Page 1 of 18 

Garber Graphics LLC Petition for Exemption to FAA Section 333 

Paul Garber 

Garber Graphics LLC DBA Above & Beyond Aerial Imaging 

N7135 Torgerson Rd 

Iola, WI 54945 

715-570-2477 

garbergraphics@gmail.com 

SUMMARY 

Paul E. Garber seeks exemption from Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations from part 21, Certification procedures for products and parts, Subpart H – 

Airworthiness Certificates, and the following sections of the Code of Federal Regulations, 14 C.F.R 

§§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.119, 91.121, 91.151 (a) and (b), 

91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b). 

Paul E. Garber seeks exemption in order to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System pursuant to 

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA). This exemption will permit 

Paul Garber to operate an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) for the commercial purpose of real 

estate photography, building exterior inspection, landscape photography, and conducting aerial 

video and photography for tourism agencies, rural homeowners, and farms. 

INTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF THE PETITIONER 

My name is Paul E. Garber and I am establishing a small business in central Wisconsin specializing 

in aerial video and photography services utilizing Unmanned Aircraft Systems. The business 

name, Above & Beyond Aerial Imaging, is a registered trade name of Garber Graphics, LLC. 

I am writing pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and the procedures 

contained within 14 C.F.R. 11, to request that Paul E. Garber of Above & Beyond Aerial Imaging - 

owner of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) - be granted exemption from the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (FARS) listed within so that I may operate my UAS commercially in airspace 

regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration. 

The objective of Paul E. Garber's aerial video and photography services is to provide high quality 

imaging for a variety of commercial, public, and residential uses, specifically targeting: 

• Real Estate Photography 

• Tourism agencies 

• Agricultural operations 

• Building exterior inspections 

• Documenting rural properties for insurance purposes/sentimental reasons 

• Construction projects. 

• Increase public knowledge of UAS and promote safe UAS 

EQUIPMENT 

Unmanned Aircraft System: 3D Robotics (3DR) SOLO 

Paul E. Garber seeks an exemption to operate a 3DR SOLO for compensation or hire within the 

NAS. 
Page 2 of 18 

The 3DR SOLO is a quad copter vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) Unmanned Aircraft (UA) with 

a Ground Control Station (GCS) utilizing a tablet computer. 

Appendices: 

1 - 3DR Sols User Manual (PDF) http://3drobotics.com/kb/solo-user-manual 

2 - Technical Specifications 

3 - Preflight Checklist 

 

BASIS FOR PETITION 

Petitioner, Paul E. Garber, pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 

C.F.R. § 11.61) and Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), 

Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems, hereby petitions the Administrator to 

commercially operate the 3DR SOLO UAS in the National Airspace System (NAS), and for an 

exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R §§ 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 

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

In consideration of the speed, weight, size, and limited operating area associated with the 

unmanned aircraft and its operation, Paul E. Garber's operation of the 3DR SOLO UAS meets the 

conditions of FMRA Section 333 and therefore, will not require an airworthiness certificate in 

accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. 

Accordingly, Paul E. Garber requests relief from 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b), as these sections set forth requirements for 

maintenance that only apply to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate. 

Paul E. Garber submits that the requested relief is proper since an equivalent level of safety will 

be ensured. Paul E. Garber will use experienced personnel or technicians to perform maintenance, 

alterations, or preventive maintenance on the UAS using the methods, techniques, and practices 

prescribed in the operating documents (i.e., Monthly Maintenance Log, and 3DR SOLO User 

Manual). Furthermore, Paul E. Garber will document and maintain all maintenance records for the 

3DR SOLO UAS. 

Relief from certain requirements of 14 C.F.R.§ 61.113(a) and (b), entitled Private pilot privileges 

and limitations: Pilot in command, is requested by Paul E. Garber to the extent necessary to allow 

a Pilot in Command (PIC) holding a private pilot or higher level certificate, as well as an airman 

medical certificate, and who has demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight- hour and currency 

requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the 3DR SOLO UAS in a manner consistent 

with this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate 

distances from people, vessels, vehicles and structures. 

Paul E. Garber seeks relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), entitled Civil aircraft airworthiness, because 

the 3DR SOLO UAS does not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 

21, Subpart H. As such, Paul E. Garber submits that he will ensure that the 3DR SOLO UAS is in 

an airworthy condition, prior to every flight, by determining that the UAS is in compliance with 

the operating documents (i.e., Monthly Maintenance Log, and the 3DR SOLO User Manual), and 

that the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight. 

Paul E. Garber also seeks an exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.121, entitled 

Altimeter Settings, as the 3DR SOLO UAS will not have a typical barometric altimeter onboard. 

However, altitude information of the 3DR SOLO UAS will be provided to the PIC via Global 
Page 3 of 18 

Positioning System (GPS) equipment and radio communications telemetry data link, which 

downlinks from the UA to the GCS for active monitoring of the flight path. This altitude 

information, combined with Paul E. Garber’s operation of the 3DR SOLO UAS within visual line of 

sight, at or below 400 feet AGL, will ensure a level of safety equivalent to 14 C.F.R. § 91.121. 

Additionally, Paul E. Garber seeks an exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(b), 

entitled Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions. Paul E. Garber submits that safety will not 

be affected by operation of the 3DR SOLO UAS during daylight hours in visual meteorological 

conditions (VMC) under visual flight rules (VFR), with enough battery power to fly for a total 

duration of approximately 13.5 minutes to the first point of intended landing and, assuming 

normal cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 4.5 minutes. 

