Coffee House Industries, LLC.

March 26, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Coffee House Industries, LLC.’s Petition for Exemption to Operate

Unmanned Aircraft Systems for Aerial Photography and Filming

FAA Regulatory Docket

NAME AND ADDRESS OF PETITIONER

Coffee House Industries, LLC.

Attn: Eric Rasmussen

410 Grand Cypress Avenue, Suite 203

Palmdale, CA 93551

(310) 492-5638

eric@coffeehouseindustries.com

Page 1 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

I. PETITION SUMMARY

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

L. No. 112-95 (2012), 126 Stat. 11 (“Section 333”) and the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s (“FAA”) general exemption authority under 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), 

Coffee House Industries, LLC. (“Petitioner”) hereby petitions for exemptions from 14 

C.F.R. Part 21, 14 C.F.R. §§ 61.113(a) and (b), 61.133(a), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b)(1), 

91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151, 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1) 91.409(a)(2), 

91.417(a)-(b). The proposed exemptions, if granted, would allow Petitioner to operate 

small, camera-mounted unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”) weighing 55 pounds or 

less for the purpose of closed-set filming of motion pictures, music videos, web videos, 

corporate videos, television programs and commercials, and still photography. 

Based on the small size of Petitioner’s UAS, the qualifications and experience of 

Petitioner’s UAS operators, and the restricted, sterile environment within which 

Petitioner will operate, the requested exemptions fall squarely within the zone of safety 

envisioned by Congress and set forth in Section 333. Additionally, the enhanced safety 

achieved by replacing significantly larger manned aircraft carrying crew and flammable 

fuel with small UAS carrying no passengers or crew and operated under the specific 

guidelines and procedures proposed by Petitioner gives the FAA good cause to find 

that the UAS operations enabled by the instant Petition are in the public interest. Thus, 

the requested exemptions should be granted. 

II. BACKGROUND

For over 10 years, Petitioner’s production and filming professionals have 

provided advanced motion picture services and camera support for films, television 

programs, corporate and music videos, and events around the United States. 

Combining the latest technology with a long track record of safe and successful 

projects, Petitioner’s technical expertise has been relied upon for filming projects 

ranging from commercial’s to web videos. In order to continue to provide the highest 

level of service, and to promote safety by eliminating the need for large manned aircraft 

Page 2 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

on a filming set, Petitioner seeks regulatory exemptions that will allow Petitioner to 

employ camera- mounted UAS technology in the filming and production process. 

III. STATUTORY AUTHORITY 

A. Section 333 

Section 333, titled “Special Rules for Certain Unmanned Aircraft Systems,” 

provides a mechanism for seeking expedited FAA authorization of safe civil UAS 

operations in the National Airspace System (“NAS”). Section 333(a) states that the FAA 

“shall determine if certain unmanned aircraft systems may operate safely in the national 

airspace system before completion of the [comprehensive] plan and rulemaking 

required by section 332(b)(1) of this Act or the guidance required by section 334 of this 

Act.” In Section 332(b)(1), Congress made it clear that Section 333 provides a 

mechanism for “expedited operational authorization.” The FAA has committed to 

complying with this mandate by granting several petitions almost identical to the one at 

hand. See, e.g., Exemption No. 11062, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0352 

(granting regulatory exemptions to Astraeus Aerial for operation of unmanned aircraft 

systems for the purpose of filming for the motion picture and television industry). 

Section 333(b) identifies several factors that the FAA should consider in 

determining whether commercial UAS operations should be approved. These include 

UAS that, “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 [NAS] or the public or pose a threat to national security.” See 

Section 333(b). 

B. Section 44701(f) 

In addition to the specific authority conferred by Section 333, the FAA 

Administrator has general authority to grant exemptions from the FAA’s safety 

regulations and minimum standards when the Administrator decides a requested 

exemption is in the public interest. See U.S.C. § 44701(f). 

Page 3 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

IV. REQUESTED EXEMPTIONS

Petitioner requests relief from the following regulations: 

Part 21 prescribes, in pertinent part, the procedural requirements for issuing and 

changing design approvals, production approvals, airworthiness certificates, and 

airworthiness approvals. 

