20 December 2015

Mr. James Williams

Manager, Flight Standards Service

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Office

Federal Aviation AFBPnistration

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591

U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operation

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Marco Zucchi, CEO

Fly By Properties LLC,

777 Charles Allen Drive 

Atlanta GA 30308

(404) 429-7400

mzucchi@itknowledge.biz

Re: Request for exemption from multiple regulatory provisions to allow the use of small 

unmanned aerial systems on land controlled by clients of Fly By Properties (FBP) to 

assist in the safe aerial videography of real estate for our clients.

Dear Mr. Williams:

Fly By Properties respectfully requests an exemption from several provisions of Title 14 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) to permit the use of small unmanned aerial 

systems (sUAS) to assist in the aerial videography of real estate for our clients. This 

request is motivated primarily by the desire to maximize safety in infrastructure and 

operations. While an exemption would not eliminate the current need for in-person visual 

inspection required by various federal regulatory departments, it would allow FBP to 

broadly record video with sUAS, resulting in a safer and more efficient infrastructure 

network. Accordingly, the grant of an exemption is consistent with Congress’ intent, 

reflected in Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012

(Modernization Act),1 that safe systems be permitted in the national airspace prior to the 

issuance of final regulations governing general use of these systems.2 A summary of this 

request suitable for publication in the Federal Register is provided as Appendix A.

Appendix B provides the manufacturers information regarding the design, aircraft 

performance, and fail-safe features. We have provided manufacturer information 

related to operating limitations, normal and emergency procedures, and maintenance 

and inspection procedures. As we add aircraft designs, we will update this appendix 

appropriately.

Appendix C provides the Fly By Properties Operations Manual for flights covered 

under this Exemption Request.

1 P.L. 112-95, 126 Stat 11, February 14, 2012.

2 Section 333(b) (2) specifically contemplates that the FAA may issue a certificate of waiver upon a finding that a type 

of UAS, as a result of its size, weight, speed, operational capacity, proximity to airports and populated areas, and 

operations within visual line of sight do not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public or pose a threat to national 

security.
Background Information

FBP is in the business of aerial videography for real estate and motion picture industry

sUAS for our clients. FBP Clients look to us for Safe Operations of sUAS. We have 

developed specific FBP Safe UAV Operational Procedures. 

Real-estate Surveillance

 Private Home Inspection

Commercial Property Inspection

Video Production of Private and Commercial Interests

As part of this FBP is requesting FAA Exemption for sUAS operations for safety, 

inspection and video capture usage.

Regulatory Basis for Exemption Request

In addition to the waiver authority provided in §333 of the Modernization Act, the FAA 

may grant an exemption under 49 U.S.C. §44701(f) if it has determined that such an 

exemption is in the public interest. The FAA has imposed a separate requirement in its 

procedural regulations, providing that the petitioner shall explain why granting the 

exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide at least 

an equivalent level of safety as compliance with the underlying regulation. In this case, 

approval of this exemption would advance the public interest by significantly enhancing 

the safety and efficiency of infrastructure operations and by providing the FAA with 

valuable user experience on sUAS in a context with appreciable economic and societal 

benefits. As described more fully below, the requested exemption would permit the 

operation of sUAS under tightly controlled conditions, thus ensuring that operations will 

not have an adverse impact on safety. To the contrary, as explained below, FBP

anticipates that use of sUAS will enhance safety in infrastructure operations. Granting an 

Exemption is in the Public Interest. The safety and efficiency of infrastructure operations 

is heavily dependent upon constant analysis of assets, right-of-way, infrastructure and 

other assets/facilities. There are a wide variety of factors that can affect conditions and 

cause problems for infrastructure. Even relatively small objects or minor failures can lead 

to accidents or other incidents causing downtime of infrastructure. Extreme weather 

events can lead to flooding or overheating infrastructure. For example earthquakes, 

landslides, and abandoned vehicles at grade crossings can block infrastructure. The 

potential for sabotage and terrorism – or even just trespassing – are also among the many 

risks that modern infrastructure faces.

As a result, pursuant to federal regulations and company policy, our client’s maintenance 

employees routinely inspect the infrastructure, such as bridges, tunnels, support 

structures, and signals. At present, this work is done primarily by company personnel in
motor vehicles, on foot, in specialized equipment. This is often a labor-intensive and 

sometimes arduous job. While our clients do all they can to make these inspections as 

safe as possible, there is an irreducible element of risk involved whenever employees are 

required to go out on structures. Employees may need to climb over or onto structures, 

which can be slippery, rough, and/or exposed to the elements. Some structures, such as 

bridges, are high above the ground. Equipment moving through inspection zones can 

increase risk as well, especially in high-traffic areas. While the use of sUAS for 

supplemental infrastructure and general asset evaluation would not eliminate

these risks entirely (as it is an additive safety measure), it would reduce the risks to 

employees by allowing for remote aerial review.

