Aerial Cinematography of Atlanta LLC

(ACA)

172 Northridge Rd.

Barnesville, GA. 30204

 mitchell.gun@gmail.com

770-314 2935 cell phone

June 10, 2015

US Department Of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave SW

Washington DC 20591

Dear Sir or Madam:

 Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012(the reform act) and CFR 

Part 11,The petitioner Aerial Cinematography of Atlanta hereafter referred to as ACA a operator of 

Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs), request to be exempted from the Federal Aviation 

Regulations (FAR) listed below so that ACA may operate UASs commercially in airspace regulated by 

the FAA.,for the purpose as long as such operations are conducted within and under the conditions 

outlined herein or as maybe established by the FAA as required by Section 333.

 ACA is owned and operated by Mitchell Gunter who holds a Georgia Drivers license and is a licensed 

ATP with 5000. All operations will be performed under his direction with the public’s safety and right 

to privacy safe guarded at all times. 

 As described below, the requested exception would permit the operation of light weight (less than 55 

lbs. total takeoff weight) UASs under controlled conditions for commercial use by a certified ATP pilot 

thereby enhancing safety and fulfilling the Secretary of Transportation’s ( the FAA Administrator’s) 

responsibility to” establish requirements for safe operation of such aircraft systems in national airspace

systems.” Section 333(c), of the Reform Act. . 

The petitioner respectfully requests the grant of an exception to the following specific sections of the 

Title 14 Code of Federal regulations allowing it to operate lightweight UASs for commercial use in film

and television production on closed set. . 

 14 CFR 21, subpart H, 14 CFR 45.23 (b) 14 CFR 91.7 (a), 91.9 (b) (2) 91.103 (b), 91.109, 91.119, 

91.121,91.151,(a), 91.203(a) &(b),91.405(a),91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)&(b).
The 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 45.23(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that when marks include only the Roman capital letter 

“N” and the registration number is displayed on limited, restricted or lightsport category aircraft or 

experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator must also display on that aircraft near 

each entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 

inches high, the words “limited,” “restricted,” “light-sport,” “experimental,” or “provisional,” as 

applicable. 

Section 61.113(a) and (b) prescribes that— 

(a) 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. 

(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. 

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 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— 

a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports and 

forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be completed, and any 

known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has been advised by ATC; 

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff and 

landing distance information: 

For civil aircraft for which an approved Airplane

 Rotorcraft Flight Manual containing takeoff and landing

 distance data is required, the takeoff and landing distance 

data contained therein; and 
(2) For civil aircraft other than those specified in

 paragraph (b)(1) of this section, other reliable

 information appropriate to the aircraft, relating to

 aircraft performance under expected values of

 airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft gross

 weight, and wind and temperature. 

Section 91.109 prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft (except a 

manned free balloon) that is being used for flight instruction unless that aircraft has fully functioning 

dual controls. 

Section 91.119 prescribes that, except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an 

aircraft below the following altitudes 

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

landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. 

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

 settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 

1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000

 feet of the aircraft. 

(a) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of

500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely 

populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated

closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. 

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control

aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or 

property on the surface-

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

prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each 

person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or

altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and 

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

operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) 

of this section. 
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. [emphasis added] 

Section 91.203(a) prohibits, in pertinent part, 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(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, 

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 that 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. 

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

undergone maintenance, preventive 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: 

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

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

for return to service. 

(2) Records containing the following information: 

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

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

appliance.

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

required to be overhauled on a specified time basis.

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

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

maintained.

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

including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and 

revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date 

when the next action is required.

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

major alteration to the airframe and currently installed engines, rotors, 

propellers, and appliances. 

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

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

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

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

with the aircraft at the time the aircraft is sold.

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

shall be retained until the defects are repaired

 and the aircraft is approved for return to service 
The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner has provided the following information contained in its petition and supplemental 

Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (hereafter MPTOM) also submitted for approvel– in

support of its exemption request. The petitioner has organized it’s information into three sections: 1) the

unmanned aircraft system, 2) the UAS Pilot In Command (PIC), and 3) the UAS operating parameters. 