Section 61.113 prescribes that “no person who holds a private pilot certificate 

may act as a 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,” (see Section 61.113(a)), and that “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,” (see Section 61.113(b)). 

Section 61.133(a) sets forth privileges for persons holding commercial pilot 

certificates, including a provision impliedly limiting to persons holding a commercial 

pilot certificate the ability to act as pilot in command of an aircraft “[f]or compensation 

or hire.” 

Section 91.7(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil 

aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition. 

Section 91.9(b)(2) prohibits operation of U.S. registered civil aircraft unless there 

is available in the aircraft a current approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, 

approved manual material, markings, and placards, or any combination thereof. 

Section 91.103(b)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot in command 

shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information 

concerning that flight, to include, “For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended 

use, and the following takeoff and landing distance information:... For civil aircraft for 

Page 4 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

which an approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing 

distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance data contained therein.” 

Section 91.119(c) prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, 

no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: “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.” 

Section 91.121 requires, in pertinent part, 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.” 

Section 91.151(a) prescribes that no person may begin a flight in an airplane 

under VFR conditions unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there 

is enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and, assuming normal cruising 

speed, (1) during the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes; or (2) at night, to fly 

after that for at least 45 minutes. 

Section 91.203 prohibits, in subpart (a), any person from operating a civil aircraft 

unless it has within it (1) an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate; and (2) an 

effective U.S. registration certificate issued to its owner or, for operation within the 

United States, the second copy of the Aircraft Registration Application as provided for 

in § 47.31(c). Section 91.203 prescribes, in subpart (b), that no person may operate a 

civil aircraft unless the airworthiness certificate or a special flight authorization issued 

under § 91.715 is displayed at the cabin or cockpit entrance so that it is legible to 

passengers or crew. 

Section 91.405(a) requires, in pertinent part, that an aircraft operator or owner 

shall have the aircraft inspected as prescribed in subpart E of the same part and shall, 

between required inspections, except as provided in paragraph (c) of the same section, 

have discrepancies repaired as prescribed in Part 43 of the chapter. 

Page 5 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

Section 91.407(a)(1) prohibits, in pertinent part, any person from operating an 

aircraft that has undergone maintenance, preventative maintenance, rebuilding, or 

alteration unless it has been approved for return to service by a person authorized 

under § 43.7 of the same chapter. 

Section 91.409(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an 

aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had an inspection for 

the issuance of an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 21 of this chapter. 

Section 91.417(a) and (b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that-

(a) 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, preventative 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 6 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

(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 revisions 

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. 

Page 7 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

V. PETITIONER’S PROPOSED OPERATIONS SATISFY SECTION 

333.

A. Unmanned Aircraft System

The UAS to be operated under this request are less than 55 lbs. fully loaded, will 

be operated at a speed of no more than 50 knots, carry neither a pilot nor passenger, 

carry no explosive materials or flammable liquids, and operate exclusively within a 

secured area. Petitioner’s UAS use a radio frequency spectrum for operation and 

control that complies with Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) requirements, 

and Petitioner has integrated safety features into the UAS, as described in Petitioner’s 

Flight Operation User Manual (“FOUM”) for the DJI Inspire 1 and DJI Phantom 2 Vision

+, Inspire 1 Safety Guidelines, Inspire 1 Intelligent Flight Battery Safety Guidelines, 

Phantom 2 Vision+ Smart Flight Battery Safety Guidelines, Inspire 1 Maintenance 

Manual, Pilot Training Guide, and Motion Picture and Television Flight Operation 

Manual (“MPTFOM”) (collectively, “operations manuals”).1

Petitioner’s UAS are equipped with redundant safety mechanisms allowing them 

to operate safely after experiencing certain in-flight failures. If a lost-link event occurs, 

including the loss of ground communications and/or the loss of a GPS signal, 

Petitioner’s UAS have the ability to perform a pre-coordinated, predictable, automated 

flight maneuver and return to a predetermined location within a designated security 

perimeter for landing. The UAS further have the ability to abort a flight in the event of 

unpredicted obstacles or emergencies. All flights will be terminated after a maximum of 

30 minutes or with 25% remaining battery power, whichever occurs first. Thus, good 

cause exists for granting Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.151(a) (setting 

forth fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions). 