In accordance with 14 C.F.R. § 11.81, Paul E. Garber provides the following information in 

support of its petition for exemption: 

A. The name and address of the Petitioner and point of contact is:

Paul E. Garber 

Garber Grapghics LLC [doing business as] Above & Beyond Aerial Imaging 

N7135 Torgerson Rd 

Iola, WI 54945 

715-570-2477 

garbergrapghics@gmail.com 

B. The Specific Sections Of 14 C.F.R. From Which Paul E. Garber Seeks Exemption.

1. Paul E. Garber Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(a) and (b) 

entitled Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command, subsections (a) and (b) 

prescribe the following, in relevant part: 

(a) No person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as a pilot in command (PIC) of an 

aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for 

compensation or hire, act as PIC of an aircraft. 

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as PIC 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. 

2. Paul E. Garber Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of 14 C.F.R.§ 91.7(a), entitled Civil 

aircraft airworthiness, subsection (a), states the following: 

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

3. Paul E. Garber Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of 14 C.F.R. § 91.121, entitled 

Altimeter settings, subsection (a), states the following, in part: 

(a) Each person operating an aircraft shall maintain the cruising altitude or flight level of that 

aircraft, as the case may be, by reference to an altimeter that is set, when operating- 

(1) Below 18,000 feet MSL, to-- 

(i) The current reported altimeter setting of a station along the route and within 100 nautical 

miles of the aircraft; 

(ii) If there is no station within the area prescribed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, the 

current reported altimeter setting of an appropriate available station; or (iii) In the case of an 
Page 4 of 18 

aircraft not equipped with a radio, the elevation of the departure airport or an appropriate 

altimeter setting available before departure. 

4. Paul E. Garber Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(b), entitled 

Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, subsection 

(b), states the following: 

(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 13.5 minutes. 

5. Paul E. Garber Seeks Exemption From The Requirement Of 14 C.F.R. § 91.405(a), entitled 

Maintenance required, subsection (a), states the following: 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 [.] 

6. Paul E. Garber Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of 14 C.F.R. § 91.407(a)(1), entitled 

Operation after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration, subsection 

(a)(1), states the following: 

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

maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration unless-- 

(1) It has been approved for return to service by a person authorized under § 43.7 of this 

chapter[.] 

7. Paul E. Garber Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.409(a)(1) and (2), 

entitled Inspections, subsection (a), states the following: 

(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. 

8. Paul E. Garber Seeks Exemption From The Requirements Of 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.417(a) and (b), 

entitled Maintenance records, subsections (a) and (b), state the following: 

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

or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this 

section: 

(1) Records of the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and records of the 100-

hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections, as appropriate, for each 

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

The records must include-- 

(i) A description (or reference to data acceptable to the Administrator) of the work performed; 

and 

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

(iii) The signature, and certificate number of the person approving the aircraft for return to 

service. 

(2) Records containing the following information: 

(i) The total time in service of the airframe, each engine, each propeller, and each rotor. 

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

appliance. 
Page 5 of 18 

(iii) The time since last overhaul of all items installed on the aircraft which are required to be 

overhauled on a specified time basis. 

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

required by the inspection program under which the aircraft and its appliances are maintained. 

(v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, 

for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the 

AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is 

required. 

(vi) Copies of the forms prescribed by § 43.9(d) of this chapter for each major alteration to the 

airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, propellers, and appliances. 

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

(1) The records specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall be retained until the work is 

repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is performed. 

(2) The records specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall be retained and transferred with 

the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold. 

(3) A list of defects furnished to a registered owner or operator under § 43.11 of this chapter shall 

be retained until the defects are repaired and the aircraft is approved for return to service. 

C. The Extent Of Relief Paul E. Garber Seeks And The Reason Paul E. Garber Seeks The 

Relief. 

1. Extent Of Relief Paul E. Garber Seeks and the Reason Paul E. Garber Seeks Relief From 14 

C.F.R. §§ 61.113(a) And (b). 

Relief from Section 61.113(a) and (b) entitled Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in 

command, is requested to the extent necessary to allow a PIC holding a private pilot or higher 

level certificate, as well as a current and valid airman medical certificate, and who has met 

certain flight-hour and currency requirements, to conduct the proposed UAS flight operations for 

compensation or hire. This relief is requested since the limitations set forth in Section 61.113(a) 

and (b) state that a private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as PIC 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. As set forth more fully below, Paul E. Garber submits that an equivalent level of safety will 

be maintained because no PIC will be allowed to operate the 3DR SOLO UAS unless that PIC has 

met certain flight-hour and currency requirements, demonstrating that the PIC is able to safely 

operate the 3DR SOLO UAS in a manner consistent with the operations specifications as described 

in this exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers, as well as maintaining 

appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles and structures. 

Further, Paul E. Garber submits that all flights of the 3DR SOLO UAS, conducted by the PIC 

pursuant to the grant of this Petition: (1) will be incidental to Paul E. Garber' business; and (2) 

will not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire. 

2. Extent Of Relief Paul E. Garber Seeks and the Reason Paul E. Garber Seeks Relief From 14 

C.F.R. § 91.7(a). 

Relief from Section 91.7(a) entitled Civil aircraft airworthiness, is requested to the extent required

to allow Paul E. Garber to determine that the 3DR SOLO UAS is in airworthy condition prior to 

every flight by ensuring that the UAS is in compliance with the operating documents (i.e., 

Maintenance Log, and 3DR SOLO Instruction Manual). 
Page 6 of 18 

Paul E. Garber seeks the requested relief because the 3DR SOLO UAS does not require an 

airworthiness certificate in accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. Therefore, Paul E. 

Garber will ensure that the 3DR SOLO UAS is in airworthy condition based upon its compliance 

with the operating documents (i.e., Monthly Maintenance Log, and 3DR SOLO User Manual) prior 

to every flight, and further, determine that the aircraft are in condition for safe flight, as stated in 

the conditions and limitations below. 

3. Extent Of Relief Paul E. Garber Seeks and the Reason Paul E. Garber Seeks Relief From 14 

C.F.R. § 91.121. 