Additionally, the sheer amount of assets and the widely dispersed locations – in many

instances far from sizeable population centers – means that visual inspection in all 

instances by company personnel can be inefficient. Aerial analysis by traditional fixed 

wing aircraft is impractical because the required altitudes for safe flight reduce visibility

below meaningful levels – it is simply not possible to see all asset anomalies from such 

heights. Helicopters present better vantage points; however manned helicopters are much 

more costly, subject to human safety and carry highly explosive jet fuel making them 

impractical for deployment. By using sUAS for supplemental asset evaluation, FBP will 

be able to substantially upgrade its capacity to detect and address issues with the

right-of-way and other assets before they become a problem for safe operations. Thus, the 

use of sUAS has the potential to improve efficiency, resulting in faster and safer delivery

of goods, energy & natural resources vital to the U.S. economy.
Granting an Exemption will not Adversely Affect Safety

FBP notes that there is no applicable standard for an equivalency determination. Some

have argued that the appropriate standard is that for model aircraft, noting that their 

operations, if conducted for recreational purposes, would fall completely within the 

allowable operations for model aircraft. We believe it is difficult to argue that there is 

sufficient correlation between model operations controlled by the Academy of Model 

Aeronautics and the ones contemplated by FBP. At the same time, it is clear that 

equivalency cannot be established for traditional, manned civil aircraft because the design 

and use profiles between traditional aircraft and sUAS are simply too different. As such, 

we believe it makes more sense to focus on why the contemplated operations would not 

adversely affect safety, which is all that §11.81(e) requires.

Granting an exemption will not adversely affect safety. FBP contemplates conducting 

sUAS operations over client owned or controlled land, solely during daylight hours, at 

altitudes well below that which would pose a risk to other aircraft. In general, sUAS 

operations are intended to be conducted in areas distant from both congested areas and 

airports. Moreover, because of the inherent risks presented by standard infrastructure 

operations, our clients have already taken steps to secure property against unauthorized 

public access. For example, substantial stretches of pipeline, utilities, railroad track and 

oil production sites are fenced, elevated, or otherwise secured to prevent access. Other 

long stretches of infrastructure are, as noted above, in very remote wilderness areas. The 

nature of operations anticipated by FBP requires that the sUAS be flown at relatively

low altitudes and relatively low speeds. FBP expects that in most instances, the sUAS 

will be flown less than 75 feet from the highest structure along the path of the sUAS. 

Accordingly, the risk of interference with another aircraft is minimal. FBP also plans to 

conduct sUAS operations at least three miles from any public airports (including 

heliports). In the event an operation needs to be conducted closer to an airport, FBP will 

inform the airport operator and airport air traffic control tower of the contemplated 

operation and will comply with any directions issued by air traffic control at that airport.

Approval of exemptions allowing commercial operations of sUASs in the infrastructure 

aerial inspection industry will enhance safety by reducing risk. Conventional operations, 

using jet or piston power aircraft, operate at extremely low altitudes just feet from the 

subject being inspected and in extreme proximity to people and structures; and present 

the risks associated with vehicles that weigh in the neighborhood of 4,000lbs., carrying 

large amounts of jet A or other fuel (140 gallons for jet helicopters). Such aircraft must 

fly to and from the inspection site. In contrast, a sUAS weighing fewer than 55 lbs. and 

powered by batteries eliminates virtually all of that risk given the reduced mass and lack 

of combustible fuel carried on board. The sUAS is carried to the inspection site. The 

sUAS will carry no passengers or crew and, therefore, will not expose them to the risks 

associated with manned aircraft flights.

The operation of small UASs, weighing less than 55 lbs., conducted in the strict 

conditions outlined above, will provide an equivalent level of safety supporting the grant 

of the exemptions requested herein, including 333 Aircraft Exemption Status exempting 

the applicant from conventional aircraft requirements and allowing commercial
operations. These lightweight aircraft operate at slow speeds, close to the ground, and in a 

controlled environment and, as a result, are far safer than conventional operations 

conducted with turbine helicopters operating in close proximity to the ground and people.

The safety of those on the ground is protected by the fact that no one will be allowed into 

the area without the permission of the company. Security will be established for the flight 

area as part of the pre-flight control. Each individual within the secure area will be

briefed prior to flight and will consent to being in the area. All others will be excluded

from the area.