 The MPTFOM will be submitted separately and confidentially under 14 C.F.R. 11.35(b), as the 1

manuals contain proprietary information that the applicant has not and will not share with others. 

The manuals contain operating conditions and procedures that are not available to the public 

and are protected from release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552, et seq. 

Page 8 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

Petitioner’s UAS will 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 will be as large as practicable. 

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121 (Altimeter 

Settings), Petitioner seeks such relief because Petitioner will not have a typical 

barometric altimeter onboard the UAS. Instead, altitude information will be provided to 

the UAS PIC via a digitally encoded telemetric data feed, which downlinks from the 

aircraft to a ground-based on-screen display. The altitude information will be generated 

by equipment installed onboard the UAS, using GPS triangulation, digitally encoded 

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

zero altitude initiation point will be established and confirmed for accuracy by the UAS 

PIC. Thus, good cause exists for granting the requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.121. 

Given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with the 

aircraft to be utilized by the applicant, an exemption from 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H 

(Airworthiness Certificates), subject to certain conditions and limitations, is warranted 

(if necessary) and meets the requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 

C.F.R. Part 11 and Section 333. The UAS operated without an airworthiness certificate 

in the restricted environment and under the conditions and limitations proposed by 

Petitioner will be at least as safe, or safer, than a conventional aircraft (fixed wing or 

rotorcraft) operating with an airworthiness certificate issued under 14 C.F.R. Part 21, 

Subpart H, and not subject to the proposed limitations and conditions. 

Petitioner will strictly comply with safety and maintenance procedures included 

in all applicable UAS manufacturer’s instructions and operating manuals. To the extent 

such information is not included in the guidelines developed by the manufacturers, 

Petitioners will develop and document maintenance, overhaul, replacement, and 

inspection requirements, procedures to document and maintain maintenance records 

with regard to Petitioner’s UAS, and UAS technician qualification criteria. Petitioner’s 

operations manuals will include maintenance requirements for Petitioner’s UAS, 

including “on-condition” maintenance and modifications. In light of these mitigating 

Page 9 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

factors, exemptions from 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 

91.417(a) and (b) are warranted. 

B. UAS Pilot in Command

Petitioner’s UAS pilot in command (PIC) shall have passed the FAA ground 

school examination and shall hold at least a third-class medical certificate but shall not 

be required to hold a current pilot’s license. Since there are no standards for either 

private or commercial UAS pilot certificates, knowledge of airspace regulations 

acquired from FAA ground school and dexterity in the control and operation of the UAS 

acquired from actual operation of the aircraft will be the most important factors in 

establishing an equivalent level of safety. According to the FAA, “the FAA considers the 

overriding safety factor for the limited operations proposed by the petitioner to be the 

airmanship skills acquired through UAS-specific flight cycles, flight time, and specific 

make and model experience, culminating in verification through testing.” See 

Exemption No. 11062, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0352, at p. 18. With those 

factors in mind, Petitioner’s UAS PIC shall be required to meet several conditions and 

limitations as outlined in the FOUM and MPTFOM, including the following: 

• The UAS PIC will have accumulated and logged 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).

• The UAS PIC will have accumulated and logged a minimum of five hours of 

flight time with the specific make and model of the UAS to be utilized for 

operations under the exemption and three take-offs and landings in the 

preceding 90 days.

Page 10 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

• The UAS PIC will have successfully completed the qualification process as 

specified in the operations manuals, to include a knowledge and skill test.2

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(a), it is Petitioner’s 

understanding that Petitioner’s UAS will not require an airworthiness certificate in 

accordance with 14 C.F.R. Part 21, Subpart H, and that exemption from 14 C.F.R. § 

91.7(a) is therefore unnecessary. To the extent such an exemption is deemed 

necessary, Petitioner asserts that it should be granted in light of the safety procedures 

proposed herein. In accordance with the pertinent part of 14 C.F.R. § 91.7(b), the 

operator in command of Petitioner’s UAS shall be responsible for determining whether 

the aircraft is in a safe condition for flight. Petitioner’s manuals for maintenance and 

operations shall include safety checklists to be used by the operator in command prior 

to each flight. 

