May 5, 2015

 Exemption No. 11458

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–0257

Mr. Christopher Gardner

1236 NW 50 Drive

Gainesville, FL 32605

Dear Mr. Gardner:

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.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated January 23, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

for an exemption. The exemption would allow the petitioner to operate an unmanned aircraft 

system (UAS) to conduct aerial photography, inspection, videography and cinematography.

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. However, the FAA 

received one comment made to the docket.

Airworthiness Certification

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is a 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 
2

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 

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 collection. 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. Christopher Gardner 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. Christopher Gardner is hereafter referred to as the operator.
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 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 

operator’s responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised 

documents to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon request. The 
4

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 

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 
5

(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 April, 30, 2017, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
Christopher Gardner, Gainesville FL ­ Section 333 Exemption Petition

January 23, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Exemption Request Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal Aviation Regulations from

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a)&(b); 91.7(a); 91.9(b) (2); 91.103(b); 91.109;

119.121; 91.151(a); 91.203(a)&(b); 91.405(a); 91.407(a) (1); 91.409(a) (2); 91.417(a)&(b)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Christopher Gardner hereby petitions the Secretary of Transportation and Federal

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

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

to the recreational/business operations of model aircraft including small unmanned

aerial systems (“UASs).

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

procedures contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, Petition that I, Christopher Gardner, an

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

Aviation Regulations (“FARs”) listed below so that I, Christopher Gardner, may operate

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

regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”).

As described herein I, Christopher Gardner, am a licensed Private Pilot (Certificate #

3197378) with current Third Class Medical Certificate; experienced in flying hobby

helicopters and fixed wing aircraft for recreational purposes. I have added a hobby

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

1

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

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

National Forests, flight in non­navigable airspace, using non­intrusive recording

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

videography/cinematography for commercial operation and to enhance academic

community awareness for those individuals and companies unfamiliar with the

geographical layout of such areas.

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

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

1 Serial Number ­ W13DCA13020568
Christopher Gardner, Gainesville FL ­ Section 333 Exemption Petition

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

videos, and within property boundaries for individual homeowner real estate listing

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

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

and television industry presently using conventional aircraft and small, unmanned and

relatively inexpensive UASs.

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

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

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

2

prevent public hazard, as well as manned aircraft hazards/catastrophe. This will act to

further safety protocols exclusive

to lightweight UAS's specific to aerial video and photography usage as I record flight

data and other information gained through permitted flight operations to share with the

FAA through any required FAA reports to assist with future protocol and safety

regulation.

Granting my request comports with the Secretary of Transportation’s (FAA

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

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

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

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

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

otherwise established by the FAA.

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

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

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

enhance real estate listing videos for homeowners who cannot afford expensive

manned aircraft for the same purpose, all of which will promote local economic growth

through increased employment and increased tax base. Both with public safety in mind

by keeping heavier manned aircraft containing combustible fuel that that poses

potential public hazard.

I. Contact Information:

Christopher Gardner

1236 NW 50 Dr.

Gainesville, FL 32605

Mobile: (352) 226­1832

Email: chris@jumpem.com

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

Which Christopher Gardner Requests Exemption are:

2Safety Protocols & Controls ­ Inspire One User Manual in addition to Minimum VFR regulations
Christopher Gardner, Gainesville FL ­ Section 333 Exemption Petition

14 CFR 21;

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b);

14 CFR 61.113 (a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 91.7 (a);

14 C.F.R. 91.9 (b) (2);

14 C.F.R. 91.103;

14 C.F.R. 91.109;

14 C.F.R. 91.119;

14 C.F.R. 91.121;

14 C.F.R. 91.151 (a);

14 C.F.R. 91.203 (a) & (b);

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

14 CFR 407 (a) (1);

14 CFR 409 (a) (2); and,

14 CFR 417 (a) & (b).

III. The Extent of relief Christopher Gardner seeks and the Reason He Seeks

Such Relief:

I, Christopher Gardner, submit this application in accordance with the Reform

Act, 112 P.L. 95 §§ 331­334, seeking relief from any currently applicable FARs

operating to prevent me, Christopher Gardner, contemplated commercial

cinematic, academic and other flight operations within the national airspace

system. The Reform Act in Section 332 provides for such integration of civil

unmanned aircraft systems into our national airspace system as it is in the

public’s interest to do so. My ultra light weight UAS meets the definition of “small

unmanned aircraft” as defined in Section 331 and therefore the integration of my

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

to operate my ultra lightweight UAS prior to the time period by which the Reform

Act requires the FAA to promulgate rules governing such craft. Thereby,

providing direct experience and valuable information for formal regulation that

can be administered uniformly to all UAS aerial video and photography. The

Reform Act guides the Secretary in determining the types of UASs that may

operate safely in our national airspace system. Considerations include: The

weight, size, speed and overall capabilities of the UAS's; Whether the UAS will

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

be operated by line of sight. 112 P.L. 95 § 333 (a). Each of these items reflect in

favor of an exemption for me, Christopher Gardner. My UAS utilizes four (4)

