July 27, 2015

Exemption No. 12173

Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–1732

Mr. John Harvey

Ronin Aero

413 Wrought Iron Drive

Harker Heights, TX 76548

Dear Mr. Harvey:

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 May 1, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an 

exemption. You requested to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct aerial 

data collection.

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 are the DJI Phantom 2 and DJI Inspire 1.

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 

aircraft and its operation, the Secretary of Transportation has determined that this aircraft 
2

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, Mr. John Harvey 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.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of exemption, Mr. John Harvey is hereafter referred to as the operator.

 

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

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 and 

DJI Inspire 1 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. 

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 
4

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 

operated under this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and 

maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and structures. PIC 
5

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 

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

be as large as practicable.
6

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.

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

as documented in this grant of exemption.
7

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.

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosures
1

1 May 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 Mr. Duncan,

I, John Harvey, 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, John Harvey, an owner 

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

Regulations	(“FARs”)	listed below so that I, John Harvey, may operate my small ultralightweight unmanned aircraft system (“UAS”)	commercially	in	airspace	regulated	by	the	

Federal	Aviation	Administration	(“FAA”).

As described herein I, John Harvey, am a photographer/videographer/cinematographer; 

experienced in flying hobby aircraft for recreational purposes. I have added a sUAS quadcopter

to my inventory equipped with a self-contained camera with intent for aerial photography, 

videography, cinematography; following exemption and approval by the FAA.

I have over 25 years of experience as an FAA Certified Air Traffic Control Specialist and Air 

Traffic Control Specialist Examiner in the U.S. Army. I have extensive experience controlling 

aircraft in VFR/IFR conditions in mixed-type/platform aircraft environments. I have an 

undergraduate degree in Aviation and Airway Science and a Graduate Degree in Computer 

Information Systems. I am extremely well versed in the National Airspace System and the 

technologies, operating theories, and flight characteristics of the modern sUAS. I have flown RC 

electric helicopters for over five (5) years without incident. In addition I have flown multiple 

sUAS quadcopters for over a year without incident. I am continually educating myself in this 

dynamic environment and I am committed to safety with each flight. 

Approval of my exemption request would permit operation of an ultra-light weight, unmanned 

(piloted by remote control) and comparatively inexpensive sUAS(s) in:

• Tightly controlled and limited airspace. 

• Predetermined in areas away from general public, airports, heliports and vehicular traffic 

for community videos, and within property boundaries for individual homeowner for 

aerial photography and videography. 

Currently, similar lightweight, remote controlled sUASs are legally operated by unmonitored 
2

amateur hobbyists with no safety plan or controls in place to prevent catastrophe. I, John Harvey, 

have personally instilled 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 sUAS's specific to photography & videography usage as I, John Harvey, 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, John Harvey’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, John Harvey, 

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

established by the FAA. For the reasons stated below I, John Harvey, 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 – DJI	Phantom 2 (User Manual 1.2), DJI Phantom 2 Advanced Manual 

(v1.4), DJI Inspire 1 (User Manual v1.2)

I. Contact Information:

John Harvey

Ronin Aero

413 Wrought Iron Dr.

Harker Heights, TX 76548

Mobile: (254) 423-4824

Email: jrharvey.13@gmail.com

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

Harvey 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 John Harvey seeks and the Reason He Seeks Such Relief:
3

I, John Harvey, 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, John Harvey, 

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,	

John Harvey’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 ultralightweight

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, John Harvey. 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, John Harvey, 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 (GPS Mode includes safe circle for 

operation, position hold, self-leveling, altitude command, GPS, return home feature, and safety

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

transmitter and sUAS. See Appendix A - Operator Manual) 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, John Harvey, 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 recommended

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 
4

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. I also practice computerized 

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

I, John Harvey, 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, John Harvey’s

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 John Harvey’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, 

John Harvey'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, John Harvey’s ,exemption request furthers the public 

interest through academic/visual awareness of the photography and videography fields worldwide. 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, John Harvey, to immediately fly 

within national airspace furthers economic growth. Granting my exemption request substantially 

furthers the economic impact for U.S. companies looking to use aerial photography and 

videography, both of which serve as a stimulus to the community.

V. Reasons Why John Harvey’s Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect Safety Or How The

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

My, John Harvey’s , exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the contrary, for the 

reasons stated permitting me, John Harvey, 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, John Harvey, submit 

the following representations of enhancements to current aerial photography/videography.
5

• 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 fifteen (15) 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 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 

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, John Harvey’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 continueto 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, John Harvey’ , 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 
6

requirement under both the Act (49U.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, John Harvey’s , 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. 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 (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, John Harvey.

B. 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.

C. 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, John Harvey, 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, John Harvey, to operate my sUAS meet and exceed 

current safety levels in relation to 14 C.F.R. §61.113 (a) & (b).

D. 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, John Harvey, 

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.
7

E. 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. . . .”Appendix D – Flight Log.	These Regulations only apply 

to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. They will not, therefore, apply to my, John Harvey's, 

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, John Harvey’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, John Harvey 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, John Harvey', 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, John Harvey’s , 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, John Harvey, have been informally analyzing 
8

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, John Harvey’s , sUAS and therefore the likelihood of death or 

serious bodily injury is significantly diminished. My, John Harvey’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, John Harvey,

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.

Very Respectfully,

John Harvey

PIC|Photographer|Cinematographer

Ronin Aero

413 Wrought Iron Dr.

Harker Heights, TX 76548