s ability to 

safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with how the UAS will be operated 

under this exemption are permitted under the terms of this exemption. However, 

training operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During 

training, proficiency, and experience-building flights, all persons not essential for 

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

with appropriate distance from nonparticipants in accordance with 14 CFR § 91.119.

15. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 CFR § 1.1. All 

operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Flights 

under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized.

16. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point (ARP) as 

denoted in the current FAA Airport/Facility Directory (AFD) or for airports not 

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

FAA-published aeronautical chart, unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s 

management is obtained or otherwise permitted by a COA issued to the exemption 

holder. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available 

to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request.

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

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

18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a 

pre-determined location within the private or controlled-access property.

19. The PIC must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies.

20. The PIC is prohibited from beginning a flight unless (considering wind and forecast 

weather conditions) there is enough available power for the UA to conduct the 

intended operation and to operate after that for at least five minutes or with the reserve 

power recommended by the manufacturer if greater.

21. Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA). All 

operations shall be conducted in accordance with an ATO-issued COA. The 

exemption holder may apply for a new or amended COA if it intends to conduct 

operations that cannot be conducted under the terms of the attached COA.

22. All aircraft operated in accordance with this exemption must be identified by serial 

number, registered in accordance with 14 CFR part 47, and have identification 
6

(N−Number) markings in accordance with 14 CFR part 45, Subpart C. Markings must 

be as large as practicable.

23. Documents used by the operator to ensure the safe operation and flight of the UAS and 

any documents required under 14 CFR §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to the 

PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the aircraft is operating. 

These documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement 

official upon request.

24. The UA must remain clear and give way to all manned aviation operations and 

activities at all times. 

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

26. All Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating 

persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures unless:

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons 

from the UA and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure 

that nonparticipating persons remain under such protection. If a situation arises 

where nonparticipating persons leave such protection and are within 500 feet of 

the UA, flight operations must cease immediately in a manner ensuring the safety 

of nonparticipating persons; and

b. The owner/controller of any vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission 

for operating closer to those objects and the PIC has made a safety assessment of 

the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not 

present an undue hazard.

The PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons are not considered 

nonparticipating persons under this exemption.

27. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with 

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative. 

Permission from property owner/controller or authorized representative will be 

obtained for each flight to be conducted.

28. Any incident, accident, or flight operation that transgresses the lateral or vertical 

boundaries of the operational area as defined by the applicable COA must be reported 

to the FAA's UAS Integration Office (AFS−80) within 24 hours. Accidents must be 

reported to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) per instructions 

contained on the NTSB Web site: www.ntsb.gov.

If this exemption permits operations for the purpose of closed-set motion picture and 

television filming and production, the following additional conditions and limitations apply.
7

29. The operator must have a motion picture and television operations manual (MPTOM) 

as documented in this grant of exemption.

30. At least 3 days before aerial filming, the operator of the UAS affected by this 

exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local Flight Standards 

District Office (FSDO) with jurisdiction over the area of proposed filming. The 3-day 

notification may be waived with the concurrence of the FSDO. The plan of activities 

must include at least the following:

a. Dates and times for all flights;

b. Name and phone number of the operator for the UAS aerial filming conducted 

under this grant of exemption;

c. Name and phone number of the person responsible for the on-scene operation of 

the UAS;

d. Make, model, and serial or N−Number of UAS to be used;

e. Name and certificate number of UAS PICs involved in the aerial filming;

f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners 

and/or local officials to conduct the filming production event; the list of those 

who gave permission must be made available to the inspector upon request;

g. Signature of exemption holder or representative; and

h. A description of the flight activity, including maps or diagrams of any area, city, 

town, county, and/or state over which filming will be conducted and the altitudes 

essential to accomplish the operation.

31. Flight operations may be conducted closer than 500 feet from participating persons 

consenting to be involved and necessary for the filming production, as specified in the 

exemption holder’s MPTOM.

Unless otherwise specified in this grant of exemption, the UAS, the UAS PIC, and the UAS 

operations must comply with all applicable parts of 14 CFR including, but not limited to, 

parts 45, 47, 61, and 91.
8

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosures
April 20, 2015 

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal Aviation Regulations from 14 

C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a)&(b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b) (2); 91.103(b); 91.109; 

119.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a)&(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a) (1); 91.409(a) (2); 91.417(a)&(b) 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

I, Dan Johnson, am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of

2012 and the procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, to request that I, Dan Johnson, an owner and 

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

below so that I, Dan Johnson, may operate my small ultra-lightweight unmanned aircraft system (“sUAS”) 

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

As described herein I, Dan Johnson, am a photographer and videographer ; experienced in flying hobby 

aircraft for recreational purposes. I have added a quad-copter1 sUAS to my inventory equipped with a selfcontained camera with intent for aerial photography and videography; following exemption and approval 

by the FAA. 