Relief from Section 91.121, entitled Altimeter settings, may be required to allow flight operations 

of the 3DR SOLO UAS, which utilizes a barometric pressure sensor, GPS equipment, and a radio 

communications telemetry data link to downlink altitude information from the UA to the PIC at the 

ground control station (GCS). Since the FAA requires that any altitude information concerning 

UAS operations be reported to air traffic control (ATC) in feet above ground level (AGL), Paul E. 

Garber seeks the requested relief because the 3DR SOLO UAS altimeter may be set on the ground 

to zero feet AGL, rather than the local barometric pressure or field altitude, before each flight. 

Considering the limited altitude of the proposed operations, relief from 14 CFR 91.121 is sought 

to the extent necessary to comply with the applicable conditions and limitations stated below. As 

more fully set forth herein, an equivalent level of safety will be maintained since the 3DR SOLO 

UAS is equipped with a barometric pressure sensor and GPS equipment, which automatically 

ensures that a ground level pressure setting will be established prior to each flight, and provides 

the PIC with altitude information of the UA on the heads-up display of the GCS. 

4. Extent Of Relief Paul E. Garber Seeks and the Reason Paul E. Garber Seeks Relief From 14 

C.F.R. § 91.151(b). 

Relief from Section 91.151(b) entitled Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions, is requested 

to the extent required to allow flights of the battery powered 3DR SOLO UAS during daylight 

hours in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), under visual flight rules (VFR), for a total 

duration of 13.5 minutes to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising 

speed, to fly after that for at least 4.5 minutes. Paul E. Garber seeks the requested relief because 

without an exemption from Section 91.151(b), the flight time duration of the battery powered 

3DR SOLO UAS will severely constrain the practicality of any aerial video or still photo flight 

operations that Paul E. Garber proposes to conduct pursuant to this Petition. 

Significantly, as set forth below, the technical specifications of the 3DR SOLO UAS, the 3DR SOLO 

UAS operating documents, and Paul E. Garber’ proposed operating limitations, ensure that Paul E. 

Garber will safely operate the battery powered 3DR SOLO UAS during daylight hours in visual 

meteorological conditions (VMC), under visual flight rules (VFR), with enough battery power to fly 

for a total duration of 13.5 minutes to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal 

cruising speed, to fly after that for at least 4.5 minutes. 

5. Extent Of Relief Paul E. Garber Seeks and the Reason Paul E. Garber Seeks Relief From 14 

C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b). 

Since Sections 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) only apply to 

aircraft with an airworthiness certificate, Paul E. Garber requests relief from these Sections 

because the 3DR SOLO UAS does not require an airworthiness certificate. 
Page 7 of 18 

As set forth more fully below, the 3DR SOLO UAS meets the conditions of FMRA Section 333 for 

operation without an airworthiness certificate. Accordingly, Paul E. Garber will use trained 

technicians to perform maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on the 3DR SOLO 

UAS using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the UAS operating documents 

(i.e., Maintenance Log, and 3DR SOLO UAS User Manual). Furthermore, Paul E. Garber will 

document and maintain all maintenance records for the 3DR SOLO UAS. 

D. The Reasons Why Granting Paul E. Garber Request Would Be In The Public Interest; 

That Is, How It Would Benefit The Public As A Whole. 

Granting the present Petition will further the public interest by allowing Paul E. Garber to safely, 

efficiently, and economically perform aerial video and photography of construction sites, real 

estate, and landscape over certain areas of the United States. Additionally, use of the 3DR SOLO 

UAS will decrease congestion of the NAS, reduce pollution, and provide significant benefits to the 

economy. Notably, the benefits of Paul E. Garber’ proposed operation of the 3DR SOLO UAS will 

be realized without implicating any privacy issues.

1. The Public Will Benefit From Decreased Congestion Of The NAS. 

The 3DR SOLO UAS is battery powered and serves as a safe, efficient, and economical alternative 

to the manned aircraft traditionally utilized to obtain aerial imagery. By reducing the amount of 

manned aircraft needed to perform aerial acquisitions, an exemption allowing the use of a 3DR 

SOLO UAS would reduce the amount of manned aircraft in the NAS, reduce noise and air 

pollution, as well as increase the safety of life and property in the air and on the ground. 

Furthermore, by reducing the number of manned aircraft operating in the NAS, congestion around 

airports caused by arriving and departing aircraft will be reduced. The 3DR SOLO UAS does not 

require an airport to takeoff or land. Likewise, a reduction of manned aircraft conducting aerial 

video and photography missions would result in fewer aircraft that must be handled by air traffic 

control during the ground, takeoff, departure, arrival, and landing phases of flight operations. 

2. The Public Will Benefit From The Safety And Efficiency Of The 3DR SOLO UAS. 

Conducting aerial acquisitions with the 3DR SOLO UAS, instead of manned aircraft, will greatly 

benefit the public by drastically reducing the levels of air and noise pollution generated during 

traditional aerial video and still photography flight operations. By using battery power and electric 

motors, the 3DR SOLO UAS produces no air pollution, and is the most viable environmentally 

conscious alternative to the cabin class, six cylinder internal combustion engine aircraft that are 

typically utilized for aerial video and photography, while burning approximately 20-30 gallons per 

hour of leaded aviation fuel. The 3DR SOLO UAS, while reducing the carbon footprint of aerial 

acquisitions, also eliminates noise pollution, as the 3DR SOLO is propelled by battery powered 

electric motors, rather than an internal combustion engine. 

By using the 3DR SOLO UAS to perform aerial acquisitions, the substantial risk to life and 

property in the air and on the ground, which is usually associated with traditional manned aircraft 

flight operations, will be substantially reduced or completely eliminated. Aside from the lack of 

flight crew members located onboard the aircraft, the (weighing 3.9 pounds and measuring 

approx 18" square and 10" high, and with no fuel on board), has less physical potential for 

collateral damage to life and property on the ground, and in the air, compared to the manned 

aircraft that typically conduct similar operations (weighing approximately 6,000 pounds with a 

wingspan of approximately 42 feet, a length of 34 feet, and a fuel capacity of 180 gallons). 
Page 8 of 18 

3. Performing Aerial Video and Photography Operations With The 3DR SOLO UAS Will Benefit The 

Economy. 