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

equipped with GPS and auto return safety technology. Weighing less than

seven (7) pounds (far below the maximum 55 pound limit); including camera

with gimbal.
Christopher Gardner, Gainesville FL ­ Section 333 Exemption Petition

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

designed to hover in place via GPS and operate in less than a 10 m/s wind knot

(approx 22 mph) wind. For safety, stability and fear of financial loss I will not fly

in winds exceeding 7 m/s (15 mph). Built in safety systems include a GPS mode

that allows my UAS to hover in place when radio controls are lost. With three

modes to choose from, I utilize the Positioning Mode for aerial

3

videography/photography. This is the safest, most reliable and stable mode to

prevent accident and hazard. When pilot communication is lost UAS is designed

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

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

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

one hundred (50­100) yards depending on location, conditions and weather. I

am constantly on alert for any manned aircraft (Police/Medical helicopters, etc.)

and prepared to land/abort immediately to the nearest and safest ground point

should a manned aircraft approach my location or I suspect manned aircraft

may approach near my location. My UAS is capable of vertical and horizontal

operations, and are flown only within my line of sight, as the remote control pilot.

Utilizing battery power rather than combustible fuels, flights generally last

between eight (8) to twelve (12) minutes, with an altitude under two hundred fifty

(250) feet.

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

flight time limit for each battery is eighteen (18) to twenty­two (22) minutes as

tested. I do not operate my UAS at or below manufacture recommend minimum

charge levels for operation; preferring to remain well within a safe operating

range to insure adequate communication between radio control and UAS to

eliminate potential for crash, loss of control or hazard. Reserve batteries are at

hand with each exercise to insure replacement for sufficient safe level of

operation. I do not believe in taking risk that may cause a crash, that could

create hazard to the public/property/manned aircraft, and have no desire to lose

an investment. I have clocked 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 am extremely cautious when operating of my UAS/ultra lightweight unmanned

aircraft and will not “create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or

the public.” 112 P.L. 95 § 333 (b). Given the small size and weight of my UAS it

falls well within Congress’s contemplated safety zone when it promulgated the

Reform Act and the corresponding directive to integrate UAS's into the national

3 Positing Mode includes GPS, Vision Positioning Sensors, and Barometer for position hold, self­leveling, altitude command,

GPS, return home and dynamic return to home feature, and safety control to return home or land in the event of communication

interruption between RC transmitter and UAS. ­ See “Flight Mode” in Inspire 1 User Manual
Christopher Gardner, Gainesville FL ­ Section 333 Exemption Petition

airspace system. My UAS, the DJI Inspire 1, used in hobby flight, has a

demonstrable safety record and does not pose any threat to the general public

or national security.

IV. How Christopher Gardner’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 non­luxury homeowners and lower budget Realtors

from a valuable marketing tool.

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

tourism industry to afford the currently cost prohibitive aerial photography used

by large international corporations. As a part owner of a small veteran owned

snorkeling business in Key West, I can attest to the unaffordability of such

videography and photography used by such companies to draw

business/revenue outside the economic benefit of the United States. An

example would be the ability of International Cruise Lines to draw business to

their privately owned operations in the Caribbean away from local Floridian

attraction providers. Additionally, smaller private hotels/resorts are harmed by

international resorts and their ability to market using such aerial videography

drawing business outside the economic benefit of the United States.

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

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

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

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

the State of Florida. My ultra light weight UAS is battery powered and creates

no emissions that can harm the environment. The consequence of my ultra light

weight UAS crashing is far less than a full size helicopter or fixed wing aircraft;

which are heavy, contain combustible fuel and can cause catastrophic

devastation to the public.

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

crash that many local communities have experienced in the past with military

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

life and endangered the public with combustible fuel that burned on impact. My

UAS poses no such threat since size and lack of combustible fuel alleviates any

potential threat to the public. Additionally, this actually furthers the public’s

interest by making it safer for business to conduct aerial photography and
Christopher Gardner, Gainesville FL ­ Section 333 Exemption Petition

videography without such risks.