Unmanned Aircraft System

The UAS proposed by the petitioner is a proprietary design, constructed by Aerial Cinematography of 

Atlanta and referred to as the Aerial Cinema500 UAS aircraft variant, serial #ACA001 onward 

(hereafter referred to as AC500). This aircraft has 4 rotors and 4 motors in a quadcopter configuration 

(X4). The petitioner states that given the size, weight, speed, and limited operating area associated with 

the aircraft to be utilized by the applicant, an exemption from 14 CFR part 21, Subpart H 

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

requirements for an equivalent level of safety under 14 CFR part 11 and Section 333 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (PL 112-95). The petitioner further states that UAS operated 

without an airworthiness certificate in the restricted environment and under the conditions and 

limitations proposed by the 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 CFR part 21, Subpart H 

and not subject to the proposed conditions and limitations. 

The petitioner states that the unmanned aircraft (UA) to be operated under this request is less than 55 

lbs. fully loaded, flies at a speed of no more than 50 knots, carries neither a pilot nor passenger, carries 

no explosive materials or flammable liquid fuels, and operates exclusively within a secured area as set 

out in the MPTOM. In addition, the petitioner has integrated safety features into the design of the UAS,

as described in the petitioner’s FOPM, to ensure the safety of persons and property within and 

surrounding the limited operating area. The petitioner further describes that, in the event the UAS loses 

communications the UA will have the capability to return to a pre-determined location within the 

Security Perimeter and land. 

It will also have the capability to abort a flight in the event of unpredicted obstacles or emergencies. 

The petitioner states that even though its UAS will have no airworthiness certificate, an exemption may

be needed from 14 CFR § 45.23 as the UA will have no entrance to the cabin, cockpit, or pilot station 

on which the word “experimental” can be placed. Given the size of the UA, the petitioner notes that the

two-inch lettering will be impossible. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be 

provided by having the UA marked with the word “experimental” on the fuselage in compliance with 

14 CFR § 45.29(f), in a location where the pilot, observer, and others working with the UA will see the 

identification. 

The petitioner states that the maintenance requirements in the pertinent sections of 14 CFR part 91 are 

only applicable to aircraft with an airworthiness certificate in accordance with part 43. The petitioner 

states that its V.3 UAS does not have specific maintenance instructions; therefore the petitioner has 

developed and documented in its MPTOM an “on condition” maintenance process for the AC500 UAS

affected by this exemption. The petitioner has also stated that it intends to follow any manufacturers’
 recommended instructions and procedures when those procedures exist for certain components of its 

AC500 UAS. 

UAS Pilot In Command (PIC) 

The petitioner asserts that since the UA will not carry a pilot or passengers on board, the proposed 

operations will not adversely affect safety by requiring the PIC operating the aircraft to have a private 

pilot’s license rather than a commercial pilot’s license. In support of its position, the petitioner argues 

that, since there are no standards for either private or commercial UAS pilot certificates, knowledge of 

airspace regulations 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. 

Furthermore, the petitioner explains that, 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 “closed-set filming” operation will take place and how that airspace fits into the National 

Airspace System (NAS). The petitioner also states that 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 an 

unmanned aerial vehicle, operating at 400 feet AGL or lower, within strictly controlled pre-approved 

airspace. The petitioner asserts that there are relatively few certificated pilots who are also qualified to 

fly the type of UAS utilized in motion picture industry image-capture operations. ACA further asserts 

that there are even fewer commercially certificated pilots that can fly these UAS, to the point that to do 

both is considered rare. All operation of will be overseen by a ATP or commercial rated pilot. 

