November 1, 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, 

Anthony Busack hereby petitions the Secretary of Transportation and Federal Aviation 

Administration for exemption to the above referenced and below more fully described 

Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”), that currently may or may not apply to the 

recreational/business operations of model aircraft including small unmanned aerial 

systems (“UASs). 

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

procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, Petition that I, Anthony Busack, an owner 

and operator of small unmanned aircraft, be exempted from the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (“FARs”) listed below so that I, Anthony Busack, may operate my small 

ultra lightweight unmanned aircraft system (“UAS”) commercially in airspace regulated 

by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). 

As described herein I, Anthony Busack, have over 200hrs of experience in flying UAVs 

over the past two years typically flying two other DJI Phantom2. I have added a DJI 

Inspire 1 quadcopter UAS to my inventory with intent to conduct aerial 

photography/Inspection included but not limited to the following; Business Operations: 

over land, waterways, and oceans; operation over/in nonrestricted National Parks, 

National Forests, flight in nonnavigable airspace, using nonintrusive recording devices, 

operation in otherwise unrestricted U.S. States/Territories for aerial 

videography/cinematography for commercial operation and to enhance academic 

community awareness for those individuals and companies unfamiliar with the 

geographical layout of such areas. 

As described more fully below, the requested exemption would permit the operation of 

UAS under controlled conditions in airspace that is 1) limited; 2) predetermined in areas 

away from general public, airports, heliports and vehicular traffic for community videos, 

and within property boundaries for individual homeowner real estate listing 

videos/photos; and 3) controlled as to access. The exemption would also provide safety 

enhancements to the already safe operations within the aerial photography, film and 

television industry presently using conventional aircraft and small, unmanned and 

relatively inexpensive UASs. 

Currently, similar lightweight, remote controlled UAS's are legally operated by 

unmonitored amateur hobbyists with no safety plan or controls in place to prevent 

catastrophe. I operate my UAS within all safety protocols and controls to avoid and 

prevent public hazard, as well as manned aircraft hazards/catastrophe. This will act to 
further safety protocols exclusive to lightweight UAS's specific to aerial video and 

photography usage as I 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 request comports with the Secretary of Transportation’s (FAA 

Administrator’s) responsibilities and authority to not only integrate UAS's into the 

national airspace system, but to “...establish requirements for the safe operation of such 

aircraft systems [UAS's] in the national airspace system” under Section 333(c) of the 

Reform Act specific to the use of UAS's for commercial purposes. Further I will conduct 

my operations in compliance with the protocols described herein or as otherwise 

established by the FAA. 

For the reasons stated below I respectfully request the grant of an exemption allowing 

me to operate ultra lightweight, remote controlled UAS’s for academic community 

awareness, benefit/stimulate tourism within Indiana, general aerial photography, and to 

enhance real estate listing videos for homeowners who cannot afford expensive 

manned aircraft for the same purpose, all 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. 

I. Contact Information: 

Anthony Busack

9810 Gulfstream Dr, Fishers, IN 46037 Mobile: (317) 665-0395 Email: 

abusack@yahoo.com 

The Specific Sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations From Which 

Anthony Busack Requests Exemption are:

regulation14 CFR 2114 C.F.R. 45.23(b);

14 CFR 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;

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) & (b); 14 C.F.R. 91.405 (a);

14 CFR 407 (a) (1);

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

III. The Extent of relief Anthony Busack seeks and the Reason He Seeks Such 

Relief: 

I, Anthony Busack, submit this application in accordance with the Reform Act, 112 P.L. 

95 §§ 331334, seeking relief from any currently applicable FARs operating to prevent 

me, Anthony Busack, 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 ultra light weight UAS meets the definition of 
“small unmanned aircraft” as defined in Section 331 and therefore the integration of my 

ultra light weight UAS is expressly contemplated by the Reform Act. I would like to 

operate my ultra lightweight UAS 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 UAS aerial video and photography. The Reform Act guides the Secretary 

in determining the types of UASs that may operate safely in our national airspace 

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

UAS's; Whether the UAS will be operated near airports or heavily populated areas; and, 

Whether the UAS 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, Anthony Busack. My UAS utilizes four (4) 

counterrotating propellers for balance, control and stability. My UAS is equipped with 

GPS and auto return safety technology. Weighing less than seven (7) pounds (far below 

the maximum 55 pound limit); including camera with gimbal. 