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

permitting aerial video/photo capture through my battery operated ultra light

weight UAS's. Permitting me to immediately fly within national air space furthers

economic growth. Granting my exemption request substantially furthers the

economic impact within the State of Florida for companies looking to relocate or

build in Florida 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 Christopher Gardner’s Exemption Will Not Adversely Affect

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

Equal To Existing Rule:

My exemption will not adversely affect safety. Quite the contrary, for the

reasons stated permitting me to log more flight time in FAA controlled airspace,

with communication with the FAA, will allow me to contribute to the innovation

and implementation of new and novel, as of yet undiscovered safety protocols

for development in cooperation with the FAA. In addition I submit the following

representations of enhancements to current aerial videography and

photography:

A. My UAS weighs less than 7 pounds complete with a small ultra light

weight high quality camera;

B. I only operate my UAS below 300 feet (well within the 400 foot

permissible ceiling set by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of

2012);

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

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

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

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

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

4

then slowly lands if communication with the remote control pilot is lost for

3 seconds;

H. My UAS has GPS and a Vision Positioning System utilizing two sonar

sensors and one monocular camera for positioning and to identify the

current aircraft’s position;

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

sources of information to constantly update and enhance safety

4 Page 15 Inspire 1 User Manual
Christopher Gardner, Gainesville FL ­ Section 333 Exemption Petition

protocols;

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

are away from power lines, elevated lights, airports and actively

populated areas;

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

User Manual;

L. I always obtains all necessary permissions prior to operation;

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

N. I only operate my UAS well within “flight environment requirements ” &

5

visual meteorological conditions (VMC)

O. I will not operate my UAS 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.

P. Only I, Christopher Gardner, a licensed Private Pilot (Certificate #

3197378) with current Third Class Medical Certificate, act as Pilot in

Command during flights;

Q. I follow the UAS manufacturer’s aircraft/component, maintenance,

overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements.

R. The operating documents/manual will be accessible during UAS

operations and made available upon request.

My safety protocols provide a level of safety equal to or exceeding existing

6

rules. It is important to note that absent the integration of commercial UAS into

our national airspace system, helicopters are the primary means of aerial video

and photography for community awareness, real estate, and marketing

purposes. While the safety record of such helicopters is remarkably astounding,

there have been incidents involving loss of life as well as extensive property

damage; it is far safer to operate a battery powered ultra light weight UAS.

● First, the potential loss of life is diminished because UAS's carry no

people on board and I only operates my UAS in specific areas away from

mass populations.

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

explosions is greatly diminished.

● Third, the small size and extreme maneuverability of my UAS allow me to

remotely pilot away from and avoid hazards quickly and safely.

● Fourth, given its small size and weight, even when close enough to

capture amazing images, my UAS need not be so close to the objects

they are focused on through the technology and use of post editing

software allowing pan and zoom.

Accordingly, my UAS has been experimentally operated for familiarization and

5 Flight Environment Requirements ­ Page 45 ­ Inspire 1 User Manual

6 Operating within Flight Limitations & Procedures outlined in User Manual, A­R listed above, visual meteorological conditions (or VMC), & any Applicable FARs
Christopher Gardner, Gainesville FL ­ Section 333 Exemption Petition

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 UAS permits exemption from Part 21 because my

UAS meets (and exceeds) an equivalent level of safety pursuant to

Section 333 of the Reform Act. The FAA is authorized to exempt aircraft

from the airworthiness certificate requirement under both the Act (49

U.S.C. § 44701 (f)) and Section 333 of the Reform Act. Both pieces of

legislation permit the FAA to exempt UAS's from the airworthiness

certificate requirement in consideration of the weight, size, speed,

maneuverability and proximity to areas such as airports and dense

populations. My current and projected UAS's meet or exceed each of the

elements.

14 C.F.R. 91.7(a) prohibits the operation of an aircraft without an

airworthiness certificate. As no such certificate will be applicable in the

form contemplated by the FARs, this Regulation is inapplicable.

14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b) (2) requires an aircraft flight manual in the aircraft.

As there are no on board pilots or passengers, and given the size of the

UAS's, this Regulation is inapplicable. An equivalent level of safety will

be achieved by maintaining a safety/flight manual delineating areas of

where safety can be defined. 10 The FAA has previously issued

exemptions to this regulation in Exemption Nos. 8607, 8737, 8738, 9299,

9299A, 9565, 9565B, 10167, 10167A, 10602, 10700 and 32827.

14 C.F.R. § 91.121 regarding altimeter settings is inapplicable in so far

as my UAS utilizes electronic global positioning systems with a

barometric sensor.