My, Dan Johnson's, exemption request would permit operation of ultra-light weight, unmanned (piloted by 

remote control) and comparatively inexpensive sUAS(s) in tightly controlled and limited airspace.2 

Predetermined in areas away from large public gatherings, airports and heliports for community videos, 

photos and video of new and remodeled commercial buildings/projects, individual homeowner aerial 

photography/videography, photography and video of land developments for builders, and nature photos and 

videos in completely unpopulated areas and other community related events upon request.

Currently, similar lightweight, remote controlled sUASs are legally operated by unmonitored amateur 

hobbyists with no safety plan or controls in place to prevent catastrophe. I, Dan Johnson, have personally 

instilled safety protocols and controls 3 to avoid and prevent public hazard, as well as manned aircraft 

hazards/catastrophe. This will act to further safety protocols exclusive to lightweight sUAS's specific to 

photography & videography usage as I, Dan Johnson, record flight data and other information gained 

through permitted flight operations to share with the FAA through any required FAA reports to assist with 

future protocol and safety regulation. 

Granting my, Dan Johnson’s, request comports with the Secretary of Transportation’s (FAA 

Administrator’s) responsibilities and authority to not only integrate sUASs into the national airspace 

system, but to “...establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems [sUASs] in the 

national airspace system” under Section 333(c) of the Reform Act specific to the use of sUASs for 

photography & videography purposes. Further I, Dan Johnson, will conduct my operations in compliance 

with the protocols described herein or as otherwise established by the FAA. 

For the reasons stated below I, Dan Johnson, respectfully request the grant of an exemption allowing me to 

operate ultra-light weight, remote controlled sUASs for the purposes of acquiring aerial photos & videos, 

both of which will promote local economic growth through increased employment and increased tax base. 

Both with public safety in mind by keeping heavier manned aircraft containing combustible fuel that that 

poses potential public hazard. 

1 Supplemental File – Phantom 2 Vision Plus (User Manual 1.6) & Appendix A 2 Appendix B – Aeronautical Charts 3 Appendix C - Personal Protocols and Controls 

I. Contact Information: 

Dan Johnson, DSJ, LLC, 5244 Cottondale St. SW. Wyoming, MI. 49519. Office: (626) 261-2949 Mobile: 

(616) 293-0158. Email: dansjohnson@gmail.com
II. The Specific Sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations From Which Dan Johnson

Requests Exemption are: 14 CFR 21; 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. 91, et seq.;

14 CFR 407 (a) (1); 14 CFR 409 (a) (2); and, 14 CFR 417 (a) & (b). 

III. The Extent of relief Dan Johnson seeks and the Reason He Seeks Such Relief: 

I, Dan Johnson, submit this application in accordance with the Reform Act, 112 P.L. 95 §§ 331-334, 

seeking relief from any currently applicable FARs operating to prevent me, Dan Johnson, contemplated 

commercial cinematic, academic and other flight operations within the national airspace system. The 

Reform Act in Section 332 provides for such integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into our 

national airspace system as it is in the public’s interest to do so. 

My, Dan Johnson’s, ultra-lightweight sUAS meets the definition of “small unmanned aircraft” as defined in 

Section 331 and therefore the integration of my ultra-lightweight sUAS is expressly contemplated by the 

Reform Act. I would like to operate my ultra- lightweight sUAS prior to the time period by which the 

Reform Act requires the FAA to promulgate rules governing such craft. Thereby, providing direct 

experience and valuable information for formal regulation that can be administered uniformly to all related 

sUAS aerial photography & videography. 

The Reform Act guides the Secretary in determining the types of sUASs that may operate safely in our 

national airspace system. Considerations include: The weight, size, speed and overall capabilities of the 

sUASs; whether the sUAS will be operated near airports or heavily populated areas; and, whether the sUAS 

will be operated by line of sight. 112 P.L. 95 § 333 (a). Each of these items reflect in favor of an exemption 

for me, Dan Johnson. My sUAS utilizes four (4) counter-rotating propellers for balance, control and 

stability. My sUAS is equipped with GPS and auto return safety technology. Weighing less than five (5) 

pounds (far below the maximum 55 pound limit); including camera with gimbal. 

