UNITED	STATES	OF	AMERICA	

DEPARTMENT	OF	TRANSPORTATION	

FEDERAL	AVIATION	ADMINISTRATION	

WASHINGTON	DC	

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF EXEMPTION OF:

LUCAS PAUL GRAY

FOR AN EXEMPTION SEEKING RELEIF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF 

TITLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS:

CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF THE “PHANTOM 3 

PROFESSIONAL” UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM PURSUANT TO SECTION 

333 OF

THE	FAA	MODERNIZATION	AND	REFORM	ACT	OF	2012	(PUBLIC	LAW	112-95)	

Submitted:	February	23,	2016	

By:	

CHARLES	BARNETT,	III

BARNETT	&	BORTH,	LLC

800	Waukegan	Road,	Suite	200	

Glenview,	IL	60025	

o.847.724.5520	

f.815.356.7042	

On	Behalf	of:	

LUCAS	PAUL	GRAY

1355	Hammett	Hill	Rd.	

Bowling	Green,	KY	42101	

o.270.599.1364

c.270.202.3937
Table of Contents 

SUMMARY 3 ......................................................................................................................................

PROPOSED OPERATIONS 3 .........................................................................................................

THE	PHANTOM	3	PROFESSIONAL	UAS	 3	 .......................................................................................................

THE	OPERATOR	 4	 .....................................................................................................................................................

OPERATING	PARAMETERS	 4	 ...............................................................................................................................

REGULATORY STATEMENT 5 .....................................................................................................

PETITIONER’S	CONTACT	INFORMATION	(14	C.F.R.	§	11.81(A))	 5	 ......................................................

SECTIONS	OF	TITLE	14	CODE	OF	FEDERAL	REGULATIONS	FOR	WHICH	RELIEF	IS	

SOUGHT	(14	C.F.R.	§	11.81(B))	 6	 ........................................................................................................................

EXTENT	OF	RELEIF	SOUGHT	(14	C.F.R.	§	11.81(C))	 11	 ...........................................................................

STATEMENT	OF	PUBLIC	INTEREST	(14	C.F.R.	§	11.81(D))	 12	 ..............................................................

REASONS	WHY	A	GRANT	OF	THIS	EXEMPTION	WILL	NOT	AFFECT	PUBLIC	SAFETY	(14	

C.F.R.	§	11.81(E))	 14	 .................................................................................................................................................

FEDERAL	REGISTRY	SUMMARY	(14	C.F.R.	§	11.81(F))	 18	 ......................................................................

ADDITIONAL	INFORMATION	IN	SUPPORT	(14	C.F.R.	§	11.81(G))	 18	 ................................................

Documents	and	Manuals	 18	 .................................................................................................................................

Proposed	speci<ic	operating	limitations	 18	 ...................................................................................................

CONCLUSION 26 .............................................................................................................................
SUMMARY 

Petitioner, Lucas Paul Gray, is seeking exemption from the requirements of Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 61 Sections 61.113(a) and (b), Part 91 Sections 

91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 

91.417(a) and (b) in order to commercially operate the Phantom 3 Professional 

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) for the purpose of aerial survey, photography and 

videography in support of events, media, real estate, surveying and civil engineering 

services, conservation, and any other business with the need for aerial photography (or 

other remote sensing operations). 

This Petition is submitted in accordance with the authority found in Section 333 of The 

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of the 2012 and Title 14 C.F.R. Section 11 Subpart 

A. 

PROPOSED OPERATIONS 

Lucas Paul Gray (Gray or Petitioner) is seeking an exemption that will permit it to 

perform aerial photography, videography, and surveying services for private events, 

public events, media, property owners, real estate professionals, surveying\engineering 

companies, the conservation industry, and insurance\finance companies. These services 

would be used to document events, identify efficiencies and enhance decision-making 

ability through aerial based survey and photography. This would be done using 

conventional and thermal imaging technology to study and document property condition, 

record events and a variety of other uses. 

THE PHANTOM 3 PROFESSIONAL UAS 

The Phantom 3 Professional UAS (the “System”) is comprised of a small (approximately 

three pounds) quad-copter unmanned aircraft (UA or PHANTOM) and a transportable 

ground station. While capable of carrying small digital photography equipment during 

flight, the electrically powered PHANTOM has an approximate maximum speed of 30 
knots and is operated, using the transportable ground station, by a minimum required 

flight crew of one, the Operator. 