14 C.F.R. § 91.203 (a) and (b) provides for the carrying of civil aircraft

certifications and registrations. They are inapplicable for the same

reasons described above. The equivalent level of safety will be achieved

by maintaining any such required certifications and registrations by me,

Christopher Gardner.

B. 14 C.F.R. § 45.23: Marking of The Aircraft
Christopher Gardner, Gainesville FL ­ Section 333 Exemption Petition

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, two­inch lettering is difficult to

place on such small aircraft with dimensions smaller that minimal

lettering requirement. The FAA has previously issued exemptions to this

regulation through Exemptions Nos. 8738, 10167, 10167A and 10700.

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

non­commercial operations. I, Christopher Gardner, can achieve an

equivalent level of safety as achieved by current Regulations because

my UAS does not carry any pilots or passengers. The risks attended to

the operation of my UAS is far less than the risk levels inherent in the

commercial activities outlined in 14 C.F.R. § 61, et seq. Thus, allowing

me to operate my UAS meet and exceed current safety levels in relation

to 14 C.F.R. §61.113 (a) & (b). In addition, Grant of Exemption No.

11062 to Astraeus Aerial (Astraeus), the FAA determined that a PIC with

a private pilot certificate operating the Astraeus UAS would not adversely

affect operations in the NAS or present a hazard to persons or property

on the ground.

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 UAS will never operate at an altitude greater than 300

AGL; safely below the standard of 400 AGL. I will however operate my

UAS in safe areas away from public and traffic, providing a level of safety

at least equivalent to or below those in relation to minimum safe altitudes.

Given the size, weight, maneuverability and speed of my UAS, an

equivalent or higher level of safety will be achieved.

E. 14 C.F.R. 91.405 (a); 407 (a) (1); 409 (a) (2); 417(a) & (b): Maintenance

Inspections.

The above­cited Regulations require, amongst other things, aircraft owners and

operators to “have [the] aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of this part and shall

between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, have

discrepancies repaired as prescribed in part 43 of this chapter. . . .”

These Regulations only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate.
Christopher Gardner, Gainesville FL ­ Section 333 Exemption Petition

They will not, therefore, apply to my UAS. However, as a safety

precaution I inspect my UAS before and after each flight and maintained

per the manufacturer’s aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul,

replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements.

In summary, Christopher Gardner seeks an exemption from the

following Regulations:

14 C.F.R. 21, subpart H; 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113 (a) &

(b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.7 (a); 14 C.F.R. § 91.9 (b)(2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.103(b);

14 C.F.R. § 91.109; 14 C.F.R. § 91.119; 14 C.F.R. § 91.121; 14 C.F.R. §

91.151(a); 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.203(a) and (b); 14 C.F.R. § 91.405 (a); 14

C.F.R. § 91.407 (a)(1); 14 C.F.R. § 91.409 (a)(2); 14 C.F.R. § 91.409 (a )

(2); and, 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.417 (a) & (b) to commercially operate my

lightweight unmanned aircraft system for aerial photography/Inspection/

included but not limited to the following; Business Operations: over land,

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

National Forests, flight in non­navigable airspace, using non­intrusive

recording devices, operation in otherwise unrestricted U.S.

States/Territories for aerial videography/cinematography for commercial

operation and to enhance academic community awareness for those

individuals and companies unfamiliar with the geographical layout of

such areas. Currently, area awareness and real estate aerial

videography/photography relies primarily on the use of larger aircraft

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

my request for exemption will reduce current risk levels and thereby

enhance safety. My UAS does not contain potentially explosive fuel, is

smaller, lighter and more maneuverable than conventional photographic

aircraft with much less flight time. Further, I operate at lower altitudes and

in controlled airspace eliminating potential public risk flying to and from

established airfields. I have been analyzing flight information and will

compile safety protocols and the implementation of a flight operations

manual that exceeds currently accepted means and methods for safe

flight. Formal collection of information shared with the FAA will enhance

the FAA's internal efforts to establish protocols for complying with the

FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. There are no personnel on

board my UAS and therefore the likelihood of death or serious bodily

injury is significantly diminished. The operation of my UAS, weighing less

than 7 pounds and travelling at lower speeds within limited areas will

provide an equivalent level of safety as that achieved under current

FARs. Accordingly I respectfully request that the FAA grant my

exemption request and am willing to cooperate in sharing information to

benefit the FAA, safety of manned aircraft, and the general public at
Christopher Gardner, Gainesville FL ­ Section 333 Exemption Petition

large.

Respectfully Submitted,

Christopher Gardner

1236 NW 50 Dr.

Gainesville, FL 32605