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.9(b)(2) (Civil aircraft 

flight manual, marking, and placard requirements and § 91.203(a) and (b), (Civil aircraft: 

certifications required), it is Petitioner’s understanding that relief from these regulations 

is no longer necessary in light of the FAA Memorandum “Interpretation regarding 

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

station,” dated August 8, 2014. To the extent the FAA deems an exemption from this 

section necessary for Petitioner’s proposed operations, such exemption should be 

granted in light of the mitigating fact that Petitioner will maintain the documents 

required under 14 C.F.R. §§ 91.9 and 91.203 at the UAS ground control station during 

flights. 

 Prior to operating, the PIC will be required to pass the knowledge and airmanship test 2

qualifications developed by Petitioner for the UAS (which will be included in Petitioner’s 

operations manuals). There are no established practical test standards that support a 

jurisdictional FAA FSDO (“Flight Standards District Office”) evaluation and approval of company 

designated examiners. Petitioner will conduct these tests in accordance with its operations 

manuals. Given the constraints of the proposed operations, this procedure for testing will not 

adversely affect the safety of the NAS. 

Page 11 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

Additionally, 100% of Petitioner’s operations will 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 the PIC will be able to communicate verbally at 

all times during operational flights. 

Regarding Petitioner’s requested relief from 14 C.F.R. § 91.103(b)(1), Petitioner 

will comply with the other applicable procedures and requirements stated in § 

91.103(a) and (b). Specifically, the PIC will take all actions including reviewing weather, 

flight battery requirements, aircraft performance data, and landing and takeoff

distances before initiation of a flight. The PIC will also account for all relevant sitespecific conditions in their preflight procedures. Risks presented by sun glare will be 

mitigated by the PIC’s and VO’s ability to see other air traffic and initiate a return-tohome sequence if needed. 

The PIC’s UAS operation will be limited to a unique and restricted environment. 

Given the (1) separation of closed-set filming operations from other manned 

operations, (2) parallel nature of aeronautical knowledge requirements incumbent in the 

FAA ground school exam and the process of obtaining a private pilot’s license, and (3) 

the proposed UAS airmanship skills of Petitioner’s PICs, the additional manned 

airmanship experience of a private pilot would not correlate to the airmanship skills 

necessary for Petitioner’s proposed unmanned operations. Thus, Petitioner’s request 

for relief from 14 C.F.R.

§ 61.113(a) and (b) and § 61.133(a) should be granted. 

C. Operating Parameters of Petitioner’s UAS 

Petitioner’s UAS operations will be conducted within a sterile environment of 

closed-set filming. In this controlled environment, Petitioner’s operations will remain 

within VLOS of the PIC and VO, below 400 feet AGL, and at speeds below 50 knots. 

Only participating persons will be permitted within the operating area.3

 Pursuant to Order 8900.1 V3, C8, S1, “participating persons” includes all persons associated 3

with the filming production. Participating persons will be briefed on the potential risk of the 

proposed flight operations and must acknowledge and accept those risks prior to participation. 

Page 12 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

Consistent with the relief typically provided to manned operations under FAA 

Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1, Petitioner requests relief from 14 C.F.R. 

§ 91.119(c) with respect to those participating persons, vehicles, and structures directly 

involved in the performance of the actual filming. Regarding distance from participating 

persons, the operations manuals set forth safety factors for authorized and consenting 

production personnel. Because those procedures are specific to participating persons, 

no further FSDO or aviation safety inspector approval is necessary for reductions to the 

distances specified in Petitioner’s manuals. 