Additionally, the petitioner states that the aircraft will be operated within a secure environment, which 

no one will be allowed to enter unless they are part of the production, have been fully briefed of the 

risks prior to operation of the UAS, and have consented to the risks associated with being in the 

operating area. Should there be a mishap, the UA 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, and do not carry crew or passengers. This is in stark contrast to conventional aircraft 

that are flown to the site, carry flammable fuel, carry passengers and crew, and operate in a much larger 

area 

UAS Operating Parameters The petitioner states that all flights will be operated within visual line of 

sight (VLOS) of a pilot and/or observer, and that the UA flights will be limited to a maximum altitude 

of 200 feet AGL. The petitioner further states that an operator will ensure that only consenting 

production personnel will be allowed within 100 feet of the UA operation, but this radius may be 

reduced to 30 feet based upon an equivalent level of safety determination, as stated in their MPTOM, 

with the advance permission of the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). The petitioner asserts

that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved given the size, weight, 8 and speed of the UAS, as 

well as the location where it is operated. The petitioner states that the UAS will be operated within a 

safe operating perimeter, the boundaries of which will be determined by production personnel and the 

UAS PIC based on the site-specific filming activities and speed of the UAS required for the operation, 

and coordinated with the jurisdictional FAA FSDO and local government officials as applicable, as 

outlined in the MPTOM . The petitioner states that only participating and consenting production 

personnel will be allowed within this perimeter; the petitioner also states their intention to comply with 

the guidelines outlined in Order 8900.1 V3, C8, S1 with regard to nonparticipating personnel outside 

the safety perimeter. The petitioner argues that, compared to flight operations with aircraft or rotorcraft 
weighing far more than its maximum 55 lb. UA, and the lack of flammable fuel, any risk associated 

with its UAS operations is far less than those with conventional aircraft operating at or below 500 feet 

AGL in the movie industry. With respect to preflight actions, the petitioner notes it may need an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 91.103, because it will not have approved rotorcraft flight manuals. The 

petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of safety will be achieved by the PIC taking all preflight 

actions as set forth in their MPTOM and FOPM, including reviewing weather, flight battery 

requirements, landing and takeoff distances, and aircraft performance data before initiation of flight. 

Additionally, the petitioner states that a briefing will be conducted prior to each day’s filming regarding 

planned UAS operations, and all personnel who will be performing duties within the boundaries of the 

safety perimeter will be required to attend. 

With respect to the fuel requirements, the petitioner notes that, in order to meet the 30 minute reserve 

requirements in 14 CFR § 91.151, UAS flights would have to be limited to approximately 10 minutes. 

The petitioner argues that, given the limitations on the UA’s proposed flight area and the location of its 

proposed operations within a predetermined area, a longer time frame for flight in daylight or night 

VFR conditions is reasonable. The petitioner believes that an equivalent level of safety can be achieved 

by limiting flights to 30 minutes or 25% of battery power, whichever occurs first. 

The petitioner notes that it may need an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.121, as its UAS may have a GPS 

altitude read out instead of a barometric altimeter. The petitioner asserts that an equivalent level of 

safety will be achieved, as outlined in its MPTOM. Specifically, the altitude information will be 

provided to the UAS PIC via a digitally encoded telemetry data feed. Prior to each flight, a zero altitude

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

Public Interest 

The petitioner states that, given the small size of the UA involved and the restricted sterile environment

within which it will operate, its proposed operation “falls squarely within that zone of safety (an 

equivalent level of safety) in which Congress envisioned that the FAA must, by exemption, allow 

commercial operations of UAS to commence immediately.” Also due to the size of the UA and the 

restricted areas in which the UAS will operate, approval of the application presents no national security 

issue. The petitioner states that, given the clear direction in Section 333, the strong equivalent level of 

safety surrounding the proposed operations, and the significant public benefit, including enhanced 

safety, reduction in 9 environmental impacts, and including reduced emissions associated with allowing

UAS for movie and television operations, granting the requested exemptions is in the public interest 

Respectfully,

Mitchell Gunter

Aerial Cinematography of Atlanta 

770-314-2935
in Conclusion As set forth herein, ACA 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 the safe operation 

of its UAS commercially, without an airworthiness certificate, for the limited purpose of conducting 

aerial photography and video 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.

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

Reform Act of 2012, Section 333, ACA respectfully requests that the Administrator grant this Petition 

for an exemption from the requirements of 14 C.F.R §§ 35 Part 21; and 91.7; 91.103(b); 91.109; 

91.119; 91.121; 91.151; 91.405(a); 91.407(a)(1); 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2); AND 91.417(a) &(b); 91.7(a) 

to permit Between the Peaks Aviation to operate its UAS in the NAS for the purpose of safely, 

efficiently, photography in film and television

industry.