I, Dan Johnson, consider safety as upmost importance with every flight. My small unmanned aircraft is 

designed to hover in place via GPS and operate in less than a 16 knot (17 mph) wind. For safety, stability 

and fear of financial loss I will not fly in winds exceeding 14 knot (15 mph). Built in safety systems include 

a GPS mode that allows my sUAS to hover in place when radio controls are released. With three modes to 

choose from, I utilize the GPS Mode4 for aerial photography and videography. This is the safest, most 

reliable and stable mode to prevent accidents and hazards. When pilot communication is lost, the sUAS is 

designed to slowly descend to point of take-off. 

I do not operate my sUAS near airports, Hospitals nor Police heliports, and do not operate near areas where 

general public is within thirty to one hundred (30-100) yards depending on location, conditions and 

weather. I am constantly on alert for any manned aircraft (Police/Medical helicopters, etc.) and prepared to 

land / abort immediately to the nearest and safest ground point should a manned aircraft approach my 

location or I suspect manned aircraft may approach near my location. My sUAS is capable of vertical and 

horizontal operations, and are flown only within my line of sight of me, as the remote control pilot. 

Utilizing battery power rather than combustible fuels, flights generally last between ten (10) to fifteen (15) 

minutes, with an altitude under two hundred (200) feet. I, Dan Johnson, utilize a fresh fully charged battery 

with each flight as a safety precaution; full flight time limit for each battery is twenty (20) to twenty-five 

(25) minutes as tested. 

I do not operate my sUAS at or below the manufacturer recommend minimum charge levels for operation; 

preferring to remain well within a safe operating range to insure adequate communication between radio 

control and sUAS to eliminate potential for crash, loss of control or hazards. Reserve batteries are at hand 

with each exercise to insure replacement for sufficient safe level of operation. I do not believe in taking risk 

that may cause a crash, which could create hazards to the public / property / manned aircraft, and have no 

desire to lose an investment. I have done scores of practice flights in remote areas as a hobbyist simulating 

flights for future commercial use to gain familiarization with the characteristics of this specific sUAS’s 

performance under different temperature and weather conditions. All for the sake of safety. 
I, Dan Johnson, am extremely cautious when operating of my sUAS / ultra-lightweight unmanned aircraft 

and will not “create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public.” 112 P.L. 95 § 333 (b). 

Given the small size and weight of my sUAS it falls well within Congress’s contemplated safety zone when 

it promulgated the Reform Act and the corresponding directive to integrate sUASs into the national 

airspace system. My, Dan Johnson’ sUAS, used in hobby flight, has a demonstrable safety record and does 

not pose any threat to the general public or national security. 

IV. How Dan Johnson’s Request Will Benefit the Public As A Whole: 

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

helicopters. For small budget productions the expense of such aerial photography and videography is cost 

prohibitive. Only larger companies can afford to absorb such expense. Manned aircraft pose a threat to the 

public through the potential of a catastrophic crash. My, Dan Johnson's, sUAS poses no such threat since 

size and lack of combustible fuel alleviates any potential threat to the public. 

Congress has already proclaimed that it is in the public’s interest to integrate commercially flown sUASs 

into the national airspace system, hence the passing of the Reform Act. Granting my, Dan Johnson’s, 

exemption request furthers the public interest through academic/visual awareness of the photography and 

videography fields throughout the Grand Rapids area. My ultra-lightweights UAS is battery powered and 

creates no emissions that can harm the environment. The consequence of my ultra-lightweights UAS 

crashing is far less than a full size helicopter or fixed wing aircraft; which are heavy, contain combustible 

fuel and can cause catastrophic devastation to the public. 

The public’s interest is furthered by minimizing ecological and crash threat by permitting aerial 

photography and videography captured through my battery operated ultra-lightweights UAS's. Permitting 

me, Dan Johnson, to immediately fly within national air space furthers economic growth. Granting my 

exemption request substantially furthers the economic impact for the Grand Rapids area for companies 

looking to use aerial photography and videography, both of which serve as a stimulus to the community. 

V. Reasons Why Dan Johnson’s Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect Safety Or How The Exemption 

Will Provide a Level of Safety At Least Equal To Existing Rule: 

My, Dan Johnson’s, exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the contrary, for the reasons stated 

permitting me, Dan Johnson, to log more flight time in FAA controlled airspace, with communication with 

the FAA, will allow me to contribute to the innovation and implementation of new and novel, as of yet 

undiscovered safety protocols for photographers and videographers for development in cooperation with 

the FAA. 