This is the same system which is the subject system in Exemption No. 14737 granted to 

Wright Aerial LLC on February 10, 201s. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-5692. 

THE OPERATOR 

The proposed Operator, defined as the person who manipulates the controls of the 

System, would hold, at minimum, a Sport Pilot Certificate. 

To the extent the particular operation would dictate it, the Petitioner proposes that the 

Operator would have the ability to augment the crew with a visual observer (Observer) to 

assist with scanning for collision hazards and maintaining awareness of the PHANTOM’s 

precise location, as noted in proposed Part 107, the Observer would not be a required 

crew-member, and therefore the Petitioner believes that this petition need not require the 

Observer to hold any airman certificate. 

In addition to the Observer, the Petitioner further proposes that Operator may (as an 

operation dictates) augment the crew with an Equipment Operator (EO), who would be 

responsible for operation of photographic equipment carried on board the PHANTOM. 

The EO would not be permitted to manipulate the flight or navigation controls of the 

PHANTOM. Because the Equipment Operator would be analogous to a cameraman, the 

Petitioner does not believe that it is necessary for the EO to hold any airman certificate. 

OPERATING PARAMETERS 

Lucas Paul Gray is committed to the safe and compliant operation of this System 

at all times. Because the PHANTOM does not carry crew or passengers on-board, 

and is so much smaller, lighter, and slower than manned aircraft, Petitioner seeks 

relief from several aspects of 14 C.F.R. Part 91. 
Before each operation, the Operator will inspect the System to ensure that flight 

operations can be conducted safely and in accordance with instructions provided by the 

manufacturer. Operations will be primarily in rural areas, and primarily over private 

property. All operations will be conducted in accordance with restrictions on airspace, or 

in compliance with Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) obtained through the 

Air Traffic Organization (ATO). Due to the light nature of the PHANTOM, Lucas Paul 

Gray feels that in situations where it is not possible to operate the PHANTOM more than 

500 feet from non-essential persons, the PHANTOM can still be safely operated so long 

as those persons are shielded by barriers or structures that are of sufficient strength to 

protect those non-essential persons. Should a non-essential person leave the protection of 

the barrier or structure, the Operator would cease operations as quickly as safety permits 

a safe landing of the UA. 

REGULATORY STATEMENT 

In accordance with the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 333, 

entitled Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems, and 14 C.F.R. §§ 11.61(b) 

and 11.81, the Petitioner, through Counsel, submits the following:

PETITIONER’S CONTACT INFORMATION (14 C.F.R. § 11.81(a)) 

The name and address of the Petitioner is: 

 Lucas Paul Gray

 1355 Hammett Hill Rd. 

Bowling Green, KY 42101 

The point of contact for purposes of this Petition is: 

 Charles Barnett, III 

 Barnett & Borth 

 800 Waukegan Rd., Ste. 200 

 Glenview, IL 60025 

 Tel.847.724.5520 

 Fax.815.356.7042 
 crb@barnettlegal.com 

SECTIONS OF TITLE 14 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS FOR 

WHICH RELIEF IS SOUGHT (14 C.F.R. § 11.81(b))

Relief is sought from the following provisions of Title 14 of the Code Of Federal 

Regulations: 

Part 61 

§ 61.113 (a) and (b), which state: 

Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person 

who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an 

aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; 

nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of 

an aircraft. 

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of 

an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if: 

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and 

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or 

hire. 

Part 91 

§ 91.7(a), which states: 

Civil aircraft airworthiness. 

(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy 

condition. 

§ 91.119, which states: 
Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft 

below the following altitudes: 

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing 

without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. 

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, 

or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the 

highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. 

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, 

except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft 

may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or 

structure. 

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the 

operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface— 

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in 

paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the 

helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for 

helicopters by the FAA; and 

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated 

at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section. 