FBP initially intends to use a dedicated staff for sUAS operations. All operations will be 

within visual line-of-sight (i.e., no more than approximately 0.5 miles from the 

manipulator of the controls, or pilot in command (PIC)). Each PIC will conduct at least

three take-offs and landings with the sUAS on which he or she is trained every 90 days. 

PIC’s will establish their qualifications thru a 

combination of aeronautical knowledge, UAS airmanship skills, and verification through

testing of flight ability before infrastructures operations have commenced. Depending 

on the type of operation, additional ground-based visual observers may be employed as 

well. These observers will be within constant visual line of sight and in constant contact 

with the PIC. The visual observers will assist the PIC in avoiding objects near the sUAS.

There are no standards for either Private or Commercial sUAS pilot certificates. The safe 

operation and control of the UAS as described in this application does not depend on the 

type of FAA license held by the PIC. Given the restricted and controlled airspace within 

which operations will take place, the key factors needed by the PIC are knowledge of the 

airspace within which the operation will take place and how that airspace fits into the 

National Airspace System (NAS). That knowledge can be and is gained primarily

through ground school and not through flight training in fixed wing or rotor aircraft, nor

is it dependent on the acquisition of a commercial or private pilot’s certificate. Those 

certificates demonstrate knowledge of the factors and skills needed for the safe operation 

of those types of aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft). It cannot be assumed that a 

commercial pilot, approved to operate a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft, has the skill or 

ability to safely operate a small unmanned aerial vehicle, operating at 400 AGL or lower, 

within strictly controlled pre-approved airspace. Besides knowledge of airspace 

regulations, dexterity in the control and operation of the sUAS acquired from actual 

operation of the aircraft is the most important factor in establishing an equivalent level of 

safety.

If the PIC has acquired the necessary knowledge of airspace requirements, the relevant 

issues are (1) where the aircraft will be flown, (2) the size of the aircraft relative to what 

is being used today to accomplish the same mission, and (3) what precautions will be 

taken to ensure the safety of those in the area of operation. We propose that the PIC has 

at least an FAA Private Pilots Certificate and a Class III medical; the aircraft be operated 

within a secure environment; and that no one be allowed to enter the secure environment 

unless they are part of the operation, have been fully briefed of the risks prior to 

operation of the sUAS, and have consented to the risks associated with being in the
operating area. Should there be a mishap, the sUAS being flown pose significantly less of 

a threat than the helicopters and fixed wing aircraft now being employed because they are 

a fraction of the size, carry no flammable fuel, do not carry crew or passengers, and pose 

an infinitesimal risk to others. This is in stark contrast to conventional aircraft that are 

flown to the site, carry explosive fuel, carry passengers and crew, and operate in a much 

larger area.

From a practical standpoint, there are relatively few licensed full-scale aircraft pilots who 

are also qualified to fly the type of sUAS that are utilized for infrastructure image-capture 

operations. There are even fewer commercial pilots that can fly these sUAS – to the point 

that to do both is considered rare. Assuming that it is unlikely for a company to find a

pilot that has both qualifications, that company would either have to source a qualified

sUAS pilot to train and obtain a commercial certificate, or find a commercial certificated 

pilot who would be willing to learn to fly a sUAS to the competency level required for 

professional use.

Minimum requirements for the PIC include:

1) Private Pilot’s license and a Class III medical;

2) A minimum of 200 flight cycles and 25 hours of total time as a sUAS rotorcraft 

pilot and at least 10 hours logged as a sUAS pilot with a similar sUAS type

(single blade or multirotor);

3) A minimum of 5 hours as sUAS pilot with the make and model of sUAS to be

utilized for operations under the exemption and 3 take offs and landings in the 

preceding 90 days;

4) Have undergone a qualification process as specified in the Flight Operations & 

Procedures Manual consisting of a knowledge & skill test of the aircraft to be

used.

Another consideration supporting the certificate requirement is that pilots holding a 

private pilot certificate are subject to security screening by the Department of Homeland 

Security. This requirement should ameliorate security concerns over UAS operations 

under this exemption.

FBP intends to use commercially available sUAS Components for sUAS. These sUAS 

systems will be tested for quality & safety in our test facility before being deployed to 

the field. The sUAS is less than 55 lbs. fully loaded, carries neither a pilot nor 

passenger, and operates exclusively within a secured area. We have a routine 

maintenance schedule to verify that the sUAS will remain in safe and operational 

condition. Please see Appendix B, for Specific Types of sUAS.

