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 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, George Kenner's, 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 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 auto 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 allows 
my UAS to hover in place when radio controls 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 descend 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. 

My 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, with 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 

investment. 

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 conditions. 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 “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.

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 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.

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 catastrophic 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 within 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 career 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 to 

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 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 that are strictly controlled, are 

away from power lines, elevated lights, airports and actively populated areas; I conduct extensive preflight inspections and protocol, during which safety carries primary 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 

exceeding 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 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. 

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 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, George Kenner’s, 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, 

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. 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. 

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 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. 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 the 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 operations. 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 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, 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 altitude 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 altitudes. 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 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 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 certificate 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 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 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 community 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 relies 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 potentially 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 personnel 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 within 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 responder 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, and 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 within 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 utilization. In fact the UAS I am asking be part of 
my 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 flight 

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 you 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