§ 91.121(a), which states: 

Altimeter settings.

a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or flight 

level of that aircraft, as the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, 

when operating— 

(1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to— 
(i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the 

route and within 100 nautical miles of the aircraft; 

(ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)

(1)(i) of this section, the current reported altimeter setting of an 

appropriate available station; or 

(iii) In the case of an aircraft not equipped with a radio, the 

elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate altimeter setting 

available before departure; or 

(2) At or above 18,000 feet MSL, to 29.92′′ Hg. 

§ 91.151, which states: 

Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.

(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions unless 

(considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to 

the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed— 

(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or 

(2) At night, to fly after that for at least 45 minutes. 

(b) No person may begin a flight in a rotorcraft under VFR conditions unless 

(considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is enough fuel to fly to 

the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly 

after that for at least 20 minutes. 

§ 91.405(a), which states: 

Maintenance required. 

 Each owner or operator of an aircraft— 

(a) Shall have that 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; 
§ 91.407(a)(1), which states: 

Operation after maintenance, preventative maintance, rebuilding, or alteration.

(a) No person may operate any aircraft that has undergone maintenance, 

preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless— 

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under 

§43.7 of this chapter; and... 

§ 91.409(a)(1) and (2) which state: 

Inspections

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may operate an 

aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had— 

(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has 

been approved for return to service by a person authorized by §43.7 of this 

chapter; or 

(2) An inspection for the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in 

accordance with part 21 of this chapter. 

§ 91.417(a) and (b) which state: 

Maintenance records. 

(a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§91.411 and 91.413, each 

registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section: 

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration 

and records of the 100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or 

approved inspections, as appropriate, for each aircraft (including the 

airframe) and each engine, propeller, rotor, and appliance of an aircraft. 

The records must include— 

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the 

Administrator) of the work performed; and 
(ii) The date of completion of the work performed; and 

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving 

the aircraft for return to service. 

(2) Records containing the following information: 

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each 

propeller, and each rotor. 

(ii) The current status of life-limited parts of each airframe, engine, 

propeller, rotor, and appliance. 

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the 

aircraft which are required to be overhauled on a specified time 

basis. 

(iv) The current inspection status of the aircraft, including the time 

since the last inspection required by the inspection program under 

which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained. 

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) 

and safety directives including, for each, the method of 

compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If 

the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and 

date when the next action is required. 

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by §43.9(d) of this chapter for 

each major alteration to the airframe and currently installed 

engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances. 

(b) The owner or operator shall retain the following records for the periods 

prescribed: 

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be 

retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 

year after the work is performed. 

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be 

retained and transferred with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold. 
(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under 

§43.11 of this chapter shall be retained until the defects are repaired and 

the aircraft is approved for return to service. 

EXTENT OF RELEIF SOUGHT (14 C.F.R. § 11.81(c))

61.101: 61.113; and 61.315. Relief is requested to the extent necessary to permit the 

holder of a recreational pilot, private pilot, or sport pilot certificate, with the appropriate 

level of medical certification to conduct the proposed flight operations for compensation 

or hire. 

91.7(a). Lucas Paul Gray seeks relief from 91.7(a) to the extent that the Phantom 3 

Professional system is not eligible for an airworthiness certificate under 14 C.F.R. 21 and 

therefore can not be airworthy in the context of the regulation. 

91.119. Relief is sought from 91.119 due to the unique nature of the proposed operations 

and the limited capabilities of the System. Lucas Paul Gray can ensure that each 

operation is conducted within the requirements of 91.119(a) and is therefore not seeking 

exemption from that section of the regulation. With respect to 91.119 (b) and (c) Lucas 

Paul Gray seeks relief for two reasons. First, the diminutive size and flight envelope of 

the UA, and the limited range of the System necessarily restrict operations to that of low 

level, low speed, line of sight (with the Operator) operations. Combined with the intent 

of the operations primarily being the survey and photography of property; commercial 

operation simply could not be done without exemption. Second, while not a manned 

helicopter, the PHANTOM is more analogous to a helicopter than other aircraft, which a 

private pilot is permitted to operate at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) 

or (c) of section 91.119 so long as the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or 

property on the surface. 14. C.F.R. § 91.119(d). 
91.121. Relief is sought from 91.121 due to the design of the system. While not 

possessing an altimeter that can be set in compliance with the regulation, however the 

System contains barometric altimeter and GPS derived altitude capabilities. That being 

said, Gray is not proposing relief to the extent that the Operator is not expected to check 

the System settings prior to each flight. 