Notes Regarding: 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H

In accordance with the statutory criteria provided in Section 333 of PL 112---

95			 in reference to 49 USC 44704, and			 in consideration of the size, weight, speed, and			 li

mited			 operating			 area			 associated			 with			the aircraft and			 its operation, we request that thi

s aircraft exemption meets the conditions of Section 333. Therefore, if			 granted Section

333		 relief of 14			 CFR part 21, and any associated noise certification			 and testing

requirements of part 36, is not necessary.
Notes Regarding: 14 C.F.R. § 45.23 (b). Marking of the Aircraft

Given the size of the sUAV, two-inch lettering will be impossible. UA		 will 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 will be as lar

ge as practicable.

Notes Regarding: 14 CFR § 91.7(a) Civil Aircraft Airworthiness

FBP’s request is based on the fact that no airworthiness certificate will be issued for the 

UAS. FBP’s UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with

14 CFR part 21, Subpart H. Based on the fact that an airworthiness certificate will not be 

issued, exemption from § 91.7(a) is not necessary.

Notes Regarding: 14 CFR § 91.9(b)(2) Civil aircraft flight manual, marking & placard

Certifications required, the original intent of these regulations was to display an aircraft’s 

airworthiness, certification, and registration documents so they would be easily available 

to inspectors and passengers. Based on the FAA Memorandum subject “Interpretation 

regarding whether certain required documents may be kept at an unmanned aircraft’s 

control station,” dated August 8, 2014, the requested relief from 14 CFR §§ 91.9(b)(2) 

and 91.203(a) and (b) is not necessary.

Notes Regarding: §91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated instrument & certain flight tests

Small UASs, by their design, do not have fully functional dual controls. Flight control is 

accomplished through the use of a control box that communicates with the aircraft via 

radio communications. Aircraft being considered for use by FBP allow the UAS 

Instructor to place the aircraft into ‘loiter’ mode (fixed altitude stationary hold). In the 

event of the student losing control, the UAS Instructor can quickly and via alternate 

equipment (equipment not in the hands of the student) place the aircraft into a mode that 

then allows the instructor to bring the aircraft back into control and back to the predetermined and/or safe landing location.

FBP does not describe training scenarios in which a dual set of controls would be 

utilized or required, i.e. dual flight instruction, provided by a flight instructor or other 

company-designated individual, that would require that individual to have fully

functioning dual controls. Rather, FBP evaluates the qualification of its PICs based on 

their experience with the UAS to be operated and verifies through testing, in lieu of 

formalized training. As such, FBP does not seek relief from 14 CFR § 91.109.

Notes Regarding § 14 CFR 91.119(b)

Relief from § 14 CFR 91.119(b), operation over congested areas, is not applicable, 

because the FBP’s operations will only be conducted within the secured area described 

herein.
FBP Safety Operations & Procedures Overview:

Technology Considerations:

Best-in-class, tried and proven technologies that are in advanced iterations. Software from 

highly-reputable industry partners will include features -

1. Auto descent (landing) if communication signal were to be severed. If the sUAS 

loses communications, the sUAS will have capability to return to a pre-determined 

location within the Security Perimeter and land.

2. Auto descent (landing) if battery were to drop lower than nominal level.

3. Flights will be terminated at 25% battery power reserve.

4. Live video for operator gives real-time positioning feedback. In other words, we 

can monitor the scene from the vehicle's perspective for collision avoidance, and to 

maintain spatial orientation.

5. The sUAS will have the capability to abort a flight in case of unpredicted obstacles

or emergencies.

6. On-Screen-Display (OSD) contains operating information to ascertain vehicle 

health at all times: speed, altitude, number of GPS satellites (when available), 

heading and voltage.

7. GPS lock supplies for return-to-home (RTH). Should Command and Control (C2) 

link failures occur (highly improbable), vehicle returns automatically to the point of 

launch.

8. Altitude information will be provided to the sUAS pilot via a digitally encoded 

telemetric data feed, which downlinks from the aircraft to a ground-based on-screen 

display. This altitude information will be generated by equipment installed on board 

the aircraft, using GPS triangulation, or digitally encoded barometric altimeter, or 

radio altimeter, or any combination thereof. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude 

initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the pilot.

Mechanical/Physical:

1. We will fly line-of-sight (LOS) only. The vehicle will always remain in direct LOS 

to the pilot, thus eliminating the concern of signal severance (flying behind 

objects/walls).

2. The sUAS will weigh less than 55 lbs and travel at less than 50 knots.

3. Batteries should far exceed the capacity required for actual flight time.

4. Flights will be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet AGL.

5. Fireproof bags for storage and charging of high capacity Lipo batteries on-site.

6. UA		 operated under this exemption will be marked in accordance with 14 CFR			

part 45 or as otherwise authorized by the FAA.

Personnel:

1. Spotters ensure safe operation and act as a redundant set of eyes for operators

(pilot, gimbal op, director)

2. Radio spectrum analysis for interference on the frequencies utilized for vehicle 

control/communication.