In addition I, Dan Johnson, submit the following representations of enhancements to current aerial 

photography/videography. My sUAS weighs less than 5 pounds complete with a small ultra-lightweight 

high quality camera; I only operate my sUAS below 400 feet (within the 400 foot permissible ceiling set by 

the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012); My sUAS only operates for ten (10) to twenty (20) 

minutes per flight; I land my sUAS prior to manufacturer recommended minimum level of battery power; 

I pilot my sUAS through remote control only by visual line of sight; My sUAS has GPS, a flight safety 

feature whereby it hovers and then slowly lands if communication with the remote control pilot is lost; I 

actively analyze flight data and other sources of information to constantly update and enhance safety 

protocols; I only operate in reasonably safe environment away from airports and areas with large groups of 

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

importance; I always obtain all necessary permissions prior to operation; and, I have procedures in place 

to abort flights in the event of safety breaches or potential danger. 

My, Dan Johnson’s, safety protocols provide a level of safety equal to or exceeding existing rules. It is 

important to note that absent the integration of commercial sUAS into our national airspace system, 

helicopters are the primary means of aerial photography and videography. While the safety record of such 

helicopters is remarkably astounding, there has been incidents involving loss of life as well as extensive 

property damage; it is far safer to operate a battery powered ultra-lightweight sUAS. 
First, the potential loss of life is diminished because sUASs carry no people on board and I only operate my 

sUAS in specific areas away from mass populations. Second, there is no fuel on board a sUAS and thus 

the potential for fire or explosions is greatly diminished. Third, the small size and extreme maneuverability 

of my sUAS allow me to remotely pilot away from and avoid hazards quickly and safely. Lastly, given its 

small size and weight, even when close enough to capture amazing images, my sUAS need not be so close 

to the objects they are focused on through the technology and use of post editing software allowing 

panning, tilting and zooming. 

Accordingly, my sUAS has been experimentally operated for familiarization/competency and will continue 

to operate at and above current safety levels. 

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

A. 14 C.F.R. 21 and 14 C.F.R. 91: Airworthiness Certificates, Manuals and the Like. 14 C.F.R. 21, Subpart 

H, entitled Airworthiness Certificates, sets forth requirements for procurement of necessary airworthiness 

certificates in relation to FAR § 91.203(a)(1). The size, weight and enclosed operational area of my, Dan 

Johnson’s, sUAS permits exemption from Part 21 because my sUAS meets (and exceeds) an equivalent 

level of safety pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act. The FAA is authorized to exempt aircraft from 

the airworthiness certificate requirement under both the Act (49 U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the 

Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit the FAA to exempt sUASs from the airworthiness certificate 

requirement in consideration of the weight, size, speed, maneuverability and proximity to areas such as 

airports and dense populations. My, Dan Johnson’, current and projected sUASs meets or exceeds each of 

the elements. 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an airworthiness certificate. 

As no such certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated by the FARs, this Regulation is 

inapplicable. B. C. D. E. 14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. As there 

are no on board pilots or passengers, and given the size of the sUASs, this Regulation is inapplicable. An 

equivalent level of safety will be achieved by maintaining a safety/flight manual delineating areas of where 

safety can be defined.5 The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this regulation in Exemption Nos. 

8607, 8737, 8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167, 10167A, 10602, 10700 and 32827. 14 C.F.R. § 

91.121 regarding altimeter settings is inapplicable insofar as my sUAS utilizes electronic global positioning 

systems with a barometric sensor. 14 C.F.R. § 91.203 (a) and (b) provides for the carrying of civil aircraft 

certifications and registrations. They are inapplicable for the same reasons described above. The equivalent 

level of safety will be achieved by maintaining any such required certifications and registrations by me, 

Dan Johnson. 14 C.F.R. § 45.23: Marking of the Aircraft. Applicable Codes of Federal Regulation require 

aircraft to be marked according to certain specifications. My sUASs are, by definition, unmanned. They 

therefore do not have a cabin, cockpit or pilot station on which to mark certain words or phrases. Further, 

two-inch lettering is difficult to place on such small aircraft with dimensions smaller that minimal lettering 

requirement. Regardless, I will mark the sUASs in the largest possible lettering by placing the word 

“EXPERIMENTAL” on its fuselage as required by 14 C.F.R. §45.29 (f) so that I the pilot, or anyone 

assisting me as a spotter with the UAV will see the markings. The FAA has previously issued exemptions 

to this regulation through Exemptions Nos. 8738, 10167, 10167A and 10700. 14 C.F.R. § 61.113: Private 

Pilot Privileges and Limitations: PIC. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) & (b), private pilots are limited 

to non-commercial operations. I, Dan Johnson, can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by 

current Regulations because my sUAS does not carry any pilots or passengers. Further, while helpful, a 

pilot license will not ensure remote control piloting skills. The risks attended to the operation of my sUAS 

is far less than the risk levels inherent in the commercial activities outlined in 14 C.F.R. § 61, et seq. Thus, 

allowing me, Dan Johnson, to operate my sUAS meet and exceed current safety levels in relation to 14 