91.151. Gray requests relief from 91.151 due to the limited design range and associated 

battery storage capacity. 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b). Due to the fact that 

the PHANTOM aircraft and the larger System are not certificated pursuant to Part 21, nor 

issued airworthiness certificates, and due to the fact that the technology of the System is 

so different from traditional manned aircraft, the System does not fit well into the 

regulatory scheme of Part 91 Subpart E. As such Gray seeks relief from the above noted 

regulations. However, Gray will maintain all maintenance records related to the system. 

Gray does not intend to document each battery replacement or charge, however, because 

the battery is analogous to fuel in manned aircraft, and documenting each charge would 

be as laborious as documenting each fueling of a certificated aircraft in that aircraft’s 

maintenance records. 

STATEMENT OF PUBLIC INTEREST (14 C.F.R. § 11.81(d))

The public benefits commensurate with the commercial operation of the Phantom 3 

Professional UAS by Lucas Paul Gray are numerous. By implementing this technology 

into the National Airspace System in a deliberate and limited way, the public’s interest 

will be served in that environmental impacts will be lessened, economies will be more 

efficient and relative public safety will increase. 
This technology will serve to reduce present environmental impacts, and prevent future 

negative impacts. Being an incredibly small, electrically powered System environmental 

impacts are mitigated when this system is used in place of present approved manned 

aircraft operations. Because neither leaded avgas nor jet fuel is burned, the System itself 

has low impact. The low weight and tiny motors not only reduce fuel consumption, but 

reduce noise in the environment and reduce the likely hood of other negative 

environmental impacts such as bird strikes and fuel spills. 

Because the System is so small, cheap and quick to deploy, yet retains the ability to return 

incredibly detailed information, aerial data can be collected while environmental impacts 

can be further minimized. Infrastructure such as roads, bridges, pipelines, can be quickly 

assessed without the need for heavy equipment such as trucks, cranes, hoists and aircraft 

that run on fossil fuels. Additionally, with this technology deployed, studies regarding all 

aspects of land use, soil, topography, become possible where they previously were not 

due to economic reasons. The information collected by Gray for their consumers will 

have a broader environmental impact that will benefit everyone, not just the customer. 

When this System is used in support of commercial operations, the public at large will 

benefit from the efficiencies that this system brings into the aerial survey market. UAS 

services in conservation will allow officials to have access to aerial based data collected 

on a more timely basis which will allow them to make more accurate assessments of the 

conditions of the land. 

In support of events, the use of this system will allow capture of photography and 

videography from a unique vantage point, typically only accessed by. 

For both individual and wide-scaled disasters, the use of UAS’s will allow the insurance 

companies a more efficient way of assessing the assets necessary to service their 

policyholder needs. They will be able to align their teams closely to the disaster paths at 
their disaster sites and allow them to visually inspect more frequently where their teams 

have been as well as where they need to go. The use of UAS’s in disaster scenarios will 

not only allow the insurance companies to better service their policyholders, but will 

ensure that life safety measures are even more enhanced during widespread disaster 

scenarios. Through the use of thermal based imaging, not only will photosynthesis 

studies be possible, but it will also be possible to be used for disaster\recovery services 

during regional disasters. 

REASONS WHY A GRANT OF THIS EXEMPTION WILL NOT AFFECT 

PUBLIC SAFETY (14 C.F.R. § 11.81(e))

Lucas Paul Gray is firmly convinced that this product will not affect public safety in any 

adverse way, but will in fact enhance it. 

With respect to the safe operation of the aircraft, the Administrator, in exemption No. 

14737 has already evaluated the technical specifications of the aircraft. In noting it’s 

small size, limited speed and numerous safety features (such as low battery autonomous 

landing, lost-link event autonomous procedures, auto-pilot and stability control, to name 

a few), Gray believes that the Administrator’s finding that this System can be safely 

operated in the NAS system was correct. 