3. A briefing will be conducted in regard to the planned sUAS operations prior to 

each day’s activities. It will be mandatory that all personnel who will be performing 

duties within the boundaries of the safety perimeter be present for this briefing.

4. The operator will obtain the consent of all persons involved in the sUAS operations
and ensure that only consenting persons will be allowed within 100 feet of the flight 

operations.

5. Observer and pilot will at all times be able to communicate by voice.

6. Written and/or oral permission from the relevant property holders will be obtained.

7. Pilot and observer will have been trained in operation of UAS generally and 

received up-to-date information on the particular UAS to be operated.

Operations:

1. The unmanned aircraft (UA) must weigh less than 55 pounds (25 Kg),

including energy source(s) and equipment. Operations authorized by this petition 

of exemption are limited to the following aircraft described in Appendix B. 

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

amendment to this request.

2. The UA may not be flown at a ground speed exceeding 50 knots.

3. Flights must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground 

level (AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operator’s manual. 

All altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL.

4. 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 medical 

certificate.

5. All operations must utilize a visual observer (VO). 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.

6. The operator’s manual included as Appendix C and this petition of exemption 

must be maintained and made available to the AFBPnistrator upon request. If a 

discrepancy exists between the conditions and limitations in this exemption and 

the procedures outlined in the operator’s manual, the conditions and limitations 

herein take precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must 

follow the procedures as outlined in its operator’s manual.

The operator may update or revise its operator’s manual. It is the operator’s 

responsibility to track such revisions and present updated and revised documents 

to the AFBPnistrator upon request. The operator must also present updated and 

revised documents if it petitions for extension or amendment. If the operator 

determines that any update or revision would affect the basis for which the FAA 

grants this petition for exemption, then the operator must petition for amendment 

to their exemption. The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may be 

contacted if questions arise regarding updates or revisions to the operator’s 

manual.

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 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. The Ground Control Station, if utilized, must be included in the 

preflight inspection. All maintenance and alterations must be properly 

documented in the aircraft records.

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 in accordance with the operator’s manual. 

The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an entry in the UAS

aircraft records of the flight. The requirements and procedures for a functional test

flight and aircraft record entry must be added to the operator’s manual.

9. The operator must follow the manufacturer’s UAS aircraft/component, 

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

When unavailable, aircraft maintenance/component/overhaul, replacement, and 

inspection/maintenance requirements must be established and identified in the 

operator’s manual. At a minimum, requirements for the following must be 

included in the operator’s manual:

a. Actuators / Servos;

b. Transmission (single rotor);

c. Powerplant (motors);

d. Propellers;

e. Electronic speed controller;

f. Batteries;

g. Mechanical dynamic components (single rotor);

h. Remote command and control;

i. Ground control station (if used); and

j. Any other components as determined by the operator;

10. The Pilot In Command (PIC) must possess 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.

11. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of infrastructure inspections, the

PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR §

61.51(b), a minimum of 200 flight cycles and 25 hours of total time as a UAS 

rotorcraft pilot and at least 10 hours logged as a UAS pilot with a similar UAS 

type (single blade or multirotor). 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 petition of exemption to accomplish the required flight cycles and flight

time. 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.

12. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of infrastructure inspection, the

PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 CFR §

61.51(b), a minimum of five hours as UAS pilot operating the make and model of

UAS to be utilized for operations under the exemption and three take-offs and 

three landings in the preceding 90 days. Training, proficiency, experiencebuilding, and take-off and landing currency flights can be conducted under this 

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

During training, proficiency, experience-building, and take-off and landing 

currency 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.

13. Prior to any flight operations authorized by this petition of exemption, the PIC 

and VO must have successfully completed a qualification process, as outlined in 

the operator’s manual. As this is a requirement stipulated by the operator, the test 

must be developed and implemented by a qualified person designated at the sole 

discretion of the operator. A record of completion of this qualification process 

must be documented and made available to the AFBPnistrator upon request.

14. Prior to operations conducted for the purpose of infrastructure inspection, a flight 

demonstration, aFBPnistered by an operator-approved and -qualified pilot must be 

successfully completed and documented. This documentation must be available for 

review upon request by the AFBPnistrator. Because the knowledge and airmanship 

test qualifications have been developed by the operator, and there are no established 

practical test standards that support a jurisdictional FAA FSDO evaluation and 

approval of company designated examiners, the petitioner will conduct these tests in 

accordance with the operator’s manual.

15. The UA may not be operated directly over any person, except authorized and 

consenting personnel, below an altitude that is hazardous to persons or property on 

the surface in the event of a UAS failure or emergency.

