George Kenner

3308 Razuki Lane
Jamul,Ca.
Telephone 619

- 723

- 5714
e mail g.kenner@yahoo.com

August 11, 2015

United States Department of Transportation, Docket Operations
West Building Ground Floor Room W

- 12

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

George Kenner

3308 Razuki Lane
Jamul, Ca. 91935

619

- 723

- 5714
g.kenner@yahoo.com

Petition for Exemption

- Section 333. Special Rules for Certain UnManned Aircraft Systems ( H.R.658

- 65) As Provided for in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112

-95 (P.L. 112

- 95)II. The Specific Sections of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations From Which George Kenner

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.

I, George Kenner, 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, George Kenner, contemplated commercial cinematic, academic and other flight ope rations 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, George Kenner's, ultra light weig ht 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 light weight 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 real estate related UAS aerial video and photography.

The UAS (Drone) that I currently own and operate as a hobbyist. Is the 3D Robotics Solo that has meet all current establish standards and has been previously authorized by your agency. The Reform Act guides the Secretary in determining the types of UAS's 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, George Kenner. My UAS utilizes four (4) counter

- rotating propellers for balance, control and stability. My UAS is equipped with GPS and a uto return safety technology. Weighing less than five (5) pounds (far below the maximum 55 pound limit); including camera with gimbal. I, Randy Harris, considers safety as foremost with each flight. My small unmanned aircraft is designed to hover in place via GPS and operate in less than a 24 knot (15 mph) wind. For safety, stability and fear of financial loss I will not fly in winds exceeding 16 kph (10 mph). Built in safety systems include a GPS mode that allowsmy UAS to hover in place when radio control s are released. With three modes to choose from, I utilize

the Smart Mode 5 for 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 desc end to point of take off. 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.

M y UAS 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 three (3) to seven (7) minutes, wit h an altitude under one hundred (100) feet.

I, George Kenner, utilize a fresh fully charged battery with each flight as a safety precaution; full flight time limit for each battery is nine (9) to twelve (12) 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 inv estment.

I have clocked numerous practice flights in remote areas as a hobbyist simulating flights for future commercial use to gain familiarization with the characteristics of this specific UAS's performance under different temperature and weather condi tions. I also practice computerized simulated flights to maintain adequate skills and response reflex time. All for the sake of safety. I, George Kenner, am extremely cautious when operating of my UAS/ultra light weight unmanned aircraft and will not “crea te 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 directiv e to integrate UAS's into the national airspace system.

George Kenner UAS, used in hobby flight, has a demonstrable safety record and does not pose any threat to the general public or national security. IV. How George Kenner’s Request Will Benefit thePu blic 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 su ch 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.

Manned aircraft pose a threat to the public through potential catastrophic crash that the East Texas community. Each resulting in loss of life. Each with combustible fuel that exploded and burned on impact. Police helicopters have made emergency hard landings within city limits. My, George Kenners, UAS pose 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 UAS's into the national airspace system, hence the passing of the Reform Act. Granting my,George Kenner’s, exemption request furthers the public interest through academic/visual awareness of the geographical benefits in and around the San Diego area. 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 catastroph ic devastation to the public. 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, George Kenner , to immediately fly with in national air space furthers economic growth. Granting my exemption request substantially furthers the economic impact for the San Diego community for companies looking to relocate or build in the area as well as individuals looking to relocate for care er advancement through academic and geographical awareness.

Both of which serve as a stimulus to the community. V. Reasons Why George Kenner’s Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect Safety or How the Exemption Will Provide a Level of Safety At Least Equal t o Existing Rule: My, George Kenner’s, exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the contrary, for the reasons stated permitting me, George Kenner, 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 Realtors that can be embraced by the NAR, for development in cooperation with the FAA.

In addition I, George Kenner, submit the following representations of enhancements to current aerial videography and photography for real estate: My UAS weighs less than 5 pounds complete with a small ultra light weight high quality GoPro 4+ Black camera; I only operate my UAS below 200 feet (well within the 400 foot permissible ceiling set by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012); my UAS only operate for 3

- 7 minutes per flight; I land my UAS prior to manufacturer recommended minimum level of battery power; I pilot my UAS through remote control only by line of sight; My UAS has GPS a flight safety feature whereby it hovers and then slowly lands if communication with the remote controlpilot is lost; I actively analyze flight data and other sources of information to constantly update and

enhance safety p rotocols; I only operate in reasonably safe environment that are strictly controlled, are away from power lines, elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas; I conduct extensive pre

flight inspections and protocol, during which safety carries pr imary importance; I always obtains 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, Randy safety protocols provide a level of safety equal to or exceedin g existing rules. Might I add that the precautions that I take are far in excess of anything that is currently controlled for the hobbyist who uses the exact same UAS. Were I not looking to this exemption for the indirect supplementation of my industry and business, utilization or photographs of the same thing taken by a hobbyist would not fall under scrutiny.

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 and real estate. While the safety record of such helicopters is remarkable , there has been local incident 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 potenti al 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.