In addition to being safe and efficient, the 3DR SOLO UAS is also an economical alternative to 

using manned aircraft to conduct similar aerial operations. As such, operation of the 3DR SOLO 

UAS will allow United States based companies, like Paul E. Garber, to remain competitive and 

contribute to growth of the U.S. economy. Specifically, with the rising cost of aviation fuel and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regulatory actions phasing out leaded aviation fuels, 

U.S. owned and operated companies must adopt new and alternative technology in order to 

remain competitive. Operating the battery powered 3DR SOLO UAS is one such technology that 

not only allows companies greater operational flexibility compared to manned aircraft, but 

provides such flexibility without the high operational cost of a traditional manned aircraft. 

By operating the 3DR SOLO UAS, companies such as Paul E. Garber, can remain competitive and 

profitable, and therefore, provide greater job stability to employees and contractors, which will 

ultimately contribute to growth of the U.S. economy. Improved financial performance of U.S. 

companies, through commercial use of the 3DR SOLO UAS, provides a stable workforce that 

increases consumer spending; improves local, state, and federal tax revenues; and allows 

companies to invest in research and development in order to remain competitive both in the 

United States and abroad. 

4. There Are No Privacy Issues. 

Similar to the manned aerial acquisition flight operations that have been conducted for decades, 

Paul E. Garber’ proposed operation of the 3DR SOLO UAS will not implicate any privacy issues. 

Specifically, the 3DR SOLO UAS will be operated only in compliance with operating documents 

(i.e., Maintenance Log, 3DR User Manual) which require property owners' involvement as well as 

local law enforcement notification, and in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations, 

including the minimum altitude requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 91.119. 

E. The Reasons Why Granting The Exemption Would Not Adversely Affect Safety, Or 

How The Exemption Would Provide A Level Of Safety At Least Equal To That Provided 

By The Rule From Which Paul E. Garber Seeks Exemption. 

1. Reasons Why The Meet The Conditions Of The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(FMRA) Section 333. 

In consideration of the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the 

unmanned aircraft and its operation, Paul E. Garber’s operation of the 3DR SOLO UAS meets the 

conditions of FMRA Section 333, and will not require an airworthiness certificate in accordance 

with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H. Section 333 provides authority for a UAS to operate without 

airworthiness certification and sets forth requirements for considering whether a UAS will create a 

hazard to users of the NAS or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security. 

Specifically, FMRA Section 333 states the following, in part: 

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other requirement of this subtitle, and not later than 180 

days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall determine if 

certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system before 

completion of the plan and rulemaking required by section 332 of this Act or the guidance 

required by section 334 of this Act. 

(b) Assessment of Unmanned Aircraft Systems.--In making the determination under subsection 

(a), the Secretary shall determine, at a minimum-- 
Page 9 of 18 

(1) which types of unmanned aircraft systems, if any, as a result of their size, weight, speed, 

operational capability, proximity to airports and populated areas, and operation within visual line 

of sight do not create a hazard to users of the national airspace system or the public or pose 

a threat to national security; and (2) whether a certificate of waiver, certificate of authorization, 

or airworthiness certification under section 44704 of title 49, United States Code, is required for 

the operation of unmanned aircraft systems identified under paragraph (1). 

(c) Requirements for Safe Operation.--If the Secretary determines under this section that certain 

unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national airspace system, the Secretary 

shall establish requirements for the safe operation of such aircraft systems in the national 

airspace system. In seeking this exemption, Paul E. Garber submits that the 3DR SOLO UAS can 

operate safely in the NAS pursuant to FMRA Section 333, as demonstrated by: (a) the 

characteristics of the 3DR SOLO UAS; (b) the pilot certification requirement; and (c) the specific 

operating limitations. 

a. The Specifications Of The 3DR SOLO UAS Demonstrate Its Safe Characteristics. 

The 3DR SOLO UAS does not create a hazard to users of the NAS or the public, or otherwise pose 

a threat to national security considering its size, weight, speed, and operational capability. 

i. Technical Specifications Of 3DR SOLO UAS. The technical specifications of the 3DR SOLO UAS 

are set forth by the Specifications listed in Appendix 2. 

ii. The 3DR SOLO UAS Autonomous Flight And Navigation Modes Enable the 3DR SOLO UAS To 

Remain Within A Defined Operational Area. The 3DR SOLO UAS may be operated in both manual 

and fully autonomous flight modes. A complete description of the flight and navigational modes of 

the 3DR SOLO UAS is provided in the User Manual, referenced in Appendix 1. 

iii. The 3DR SOLO UAS Is Designed For Automatic Return To Home Point Or Hover In The Event 

Of Loss Of The Control Link Or Navigation. 

When the Control Link is lost, the UAs will remain stationary, in flight, for 3 seconds or more. 

If, after 3 seconds, the UAs do not reacquire control link data from the GCS, the UAs will assume 

that the Control Link is lost and the UAs will return to the home position (i.e., failsafe mode) via 

GPS, and will descend to the takeoff position and shutdown. A complete description of the Failsafe 

Functions of the UAS are described in the User Manual, referenced in Appendix 1. 

iv. The GCS And Its Operation. 

A complete description of the operation and specifications of the GCS and flight control software is 

provided in the User Manual, referenced in Appendix 1. 

b. Flight Operations Of UAS Is Limited To The Line Of Sight Of A Certificated Pilot in Command 

With A Safety Observer. Paul E. Garber will only utilize certificated pilots who possess a current 

and valid airman medical certificate to act as a pilot in command (PIC) of the 

3DR SOLO UAS. Additionally, a safety observer will assist all pilots during flight time. 

c. Flights Of 3DR SOLO UAS Will Be Conducted Pursuant To Specific Operating Limitations. 