I consider safety as foremost with each flight. My small unmanned aircraft is designed to 

hover in place via GPS and operate in less than a 10 m/s wind knot (approx 22 mph) 

wind. For safety, stability and fear of financial loss I will not fly in winds exceeding 7 m/s 

(15 mph). Built in safety systems include a GPS mode that allows my UAS to hover in 

place when radio controls are lost. With three modes to choose from, I utilize the 

Positioning Mode1for aerial videography/photography. This is the safest, most reliable 

and stable mode to prevent accident and hazard. When pilot communication is lost UAS 

is designed slowly descend to point of takeoff , or near the control transmitter when 

utilizing Dynamic Mode. I do not operate my UAS near airports, Hospitals nor Police 

heliports, and do not operate near areas where general public is within fifty to one 

hundred (50-100) 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 

UAS is capable of vertical and horizontal operations, and are flown only within my line of 

sight, as the remote control pilot. Utilizing battery power rather than combustible fuels, 

flights generally last between eight (8) to twelve (12) minutes, with an altitude under two 

hundred fifty (250) feet. 

I utilize a fresh fully charged battery with each flight as a safety precaution; full flight 

time limit for each battery is eighteen (18) to twenty two (22) minutes as tested. I do not 

operate my UAS at or below manufacture recommend minimum charge levels for 

operation; preferring to remain well within a safe operating range to insure adequate 

communication between radio control and UAS to eliminate potential for crash, loss of 

control or hazard. 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, that could create hazard to the public/property/manned aircraft, and 

have no desire to lose an investment. I have clocked over 200 hours of personal use to 

gain familiarization with the characteristics of this specific UAS's performance under 

 

1 Positioning Mode includes GPS, Vision Positioning Sensors, and Barometer for position hold, 

self-leveling, altitude command, GPS, return to home and dynamic return to home feature, and 

safety control to return home or land in the event of communication interruption between RC 

transmitter and UAS. See “Flight Mode” in Inspire 1 User Manual
different temperature and weather conditions. I also practice computerized simulated 

flights to maintain adequate skills and response reflex time; all for the sake of safety. 

I am extremely cautious when operating of my UAS/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 UAS it falls well within 

Congress’s contemplated safety zone when it promulgated the Reform Act and the 

corresponding directive to integrate UAS's into the national airspace system. My UAS, 

the DJI Inspire 1, used in hobby flight, has a demonstrable safety record and does not 

pose any threat to the general public or national security. 

IV. How Anthony Busack’s Request Will Benefit the Public As A Whole: 

Aerial videography for geographical awareness and for real estate marketing has been 

around for a long time through manned fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. For small 

budget real estate companies and average homeowners the expense of such aerial 

videography is cost prohibitive. Only large companies and high end Realtors or luxury 

homeowners can afford to absorb such expense, depriving non-luxury homeowners and 

lower budget Realtors from a valuable marketing tool. 

The public’s interest is additionally furthered by allowing small businesses in the tourism 

industry to afford the currently cost prohibitive aerial photography used by large 

international corporations. 

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

commercially flown UAS's into the national airspace system, hence the passing of the 

Reform Act. Granting my exemption request furthers the public interest through 

academic/visual awareness of the geographical benefits in and around the State of 

Indiana. My ultra light weight UAS is battery powered and creates no emissions that can 

harm the environment. The consequence of my ultra light weight 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. 

Manned aircraft can pose a threat to the public through potential catastrophic crash that 

many local communities have experienced in the past with military aircraft and 

medical/police helicopter crashes. These have resulted in a loss of life and endangered 

the public with combustible fuel that burned on impact. My UAS poses no such threat 

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

Additionally, this actually furthers the public’s interest by making it safer for business to 

conduct aerial photography and videography without such risks. 

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

aerial video/photo capture through my battery operated ultra light weight UAS's. 

Permitting me to immediately fly within national air space furthers economic growth. 

Granting my exemption request substantially furthers the economic impact within the 

State of Indiana for companies looking to relocate or build in Indiana as well as

individuals looking to relocate for career advancement through academic and 

geographical awareness. Both of which serve as a stimulus to the community. 

V. Reasons Why Anthony Busack’s Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect Safety

Or How The Exemption Will Provide a Level of Safety At Least Equal To Existing 

Rule: 
My exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the contrary, for the reasons stated 

permitting me 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 development in cooperation with 

the FAA. In addition I submit the following representations of enhancements to current 

aerial videography and photography: 

1. My UAS weighs less than 7 pounds complete with a small ultralight weight high 

quality camera; 

2. I only operate my UAS below 300 feet (well within the 400 foot permissible ceiling 

set by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012); 

3. My UAS only operates for 18-22 minutes per flight; 

4. I land my UAS prior to 20% Battery Remaining; 

5. I pilot my UAS through remote control only by line of sight; 

6. I pilot my UAS only with a visual observer;

7. My UAS has Failsafe RTH, a flight safety feature whereby it hovers and then 

slowly lands if communication with the remote control pilot is lost for 3 seconds; 