In order to ensure that safety, Gray would utilize a certificated pilot as the Operator, and 

abide by common sense operating limitations to ensure that the safety of the public is 

ensured. A list of proposed specific operating limitations is included in the additional 

information section, below. The Petitioner is only seeking relief from very specific 

regulations that relate to the operation of this System, and is suggesting specific 

alternative procedures to ensure safety in lieu of those regulations from which Petitioner 

is seeking relief. 
Gray further notes that by replacing certain manned operations with operations conducted 

by this small System, public safety will actually be enhanced. In those operations where 

traditional manned aircraft are presently used, the public bears the risk of the crash of a 

much larger, heavier vehicle traveling at a much higher rate of speed. Furthermore, many 

of those manned operations contribute to congestion in the NAS, and as such an 

increased risk of collision with other aircraft. Because the PHANTOM will be operated 

away from the airport environment, the airport environment being the location of the 

highest risk of collision, using this aircraft in place of a manned aircraft reduces the risk 

of collision. 

With respect to each particular regulation for which relief is sought, Gray believes safety 

is insured: 

61.101; 61.113; and 61.315. Relief is requested to the extent necessary to permit the 

holder of a recreational pilot certificate, private pilot certificate, or sport pilot certificate 

with appropriate medical certification to conduct the proposed flight operations for 

compensation or hire. 

Gray notes that private pilots are allowed to operate aircraft for compensation or hire so 

long as doing so is incidental to their business and they do not carry passengers. This is 

done in much heavier, faster aircraft, which pose a greater risk to persons or property on 

the ground. In the case of PHANTOM, the aircraft, through it’s limited speed and weight 

poses much less risk of harm to those on the surface. The fact that the very small UA will 

be operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and over limited parcels 

of land, combined with it’s limited range, negates the long cross-country flying 

experience required for a commercial pilot certificate. Therefore Petitioner believes that 

an equivalent level of safety with respect to manned aircraft is met with a minimum 

certification level of Private Pilot 
91.7(a). Lucas Paul Gray seeks relief from 91.7(a) to the extent that the Phantom 3 

system is not eligible for an airworthiness certificate under 14 C.F.R. 21 and therefore can 

not be airworthy in the context of the regulation. The Operator can, before each flight, 

determine whether or not the aircraft is capable of safe flight by visually inspecting the 

System, accomplishing appropriate pre-flight inspections, and ensuring compliance with 

the manufacturers operating manuals and therefore an equivalent level of safety will be 

met. 

91.119. Relief is sought from 91.119 due to the unique nature of the proposed operations 

and the limited capabilities of the System. Lucas Paul Gray can ensure that each 

operation is conducted within the requirements of 91.119(a) and is therefore not seeking 

exemption from that section of the regulation. With respect to 91.119(b) and (c) Lucas 

Paul Gray seeks relief for two reasons. First, the diminutive size and flight envelope of 

the UA, and the limited range of the System necessarily restrict operations to that of low 

level, low speed, line of sight (with the Operator) operations. Combined with the intent 

of the operations primarily being the survey and photography of property; commercial 

operation simply could not be done without exemption. Second, while not a manned 

helicopter, the PHANTOM is more analogous to a helicopter than other aircraft, which a 

private pilot is permitted to operate at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) 

or (c) of section 91.119 so long as the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or 

property on the surface. 14. C.F.R. § 91.119(c). 

With respect to operating the PHANTOM over or near a structure, Gray would like point 

out that it is often more dangerous for those involved if a person were to, for example, 

fall off of a roof or a ladder, or drop a heavy tool such as a hammer, than it would be for 

this three pound PHANTOM to fall, so long as the Operator ensures that he has 

permission from the owner and requires that any structure the PHANTOM is operated 

over or near is not occupied, nor are people in the immediate vicinity, a high level of 

safety can be achieved. 
Due to the Systems limitations with respect speed and altitude, it’s light weight, and 

ability to maneuver like a helicopter (with an equally trained Private Pilot Operator), and 

a restriction than any structure flown over with permission and only when unoccupied, 

Gray respectfully submits that an equivalent level of safety is assured if relief is granted 

from 91.119 (b) and (c). 

91.121. Relief is sought from 91.121 due to the design of the system. While not 

possessing an altimeter that can be set in compliance with the regulation, an equivalent 

level of safety can be met due to the fact that the System contains barometric altimeter 

and GPS derived altitude capabilities, thus ensuring an equivalent level of safety. That 

being said, Gray is not proposing relief to the extent that the Operator is not expected to 

check the System settings prior to each flight. 