In seeking this exemption, Paul E. Garber proposes to commercially operate 3DR SOLO UAS for 

the special purpose of conducting aerial video and photography over certain areas of United 

States, pursuant to the following specific operating limitations: 

 1. Operations authorized by this grant of exemption will be limited to the following aircraft 

described in the operating documents, rotorcraft 3DR SOLO UAS weighing less than 55 pounds 

maximum gross weight: Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Proposed operations of any other aircraft 

will require a new petition or a petition to amend this grant. 
Page 10 of 18 

 2. UAS operations under this exemption will be limited to conducting operations for the 

purpose of aerial video and photography. 

 3. The UA may not be flown at an indicated airspeed exceeding 20 knots. 

 4. The UA must be operated at an altitude of no more than 400 feet above ground level 

(AGL), as indicated by the procedures specified in the operating documents unless a special 

request is made and approved by ATC. All altitudes reported to ATC must be in feet AGL. 

 5. The UAs 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. 

 6. The use of first person view (FPV) by the PIC or safety observer (SO) is not permitted. 

 7. All operations must utilize a safety observer (SO). The SO may be used to satisfy the 

VLOS requirement as long as the PIC always maintains VLOS capability. The SO 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 SO can perform the 

functions prescribed in the operating documents. 

 8. The SO must not perform any other duties beyond assisting the PIC with seeing and 

avoiding other air traffic and other ground based obstacles/obstructions and is not permitted to 

operate the camera or other instruments. 

 9. The operating documents and the grant of exemption must be accessible during UAS 

operations and made available to the Administrator upon request. If a discrepancy exists between 

the conditions and limitations contained in the grant of exemption and the procedures outlined in 

the operating documents, the conditions and limitations contained in the grant of exemption take 

precedence and must be followed. Otherwise, the operator must follow the procedures as 

outlined in its operating documents. The operator may update or revise its operating documents. 

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

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

revised documents if it petitions for extension or amendment to the grant of exemption. If the 

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

granted the exemption, then the operator must petition for amendment to its grant of exemption. 

The FAA’s UAS Integration Office (AFS-80) may be contacted if questions arise regarding updates 

or revisions to the operating documents. 

 10. Prior to each flight the PIC must inspect the UAS to ensure that 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 must be included in 

the preflight inspection. All maintenance and alterations must be properly documented in the 

aircraft records. 

 11. 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. The PIC who conducts the functional test flight must make an entry in the aircraft 

records. 

 12. The pre-flight inspection must account for all potential discrepancies, e.g. inoperable 

components, items, or equipment, not already covered in the relevant sections of the operating 

documents. 

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

overhaul, replacement, inspection, and life limit requirements. 

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

requirements, in accordance with the operating documents. Maintenance, inspection, alterations, 

and status of replacement/overhaul component parts must be noted in the aircraft records, 

including total time in service, description of work accomplished, and the signature of the 

authorized person returning the UAS to service. 
Page 11 of 18 

 15. Each 3DR SOLO UAS operated under this exemption must comply with all 

manufacturer Safety Bulletins. 

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

action taken against discrepancies discovered between inspections. 

 17. The PIC must possess at least a private pilot certificate and at least a current thirdclass medical certificate. 

 18. The operator may not permit any PIC to operate unless the PIC meets the operator’s 

qualification criteria and demonstrates the ability to safely operate the UAS in a manner 

consistent with how the UAS will be operated under the exemption, including evasive and 

emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from persons, vessels, vehicles and 

structures. PIC qualification flight hours must be logged in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 

61.51(b). Flights for the purposes of training the operator’s PICs are permitted under the terms of 

the 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 C.F.R. § 91.119. 

 19. UAS operations may not be conducted during night, as defined in 14 C.F.R. § 1.1. All 

operations must be conducted under visual meteorological conditions (VMC). If flight at night is 

required, a special request will be made at the FAA office closest to proposed area of operations. 

Flights under special visual flight rules (SVFR) are not authorized. 

 20. The UA may not operate within 5 nautical miles of an airport reference point 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 Administrator upon request. 

 21. 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. 

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

with the operating documents. 

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

accordance with the operating documents. 

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

weather conditions) there is enough power to fly at normal cruising speed to the intended landing 

point and land the UA with 25% battery power remaining. 

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

or Authorization (COA) prior to conducting any operations under the grant 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. All operations shall be conducted in 

accordance with airspace requirements in the ATO issued COA including class of airspace, altitude 

level and potential transponder requirements. 

 26. All aircraft operated in accordance with the exemption must be identified by serial 

number, registered in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 47, and have identification (N- Number) 

markings in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 45, Subpart C. Markings must be as large as 

practicable. 

 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. The documents required fewer than 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9 and 91.203 must be available to 

the PIC at the Ground Control Station of the UAS any time the UAS is operating. These 

documents must be made available to the Administrator or any law enforcement official upon 

request. 
Page 12 of 18 

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

and activities at all times. 

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

 31. Flight operations must be conducted at least 500 feet from all nonparticipating persons 

(persons other than the PIC, SO, operator trainees or essential persons), vessels, vehicles, and 

structures unless: 

a. Barriers or structures are present that sufficiently protect nonparticipating persons from the UA 

and/or debris in the event of an accident. The operator must ensure that nonparticipating persons 

remain under such protection. If a situation arises where nonparticipating persons leave such 

protection and are within 500 feet of the UA, flight operations must cease immediately and/or; 

b. The aircraft is operated near vessels, vehicles or structures where the owner/controller of such 

vessels, vehicles or structures has granted permission and the PIC has made a safety assessment 

of the risk of operating closer to those objects and determined that it does not present 

an undue hazard, and; 

c. Operations nearer to the PIC, SO, operator trainees or essential persons do not present an 

undue hazard to those persons per 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(a). 