Regarding the distance from nonparticipating persons, Petitioner will ensure that 

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

to be involved and necessary for the filming production, with the possibility of reducing 

this distance to no less than 200 feet if it would not adversely affect safety and the 

Administrator has approved it. This is consistent with FAA Order 8900.1, V3, C8, S1. 

Petitioner will not conduct UAS operations within 5 nautical miles of the 

geographic center of a non-towered airport unless a letter of agreement with that 

airport’s management is obtained and the operation is conducted in accordance with a 

Notice to Airmen (“NOTAM”). Additionally, Petitioner will not operate in Class B, C, or D 

airspace without written approval from the FAA. Nor will Petitioner operate the UAS 

less than 500 feet below or less than 2,000 feet horizontally from a cloud or when 

visibility is less than 3 statute miles from the PIC. 

Petitioner’s UAS will remain clear and yield the right of way to all manned 

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

parachute activities, parasailing activities, and hangliders). 

Although Petitioner seeks to comply with the waiver process as described in 

FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1 (Issue a Certificate of Waiver for 

Motion Picture and Television Filming), the current section of Order 8900.1 has specific 

processes that preclude a jurisdictional FAA FSDO from issuing the required Certificate 

of Waiver, because the section did not originally provide for UAS operations. Thus, 

Petitioner seeks exemption from the applicable regulations normally waived during that 

Page 13 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

process. Petitioner proposes that the FAA include the required notifications and 

coordination with jurisdictional FSDOs through the conditions and limitations 

accompanying the requested exemption, and that the exemption sought herein will 

take the place of the Certificate of Waiver normally issued by a jurisdictional FSDO 

under 8900.1. Under this rubric, Petitioner will notify every FSDO with jurisdiction over 

the area that Petitioner plans to operate, just as with manned filming operations, and 

those FSDOs will have the ability to coordinate further conditions and limitations with 

the UAS Integration Office to address any local concerns. 

Petitioner will obtain an Air Traffic Organization (“ATO”) issued Certificate of 

Waiver or Authorization (“COA”) prior to conducting any operations under this grant of 

exemption. In fulfilling its requirements under the COA, Petitioner will be required to 

request a NOTAM not more than 72 hours in advance, but not less than 48 hours prior 

to the operation. 

D. The Requested Exemption Promotes the Public Interest 

The enhanced safety achieved by replacing significantly larger manned aircraft 

carrying crew and flammable fuel with small UAS carrying no passengers or crew and 

operated under the specific guidelines and procedures proposed by Petitioner gives 

the FAA good cause to find that the UAS operations enabled by the instant Petition are 

in the public interest. Moreover, as the FAA has already recognized, “UAS provide an 

additional tool for the filmmaking industry, adding a greater degree of flexibility, which 

supplements the current capabilities offered by manned aircraft.” See Exemption No. 

11062, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0352, at p. 22.

VI. PETITIONER’S AIRCRAFT SPECIFICATIONS

DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ - Model PV331

	 	 Weight: 1242g (2.74lbs)

	 	 Maximum Ascent Rate: 6m/s (19.69ft/s)

	 	 Maximum Decent Rate: 2m/s (6.56ft/s)

	 	 Maximum Speed: 15m/s (33.55mph)

	 	 Dimensions: 292x292x189mm (11.49x11.49x7.44in)

Page 14 of 15 March 26, 2015
Coffee House Industries, LLC.

DJI Inspire 1 - Model T600

	 	 Weight: 2935g (6.47lbs)

	 	 Maximum Ascent Rate: 5m/s (16.40ft/s)

	 	 Maximum Decent Rate: 4m/s (13.12ft/s)

	 	 Maximum Speed: 22m/s (49.21mph)

	 	 Dimensions: 438x451x301mm (17.25x17.75x11.84in)

VII. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the regulatory exemptions requested herein should 

be granted and Petitioner should be permitted to conduct small UAS operations for the 

purpose of closed-set filming. 

						 Respectfully submitted, 

						 COFFEE HOUSE INDUSTRIES LLC.

California Limited Liability Corporation

						 By

							 Eric Rasmussen

Petitioner Representative

Page 15 of 15 March 26, 2015