91.151. Gray requests relief from 91.151 due to the limited battery storage capacity. 

Petitioner feels that a good balance of safety and utility can be met if the Operator is 

permitted to plan and initiate a daytime VFR flight to the first intended point of landing, 

at normal cruising speed which would require no more than 70% battery power. This 

System possesses several safety features with respect to power, including a low battery 

warning that first alerts at 30% remaining, and an automated landing function when a low 

battery is detected by the System. Should conditions change during the flight, this will 

leave 30% battery capacity to fly to a safe alternative landing zone. 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b). Due to the fact that 

the PHANTOM aircraft and the larger System are not certificated pursuant to Part 21, nor 

issued airworthiness certificates, and due to the fact that the technology of the System is 

so different from traditional manned aircraft, the System does not fit well into the 

regulatory scheme of Part 91 Subpart E. As such Gray seeks relief from the above noted 

regulations. In order to ensure an equivalent level of safety, Gray will use trained 
technicians to perform maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on the UAS 

using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the manufacturer’s manuals. 

Gray will maintain all maintenance records related to the system. Gray does not intend to 

document each battery replacement or charge, however, because the battery operated 

systems are analogous to fuel in manned aircraft, and documenting each charge would be 

as laborious as documenting each fueling of a certificated aircraft in that aircraft’s 

maintenance records. 

FEDERAL REGISTRY SUMMARY (14 C.F.R. § 11.81(f)) 

Lucas Paul Gray seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R Sections 

61.113(a)&(b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)

(2), and 91.417(a)& (b). 

This exemption will permit Lucas Paul Gray to commercially operate an Unmanned 

Aircraft System (UAS) for the purpose of conducting aerial survey and photography 

within the United States.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN SUPPORT (14 C.F.R. § 11.81(g)) 

Documents and Manuals 

The documents and manuals for the Phantom 3 Professional can be found at:http://

www.dji.com/product/phantom-3-pro/info#downloads. These documents are 

incorporated into this petition by reference. However, due to file size limitations they are 

not being attached. 

Proposed specific operating limitations 

1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption are limited to the following 

aircraft described in the operating documents which is a quad-rotor aircraft 

weighing less than 3 pounds: PHANTOM 3 Professional Unmanned Aircraft 

System. Proposed operations of any other aircraft will require a new petition or a 

petition to amend this grant. 
2. The UA may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 30 knots. 

3. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 300 feet above ground 

level (AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operating documents. 

All altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL. 

4. The UA must be operated within visual line of sight (VLOS) of the Pilot In 

Command (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. 

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

within the visual line of sight (VLOS) of the 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. 

Such communications may be augmented through the use of radios or other 

technology so long as not to interfere with the operation of the UAS. 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 

functions prescribed in the operating documents. 

6. The operating documents and this grant of exemption 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 operator’s responsibility to track 

such revisions and present updated and revised documents to the Administrator 

upon request. The operator must also present updated and revised documents if he 

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 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. 

7. Prior to each flight, the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure it is in a condition for 

safe flight. If the inspection reveals a condition that affects the safe operation of 

the UAS, the UAS is prohibited from operating until the necessary maintenance 

has been performed and the UAS is found to be in a condition for safe flight. The 

Ground Control Station must be included in the preflight inspection. All 

maintenance and alterations must be properly documented in the aircraft records. 

8. Any UAS 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. The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make 

an entry in the aircraft records. 

9. The pre-flight inspection section in the operating documents must account for all 

discrepancies, i.e. inoperable components, items, or equipment, not already 

covered in the relevant sections of the operating documents. 
10. The operator must follow the UAS manufacturer’s aircraft/component, 

maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements. 

11. The operator must carry out its maintenance, inspections, and record keeping 

requirements, in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, 

inspection, and alterations must be noted in the aircraft records, including total 

flight hours, description of work accomplished, and the signature of the 

authorized person returning the UAS to service. 

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

Safety Bulletins. 

13. The authorized person must make an entry in the aircraft record of the corrective 

action taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections. 