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

permission from the land owner/controller or authorized representative. Permission from land 

owner/controller or authorized representative will be obtained for each flight to be conducted. 

 33. 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. 

2. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113(a) and (b) Would 

Not Adversely Affect Safety. 

Paul E. Garber submits that the equivalent level of safety established by Section 61.113(a) and 

(b) will be maintained because no PIC will be allowed to operate the 3DR SOLO UAS unless that 

PIC has demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight-hour and currency requirements, that the PIC 

is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with the exemption, including evasive 

and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances from people, vessels, vehicles 

and structures. 

Considering Paul E. Garber’s proposed area of operations, and the operating limitations set forthabove; the parallel nature of private pilot aeronautical knowledge requirements to those of 

commercial pilot requirements (See Exemption No. 11062); and the airmanship skills necessary 

to safely operate the UAS, Paul E. Garber submits that the additional manned airmanship 

experience of a commercially certificated pilot would not correlate to the airmanship skills 

necessary for Paul E. Garber’ specific proposed flight operations. The FAA has previously granted 

relief from Section 61.113(a) and (b) specific to UAS, in circumstances similar, in all material 

respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 

11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11112, 11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11158, 11159, 

11160, 11161). Paul E. Garber will not allow any PIC to operate the UAS unless that PIC has 

demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight-hour requirements or UAS training and currency 

requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with this 

exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances 

from people, vessels, vehicles and structures. 

Specifically, the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 

61.51(b), 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot (with a minimum of 5 hours of those 
Page 13 of 18 

hours as a UAS pilot operating the same make and model of UAS to be used for operations under 

the exemption). In addition to the hour requirements, the PIC must accomplish 3 takeoffs and 

landings in the preceding 90 days (for currency purposes). 

As in Exemption Nos. 11062, 11138, and 11153, prior documented flight experience that was 

obtained in compliance with applicable regulations will ensure an equivalent level of safety during 

Paul E. Garber’s proposed operations. The Administrator has held that prior documented flight 

experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable regulations would ensure safe 

operations, stating as follows: 

In Exemption No. 11062, the FAA required that prior to conducting operations for the purpose of 

motion picture filming (or similar operations), the PIC must have accumulated and logged, in a 

manner consistent with 14 C.F.R. § 61.51(b), 25 hours of total time as a UAS rotorcraft pilot 

including at least 10 hours logged as a UAS pilot with a multi-rotor UAS. Prior to operations under 

Exemption No. 11062, the PIC must also have accumulated and logged a minimum of 5 hours as 

a UAS pilot operating the same make and model of UAS to be used for operations under the 

exemption. For clarification, the FAA considers these minimum hour requirements to be inclusive 

rather than additive; i.e. 5 hours make and model time may be included in the 10 hours of multirotor time and the 10 hours may be included in the total 25 hours of UAS rotorcraft time. In 

addition to the hour requirements, the PIC must accomplish 3 takeoffs and landings in the 

preceding 90 days (for currency purposes). The FAA finds that at a minimum, the flight-hour 

requirements in Exemption No. 11062 are appropriate to practice and build proficiency in the 

skills necessary to safely conduct the petitioner’s proposed operations. The FAA also finds that 

prior documented flight experience that was obtained in compliance with applicable regulations 

would satisfy this requirement. 

Training, proficiency, and experience-building flights can also be conducted under the grant of 

exemption to accomplish the required flight time. During training, proficiency, and experiencebuilding flights the PIC is required to operate the UA with appropriate distances in accordance 

with 14 C.F.R § 91.119. Exemption No. 11138 at page 15. 

Accordingly, Paul E. Garber will ensure safe operations by not allowing any PIC to operate the 

UAS unless that PIC has demonstrated, by meeting minimum flight-hour and currency 

requirements, that the PIC is able to safely operate the UAS in a manner consistent with the 

exemption, including evasive and emergency maneuvers and maintaining appropriate distances 

from people, vessels, vehicles and structures. 

3. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a) Would Not 

Adversely Affect Safety. 

The equivalent level of safety established by Section 91.7(a) will be maintained because prior to 

every flight, Paul E. Garber will ensure that the UAS is in an airworthy condition based upon the 

UAS’s compliance with its operating documents and as stated in the conditions and limitations 

herein. 

Additionally, the FAA has previously granted relief from Section 91.7(a) specific to UAS, in 

circumstances similar, in all material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos. 

11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11112, 11136, 11138, 

11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11159, 11160, 11161). 

4. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 Would Not 

Adversely Affect Safety. 
Page 14 of 18 

The equivalent level of safety established by Section 91.121 will be maintained because the 

altitude information of the UA will be provided to the PIC via GPS equipment and a radio 

communications telemetry data link, which downlinks from the UA to the GCS for active 

monitoring of the flight path and altitude. This altitude information, combined with Paul E. 

Garber’s operation of the within visual line of sight, at or below 400 feet AGL, will ensure a level 

of safety equivalent to Section 91.121. The altitude information will be generated by GPS 

equipment installed onboard the aircraft. 

Prior to each flight, a zero altitude initiation point is automatically established by the 3DR SOLO 

UAS at ground level. The FAA has previously granted relief from Section 91.121 specific to UAS, 

in circumstances similar, in all material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos. 

11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11112, 11136, 11138, 11150, 

11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11159, 11160, 11161). 

5. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(b) Would Not 

Adversely Affect Safety. 

A grant of this exemption would ensure an equivalent level of safety established by 14 C.F.R. 