8. My UAS has GPS and Vision Positioning System utilizing two sonar sensors and 

one monocular camera for positioning and to identify the current aircraft’s 

position;

9. My UAS has a flight recorder and I actively analyze flight data and other sources 

of information to constantly update and enhance safety prototocols; (page 15 

User Manual)

10.I only operate in reasonably safe environment that are strictly controlled, are 

away from power lines, elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas;

11.I conduct extensive preflight inspections and protocol per the Inspire 1 User 

Manual;

12.I always obtain all necessary permissions prior to operation; 

13.I immediately abort flights in the event of potential danger;

14.I only operate my UAS well within “flight environment requirements” per page 45 

of the user manual & visual meteorological conditions (VMC) per user manual. 

15.I will not operate my UAS less than 500 feet below or less than 2000 feet 

horizontally from a cloud or when visibility is less than 2 statute miles from the 

PIC.

16.Only I, Anthony Busack, act as the Pilot in Command during flights;

17.I follow UAS manufacturer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, 

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements;

18.The operating documents/manual will be accessible during UAS operations and 

made available upon request;

My safety protocols provide a level of safety equal to or exceeding existing rules. It is 

important to note that absent the integration of commercial UAS into our national 

airspace system, helicopters are the primary means of aerial video and photography for 

community awareness, real estate, and marketing purposes. While the safety record of 

such helicopters is remarkably astounding, there have been incidents involving loss of 

life as well as extensive property damage; it is far safer to operate a battery powered 

ultra light weight UAS. 

 ● First, the potential loss of life is diminished because UAS's carry no people on board and I only 

operates my UAS in specific areas away from mass populations. 

 ● Second, there is no fuel on board a UAS and thus the potential for fire or explosions is greatly 

diminished. 
 ● Third, the small size and extreme maneuverability of my UAS allow me to remotely pilot away 

from and avoid hazards quickly and safely. 

 ● Fourth, given its small size and weight, even when close enough to capture amazing images, 

my UAS need not be so close to the objects they are focused on through the technology and use 

of post editing software allowing pan and zoom. 

Accordingly, my UAS has been experimentally operated for familiarization and 

competency and will continue to operate at and above current safety levels. 

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

1. 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 UAS permits exemption from Part 21 because my UAS 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 UAS's from the 

airworthiness certificate requirement in consideration of the weight, size, speed, maneuverability and 

proximity to areas such as airports and dense populations. My current and projected UAS's meet or 

exceed 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 on board pilots or 

passengers, and given the size of the UAS's, 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. 

10 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 in so far as my UAS 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, Anthony Busack. 

2. 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 UAS 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. The FAA has previously issued 

exemptions to this regulation through Exemptions Nos. 8738, 10167, 10167A and 10700. 

 3. 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 noncommercial operations. I, 

Anthony Busack, can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by current Regulations because 

my UAS does not carry any pilots or passengers. The risks attended to the operation of my UAS is far 

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

allowing me to operate my UAS meet and exceed current safety levels in relation to 14 C.F.R. §61.113 

(a) & (b). 
4. 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 UAS will never operate at an altitude greater than 

300 AGL; safely below the standard of 400 AGL. I will however operate my UAS 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 UAS, an equivalent or higher 

level of safety will be achieved. 

5. 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 UAS. However, as a safety precaution I inspect my UAS before and 

after each flight and maintained per the manufacturer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, 

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements. 

In summary, Anthony Busack 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 

lightweight unmanned aircraft system for aerial photography/Inspection/ included but not 

limited to the following; Business Operations: over land, waterways, and oceans; 

operation over/in non-restricted National Parks, National Forests, flight in non-navigable 

airspace, using nonintrusive recording devices, operation in otherwise unrestricted U.S. 

States/Territories for aerial videography/cinematography for commercial operation and 

to enhance academic community awareness for those individuals and companies 

unfamiliar with the geographical layout of such areas. Currently, area awareness and 

real estate aerial videography/photography relies primarily on the use of larger aircraft 

running on combustible fuel, posing potential risk to the public. Granting my request for 

exemption will reduce current risk levels and thereby enhance safety. My UAS does not 

contain potentially explosive fuel, is smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than 

conventional photographic 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 airfields. I have been 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 UAS and therefore the likelihood of death or serious bodily injury is significantly 

diminished. The operation of my UAS, weighing less than 7 pounds and travelling at 

lower speeds within limited areas will provide an equivalent level of safety as that 

achieved under current FARs. Accordingly I 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, 

Anthony Busack 9810 Gulfstream Dr. Fishers, IN 46037