14. UAS operations must be conducted by a PIC possessing at least a private pilot 

certificate and at least a current third-class medical certificate. 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. 

15. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of aerial survey or photography (or 

similar operations), the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner 

consistent with 14 CFR 61.51(b), a minimum of 25 hours of total time as a UAS 

rotorcraft pilot including at least 10 hours logged as a UAS pilot with a multirotor UAS. Prior documented flight experience that was obtained in compliance 

with applicable regulations may satisfy this requirement. Training, proficiency, 

and experience-building flights can also be conducted under this grant of 
exemption to accomplish the required flight time. However, said training 

operations may only be conducted during dedicated training sessions. During 

training, proficiency, and experience-building flights the PIC is required to 

operate the UA with appropriate distances in accordance with 14 CFR 91.119. 

16. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of aerial survey or photography (or 

similar operations), the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner 

consistent with 14 CFR 61.51(b), a minimum of 5 hours as UAS pilot operating 

the make and model of the UAS to be used in operations under the exemption; 5 

hours make and model time may be included in the 10 hours of multi-rotor time 

prescribed above. The PIC must accomplish 3 take-offs and landings in the 

preceding 90 days (for currency purposes). Training, proficiency, experiencebuilding, and take-off and landing currency flights can be conducted under this 

grant of exemption to accomplish the required flight time and 90 day currency. 

However, said training operations may only be conducted during dedicated 

training sessions. During training, proficiency, and experience-building flights the 

PIC is required to operate the UA with appropriate distances in accordance with 

14 CFR 91.119. 

17. The operator may not permit the PIC to operate the UAS for the purpose aerial 

survey or photography (or similar operations), unless the PIC has demonstrated 

and logged in a manner consistent with 14 CFR 61.51(b), 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 people, vessels, vehicles and structures. 

18. 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). 
19. 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. 

20. If the UA loses communications or loses its GPS signal, it must return to a predetermined location within the planned operating area and land or be recovered in 

accordance with the operating documents. 

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

in accordance with the operating documents. 

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

forecast weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed 

to the intended landing point and land the UA with 30% battery power remaining. 

23. The operator must obtain an Air Traffic Organization (ATO) issued Certificate of 

Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations in Class E 

airspace. This COA will also require the operator to request a Notice to Airman 

(NOTAM) not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior to 

that operation. 

24. 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. 

25. Before conducting operations, the radio frequency spectrum used for operation 

and control of the UA must comply with the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) or other appropriate government oversight agency 

requirements. 

26. The 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 UAS is operating. 

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

enforcement official upon request. 

27. The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all manned aviation 

operations and activities at all times. 

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

29. 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 and/or; 
b. The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the 

owner/controller of such vessels, vehicles or structures has granted 

permission 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, and; 

c. Operations nearer to the PIC, VO, operator trainees or essential persons do 

not present an undue hazard to those persons per § 91.119(a). 

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

permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representative. 

Permission from land owner/controller or authorized representative will be 

obtained for each flight to be conducted. 

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

boundaries of the operational area as defined by an 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. 

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. 
CONCLUSION 

As set forth above, Lucas Paul Gray seeks an exemption from certain parts of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations to permit Gray to operate a Phantom 3 Professional UAS, for 

compensation or hire, commercially in the United States for the purposes of conducting 

aerial photography and survey. Gray believes that a grant of exemption is in the public 

interest and that public safety will not be negatively affected. By use of an unmanned 

system in scenarios where manned aircraft are traditionally operated Gray believes that 

public safety will actually be enhanced. 

PETITIONER, Lucas Paul Gray, in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations 

and the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 333, respectfully 

requests that the Administrator grant this Petition for an exemption from the 

requirements of 14 C.F.R Sections 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.119(b) and (c), 

91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) and 

(b), and permit Lucas Paul Gray to operate the Phantom 3 Professional UAS 

commercially for the purpose of conducting aerial survey and photography over 

certain areas of the United States. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

BARNETT & BORTH, LLC 

________________________

CHARLES	BARNETT,	III

BARNETT	&	BORTH,	LLC

800	Waukegan	Road,	Suite	200	

Glenview, IL 60025 

o. 847.724.5520 

f. 815.356.7042