Section 91.151(b) as a result of (1) the technical specifications of the 3DR SOLO UAS; (2) the 

limitations on the proposed flight operations; and (3) the location of the proposed flight 

operations. Accordingly, Paul E. Garber will ensure that it will safely operate the battery powered 

UA during daylight hours in VFR conditions, with enough battery power to fly for a total duration 

of 13.5 minutes to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising speed, to fly 

after that for at least 4.5 minutes. Here, as in Exemption No. 11109, the technical specifications 

of the 3DR SOLO UAS; the limitations on the proposed flight operations; and the location of the 

proposed operations, will ensure an equivalent level of safety established by Section 91.151(b). 

Furthermore, safety will be ensured as the 3DR SOLO UAS provide audible and visual warnings to 

the PIC at the GCS when the UAs experiences low battery voltage, the first warning occurring at 

approximately 33% remaining battery power, and again at approximately 10% remaining battery 

power. At the critically low battery level, the 3DR SOLO UAS will descend and land automatically. 

Significantly, previous exemptions granted by the FAA concerning Section 91.151 establish that 

safety is not adversely affected when the technical characteristics and operating limitations of the 

UAS are considered. Relief has been granted for manned aircraft to operate at less than the 

minimums prescribed in Section 91.151, including Exemption Nos. 2689, 5745, and 10650. 

Moreover, the FAA has previously granted relief from Section 91.151 specific to UAS, in 

circumstances similar, in all material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption Nos. 

8811, 10808, 10673, 11042, 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 

11136, 11138, 11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11159, 11160, 11161). 

6. Reasons Why An Exemption From The Requirements Of 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 

91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), And 91.417(a) & (b) Would Not Adversely Affect Safety. 

In seeking this exemption, Paul E. Garber submits that the equivalent level of safety with regard 

to the regulatory maintenance and alteration requirements established by Sections 91.405(a), 

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) will be met because Paul E. Garber will 

use trained technicians to perform maintenance, alterations, or preventive maintenance on the 

3DR SOLO UAS using the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the operating 

documents (i.e., the User Manual, and Maintenance Log). Furthermore, Paul E. Garber will 

document and maintain all maintenance records for the 3DR SOLO UAS. Since the 3DR SOLO UAS 

will be inspected as prescribed by the operating documents, Paul E. Garber will maintain the 

equivalent level of safety established by Sections 91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1), and 91.409(a)(2). A 

copy of the User Manual is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Likewise, the exemption sought will not 
Page 15 of 18 

adversely affect safety because Paul E. Garber will use trained technicians to perform 

maintenance, alterations or preventive maintenance on the UAS using the methods, techniques, 

and practices prescribed by the operating documents. Furthermore, the exemption sought would 

maintain an equivalent level of safety established by Sections 91.407, 91.417(a) and 91.417(b), 

because all maintenance of the 3DR SOLO UAS will be performed by trained technicians. 

Maintenance will be documented and maintained utilizing the maintenance log. 

Significantly, previous exemptions granted by the FAA concerning Sections 91.405(a), 

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) establish that safety is not adversely 

affected when the technical characteristics and operating limitations of the UAS are considered. 

In consideration of Paul E. Garber’s proposed operating limitations, the operating documents, and 

the technical aspects of the 3DR SOLO UAS, Paul E. Garber submits that safety will not be 

adversely affected by granting exemption from 14 C.F.R. Sections 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1) and 

(a)(2), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b). The FAA has previously granted relief specific to 

UAS in circumstances similar, in all material respects, to those presented herein (e.g. Exemption 

Nos. 11062, 11063, 11064, 11065, 11066, 11067, 11080, 11109, 11110, 11112, 11136, 11138, 

11150, 11153, 11156, 11157, 11158, 11159, 11160, 11161). 

7. The FAA May Prescribe Any Other Conditions For Safe Operation. 

In accordance with Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) and 14 

C.F.R. § 21.16 entitled Special Conditions, Paul E. Garber requests that the FAA prescribe special 

conditions for the intended operation of the 3DR SOLO UAS, which contain such safety standards 

that the Administrator finds necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established 

by 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, and 14 C.F.R §§ 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7 (a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b). Such special conditions will 

permit safe operation of the UAs for the limited purpose of conducting aerial video and 

photography over certain areas of the United States for compensation or hire. FMRA Section 333 

sets forth the requirements for considering whether a UAS will create a hazard to users of the 

NAS or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security; and further, provides the 

authority for such UAS to operate without airworthiness certification in accordance with any 

requirements that must be established for the safe operation of the UAS in the NAS. Likewise, the 

Administrator may prescribe special conditions pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 21.16, for operation of the 

3DR SOLO UAS, since the airworthiness regulations of 14 C.F.R. Part 21 do not contain adequate 

or appropriate safety standards, due to the novel or unusual design features of the aircraft. 

Section 21.16, entitled Special Conditions, states the following: 

If the FAA finds that the airworthiness regulations of this subchapter do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller because of a novel or 

unusual design feature of the aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller, he prescribes special conditions

and amendments thereto for the product. The special conditions are issued in accordance with 

Part 11 of this chapter and contain such safety standards for the aircraft, aircraft engine or 

propeller as the FAA finds necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established in 

the regulations. See 14 C.F.R. § 21.16. 

Therefore, in accordance with FMRA Section 333 and 14 C.F.R. § 21.16, the FAA may prescribe 

special conditions for Above & Beyond Aerial Imaging's intended operation of the 3DR SOLO UAS, 

which contain such safety standards that the Administrator finds necessary to establish a level of 

safety equivalent to that established by 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, and 14 C.F.R Sections 

61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), 

and 91.417(a) & (b). 
Page 16 of 18 

F. A Summary That Can Be Published In The Federal Register, stating: The Rules From 

Which Paul E. Garber Seeks Exemption: 

Paul E. Garber seeks exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R Sections 

61.113(a)&(b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 

91.417(a) & (b). 

A Brief Description Of The Nature Of The Exemption Paul E. Garber Seeks: 

This exemption will permit Paul E. Garber to commercially operate an Unmanned Aircraft System 

(UAS) for the purpose of conducting aerial video and photography over certain areas of the United 

States. 