C.F.R. §61.113 (a) & (b). 14 C.F.R. 91.119: Minimum Safe Altitudes. 14 C.F.R. § 91.119 prescribes safe 

altitudes for the operation of civil aircraft. It allows helicopters to be operated at lower altitudes in certain 

conditions. My sUAS will never operate at an altitude greater than 400 AGL. I, Dan Johnson, will however 

operate my sUAS in safe areas away from public and traffic, providing a level of safety at least equivalent 

to or below those in relation to minimum safe altitudes. Given the size, weight, maneuverability and speed 

of my sUAS, an equivalent or higher level of safety will be achieved. 14 C.F.R. 91.405 (a); 407 (a) (1); 409 

(a) (2); 417(a) & (b): Maintenance Inspections.The above-cited Regulations require, amongst other things, 

aircraft owners and operators to “have [the] aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and 
shall between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have discrepancies 

repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter. . . .” 

These Regulations only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. They will not, therefore, apply to 

my, Dan Johnson', sUAS. However, as a safety precaution I thoroughly inspect my sUAS before and after 

each flight. 

The FAA May Publish in the Federal Register: A. 14 C.F.R. 21 and 14 C.F.R. 91: Airworthiness 

Certificates, Manuals and The Like. 14 C.F.R. 21, Subpart H, entitled Airworthiness Certificates, sets forth 

requirements for procurement of necessary airworthiness certificates in relation to FAR § 91.203(a)(1). The 

size, weight and enclosed operational area of my sUAS permits exemption from Part 21 because my, Dan 

Johnson’s, sUAS meets an equivalent level of safety pursuant to Section 333 of the Reform Act. The FAA 

is authorized to exempt aircraft from the airworthiness certificate requirement under both the Act (49 

U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act. Both pieces of legislation permit the FAA to 

exempt sUASs from the airworthiness certificate requirement in consideration of the weight, size, speed, 

maneuverability and proximity to areas such as airports and dense populations. My sUAS meets or exceeds 

each of the elements. 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an airworthiness 

certificate. As no such certificate will be applicable in the form contemplated by the FARs, this Regulation 

is inapplicable. 14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft. As there are no 

pilots or passengers, and given the size of the sUASs, this Regulation is inapplicable. An equivalent level 

of safety will be achieved by maintaining a manual. The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this 

regulation in Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 8738, 9299, 9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167, maintenance program 

that involves regular software updates and curative measures for any damaged hardware. Therefore, an 

equivalent level of safety will be achieved. 

In summary, Dan Johnson seeks an exemption from the following Regulations: 

14 C.F.R. 21, subpart H; 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) & (b); 14 C.F.R. §

91.7 (a); 14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b)(2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.103(b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.109; 14 C.F.R. §

91.119; 14 C.F.R. § 91.121; 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a); 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.203(a) and (b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.405 (a); 

14 C.F.R. § 91.407 (a)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 91.409 (a)(2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.409 (a ) (2); and, 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.417 

(a) & (b) to commercially operate my, Dan Johnson', small unmanned vehicle/lightweight unmanned 

aircraft vehicle in community awareness and aerial photography and videography operations. Currently, 

area awareness and aerial photography and videography relies primarily on the use of larger aircraft 

running on combustible fuel. Posing potential risk to the public. Granting my, Dan Johnson’, request for 

exemption will reduce current risk levels and thereby enhance safety. My sUAS craft does not contain 

potentially explosive fuel, is smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than conventional aircraft with much 

less flight time. Further, I operate at lower altitudes and in controlled airspace eliminating potential public 

risk flying to and from established air fields. I, Dan Johnson, have been informally analyzing flight 

information and will compile safety protocols and the implementation of a flight operations manual that 

exceeds currently accepted means and methods for safe flight. Formal collection of information shared with 

the FAA will enhance the FAA's internal efforts to establish protocols for complying with the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. There are no personnel on-board my, Dan Johnson’s, sUAS and 

therefore the likelihood of death or serious bodily injury is significantly diminished. My, Dan Johnson’s, 

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

provide an equivalent level of safety as that achieved under current FARs. Accordingly I, Dan Johnson, 

respectfully request that the FAA grant my exemption request and am willing to cooperate in sharing 

information to benefit the FAA, safety of manned aircraft, and the general public at large. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dan Johnson, Photographer / Videographer 

DSJ, LLC

5244 Cottondale St. SW

Wyoming, MI. 49519