Lastly, 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/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 Certifica tes, 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, George Kenner’s, UAS permits exemption from Part 21 because my UAS meets (and exce eds) 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, George Kenner’s, 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. 1 4 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 giventhe 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.

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 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, George Kenner. 14 C.F.R. § 45.23: Marking of The Aircraft. Applicable Codes of Federal Regulation require aircraft to be marked according to certain specification s. 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. Regardless, I will mark its UASs 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 the pilot, anyone assisting or even members of the public, will see th e markings. This is only speculative but I feel the FAA has utilized the logic that with line of site requirements anyone who would want to speak to the operators, including authorities, would be able to approach them.

It is my understanding 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 operatio ns. I, George Kenner, can achieve an equivalent level of safety as achieved by current Regulations because my UAS does not carry any pilots or passengers. Further, while helpful, a pilot license will not ensure remote control piloting skills. The risks att ended 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, George Kenner, to operate my UAS 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 UAS will never operate at an alt itude greater than 200 AGL; safely below the standard of 400 AGL.

I, George Kenner, 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 alti tudes. Given the size, weight, maneuverability and speed of my UAS, 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, among 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, George Kenner’s, UAS. However, as a safety precaution I inspect my UAS before and after each flight. As summa ry 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 airworthi ness 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, George Kenner’ s, UAS 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 UAS's from the airworthiness certifica te requirement in consideration of the weight, size, speed, maneuverability and proximity to areas such as airports and dense populations.

My UAS meets or exceeds each of the elements. 14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an a irworthiness 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, an d given the size of the UAS's, 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, George Kenner 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, George Kenner, small unmanned vehicle/lightweight unmanned aircraft vehicle in commun ity awareness and real estate operations, and to develop economic platforms for real estate to enhance the experience of those seeking to relocate to the San Diego County Area.

Currently, area awareness and real estate aerial videography/photography reli es primarily on the use of larger aircraft running on combustible fuel. Posing potential risk to the public. Granting my, George Kenner’s, request for exemption will reduce current risk levels and thereby enhance safety. My UAS craft does not contain poten tially explosive fuel, is smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than conventional real estate video and 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 air fields.I, George Kenner, have been analyzing flight information, have established safety protocols in the form

of Pre flight check lists, that take into consideration physical and electro magnetic interference points, before flight. The UAS that we are asking be exempted is the 3D Robotics Solo drone, also has a flight log system that could be inspected for violations of height, and speed limitations that I have seen imposed on other 333 Exemptions.

There are no pe rsonnel on board my, George Kenner’s, UAS and therefore the likelihood of death or serious bodily injury is significantly diminished if not eliminated, My, George Kenner’s, operation of my UAS, weighing less than 5 pounds and travelling at lower speeds wi thin limited areas will provide an equivalent level of safety as that achieved under current FARs..

As a retired Federal Law Enforcement Agent, I am well aware of the rules of privacy and curtilage, the area where there is an expectation of privacy. My planned utilization of this technology is to enhance view and perspective from areas that are already accessible to public view. Oddly, but maybe not so, every complaint I have heard about the utilization of UAS has been from the hobbyist not anyone that would take the time to gain a FAA exemption or wanted to utilize the video or photographic products, for business. To interfere with first responders to and emergency is not anything that I would ever even contemplate. I have been a first responde r and understand the concerns with any interference with their duties.

In Summation

With the proliferation of this technology, I understand the difficult situation that the FAA is in, and I want to be respectful of the regulators and the current law, an d the overall good of the public. It is for that reason I ask for the exemption. I am also aware that exemptions are now being made to other professionals in my industry and there have been no problems with the utilization of the technology when used wit hin the line of site and height restrictions.

In very large part (over 90 percent) my flights will be limited to an height of about 50 feet and a distance of about 200 feet from the control module, always being in a line of sight of the UAS. My height and distance utilization are in fact less than the current standard set in FAA stated standards and already issued 333 Exemptions. Short panning shots or single pictures taken on sunny days of landscape subjects or buildings, is scope of my planned uti lization. In fact the UAS I am asking be part ofmy exemption is capable of being set to fixed points and flying between them on a feature called cable

cam. This safety feature I believe further protects public safety and privacy, allowing for direct fli ght routes and a level of operator control not available on all UAS. In fact this will greatly reduce flight time in obtaining the desired footage or pictures, advancing safety.

I respectfully request that the FAA grant my exemption request, I assure yo u I will be respectful of your confidence in my ability to operate this commercial pursuit, keeping public safety and established privacy standards at the forefront of my all application (flights) of the UAS. . Oddly, but maybe not so, every complaint I have heard about the utilization of UAS has been from a “hobbyist” not anyone that would take the time to gain a FAA exemption or wanted to utilize the video or photographic product, for business. It is for that reason I am confident you will issue me the 333 Exemption.

Should I have missed a component necessary for consideration please contact me so I may make an amendment to this application.

Respectfully,
George Kenner

619

- 723

- 5714