G. Any Additional Information, Views, Or Arguments Available To Support Paul E.

Garber’ Request.

This Petition is made pursuant to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) Section 

333, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to determine if certain UAS may operate safely 

in the NAS. As such, Paul E. Garber’ request for exemption may be granted pursuant to the 

authority of FMRA Section 333 and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, as set forth above. 

FMRA Section 333 sets forth the requirements for considering whether a UAS will create a hazard 

to users of the NAS or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to national security; and further, 

provides the authority for such UAS to operate without airworthiness certification. 

As discussed in detail above, Paul E. Garber will operate the 3DR SOLO UAS safely in the NAS, 

without creating a hazard to users of the NAS, or the public, or otherwise pose a threat to 

national security. 

CONCLUSION 

As set forth herein, Paul E. Garber seeks an exemption pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.61 and Section 

333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), which will permit safe operation of 

the 3DR SOLO UAS commercially, without an airworthiness certificate, for the limited purpose of 

conducting aerial video and photography over certain areas of the United States. By granting this 

Petition, the FAA Administrator will be fulfilling the Congressional mandate of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, while also advancing the interests of the public, by 

allowing Paul E. Garber to safely, efficiently, and economically operate the 3DR SOLO UAS 

commercially within the NAS. 

WHEREFORE, in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations and the FAA Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012, Section 333, Paul E. Garber respectfully requests that the Administrator 

grant this Petition for an exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R §§ 61.113(a) & (b), 

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

(b), and permit Above & Beyond Aerial Imaging to operate the 3DR SOLO UAS commercially for 

the purpose of conducting aerial video and photography over certain areas of the United States. 

Dated: August 17, 2015 

Respectfully submitted, 

Paul E. Garber 

_________________________ 

Paul Garber 

Garber Graphics LLC 

DBA Above & Beyond Aerial Imaging 

N7135 Torgerson Rd 

Iola, WI 54945 

715-570-2477 

garbergraphics@gmail.com 
Page 17 of 18 

Appendices: 

1 - 3DR Sols User Manual (PDF) http://3drobotics.com/kb/solo-user-manual 

2 - Technical Specifications 

3 - Preflight Checklist 

APPENDIX – 1 3DR Sols User Manual (PDF) http://3drobotics.com/kb/solo-user-manual

APPENDIX – 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 

Above & Beyond Aerial Imaging uses only the safe and reliable 3DR SOLO UAS. 

3D Robotics is an industry leader in small UAS production. The 3DR SOLO is loaded with state of 

the art software enabling the user to set parameters which will not allow flight into controlled 

airspace. Parameters can also be set to limit flight to no higher than a predetermined and set 

altitude and speed as well as limit flight to a predetermined and set distance. In addition, 

software provides real-time altitude and location information to the PIC via the linked monitor 

(tablet device). 

Solo is a quad-rotor aerial vehicle powered by the 3DR Pixhawk 2 autopilot system and APM:Copter flight 

control software. 

Solo communicates with the controller and Solo app over the 3DR Link secure Wi-Fi connection. 

Autopilot: 3DR Pixhawk 2 

Flight code: ArduPilot Copter 

Control: 3DR Solo Controller 

Wireless communication: 3DR Link 1.0 

Frequency: 2.4 GHz 

Height: 10 in. (25 cm) 

Motor-to-motor dimension: 18 in. (26 cm) 

Propulsion: 880 KV motors, two clockwise rotating motors and 

two counterclockwise rotating motors 

Propeller: 10 in. x 4.5 in. (25 cm x 11.4 cm) 

Weight with battery: 3.3 lbs. (1.5 kg) 

Controller battery life: 3 hours 

Extended controller battery life: 6 hours 

Controller battery: Li-ion 2600 mAh 7.2 Vdc (5200 mAh for extended battery) 

Power: Electric (rechargeable lithium polymer battery)

Battery: Lithium polymer, 5200 mAh, 14.8 Vdc 

Battery weight: 1 lb. (.5 kg) 

Estimated flight time: 25 minutes* 

Maximum altitude: 328 ft. (100 m) 

Range: .5 miles** (.8 km) 

Payload capacity: 1.1 lbs. (500 g) 

Cruise speed: 5.7 mph (2.5 m/s) 

Maximum speed: 55 mph (25.5 m/s) 

Maximum climb rate: 11 mph (5.0 m/s) 

Maximum descent rate: 5.5 mph (2.5 m/s) 

Headwind limitation: 25 mph (11 m/s) 

Crosswind limitation: 25 mph (11 m/s) 

Camera: Streaming video compatible with GoPro® HERO 3, 3+ or 4 

Full compatibility with GoPro® HERO 3+ or 4 

Solo app compatibility: iOS 8.0 or later / Android 4.3 or later 

Operating temperature: 32° F - 113° F (0° C - 45° C) 

Operating relative humidity: 0-85% RH 

*Flight time varies with payload, wind conditions, elevation, temperature, humidity, flying style, 

and pilot skill. Listed flight time applies to elevations less than 2,000 ft above sea level. 

**Range varies with location, antenna orientation, background noise and multi-path. 

Appendix 3 - Preflight Checklist 
Page 18 of 18 

Before flying, check the following conditions. 

4.1.1 Location 

Your current location and environmental conditions are suitable for flight. (Section 3.1) 

Solo is on a level surface at a clear launch point a sufficient distance from yourself and others. (Section 3.1) 

4.1.2 Components 

The propellers are correctly attached. (Section 2.4) 

The propellers can spin smoothly and without obstruction when turned. 

No components on Solo appear loose or damaged. 

4.1.3 Power 

The controller is powered on with at least 50% charge. (Section 2.3) 

Solo is powered on with a fully charged battery. (Section 2.2) 

4.1.4 Video (Optional) 

The Solo app is connected to Solo and streaming video. (Section 2.6) 

The GoPro® is recording.