16. Regarding the distance from participating persons, the operator’s manual has 

safety mitigations for authorized and consenting personnel. At all times, those 

persons must be essential to the operations.

17. Regarding distance from nonparticipating persons, the operator must ensure that 

no persons are allowed within 500 feet of the area except those consenting to be 

involved and necessary for the infrastructure inspection operations. This provision 

may be reduced to no less than 200 feet if it would not adversely affect safety and the 

AFBPnistrator has approved it. For example, an equivalent level of safety may be 

determined by an aviation safety inspector’s evaluation of the infrastructure 

inspection area to note terrain features, obstructions, buildings, safety barriers, etc. 

Such barriers may protect nonparticipating persons (observers, the public, news 

media, etc.) from debris in the event of an accident.
18. If the UAS loses communications or loses its GPS signal, the UA must return to a 

pre-determined location within the security perimeter and land or be recovered in 

accordance with the operator’s manual.

19. The UAS must abort the flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or 

emergencies in accordance with the operator’s manual.

20. Each UAS operation must be completed with 25% battery power remaining.

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

Waiver or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations under this petition 

of exemption. 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 the 

operation.

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.

23. The operator must develop procedures to document and maintain a record of the 

UAS maintenance, preventative maintenance, alterations, status of 

replacement/overhaul component parts, and the total time in service of the UAS. 

These procedures must be added to the operator’s manual.

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

Safety Bulletins.

25. The operator must develop UAS technician qualification criteria. These criteria 

must be added to the operator’s manual.

26. The preflight inspection section in the operator’s manual must be amended to 

include the following requirement: The preflight inspection must account for all 

discrepancies, i.e. inoperable components, items, or equipment, not covered in the 

relevant preflight inspection sections of the operator’s manual.

27. 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.

28. At least three days before scheduled infrastructure inspection, the operator of the 

UAS affected by this exemption must submit a written Plan of Activities to the local 

FSDO with jurisdiction over the area of proposed infrastructure inspection. 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 infrastructure
inspection operations conducted under this petition 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 infrastructure 

inspection event;

f. A statement that the operator has obtained permission from property owners

and/or local officials to conduct the infrastructure inspection 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 infrastructure inspection will be 

conducted and the altitudes essential to accomplish the operation.

29. 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 aircraft is operating. 

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

enforcement official upon request.

30. The UA must remain clear and yield the right of way to all other manned 

operations and activities at all times (including, but not limited to, ultralight vehicles, 

parachute activities, parasailing activities, hang gliders, etc.).

31. 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.

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

33. 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.

34. The UA may not operate in Class B, C, or D airspace without written approval 

from the FAA. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of the geographic 

center of a non-towered airport as denoted on a current FAA-published aeronautical 

chart unless a letter of agreement with that airport’s management is obtained, and the 

operation is conducted in accordance with a NOTAM as required by the operator’s 

COA. The letter of agreement with the airport management must be made available to 

the AFBPnistrator upon request.

35. 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. Further flight operations may not

be conducted until the incident, accident, or transgression is reviewed by AFS-80 and 

authorization to resume operations is provided.
Support for Petition for Exemption

In accordance with the procedural requirements of 14 C.F.R. §11.81, FBP provides the 

following information:

Contact Information:

Marco Zucchi, CEO

Fly By Properties LLC. 

777 Charles Allen Drive NE

Atlanta GA 30308

(404) 429-7400

mzucchi@itknowledge.biz

Regulatory Provisions from which FBP seeks an Exemption

FBP believes it may need an exemption from the following provisions to 

conduct the contemplated operations. In some instances, relief is needed because relief 

from another provision renders compliance with the regulation at hand infeasible.

333 Aircraft Exemption Status

14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b)

14 C.F.R. §91.119(c)

14 C.F.R. §91.121

14 C.F.R. §91.151

14 C.F.R. §91.405(a)

14 C.F.R. §91.407(a)

14 C.F.R. §91.409(a)(1)&(2)

14 C.F.R. §91.417(a)&(b)

FBP believes an exemption is only needed from the above-listed regulatory

provisions. To the extent that the FAA believes that additional relief is required for FBP

to conduct the operations described here, we request an exemption from any such 

regulatory provisions as well.3

3 For example, 14 C.F.R. §91.417(a) imposes certain maintenance record keeping requirements “as 

applicable”. Since none of the underlying requirements (e.g., inspection intervals) can be met and will 

require an exemption, FBP believes a separate exemption should not be required for §91.417(a).
The Extent of Requested Relief and the Reasons Relief is Needed

Section 333 Aircraft Exemption Status:

Section 333 of the Modernization Act authorizes the FAA to exempt aircraft from the 

requirement for an airworthiness certificate based on a consideration of the size, weight, 

speed, operational capability of the particular UAS, as well as its proximity to airports and 

populated areas. An analysis of these criteria demonstrates that the sUAS operated without an 

airworthiness certificate in the areas and under the conditions contemplated by FBP will

be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or rotorcraft) operating

with an airworthiness certificate without the conditions proposed in this request.

The sUAS is less than 55 lbs. fully loaded, carries neither a pilot nor passenger, and operates 

exclusively within a secured area. Unlike other civil aircraft, operations under this exemption 

will be tightly controlled and monitored by the operator and observer. Operations will be 

conducted in compliance with the FAA and with local public safety requirements to provide 

security for the area of operation as is now done with conventional equipment, infrastructure, 

bridge and out building evaluation. These safety enhancements provide an expanded degree 

of safety to the inspectors over conventional operations. Lastly, application of these same 

criteria demonstrates that there is no credible threat to national security posed by the sUAS, 

due to its size, speed of operation, location of operation, lack of explosive materials and 

inability to carry a substantial external load.

Given the size and limited operating area associated with the aircraft to be utilized by the 

Applicant, this meets the requirements of an equivalent level of safety under Part 11 and 

Section 333 of the Reform Act. The Federal Aviation Act (49 U.S.C.§44701 (f)) and 

Section 333 of the Reform Act both authorize the FAA to exempt aircraft from the 

requirement for an airworthiness certificate, upon consideration of the size, weight, 

speed, operational capability, and proximity to airports and populated areas of the 

particular sUAS. In all cases, an analysis of these criteria demonstrates that the UAS 

operated without an airworthiness certificate, in the restricted environment and under the 

conditions proposed will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed

wing or rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate without the restrictions and

conditions proposed.
14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b)

§61.113 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.

*****

FBP anticipates initially using a cadre of specially trained staff to conduct the 

sUAS operations. While these individuals will not hold commercial pilot licenses. The 

sUAS will not carry property for compensation or hire since they will be used solely to 

assist in evaluation of the infrastructure, equipment, right-of-way, assets, bridges, tunnels 

and out-buildings in furtherance of FBP’s client’s primary business, the successful 

operation of a infrastructure; however, the employees’ operation of the sUAS will not be 

incidental to their employment with FBP, and they will be compensated for such work. 

Without an exemption, the pilot would be required to hold a commercial pilot certificate 

under §61.133. However, the risk associated with the contemplated operations is less than 

the risk posed by a traditional aircraft. The sUAS will fly at altitudes well below the 

permissible limits for other civil aircraft, eliminating the risk to other aircraft, and within

a geographical envelope under the sole control of FBP clients. Accordingly, the risk

would be limited to FBP personnel, who will be appropriately outfitted in safety gear, 

and FBP client’s property on the ground. Requiring a commercial pilot certificate would 

provide no appreciable safety benefit and would needlessly impose additional cost on 

FBP. Because the contemplated operations would not comply with §61.113(b)(1) and 

none of the other exceptions to paragraph (a) apply, relief is needed from both 

paragraphs (a) and (b).
14 C.F.R. 91.119(c)

§91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

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

aircraft

below the following altitudes:

***

(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.

*****

FBP submits that the only relief it requires from §91.119 is from the minimum

altitudes listed in paragraph (c). Relief is required from paragraph (c) for fixed wing 

operations because asset evaluation conducted at 500 feet or higher is insufficiently 

distinct to be meaningful. Since operations at this altitude also pose a heightened risk of 

collision with another aircraft, safety can only be assured through the grant of an 

exemption. The anticipated rotorcraft operations should be adequately addressed by

paragraph (d) (1). Additionally, relief should not be needed from paragraph (a) because 

an emergency landing of the aircraft due to a power failure will not create an undue 

hazard to persons or property on the surface. As noted in the explanation of why an 

exemption will not adversely affect safety, FBP clients has exclusive use of the land over 

which the sUAS will be operated, and public access is restricted. It also has exclusive use 

of significant portions of land adjacent to the infrastructure and structures that will be the 

objects of evaluation and analysis. FBP’s Clients tightly control access to land and have 

the ability to assure that no individuals unassociated with the planned operations are on 

the affected land. As such, the risk of injury is minimal. FBP does not contemplate 

conducting operations over congested areas, so relief is not requested from paragraph (b).

14 C.F.R. 91.121

14 C.F.R. §91.121 Altimeter Settings

This regulation requires each person operating an aircraft to maintain cruising

altitude by reference to an altimeter that is set “...to the elevation of the departure 

airport or an appropriate altimeter setting available before departure.”

*****

As the sUAS may not have a barometric altimeter, but instead a GPS altitude read

out, an exemption may be needed. An equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the 

operator, pursuant to the Manual and Safety Check list, confirming the altitude of the 

launch site shown on the GPS altitude indicator before flight.

Altitude information will be provided to the sUAS pilot via a digitally encoded telemetric 

data feed, which downlinks from the aircraft to a ground-based on-screen display. This 

altitude information will be generated by equipment installed on board the aircraft, using 

GPS triangulation, or digitally encoded barometric altimeter, or radio altimeter, or any 

combination thereof. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point will be established 

and confirmed for accuracy by the pilot.
14 C.F.R. 91.151

§91.151 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.

(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.

*****

Operating the sUAS in a pre-defined area with less than 30 minutes of reserve

fuel does not raise the type of risk contemplated by §91.151, i.e., that an aircraft could 

run out of fuel in the event it has to be flown to an alternate airport or circle the planned 

airport in the event of unanticipated conditions. FBP does not intend to use the sUAS for 

point-to-point flights and will not operate the sUAS beyond visual line of sight. Nor will 

the sUAS require an airport in order to land. Rather, FBP will operate the sUAS using 

pre-planned flight paths (taking into account weather conditions) designed to allow the 

sUAS to fly to the point of intended landing. As such, there is no need for a time- based 

excess fuel requirement. Rather it should be sufficient to require only as much additional 

excess flight capacity as necessary to safely land the sUAS. We believe that a

25% battery reserve is more than sufficient to meet this objective.
14 C.F.R. 91.405(a), 91.407(a) (1), 14 C.F.R. 91.409(a) (1)&(2) and 14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) & (b)

§91.405 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 Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance,

rebuilding, or alteration.

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

rebuilding, or alteration unless –

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

§43.7 of this chapter;

*****

§91.409 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) & (b)

*****

FBP believes that an exemption from these three maintenance requirements is

appropriate because the FAA has not developed maintenance standards that would allow 

an operator to meet the part 91 maintenance requirements. In particular, there are no 

individuals authorized by the FAA to approve a sUAS for return to service under

§91.407(a) or to conduct the initial airworthiness and annual return to service inspections

required by §91.409(a). FBP will maintain the aircraft as instructed in the owner’s 

manual and ASTM F2909, where applicable, and will not operate the aircraft until it has 

reasonably determined that any needed repairs have been made. However, because of the 

technical impossibility of meeting the requirements of §§91.405(a), 407(a), 409(a) and

417(a)&(b), we believe an exemption from these provisions is appropriate.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at the phone number or via the e-mail address 

provided above should you have any questions or concerns.

Appendix A

Summary for Federal Register Publication

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, the following summary is provided for publication in the

Federal Register should the FAA determine that publication is needed.

Petitioner: Fly By Properties , Inc. (FBP) Sections of 14 C.F.R. 

Affected:

333 Aircraft Exemption Status
14 C.F.R. §61.113(a) and (b)

14 C.F.R. §91.119(c)

14 C.F.R. §91.121

14 C.F.R. §91.151

14 C.F.R. §91.405(a)

14 C.F.R. §91.407(a)

14 C.F.R. §91.409(a)

14 C.F.R. §91.417(a)&(b) 

Description of Relief Sought:

Petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of 333 Aircraft Exemption Status, 14

C.F.R., 61.113(a)&(b)), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151, 91.405(a), 91.407(a), 91.409(a), and

91.417(a)&(b) to conduct sUAS operations over FBP Client’s owned or controlled land, 

solely during daylight hours, to assist in the safe evaluation and analysis of infrastructure 

and operations. In general, sUAS operations are intended to be conducted in areas remote 

from both congested areas and airports. The nature of operations anticipated by FBP

requires that the sUAS be flown at relatively low altitudes. FBP expects that in most 

instances, the sUAS will be flown less than 75 feet from the highest structure along the 

path of the sUAS and in no instances will be flown higher than 400

feet above the ground. Accordingly, the risk of interference with other aircraft is minimal.
Appendix B

Specific type(s), make, and model

#1	 --- DJI S1000

See Attached Flight Manuals:

DJI S1000 User Manual V1.08

DJI A2_ Flight Control System Manual_v1.18

3D Robotics PixHawk			 Flight Manual Rev6 (Alternative Controller)
#2 --- DJI Phantom 2

See Attached Flight Manuals:

DJI Phantom 2 User Manual

NAZA---M_Flight Control System_v1.26

#3 --- DJI Phantom 3

See Attached Flight Manuals:

DJI Phantom	3 User Manual

NAZA---M_Flight Control System_v1.26